Capitol View Category Archive: PoliGraph

Westrom revises unionization claims

Posted at 6:43 AM on December 18, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Last week, PoliGraph gave Rep. Torrey Westrom a false rating for his claim that in-home child care providers who are not allowed to vote on whether to unionize will be forced to pay fair-share dues.

That's because Gov. Mark Dayton has been clear on how he wants his executive order allowing child care providers to unionize to be executed: no one would have to join the union if they don't want to, and because day care providers are not considered public employees, they would not have to pay fair share dues.

Westrom's claim was made in a letter to constituents on Dec. 2.

But in a second letter dated Dec. 15, Westrom is revising his claim. Here's what he wrote:

I would like to correct an inadvertent error made in the December 2nd letter regarding how the childcare union election may affect you. The second paragraph of that letter should have stated: "All child care providers may have to live with the decisions of a union, but only the 4,287 providers who receive state subsidies will vote on its formation. The other 7,000 providers may be forced to pay "fair share" union dues, and could be subject to additional regulation, even though they were denied the right to vote in this election.

You can read the rest of the letter here.

Westrom makes reasonable arguments that Dayton's executive order does not guarantee that the unions won't try to collect such dues in the future, or necessarily prevent a court from deciding in the future that such dues could be collected (see the comments section of the previous PoliGraph post).

But despite that uncertainty - and PoliGraph agrees that there are some important unanswered questions about how unionization would play out - right now, we know that those who don't want to be in the union won't have to pay dues because they are not considered public employees.

PoliGraph will be keeping tabs on the issue to see if that changes.

Comment on this post

Bachmann fact-checks from the final GOP debate

Posted at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, PoliGraph

The fact-checkers were out in full force during Thursday night's Republican presidential debate in Sioux City, Iowa.

It was the last gathering of the candidates before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.

Several fact-checking outlets looked at claims made by Rep. Michele Bachmann on topics ranging from Iran's nuclear capabilities to the number of jobs that would be created during by building an oil pipeline.

So instead of doing our own check today, here's PoliGraph's round up of last night's best reports.

"We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon," said Bachmann.

She is referring to a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding Iran's nuclear program.

As FactCheck.org points out, unnamed sources told the Los Angeles Times shortly before the report came out that Iran had the technical ability to design a nuclear weapon within six months if it wanted to.

But FactCheck.org also writes that the actual report isn't so definitive. While the Agency believes that Iran has "serious concern regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme" and that intelligence gathered on the issue is "overall, credible," it stops short of saying that the country is "within months" of having an operative weapon.

The delayed Keystone XL pipeline "would have brought at least 20,000 jobs," Bachmann contended.

Several of the candidates, including Bachmann, criticized President Barack Obama for delaying action on the oil pipeline that would start in Canada and stretch as far as Texas.

Bachmann's jobs estimate is one frequently touted by TransCanada Corporation, the company proposing the project, and other proponents.

But it's on the high-end, because it assumes that only one person holds a pipeline related job for one year, FactCheck.org reports. So, if a pipeline construction job lasts for two years and the same person has the job, the number of jobs created declines.

Meanwhile, the State Department estimates that between 5,000 and 6,000 construction jobs would be created.

"The evidence is that Speaker Gingrich took $1.6 million [from Freddie Mac]. You don't need to be within the technical definition of being a lobbyist to still be influence peddling with senior Republicans in Washington, D.C., to get them to do your bidding," Bachmann said.

CNN previously reported that Newt Gingrich's consulting group had taken between $1.6 million and $1.8 million from Freddie Mac for its services.

But CNN said Bachmann's claim was misleading.

"While Freddie Mac was a Gingrich Group client, Bachmann did not offer hard evidence that Gingrich lobbied for Freddie Mac."

PolitiFact.com came to a similar verdict about Gingrich's history with Freddie Mac, writing that "Gingrich is technically correct that he was not a registered lobbyist for Freddie Mac. But it appears he took pains to avoid being subject to the rules. Giving strategic advice is widely considered a way of using political influence without having to register."

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Lawmaker's claim on daycare union misses

Posted at 2:00 PM on December 14, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Two Minnesota unions want to organize Minnesota's in-home child care workers, and the effort has sparked a heated battle between the Dayton administration and Republicans in the Legislature.

Among those who oppose the effort is Rep. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, who sent a letter to child care providers encouraging them to reject unionization.

On Dec. 2, he wrote that, while only some day care providers will be able to vote on whether to unionize, "the other 7,000 providers will be forced to pay full or 'fair share' union dues, and will be subject to additional regulation, even though they were denied the right to vote in this election."

Westrom's claim is false.

The Evidence

Two Minnesota unions - American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union - are trying to unionize the state's in-home day care providers.

On Nov. 15, Gov. Mark Dayton issued an executive order that would allow Minnesota's day care providers who are licensed and registered, and who participate in a state program that subsidizes child care to vote on unionization. That's roughly 4,200 providers out of the approximately 11,000 in the state.

If the majority of those 4,200 agree, it would give the union the right to hash out issues, such as regulation and subsidy rates, with the administration. At this point, a court has put a restraining order on Dayton's executive order but Dayton plans to contest that order.

So, Westrom is correct that only some child care providers will be able to vote on whether there should be a union. But he's wrong that those who don't want to be in the union would have to pay fair share union dues.

A Frequently Asked Questions document on the executive order from Dayton's office is clear on this:

"The Minnesota Fair Share law (Minn. Stat. § 179A.06, subd. 3), which requires all public employees to contribute 'a fair share fee for services rendered by the exclusive representative,' would not apply to these family child care providers."

Dayton's executive order makes clear that, "nothing in this order shall be construed to require participation, or the involuntary payment of dues by any family child care provider."

As for additional regulation, Westrom is off the mark there as well. At this point, unionization doesn't come with additional regulations, let alone regulations that all of Minnesota's 11,000 in-home child care workers would be subject to.

Westrom conceded that given the complexity of the issue and the amount of context needed, the sentence may have been better written as: "The other 7,000 providers may be forced to pay full or "fair share" union dues, and will be subject to additional regulation, even though they were denied the right to vote in this election."

The Verdict

Under Gov Dayton's order child care providers who are not allowed to vote on unionization will not have to pay fair share dues.

Westrom's claim is false.

SOURCES

Letter, Rep. Torrey Westrom to constituents, Dec. 2, 2011

Office of Gov. Mark Dayton, Governor Dayton issues executive order calling for union election among child care providers, November 15, 2011

Office of Gov. Mark Dayton, Frequently Asked Questions about Child Care Collective Bargaining, accessed Dec. 13, 2011

Associated Press via Minnesota Public Radio News, Dayton to contest child care unionization ruling, December 8, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Drazkowski same-sex marriage claim misleading

Posted at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2011 by Catharine Richert (8 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_general_features_2011_12_09_poligraph_20111209_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/general/features/2011/12/09/poligraph_20111209_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will be on the ballot next fall. Between now and then, voters will be barraged with ads, opinion pieces, and direct mail opposing and favoring the effort.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, fired an early shot in the Red Wing Republican Eagle. Those who argue that banning same-sex marriage will be bad for the economy are wrong, he wrote in a November 21, 2011, opinion piece.

"To the contrary, the facts show that states with a marriage protection amendment are our top performing economic states," he wrote. "For example, eight of the top 10 'best states for business' according to a survey of 556 CEO's by Chief Executive Magazine have a state marriage amendment in their constitution. "

Drazkowski's claim is misleading.

The Evidence

Chief Executive Magazine surveyed 556 chief executive officers who rank the best states for business.

It's true that eight out of the top 10 states listed in the survey have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage.

But Chief Executive Magazine Editor JP Donlon said that Drazkowski is wrong to link a ban on same-sex marriage to economic performance.

"We neither looked or thought about such a correlation because it doesn't have a bearing on a state's performance one way or another," Donlon said.

Rather, the survey asked the CEOs questions about taxes and regulatory issues, quality of workers and living environment in each state.

It's also useful to look at other rankings. For example, Forbes Magazine released its list in November, and it includes Iowa, where same-sex marriage is allowed. A recent study conducted by the Williams Institute found that legal same-sex marriage boosted the wedding and tourism industries in Iowa by upwards of $13 million.

That's not to say that families aren't important to the economy, said Skip Burzumato, assistant director of The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. Drazkowski also cites one of the Marriage Project's recent papers in his op-ed.

The project has found that "when children are raised in intact, married families, they cost the state less," Burzumato said. "They require special education at a lower rate and they encounter the criminal justice system at a lower rate."

But the group hasn't looked at how same-sex families affect the economy.

Mark Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin has just started looking at how children of same-sex parents fare. He said it's too soon to tell whether their employment futures, for instance, are any better or worse than those who grow up with opposite-sex parents.

"In general, stable parental marriage is good for subsequent personal employment of the children [as adults]," he said. "If gay marriage fostered the same stable traits that now occur in married, mom/dad families, then it would foster greater employment. It is, of course, too soon to say whether gay marriages will closely mimic straight ones. Maybe; maybe not."

The Verdict

Drazkowski's claim is misleading. While eight of Chief Executive Magazine's top 10 states best for business have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, there's no correlation between the bans and the business ranking.

SOURCES

The Red Wing Republican Eagle, Column: Citizens should favor marriage amendment, by Rep. Steve Drazkowski, Nov. 21, 2011 (subscription only)

Chief Executive, Best/Worst States for Business, by JP Donlon, May 3, 2011

Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, accessed Dec. 9, 2011

Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 27, accessed Dec. 9, 2011

Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Section IV, accessed Dec. 9, 2011

Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 15-A, accessed Dec. 9, 2011

South Carolina Constitution, Article XVII, Section 15, Dec. 9, 2011

Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 29, Dec. 9, 2011

Nevada Constitution, Article 1, Section 21, Dec. 9, 2011

The Sustainable Demographic Dividend: What do Marriage and Fertility Have to Do With the Economy, accessed Dec. 9, 2011

ABC News, Gay Marriage Has Boosted Iowa's Economy, Study Concludes, by Elizabeth Hartfield, Dec. 8, 2011

The Williams Institute, Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax, December 2011

Interview, JP Donlon, editor, Chief Executive Magainze, Dec. 8, 2011

Interview, Skip Burzumato, Assistant Director, The National Marriage Project, Dec. 9, 2011

E-mail exchange, Mark Regnerus, associate professor, University of Texas at Austin, Dec. 9, 2011

E-mail exchange, Jason Wenisch, spokesman, Rep. Steve Drazkowski, Dec. 9, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: School funding delay claim on solid ground

Posted at 2:06 PM on December 7, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

After last summer's budget breakdown, the state got some good financial news: it will have an $876 million budget surplus going into the coming legislative session.

But that bright spot was quickly overshadowed by the fact that the state is still projected to have a $1.3 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year - and that doesn't include the money the state borrowed from schools to help close the current budget cycle's deficit, some lawmakers point out.

Among them is Sen. Richard Cohen, DFL-St. Paul, who issued this reminder during a press conference after Minnesota Management and Budget released the latest forecast.

"We've used school shifts over the years. This isn't the first time," he said. "But there's always been some ability to see ahead to pay back that school shift... This is the first time we've had a shift that goes on forever."

Cohen appears to be correct that the governor and lawmakers have entered uncharted territory when it comes to using this budget fix.

The Evidence

Many times, the state has given schools only part of their annual aid one year and the rest the following year; it's a trick that allows the Legislature and governor to borrow money from schools in the short term to balance the general fund books, without actually cutting the amount schools are owed.

The proportions have changed depending on the state's budget outlook, but, at best, schools get 90 percent of their aid in one fiscal year, and the remaining 10 percent the following.

To solve Minnesota's most recent debt problems, schools are now getting 60 percent of their aid in one year and the remainder in the next. It's not technically a cut, but the latest change has created cash flow issues for some schools who've had to take out loans or use reserves to make ends meet between checks.

If the state decided today to revert to its old formula, it would cost $2.1 billion (that's not including a separate school-related budget trick that saved the state $600 million.) That figure is not included in the coming two-year budget cycle's $1.3 billion projected deficit.

To assess Cohen's claim, PoliGraph put itself in the shoes of a Minnesotan who might not know much about education funding. From that perspective, Cohen's claim is confusing because he makes it sounds as if latest shift is unprecedented because there's no plan to pay it off.

But back in 1983, schools started receiving only 85 percent of their payment one year, and the remaining 15 percent the next - and that went on for 15 years without an end in sight.

It's also worth noting that the law requires the state to give schools extra cash when it has it; surpluses, such as the one Minnesota has now, must first be used to beef up the state's cash flow and budget reserve accounts, and leftovers must be given to schools to make up for the shift. (There's not enough of a surplus to do that this time around, though.)

So, while we don't know when the current round of schools borrowing will end, there is a mechanism in state law that requires schools are paid back.

Cohen said he was trying to underscore how enormous this particular shift is compared to others.

"No one has a realistic idea of how to pay back $2.1 billion," he said.

Cohen has a point: according to historical data provided by the Minnesota Legislature's House Research staff, schools are getting paid a much smaller portion of their aid each year than they have in the past.

And so far, it's the most expensive shift. For instance, in 1997, when lawmakers ended that 15-year-long payment shift, it only cost the state $156 million

The Verdict

Cohen is right that the state has borrowed money from schools in the past to make ends meet, including one stretch that lasted 15 years with no specified end date.

But this fix is different even from that one. Never before has the state delayed such a large percentage of school payments. And while technically the governor and Legislature created a mechanism to correct the shift, it is hard to see how that will happen, given how expensive it would be to pay off today.

This claim earns an accurate on the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

Minnesota Management and Budget, November Forecast, accessed Dec. 6, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Budget surplus gives state officials wiggle room in legislative session, by Tom Scheck, Dec. 2, 2011

Minnesota Statute 16A.152, accessed Dec. 6, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Video: Budget deal explained, by Molly Bloom and Curtis Gilbert, July 15, 2011

Minnesota Legislature House Fiscal Analysis, State Education Funding Accounting Shifts, January 2011

Interview and e-mail exchange, Greg Crowe, House Research analysis, Dec. 6, 2011

Interview, Rep. Mindy Greiling, Dec. 6, 2011

Interview, Sen. Richard Cohen, Dec. 6, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Childcare Freedom misleads about Michigan union dues

Posted at 2:30 PM on December 2, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

To make their case against unionization of Minnesota's in-home child care providers, a coalition of groups has produced a new web ad that tells a cautionary tale about a similar situation in Michigan.

"In Michigan, unions have gone so far as to skim millions from Medicaid that would otherwise have gone to help disabled children," an ad by Childcare Freedom warns.

Childcare Freedom is right that some Medicaid money is going to union dues in Michigan. But its claim that the money would have gone to children is misleading.

The Evidence

Gov. Mark Dayton has ordered about 4,200 in-home child care providers who participate in a state-subsidized program to vote on unionization. It's still unclear how unionization would affect the roughly 7,000 providers who don't get to vote.

The vote, which will begin next week, has prompted a lawsuit by a group of providers who oppose the effort. They're backed by Childcare Freedom, a coalition of conservative groups including Minnesota Family Council, Minnesota Free Market Institute and Minnesota Majority.

Childcare Freedom's ad features a Mafioso smoking a cigar - the background music would remind you of the soundtrack to The Godfather - and demanding a union vote. The claim in question is voiced-over a picture of a disabled child in a wheelchair; the statement refers to a similar effort in Michigan to unionize roughly 42,000 in-home care providers who take care of the elderly or people over 18 with developmental disabilities.

Members of the Michigan union, which were organized in 2005, consist mostly of people who are taking care of their adult children, elderly parents or other family members, as well as providers who work for themselves, says Susan Steinke, executive director of the Michigan Quality Community Care Council. Created in 2004 by the state, MQCCC effectively serves as the workers' employer.

Many workers are forgoing regular jobs to take care of family members, relying on Medicaid checks to cover bills instead, she said.

Because the Michigan workers collect Medicaid to cover the cost of care, they are considered employees of the state. That means 2.75 percent is taken out of every check to cover union dues. Since 2007, an average of $5.6 million has been collected annually in union dues, according to the Department of Community Health.

So, Childcare Freedom is correct that SEIU has collected millions from Medicaid checks.

The ad's underlying implication is that unions are strong-arming workers into unionization in other states, and it's a reasonable matter of debate among home-care providers in Michigan.

Some say they didn't know there was a vote. They don't want to be members because they are taking care of their own family members, and aren't getting union benefits such as more vacation time. (Members can opt out, but still must pay a fair-share fee.)

Mackinac Center Legal Foundation director Patrick J. Wright, who opposes unionization, says that only a fraction of the home care workers voted, and that the community care council was formed under union pressure; SEIU wanted an employer to organize against, so the state created one, he said. This fiscal year, the Michigan Legislature defunded the council, though the group is still functioning on a limited budget and union dues are still being collected.

On the other side, Steinke points out that the council offers workers training opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable, and that union members are paid more after SEIU's intervention.

"If you were making $5.15 an hour and now you're making $8 an hour, you're still only paying 2.75 percent in dues," Steinke said. "That's 22 cents to make $2.85 more."

The Verdict

Taken as a whole, this ad implies that unions are forcing workers in many sectors into collective bargaining. In Michigan's case, that's a matter of debate.

Childcare Freedom is correct that SEIU has collected millions in union dues from Medicaid checks over the last few years.

But to say that it has been "skimmed" implies the money was obtained illegally, which is false. And it's wrong to say that the union dues would otherwise go to children because the program in question is for adults.

It's a close call, but PoliGraph rates this claim misleading.

SOURCES

Childcare Freedom, Union Shakedown Childcare Providers, accessed Dec. 1, 2011

WJBK Fox 2, Forced To Join a Union: SEIU Getting Money From Michigan Medicaid Checks, Nov. 15, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio, Conservative-backed group sues over child care union vote, by Tim Pugmire, November 28, 2011

Interview, Patrick Wright, director, Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, Dec. 1, 2011

Interview, Steinke, executive director of the Michigan Quality Community Care Council, Dec. 2, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Romney's tone on immigration a moving target

Posted at 2:19 PM on November 30, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Republicans and Democrats can agree on one thing: Both sides say former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has changed his views on a range of issues to make good with conservative voters.

The latest attack comes from Democratic National Committee, which launched a new website this week highlighting Romney's flip-flops.

DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin headlined a press conference to introduce Minnesotans to the site, saying, "Romney once supported Ted Kennedy and John McCain's immigration reform bill, but last week he said he's willing to kick out of America families who have lived in the United States for over a generation."

Martin's statement uses hyperbole to score a point against a Republican presidential hopeful, but it's true that Mitt Romney has shifted the way he talks about immigration.

The Evidence

In 2005, Republican Sen. John McCain, and Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy were leading an effort to overhaul federal immigration rules. Among other things, their proposal would have created a path to citizenship for immigrants not legally in the United States, as long as they worked, declined public benefits and paid fines and back taxes.

According to a March 2007 Boston Globe story, Romney said in 2005 that the McCain-Kennedy plan and others were "reasonable proposals" because they didn't simply hand out citizenship to illegal immigrants - a process known as amnesty often criticized by some on the right.

"[The bill is] saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine," Romney told the Globe in 2005.

The Globe reported that Romney stopped short of endorsing the McCain-Kennedy bill, as Martin's claim implies. But he signaled that he generally supported a plan that would allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

In March 2006, Romney told The Lowell Sun that while he didn't believe in amnesty, he also didn't believe "in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."

"Let's have them registered, know who they are," Romney said. "Those who have been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here. Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

Romney made similar comments to Bloomberg News in 2006, and again suggested that some illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States.

"We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status," Romney said according to a recent Bloomberg story on his immigration record.

But by 2007, as he launched his first bid for the White House, Romney's tone had changed.

Westy Egmont, who co-chaired an immigration advisory committee during Romney's tenure, says the shift was driven by McCain's presence in the race.

"Romney went from trying to figure out a position where he could turn off the magnets and yet appear to offer an understanding that people needed to get themselves right in status," Egmont said. "With that not working, and with McCain being competitive for the presidency, I saw him taking a position challenging McCain for amnesty. He became hardline with respect to McCain."

Romney's comments at a 2007 event in Arizona with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose aggressive views on illegal immigrants make him a controversial figure, underscore Egmont's observations.

"My view is there should be no advantage for those that are here illegally in pursuing a course of permanent residency," Romney said. He said that legislation that would allow some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship "could result in virtual amnesty," according to the Globe.

When pressed on his 2006 comments to the Lowell Sun on a 2007 episode of Meet the Press, Romney said what he meant was that illegal immigrants should "have a set period during which... they sign up for application for permanent residency or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home... For the great majority, they'll be going home."

Romney's 2007 comments were reflected in the Nov. 11, 2011, Republican debate Martin references.

At the event, GOP contender Newt Gingrich said that illegal immigrants who have been here for "25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."

When CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Romney if he thought that Gingrich's approach amounted to amnesty, and entice others to come to the United States illegally, Romney's response was unequivocal.

"There's no question," Romney said. "To say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing."

But when pressed by Blitzer to say whether he would let some long-time illegal immigrants stay, Romney dodged the question.

"I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who get to go," Romney said. "The principle is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people who come here illegally get to stay for the rest of their life in this country legally."

The Verdict

Romney's flip-flop on immigration reform is not as dramatic or clear-cut as Martin makes it out to be; Romney always talked around the edges of the issue, and never officially endorsed any specific immigration proposal.

But it's true that Romney's tone on immigration has changed in recent years, especially as he has run for president.

So, while Martin is guilty of hyperbole, it would be misleading to say that Romney hasn't changed his views on immigration.

It was a tough call, but because Romney initially called the McCain-Kennedy approach reasonable and now says he will not support a system that allows illegal immigrants to stay, PoliGraph says that Martin's statement leans toward accurate.

SOURCES

Thomas, Summary of H.R. 2330: Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, accessed Nov. 29, 2011

The Boston Globe, Romney's words grow hard on immigration, by Scott Helman, March 16, 2007 (subscription only)

The Boston Globe, Romney's shifting stance on immigration, by Matt Viser, Nov. 29, 2011 (subscription only)

The Lowell Sun, Romney supports immigration program, but not granting 'amnesty', March 30, 2006 (subscription only)

Bloomberg News, Romney in 2006 Backed Immigration Stance He Now Deems 'Amnesty', by Julie Hirschfield Davis, Nov. 27, 2011

Meet the Press, transcript, Dec. 16, 2007, accessed Nov. 29, 2011

Time Magazine, Transcript of Nov. 22 CNN GOP debate, accessed Nov. 29, 2011

E-mail exchange, Carlie Waibel, DFL spokeswoman

E-mail exchange, Andrea Saul, spokeswoman, Romney for President

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann half right on Romney rap

Posted at 2:00 PM on November 16, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, PoliGraph

While U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann touts her consistent positions on an array of issues dear to conservatives, in a new ad the Republican presidential hopeful says that her GOP opponents have records filled with surprises.

They've flip-flopped on abortion, immigration, health care and gay marriage, among other things, Bachmann says.

The new talking point represents a subtle shift in Bachmann's tactics in the lead-up to the all-important Iowa caucuses. Rather than contrast her record against that of President Barack Obama, who has largely been the target of her criticism up until now, Bachmann is highlighting her record against those of her GOP opponents.

During a Nov. 13, 2011, Meet the Press interview, Bachmann singled out former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"There's certainly a sharp contrast between myself and Gov. Romney," she said. "He has been pro-choice, I am pro-life. He has been for marriage between people of the same sex. I am for marriage between one man and one woman."

Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, but not on same-sex marriage.

The Evidence

Unlike Bachmann, who has always opposed abortion, Romney's stance on the issue has turned 180 degrees since he took the national stage.

In 1994, while challenging Democrat Ted Kennedy for his Senate seat, Romney said that he was personally opposed to abortion, but that he would not force his belief on others.

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country," he said during the debate. "I believe that since Roe vs. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."

In 2002, while running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."

In the intervening years, as Romney aimed for the White House, he changed his tune.

Recently, he wrote in the National Review that he is "pro-life and believe[s] that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." He also wrote that he would support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, a departure from his 1994 comments, among other proposals that would limit abortion.

While Bachmann has always opposed gay marriage, Romney's shifting positions on gay rights are far more nuanced. While running for Senate, Romney won the support of the Republican Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts by promising to support efforts that would end discrimination against gays and lesbians. "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," Romney wrote in a 1994 letter to the group. "My opponent cannot do this," he said of Kennedy. "I can and will."

During his run for governor, Romney also said that he would support giving same-sex couples benefits such as hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. That same year, after Romney's wife, son and daughter-in-law signed a petition to put a gay marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot, his spokesperson told the Bay Window newspaper that Romney "is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples."

In October of that year, Romney drove that message home. "Call me old fashioned," he said, "but I don't support gay marriage, nor do I support civil union if it is the exact embodiment of marriage."

One New York Times article reported that Romney told the Log Cabin Club in 2002 that he opposed gay marriage, but he wouldn't fight the state's Supreme Court if it ultimately ruled gay marriage to be legal.

But that's exactly what Romney did in 2003 when same-sex marriage was made legal. Romney said he disagreed with the ruling because marriage should be between a man and woman.

"I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear," he said, according to a Nov. 20, 2003 New York Times article. "Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

In subsequent months, the Boston Globe reported that Romney asked lawmakers to vote for such a ban, but not one that would prevent civil unions.

Today, Romney's rhetoric on the subject isn't much different, though it is more direct, and, say some of his critics, more severe. Romney has signed a pledge to support a federal ban of gay marriage, among other things. But he's also said that he still supports giving same-sex couples some benefits, such as hospital visitation rights.

The Verdict

Bachmann's clearly correct that Romney flip-flopped on abortion.

And it would be fair to say that Romney's record on gay rights has been a bit muddy; at times he's appeared to court gay supporters, and at others, he's appeared to reject gay rights.

But he's always said that he opposes same-sex marriage, so the second part of Bachmann's claim is incorrect.

SOURCES

Meet the Press, Nov. 13, 2011 episode

Footage from the 1994 Kennedy/Romney debate, accessed Nov. 15, 2011

Footage from 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate, accessed Nov. 15, 2011

The Boston Globe, Why I vetoed contraception bill, By Mitt Romney, July 26, 2005

The National Review, My Pro-Life Pledge, by Mitt Romney, June 18, 2011

The New York Times, Romney's Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift, by Michael Luo, Sept. 8, 2007 MICHAEL LUO

1994 letter from Romney to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, accessed Nov. 16, 2011

The New York Times, Romney's Gay Rights Stance Draws Ire, by Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick, Dec. 9, 2006

CNN, Interview with Mitt Romney regarding gay adoption, accessed Nov. 16, 2011

The Bay Window, Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community, March 28, 2002

The New York Times, Marriage by Gays Gains Big Victory in Massachusetts, by Pam Belluck, November 20, 2003

The New York Times, Obey Same-Sex Marriage Law, Officials Told, by Katie Zezima, April 26, 2004

C-SPAN, Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate, Oct. 1, 2002

The Huffington Post, Mitt Romney Supports 'Partnership Agreements,' Not Marriage, For Gay Couples, by Sam Stein, Oct. 11, 2011

CBS News, Mitt Romney pledges opposition to gay marriage, By Brian Montopoli, Aug. 4, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Ellison's income claim a mix of true and false

Posted at 2:30 PM on November 11, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

While the Occupy Wall Street protests continue across the nation, Democratic U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison believes that people are still confused about the movement's message. To clarify, Ellison created a brief video to explain what Occupy Wall Street is all about - and that income inequality is among the group's top frustrations.

"For the last 30 years, the average working American has seen their pay stay flat," Ellison says in the video as a graph appears beside him. "During the same period, the top one percent have seen their income grow."

It's true that the rich have gotten richer by leaps and bounds in the last 30 years and that everyone else has struggled to increase their earnings. But to say that the average American's pay has been stagnant is incorrect.

The Evidence

The graph that appears in Ellison's video is from an article in the publication Mother Jones, said Ellison's spokesman. Using inflation-adjusted data from the period between 1978 and 2008, it shows that the bottom 90 percent's income has been stagnant over the last 30 years - averaging about $31,000 - and that the top 1 percent's income has risen dramatically.

But lumping together income for everyone in the bottom 90 percent disguises the fact that lots of people saw income increases in the last 30 years; the data for the 90 percent used by Mother Jones cannot be parsed more narrowly, so the income gap appears more dramatic as a result.

A recent report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, illustrates income inequality more clearly.

- For those in the 81st through 99th percentiles, after-tax, inflation-adjusted average income grew by 65 percent between 1979 and 2007.

- Those in the 21st through the 80th percentiles - the middle of the income scale - saw their average income grow by nearly 40 percent during the same period of time.

- And for everyone in the lowest income percentile, average income grew by 18 percent.

Certainly, those are small gains when compared to the top 1 percent, who saw their income increase by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to the CBO report. And it's clear that income has grown far slower for those in the lower and middle classes than it has for top earners.

To that end, Ellison's underlying point that the income gap is expanding is undeniable, said Chad Stone who is chief economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"The one thing that stands out almost no matter how you do it is that huge gains have accrued to the top one percent of households, while growth, to the extent that there has been growth farther down the income distribution has been much slower," Stone said. "There's an unmistakable widening of inequality."

The Verdict

Ellison is clearly correct that the rich have gotten much, much richer in the last 30 years. And his underlying point that the income gap has grown substantially is spot-on.

But a CBO report shows that the first part of his claim, that the average worker's pay has remained stagnant for three decades, is incorrect.

So, for getting the first part of his statement wrong, and the second part right, PoliGraph is issuing a rarely-used "True/False" ruling for this claim.

SOURCES

YouTube, DFL Rep. Keith Ellison on the Occupy Wall Street movement, Nov. 2, 2011

Mother Jones, Charts: Who Are the 1 Percent?, by Dave Gilson, Oct. 10, 2011

The World Top Incomes Database, accessed Nov. 10, 2011

The Economist, The 99 percent, Oct 26th 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007, Oct. 2011

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades, New Data Show, by Arloc Sherman and Chad Stone, June 25, 2010

Interview, Chad Stone, Chief Economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nov. 11, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Obama's economy claims on point

Posted at 2:00 PM on November 4, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: PoliGraph

With jobs and the economy emerging as the defining issue of the 2012 presidential campaign, President Barack Obama is trying to make clear the nation is much better off than it was before he took office in 2009 - but that there's still a long way to go.

To highlight the nation's economic progress, and to sell his new jobs plan that he says will make the economy even better, Obama invited nine local television stations from across the country to the White House. WCCO-TV was among them.

During his brief chat with anchor Amelia Santaniello, Obama made two claims about the economy's performance during his time in office.

PoliGraph checked both of them and found that Obama's statements are basically correct.

"In the private sector, we've seen over 2 million jobs created. This year alone, over a million jobs created."

Obama's benchmark is February 2010, the nadir of employment when the nation had 106.7 million private sector jobs, according to seasonally adjusted employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Currently, we have more than 109.5 million private sector jobs - a difference of nearly 2.8 million.

Obama's also correct that more than 1 million jobs have been added since the beginning of 2011.

Obama got his facts straight on this one, and for that, his claim is accurate.

Next, a look at Obama's claim that the economy has grown during his tenure.

Here's what he said:

"The thing I'm proudest of is having stabilized the economy, even though it's not where it needs to be. Keep in mind that when I came in office, the economy had contracted by 9 percent, which is the most since the Great Depression. By 2010, the economy had grown by 4 percent, so that was a huge reversal."

Right before Obama was sworn into office in 2009, the recession had already taken a toll on the economy. Case in point: gross domestic product had fallen by 8.9 percent in the last quarter of 2008, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) - roughly the 9 percent Obama mentioned in his interview.

Obama is also correct that, in the first quarter of 2010, GDP had grown 3.9 percent over the last quarter of 2009.

As for the recession's historical significance, Obama's in the ballpark. PoliGraph found two instances since the Great Depression of steeper annual or quarterly GDP declines than the one in the last quarter of 2008.

But the BEA told us that the most recent recession, from start to finish, represents the most dramatic economic contraction since the government started collecting quarterly GDP data in 1947. (Before that, the government only collected annual data, which makes it difficult to measure the significance of older recessions compared to the most recent one.)

It's also important to point out that, while the economy continues to grow, its expansion has slowed some since the start of 2010. BEA attributes the deceleration to a variety of factors, including fluctuating consumer spending, struggling exports and increasing imports, and periodic dips in government spending.

All in all, Obama gets this claim correct as well.

SOURCES

WCCO-TV, Amelia Santaniello interviews President Barack Obama, Nov. 1, 2011

CNN, Recession officially ended in June 2009, By Chris Isidore, Sept. 20, 2010

National Bureau of Economic Research, US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions, accessed Nov. 3, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics - CES (National), accessed Nov. 3, 2011

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q), accessed Nov. 3, 2011

E-mail exchange, Caroline Hughes, spokeswoman, The White House, Nov. 3, 2011

E-mail exchange, Thomas Dail, spokesman, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Nov. 3, 2011

Interview, Steve Hine, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Nov. 3, 2011

PoliGraph: Michel jobs claim incorrect

Posted at 3:01 PM on October 28, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_general_features_2011_10_28_poligraphmichel_20111028_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/general/features/2011/10/28/poligraphmichel_20111028_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Republican legislators say their big goal for the coming legislative session is to grow jobs by reducing taxes and rolling back regulations, among other things.

To underscore the need for the state Senate Republican's plan to grow jobs, Deputy Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel pointed out that the number of private sector jobs in Minnesota has fallen to 1998 levels.

"We have the same number of jobs in 2011 as we did in 1998," Michel said in an Oct. 24, 2011, press conference to announce his caucus's plan. "Since the recession hit in 2007, 2008, we have fallen back to 1998 private sector job levels."

Though Minnesota's employment took a hit with the recession, the state still has more jobs now than it did in 1998.

The Evidence

The average number of private sector jobs for the first three quarters of 2011 is about 2.242 million, according to data from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. That's using non-seasonally adjusted employment counts.

That's about 78,000 more jobs than the average of 2.164 million in the first three quarters of 1998. To put that figure in perspective, 78,000 jobs is roughly the same number of jobs 3M has worldwide.

Even looked at another way - a month-to-month comparison -- Minnesota has more jobs now than it did in 1998. A comparison of jobs figures that are seasonally adjusted yields the same result.

Chris Van Guilder, a spokesman for Michel, pushed back. He said that in the context of the millions of jobs the state supports, the difference of 78,000 jobs over more than a decade isn't significant enough to label his boss' statement false.

UPDATE: On Saturday, Oct. 29, Sen. Michel sent PoliGraph this graph as additional sourcing for his claim. The visual still shows that Minnesota has more jobs now than it did in 1998, but Michel said he relied on the graph because it makes his broader point that the state lost a significant number of jobs in recent years. The graph shows a sharp decline in jobs around the time of the recession; according to DEED's numbers, Minnesota has roughly the same number of jobs now as it did between 2003 and 2004.

The Verdict

Though Minnesota lost a lot of jobs as a result of the recession, Michel is incorrect that Minnesota has the same level of private sector employment now as it did in 1998.

PoliGraph rates this claim false.

SOURCES

Minnesota State Senate, clips from Oct. 24, 2011, press conference, accessed Oct. 28, 2011

Minnesota State Senate Republican Caucus, Senate Republican Caucus Announces Jobs Agenda for 2012 Legislative Session, Oct. 24, 2011

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Total Minnesota private sector employment 1990-2011, accessed Oct. 28, 2011

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Total Minnesota employment, seasonally adjusted 1990-2011, accessed Oct. 28, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Marty stadium claim true in recent history

Posted at 2:00 PM on October 26, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

After a drawn-out debate over the budget, lawmakers have turned their attention to another delayed decision: whether to green-light a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, is ranking member of the state Senate's tax committee, and he opposes the effort because it is too expensive for taxpayers.

"Zygi Wilf and the Vikings are attempting to make their Ramsey County stadium deal sound like a run-of-the-mill, routine proposal. It is not," Marty wrote in an Oct. 23 opinion piece in the Twin Cities Daily Planet. "The Vikings are asking for the #1, all-time, biggest taxpayer subsidy of any sports franchise anywhere in American history!"

Marty wrote a commentary on the subject for Minnesota Public Radio News Oct. 21.

For the first time, PoliGraph tackles sports, and finds Marty's claim mostly accurate.

The Evidence

The proposed Arden Hills Vikings stadium is expected to exceed $1 billion. The current plan would require the state to chip in $300 million, Ramsey County to pay for $350 million of the project's cost by raising the sales tax, and the Vikings to contribute $407 million.

That doesn't include losses in tax revenue that Marty argues would effectively increase the public's contribution further, nor does it factor in a Metropolitan Council report that predicts the project will exceed cost projections.

To support his claim, Marty relied on research conducted earlier this year by two economists associated with the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts. The report looked back at the costs of all sports arenas in the United States going back as far as 1990.

The most expensive buildings on the list include the Indianapolis Colts stadium, which cost taxpayers roughly $620 million (the Holy Cross report incorrectly states the cost as $720 million), the Washington Nationals field, which cost the public $611 million, and the Orlando Magic arena, which cost the public $430 million.

PoliGraph looked back even further using research by the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, and found only one facility more costly to the public than the Vikings stadium is expected to be: Madison Square Garden in New York City.

The Garden's most recent construction occurred in 1968 and cost $123 million in taxpayer dollars. Accounting for inflation, the stadium would have cost roughly $762 million today.

The Verdict

Madison Square Garden beats the Vikings' proposal when adjusted for inflation, but the building is more than 40 years old. When it comes to stadiums built in the last 20 years, the planned Vikings stadium comes out on top.

For getting his facts nearly correct, Marty's claim leans toward accurate.

SOURCES

The Twin Cities Daily Planet, Let's inject fiscal sanity into stadium debate, by John Marty, Oct. 23, 2011

The Minnesota Vikings, the New Minnesota Stadium: FAQ, accessed Oct. 24, 2011

National Public Radio, The Nation: Stop The Subsidy-Sucking Sports Stadiums, by Neil Demause, August 5, 2011

Metropolitan Council, Stadium Proposal Risk Analysis, Oct. 2011

Financing Professional Sports Facilities, By Robert A. Baade and Victor A. Matheson, January 2011

Marquette University Law School, National Sports Law Institute, Sports Facility Reports Volume 12, Summer 2011

Interview, Heidi Mallin, spokeswoman, Lucas Oil Field

Email exchange, Victor Matheson, economist, College of the Holy Cross, Oct. 26, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Voter fraud claim inconclusive

Posted at 2:00 PM on October 21, 2011 by Catharine Richert (6 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

As a special panel created by Gov. Mark Dayton convened this week to make recommendations on the state's election rules, a group that supports a voter identification law is touting a new report about voter fraud convictions associated with the 2008 election.

"As of August 10th, 2011, 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud committed in 2008," the report from Minnesota Majority, a right-leaning group, states.

Minnesota Majority may be in range, but it is difficult to pin down a precise number.

The Evidence

Minnesota Majority's report largely focuses on felons who were ineligible to vote in the 2008 election, but did anyway. The group argues that the number may be much higher than that, but many who violate election rules avoid punishment if they can prove they did not know they were ineligible to cast a ballot.

The number of convictions represents weaknesses in the state's same-day registration policy, the group contends.

In Hennepin County, 23 people have been convicted of voter fraud and eight cases are pending. In Ramsey County, 36 convictions have resulted from the 2008 elections as of last spring, including cases involving ineligible voters who registered, but who did not end up voting.

PoliGraph also requested voter fraud conviction data for every county in the state. The data, collected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, shows that 144 people have been convicted of voter fraud since 2009.

The Supreme Court numbers are not a perfect comparison to the Minnesota Majority's report because the data include some cases associated with the 2010 election, and are not limited to cases involving felons who voted illegally.

Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky, who sits on the governor's special committee and is widely considered to be a state expert on voting, said that the vast majority of such cases involve people who have been convicted of a felony, are ineligible to vote, but do anyway.

But these are isolated cases that could not be solved by implementing a voter identification law, he said. And unlike other states, there's no evidence that Minnesota has had large, organized attempts to violate the law, Mansky said.

"This is just individuals acting on their own, with imperfect information, no information," he said.

Furthermore, those who were found to violate the law represent far less than 1 percent of the roughly 2.9 million Minnesotans who voted in the 2008 election.

The Verdict

Based on independent information, it appears that Minnesota Majority's estimate that 113 people have been convicted of voter fraud may be in the ballpark, though a precise number is elusive.

As a result, their claim rates inconclusive.

SOURCES

Minnesota Majority, Felon Voter Fraud Convictions Stemming from Minnesota's 2008 General Election, October 13, 2011

Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, Facts About Ineligible Voting and Voter Fraud in Minnesota: Based on data from Minnesota County Attorneys, November 2010

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud, By Eric Lipton and Ian Urbina, April 12, 2007

Voter fraud conviction data, Minnesota Supreme Court, Oct. 20, 2011

Voter fraud conviction data, Hennepin County, Oct. 20, 2011

Interview, Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority, Oct. 20, 2011

Interview, Joe Mansky, Ramsey County Elections Manager, Oct. 21, 2011

Interview, John Kingrey, Executive Director, Minnesota County Attorneys Association, Oct. 20, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Thissen tax claim is correct

Posted at 2:00 PM on October 14, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_general_features_2011_10_14_poligraphbachmann_20111014_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/general/features/2011/10/14/poligraphbachmann_20111014_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Cities and towns across the state are weighing whether to increase their property tax levies. Complicating the question is a new program included in the latest budget meant to reduce the property tax burden for some homeowners.

House Minority Leader Rep. Paul Thissen says the state's new approach to property taxes won't provide relief.

"The bottom line: Republicans eliminated a program that provides $538 million each biennium in property tax relief and replaced it with a program that provides $0 in property tax relief," Thissen wrote in a recent e-mail to constituents.

Thissen's claim is correct.

The Evidence

Previously, people who owned property valued at less than $413,800 got a tax break. The credit got bigger as property value declined. The state reimbursed communities for the property tax loss.

But in recent years, the state wasn't always coming through with the money, so the Legislature and Gov. Mark Dayton eliminated the credit program in the latest budget to save some cash. It was replaced with an alternative that is still meant to target those owning property valued at less than $413,800, but now the state won't be reimbursing taxing jurisdictions for the money they miss out on as the result.

So, the state is providing "$0 in property tax relief" to local governments. According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, eliminating the credit will save $538 million in the next biennium - the equivalent that would have been "provided" to communities as Thissen said.

Many property owners will see higher taxes because Minnesota taxing jurisdictions are weighing property tax increases to make up for lost state aid.

As an aside, it's important to point out that, while Thissen and the other House Democrats voted against the tax portion of the final budget, he frames the elimination of the credit as a Republican effort. The GOP effectively endorsed the plan by voting for the bill, and Dayton did, too, by signing it.

The Verdict

Thissen claimed that the new property tax plan provides "$0 in property tax relief" and he's correct: The state will no longer reimburse localities for the lost aid. And while some properties will be taxed less under the new plan, most will be taxed more.

SOURCES

MPR's Ground Level blog, St. Paul property taxes go down (for a few) and up (for many), by Dave Peters, Oct. 6, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Tax hike saddles business, property owners, by Tom Robertson, October 13, 2011

Minnesota House Legislative Research, Homestead Market Value Credit, accessed Oct. 11, 2011

Minnesota House Legislative Research, The Homestead Market Value Exclusion, accessed Oct. 11, 2011

Minnesota Department of Revenue, Understanding Recent Changes in Homestead Benefits

Minnesota House Legislative Research, Alternative: Pay 2011 under MVHC conversion with no levy change, Sept. 9, 2011

Minnesota House Legislative Research, Alternative: Pay 2011 under MVHC conversion with no levy change, Sept. 20, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Fact-checking the GOP presidential debate

Posted at 9:33 PM on October 11, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_general_features_2011_10_14_poligraphbachmann_20111014_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/general/features/2011/10/14/poligraphbachmann_20111014_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Rep. Michele Bachmann was among the Republican presidential hopefuls who participated in the Washington Post/Bloomberg News debate on Oct. 11.

PoliGraph looked at five statement she made during the discussion, which focused on the economy.

Claim: The federal government caused the economic collapse.

The Facts: It's true that the government played a role in the economic collapse, but the situation is more complicated than Bachmann makes it seem.

In the early 2000s, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was trying to put more low-income Americans in homes. News reports at the time of the economic downturn show that HUD urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans made to borrowers who couldn't afford them.

In 2008, the Washington Post reported on the subject, writing

"The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans."

Still, it's not just the government that's culpable.

FactCheck.org addressed the issue back in 2008 and came up with this long list of actors in the crisis, which includes the Federal Reserve ("which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap"), homebuyers ("who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively") and Wall Street ("who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities [MBS], and issued bonds using those securities as collateral").

The Claim: Nine years from now, Medicare Part B will be "dead, flat broke."

The Facts: It's Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient care, that could soon be suffering financially. But not in nine years, as Bachmann said. Rather, this year's Medicare trustees' report pegs the insolvency date at 2024.The same report says that Medicare Part B, which pays for outpatient care, will be fine for the foreseeable future.

The Claim: The U.S. just eliminated a tax in 2006 that was meant to help pay for the Spanish-American War.

The Facts: Bachmann made this claim to support her case against new taxes, and she's correct. Back in 1898, the federal government imposed a tax on long-distance calls. The levy was initially meant to target the wealthy, who were more likely to have the new technology in their homes. The IRS stopped collecting the 3 percent tax on long-distance calls in 2006.

The Claim: Texas Gov. Rick Perry increased spending by 50 percent during his tenure.

The Facts: Bachmann's in range with this one. PolitiFact Texas looked at the issue recently, and found that spending of state general revenue went up 44 percent during Perry's tenure. That figure drops by 6 percentage points when population growth and inflation are taken into account.

The Claim: The new health care law is the "number one reason" why employers aren't hiring.

The Facts: During the last debate, Bachmann made a similar claim and PoliGraph rated it misleading for several reasons. First, it cites a report that says the new health care law is "arguably" the primary reason employers aren't hiring; it doesn't rely on any sort of formal survey of businesses, and lists 10 other reasons, ranging from the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts to environmental regulation, that are preventing employers from bringing on new workers.

We also talked to economists - both conservative and liberal - who said that new coverage rules in the health care law may be a top reason why some businesses aren't hiring, but that lagging consumer demand and general economic uncertainty are far more prominent reasons for most businesses.

Further reading: Check out the Washington Post's FactChecker. Their team covered a few of Bachmann's debate claims that we didn't, including her assertion that the U.S. spends 40 percent more than we take in, and that Obama has a secret plan to end Medicare.

The New York Times also fact-checked the debate in real time. Check out their work here.

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Kline's Twitter claim could use a deeper look

Posted at 2:09 PM on October 7, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: PoliGraph

Here's a recent tweet from U.S. Rep. John Kline's Twitter feed:

"2.5 yrs after stimulus, Minn. has LOST 49,500 jobs - a far cry from the 66,000 White House said would be CREATED in MN," wrote Kline, who represents the state's 2nd Congressional District.

Government stimulus is once again a hot topic in Washington, D.C., as President Barack Obama pressures Congress to pass a bill that he contends could keep or create 1.9 million jobs nationally.

Kline essentially gets his numbers right, but 140 characters on Twitter don't tell the whole story.

The Evidence

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Minnesota had 2.7 million jobs in February 2009, when Obama signed the stimulus bill. At that time, the administration predicted that the legislation would create or preserve 3.5 million jobs nationally within two years, 66,000 of them in Minnesota.

Two and a half years later - a slightly longer timeframe than the White House's - Kline claims that the state lost 49,500 jobs. As his source, Kline points to a memo drafted by Republicans on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee in early September when the most recent jobs numbers available were from July.

Between February 2009 and July 2011, the state lost 44,000 jobs, according to BLS data. So, Kline's estimate is off, but not by much.

Put in context, Kline's claim is on much shakier ground.

First, Minnesota's jobs outlook has bounced around a lot since the stimulus bill was passed, as it has in many states. In some months, the workforce shrank, and in others it expanded. In fact, the latest employment numbers for August show Minnesota has lost only 15,000 jobs since February 2009.

There are all sorts of complicated reasons why the workforce remains unstable. For instance, consumer demand is lagging, so there's no need for companies to hire more workers to expand supply.

Further, Kline's claim implies that the stimulus bill hasn't created jobs, but that's not true. In June of this year, between 1 million and 2.9 million people owed their jobs to the stimulus bill, according to an August 2011 report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

In Minnesota, roughly 61,000 stimulus jobs were created through the fourth quarter of 2010, according to a March 2011 report by the administration's Council of Economic Advisors. That's not the 66,000 the White House predicted back in 2009, but it is close.

The Verdict

Kline's numbers are more or less correct, and so is his implication that Minnesota hasn't regained the jobs it had back in February 2009. But his underlying implication that the stimulus bill hasn't created jobs is false.

As a result, Kline's tweet is misleading.

SOURCES

The White House, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: State-by-State Jobs Impact, Feb. 13, 2009

The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, Another Unhappy Labor Day for American Workers: Obama Stimulus Created More Unemployment and Debt, but Not the Jobs It Promised, Sept. 2, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment - August 2011, Sept. 16, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from April 2011 Through June 2011, August 2011

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, New CBO Report Finds Up to 2.9 Million People Owe Their Jobs to the Recovery Act, By Michael Leachman and Christine Mai, August 30, 2011

Executive Office of the President: Council of Economic Advisers, The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Sixth Quarterly Report, March 18, 2011

PoliGraph: Paulsen jobs claim on the high end

Posted at 3:43 PM on October 5, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

After years of languishing, trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama are moving swiftly through Congress.

U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen, a Republican who represents Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District, is a fan of the pacts because they aim to produce jobs in the United States.

"These agreements will increase U.S. exports of goods and services and support the creation of over 250,000 new U.S. jobs," he said on Oct. 3.

Just how many jobs the deals will create is a matter of debate, and Paulsen's estimate is on the high end.

The Evidence

The U.S. Trade Representative's office (USTR) says the South Korea deal could create 70,000 jobs.

The administration isn't giving a jobs estimate for Colombia deal, but a rough ballpark estimate would be about 6,000 jobs based on numbers from the trade office.

As for the Panama deal, there is no export estimate because the effects of the agreement would be very small on the U.S. export market, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission's 2007 analysis of the agreement.

A separate estimate conducted by Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon who chairs a Senate trade subcommittee, shows that, taking into account changes in the economy since the recession, the South Korea agreement alone could create 280,000 jobs.

All those estimates leave out an important factor: Open trade will increase U.S. exports, but it will also increase U.S. imports, which means some people could lose their jobs. For instance, the Wyden report points out that employees in the manufacturing sector will be vulnerable as a result of the South Korea deal.

Robert Scott, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, ran the numbers, too, and found that the South Korea and Colombia agreements would result in the loss of 214,000 jobs within seven years of ratification.

The Verdict

Paulsen's jobs estimate is on the high end of a range of estimates. As a result, PoliGraph rates this claim inconclusive.

Rep. Erik Paulsen, Paulsen Statement on Submission of Long-Awaited Trade Agreements, Oct. 3, 2011

YouTube, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Erik Paulsen, Oct. 3, 2011

The House Ways and Means Committee, Camp Sets Deadline for Moving the Three Pending Trade Agreements, But When Will the Administration Act?, Feb. 11, 2011

Bloomberg News, Obama Submits Pending Free-Trade Agreements to Congress, by Eric Martin, Oct. 3, 2011

Bloomberg, Obama Says U.S.-China Trade Spurs Prosperity for Both, By Edwin Chen and Julianna Goldman, Nov. 16, 2009

The New York Times, Free Trade Standoff Is Resolved, by Binyamin Appelbaum, Oct. 3, 2011

The United States International Trade Commission, The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, Dec. 2006

The United States International Trade Commission, The U.S.-Korea Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, Sept. 2007

The United States International Trade Commission, The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, Sept. 2007

The White House, Statement by the President Announcing the U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement, December 3, 2010

The White House, Fact Sheets: U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, April 19, 2011

The White House, Fact Sheets: U.S.-Columbia Trade Agreement and Action Plan, April 6, 2011

Public Citizen, The Incredible Shrinking FTA Jobs Claim, by Travis McArthur, March 25, 2011

The Economic Policy Institute, Trade policy and job loss, By Robert E. Scott, February 25, 2010

E-mail correspondence, Tom Erickson, spokesman, Rep. Erik Paulsen, Oct. 4, 2011

Interview, Robert Scott, economist, Economic Policy Institute, Oct. 5, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Lawmaker's tax claim true, but deserves context

Posted at 2:00 PM on September 28, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

As property owners await news of whether their taxes will go up next year, Senate Tax Committee Chair Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, says legislators aren't to blame if they do.

She made her case in an opinion piece published in the Star Tribune on Sept. 20, 2011, pointing out that the conventional wisdom that property taxes go up as state aid declines doesn't always hold true.

"Back in 2010, as now, some at the Capitol assumed local officials would dramatically raise property taxes," she wrote. "In reality, property tax levies across the state went up just 1.9 percent from 2010 to 2011 - the smallest increase since 2002."

Ortman's claim is correct, but it deserves some context.

The Evidence

State aid and property taxes have a long and complicated relationship. For many years, the state has doled out cash to local governments to help them pay for services, such as police and parks, without raising property taxes. The idea is to ensure that less affluent communities - and therefore communities with smaller property tax bases - can provide the same services that wealthy communities can.

In recent years, as Minnesota's budget deficit grew, state aid has frequently been the target of cuts, and in some cases, communities have had to increase property taxes to keep services intact. And relatively slow-growing school funding means some school districts have asked for more tax dollars to pay for education programming.

Ortman's correct that statewide tax levies increased by 1.9 percent between 2010 and 2011, and that it's the smallest increase since 2002, according to data provided by the Minnesota Department of Revenue.

Her claim comes with a few important qualifiers, however.

First, she's talking about a statewide statistic. Some communities saw much larger property tax increases last year, and others saw their property taxes decline. And in other recent years, property taxes statewide have gone up quite a bit. For instance, between 2002 and 2003, taxes increased by 8.8 percent and in 2006, they increased by 9.2 percent from the year before.

Further, there were big changes in the latest budget that will have a significant impact on property taxes going forward. To save money, legislators eliminated the market value homestead credit, which provided some homeowners with property tax breaks and reimbursed cities, counties and school districts for the tax shortfall.

Lawmakers replaced the program with a new tax break, but the state will no longer be making up the cash communities are missing as a result of a smaller tax base.

That means some communities will likely increase their tax levy. And even if they don't, some property owners will find themselves paying more in taxes regardless, local officials say.

The Verdict

While it's important to view Ortman's claim in context, she's correct that last year's levy increase was the smallest in nearly a decade. This claim earns an accurate.

SOURCES

The Star Tribune, Local taxes come from local governments (don't blame GOP), by Sen. Julianne Ortman, Sept. 20, 2011

The Minnesota Department of Revenue, Certified 2011 Property Tax Levies, accessed Sept. 27, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Minnesota's property tax change comes into focus -- kind of, by Dave Peters, Sept. 23, 2011

Email exchange, Peter Winiecki, spokesman, Sen. Julianne Ortman, Sept. 27, 2011

Email exchange and data from Lisa Erickson, spokeswoman, Minnesota Department of Revenue, Sept. 27, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Sifting through education funding claims

Posted at 2:20 PM on September 21, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

This fall, roughly 130 Minnesota school districts will put school levies to a vote.

Some of them will be asking for more tax money to fund education programming, an effort that has caught the attention of some Republican lawmakers who say schools got a big boost in the state's new budget and shouldn't be asking for more.

Democrats are defending the proposed levy increases, saying this biennium's education financing isn't as robust as Republicans say it is.

Two lawmakers at the center of the issue, state Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, and Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville, debated the subject on the Sept. 16 episode of TPT's Almanac. Garofalo is chairman of the House Education Finance Committee and Greiling is the ranking member.

As voters consider the levies, they'll be hearing a lot of conflicting, confusing numbers from both sides of the aisle.

Here's how PoliGraph sorts them out.

Republicans are inflating school funding by "counting things like local school levies."

During the interview, Greiling said that Republicans, including Garofalo, are using accounting tricks to boost funding numbers.

Her claim stems from a flier circulated earlier this month by the House GOP caucus that showed a statewide average increase in per-pupil funding of $488, and major funding increases in some individual districts.

To come up with that figure, the GOP compared the previous biennium's education budget to the current biennium's education budget which includes some funding sources outside the Legislature's control, namely local referendum dollars. While the Legislature approves caps on levies, it's up to the voters in each district to decide how much is ultimately approved.

Some school districts will receive $400, $500 or $600 more per student in state funding.

Even without accounting for local levies, some districts will see large per-pupil funding increases, as Garofalo correctly pointed out in the Almanac interview. More than 100 of the state's 521 districts and charter schools will get per-pupil funding increases of more than $400 in fiscal year 2013.

State aid for schools is increasing by $650 million this biennium.

During the interview, Garofalo also said that state aid is increasing by more than $650 million this biennium. He's using solid numbers, but his claim also leaves out some details.

In the last biennium, the state spent about $13.8 billion on K-12 education, and the current biennium it will spend about $14.5 billion - a difference of roughly $700 million and in range of the $650 million Garofalo mentioned in the interview.

The increase is comprised of about $500 million in automatic spending increases, such as special education aid, and about $200 million in new funding approved by the Legislature in the most recent budget.

Democrats and Republicans have been at odds all session over how to measure education spending changes, and Garofalo's claim underscores that dispute.

DFLers say that Republicans are wrong to publicize the $500 million in automatic spending as an increase because schools would have received it regardless of legislative action; schools typically prepare budgets based on what they'll get in addition to automatic aid. Democrats argue that even those regular increases don't always cover the costs of education programming because they haven't kept up with the rate of inflation.

Republicans counter that an increase in state aid is an increase in state aid; lawmakers could have voted to scale back those automatic spending boosts but didn't.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, GOP lawmakers question need for school district levies, by Tim Pugmire, Sept. 12, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, School districts defend funding, ballot referendums, by Tom Weber, Sept. 16, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Some GOP lawmakers don't follow Garofalo's lead opposing school levies, by Tim Pugmire, Sept. 20, 2011

MinnPost, Accounting Trick Explains Minnesota Schools' So-Called Windfall, by Beth Hawkins, Sept. 8, 2011

GOP flier, Kids first: Making education a priority during challenging times, accessed Sept. 20, 2011

Fiscal Year 2013 K-12 Major Revenue: Special Session Compared to Baseline, accessed Sept. 21, 2011

Fiscal Year 2013 K-12 Major Revenue: Special Session Compared to FY 11, accessed Sept. 21, 2011

Interview, Rep. Pat Garofalo, Sept. 20, 2011

Interview, Greg Crowe, House Fiscal Staff, Sept. 19, 2011

Interview, Tom Melcher, Minnesota Department of Education, Sept. 20, 2011

Interview, Charlie Vander Aarde, DFL spokesman, Sept. 20, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Obama jobs bill claim mostly true

Posted at 2:32 PM on September 16, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

President Barack Obama unveiled his plan to grow jobs earlier this month, and he said it's getting great reviews from economists.

"When you look at what independent economists are saying about the American Jobs Act... uniformly what they are saying is this buys us insurance against a double-dip recession, and it almost certainly helps the economy grow and will put more people back to work," he said in an interview with NBC News's Brian Williams.

Uniform approval? No. Lots of compliments with a few important caveats? Yes.

The Evidence

Among other things, Obama's job plan would extend and expand the Social Security payroll tax cut; give businesses a $4,000 tax break for hiring the long-term unemployed; extend unemployment benefits; and increase spending on public works projects.

Many economists say they like Obama's plan, and that the plan would help stave off a second recession and create jobs.

For instance, Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's Analytics and former economic adviser to Sen. John McCain, called it a "laudable effort" that would "go a long way toward stabilizing confidence, forestalling another recession, and jump-starting a self-sustaining economic expansion."

He estimates that Obama's plan would add nearly 2 million jobs to the workforce, reduce the unemployment rate by a percentage point, and boost economic growth by 2 percentage points next year.

An estimate by another firm called Macroeconomic Advisers was similarly optimistic, saying the plan would boost GDP by total of 1.3 percent and create roughly 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.

Still, even economists who support the plan have some qualms. Some expressed concern that it doesn't deal with mortgage debt, which many economists say is the root of the nation's financial woes.

Others question whether consumers will spend the extra cash they get from the payroll tax cut. And if they do, some suggest that the money will end up creating jobs overseas because the nation imports a lot of goods.

Of course, the plan has critics, too. James Sherk of the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation wrote that unemployment benefits should not be extended because they do little to boost the economy.

And Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's business school, wondered in an op-ed how the plan's $447 billion price tag fits into the long-term goal of dealing with the deficit.

The Verdict

Obama exaggerated a bit by saying that, uniformly, economists say his plan will work; some take serious issue with the proposal. Still, many have mostly good things to say about the strategy, and at least two estimates support the underlying goal of Obama's plan, which is to grow jobs and boost the economy.

For his first PoliGraph test, Obama's claim leans toward accurate.

SOURCES

NBC News, Obama: Jobs plan is insurance against a 'recession', Sept. 12, 2011

The White House, Fact Sheet and Overview, Sept. 8, 2011

The Los Angeles Times, Economists give Obama's jobs plan mixed reviews, By Don Lee and Jim Puzzanghera, Sept. 8, 2011

The Washington Post, Obama jobs plan: Economists give good reviews but say more needed on mortgage debt, by Zachary A. Goldfarb, Sept. 9, 2011

USA Today, Many economists say Obama jobs plan will help, by Paul Wiseman

National Public Radio, Economists weigh effectiveness of Obama jobs plan, by Marilyn Geewax, Sept. 9, 2011

Moody's Analytics, An analysis of Obama's jobs plan, by Mark Zandi, Sept. 9, 2011

Macroeconomic Advisers, American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment, Sept. 8, 2011

UPI, Will Obama put Americans' jobs ahead of his own?, by Peter Morici, Sept. 16, 2011

The Heritage Foundation, Extended UI Payments Do Not Benefit the Economy, by James Sherk, Sept. 8, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Both parties agreed to delay school payments

Posted at 2:00 PM on September 14, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

In recent weeks, school funding has become a flashpoint between DFL and Republican lawmakers.

Republicans say they've increased school funding, a claim that PoliGraph ruled misleading. And they're speaking out against districts that are trying to increase levies to pay for schools.

Meanwhile, DFL leaders are claiming that a decision to delay payments to school districts included in the state's budget was a Republican idea.

During a press conference to announce a state-wide tour to talk about school support, House Minority Leader Paul Thissen said, "The school shift is a Republican policy that comes from the fact that they're unwilling to ask millionaires to help out and resolve our state budget deficit."

It's difficult to pinpoint when the accounting move originated because budget negotiations were held behind closed doors. But it's clear that both sides agreed to the budget fix.

The Evidence

Delaying school payments is a budget balancing technique that's used regularly. Schools are given some state aid immediately, and the rest later. Technically, it is not considered a cut in funding, but the delays do complicate the budgeting process for schools; some have been forced to borrow money.

Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty delayed payments to schools to close the state's budget gap. During his campaign, Gov. Mark Dayton said he would pay back $1.4 billion in delayed aid during his first budget cycle.

But when faced with the state's massive budget deficit, Dayton abandoned his plan and instead pushed-off the payments a second time.

Throughout the legislative session, lawmakers worked to close the deficit, and in the final days before the government shutdown that started on July 1, 2011, they were still $1.4 billion short.

It's hard to say exactly when talk of delayed payments to schools resurfaced because lawmakers held their negotiations behind closed doors. Thissen said the GOP first raised the possibility of saving $350 million by delaying additional school payments on June 29, and shared notes from that meeting with MPR News to support his claim.

But a spokeswoman for the House GOP said she couldn't confirm the discussion.

Over the following two days, the parties exchanged offers on paper. According to a letter dated June 30, Dayton considered making up most of the $1.4 billion shortfall by delaying half of the money schools were promised.

The same day, the GOP countered with a scaled back version of the delayed payments that would save $700 million in addition to the $1.4 billion already included in Dayton's initial budget, and that's the combination of savings that ended up in the final funding deal.

The Verdict

Thissen contends Republicans forced the Legislature to adopt additional school payments. While it's true that the first round of delays wouldn't have been on the books had it not been for Pawlenty, both parties at one point or another put additional school funding delays on the table during budget negotiations.

Thissen's claim is misleading.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, DFLers plan statewide meetings critical of GOP education policies, by Tim Pugmire, Sept. 6, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Gov. Mark Dayton's FY 2012-2013 Biennial Budget, accessed September 14, 2011

MPR's Shutdown 2011 Blog, Final budget offers, accessed September 14, 2011

Interview, Rep. Paul Thissen, September 8, 2011

Email exchange, Jodi Boyne, spokeswoman House GOP, September 8, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann's numbers wrong on coal claim

Posted at 3:03 PM on September 8, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, PoliGraph

During the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library, Rep. Michele Bachmann raised a talking point that's become standard fare at her campaign events:

Government regulation is expensive for businesses and will result in job losses.

Bachmann hinted that even President Barack Obama agrees.

"I think it's important to note that the president recognized how devastating the [Environmental Protection Agency] has been in their rulemaking, so much so that the president had to suspend current EPA rules that would have led to the shutting down of potentially 20 percent of all of America's coal plants," she said during last night's debate.

Bachmann is overestimating.

The Evidence

Bachmann's spokeswoman did not respond to an email to clarify her boss's statement, but it appears Bachmann is talking about Obama's controversial withdrawal of a rule that would have put stricter regulations on smog.

In that case, Bachmann's context is correct. In a statement, Obama said he stopped the proposed rules from moving forward because he's worried about the impact on the recovering economy. The administration estimates that the rules would have cost between $19 billion and $90 billion.

But Bachmann is conflating her facts.

First, this is just one rule, not several as Bachmann said. It's one of four the coal industry is especially worried about, the rest of which are still in the works, according to Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association.

All together, the impact of those rules could close 20 percent of the nation's coal-fired plants, according to the trade organization. Other studies support that figure, though it's important to note that 20 percent is on the high end depending on the scope of the new rules. And it appears that much of the impact would come from a rule dealing with mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.

The Verdict

The coal industry is worried about several proposed rules, not just the smog rule that Obama shelved. If all those regulations go into effect, upwards of 20 percent of the nation's coal-fired power plants could close.

For getting her facts mixed up, Bachmann's claim rates a false.

SOURCES

The New York Times, The Republican Debate at the Reagan Library, Sept. 7, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News via the Associated Press, Concerned about jobs, Obama ditches tough EPA smog rule, by Julie Pace and Dina Cappiello, Sept. 2, 2011

The White House, Statement by the President on the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Sept. 2, 2011

Charles River Associates, A Reliability Assessment of EPA's Proposed Transport Rule and Forthcoming Utility MACT, Dec. 16, 2011

The Brattle Group, Brattle Study Estimates EPA Regulations May Result in Over 50,000 MW of Coal Plant Retirements and Up to $180 Billion in Compliance Costs, Dec. 8, 2010

Reuters, U.S. rules seen shutting 20 percent of coal power capacity, July 27, 2011

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Toxics Standards for Utilities, accessed Sept. 8, 2011

ICF International, Retiring Coal Plants While Protecting System Reliability, July 26, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: DFL claim on Obama's tax cuts is right

Posted at 2:00 PM on September 2, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: PoliGraph

In a role reversal, some Republicans are advocating for what amounts to a tax increase and some Democrats are pushing for a tax cut.

At issue is the extension of a payroll tax cut Congress passed last year. It's due to expire in December.

During a press conference on Aug. 26, state Democratic-Farmer-Labor party chairman Ken Martin asked the state's GOP delegation to make clear where they stand on the issue. He also highlighted President Obama's tax record.

"President Obama has cut taxes for 95 percent of working families and has cut taxes for small businesses 17 times," he said.

Martin's statement is true.

The Evidence

The stimulus bill included a handful of tax cuts that affected roughly 96 percent of the population, according to the Tax Policy Center, a tax think-tank in Washington, D.C.

According to the same group, nearly all workers are benefiting from last year's agreement to lower workers' Social Security payroll contributions from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent of their wages.

Since Obama took office, taxes have been cut for small businesses - and larger companies, too - 17 times. The perks are buried in different bills, and include a tax credit for hiring people who have been out of work for at least two months, a new deduction for health care expenses for the self-employed, and eliminating the capital gains tax on some small business investments.

The White House touts those 17 cuts on its website, and the president's critics don't dispute the figure. They do, however, point out that taxes have also increased for some of these same businesses; a penalty on employers with more than 50 workers that do not offer health insurance is a frequently cited example. The fine goes into effect in 2014.

Others, argue that because the cuts are targeted, they're more like loopholes or tax expenditures. Will McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation, said such cuts only serve to make the tax code more complex.

"It doesn't sound like good tax policy," he said.

The Verdict

Martin's statement is correct. Between the stimulus bill and the payroll tax cut, taxes have been cut for about 95 percent of taxpayers. And since Obama's been in office, small businesses have benefited from 17 tax cuts.

SOURCES

DFL press conference, Aug. 26, 2011

PolitiFact.com, Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so, by Angie Drobnic Holan, January 28, 2010

The White House Blog, Seventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting, Feb. 25, 2011

The New York Times, For Some in G.O.P., a Tax Cut Not Worth Embracing, by Jennifer Steinhauer, Aug. 25, 2011

The Kaiser Family Foundation, Summary of the new health reform law, accessed Sept. 1, 2011

The Tax Policy Center, Impact of Senator Obama's Tax Proposals as Described by Economic Advisors on Workers, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009, Oct. 2008

PolitiFact, The Obama administration has cut taxes on small businesses 17 times, by Robert Farley, June 12, 2011

The Internal Revenue Service, The Making Work Pay Credit, accessed Sept. 1, 2011

Email exchange, Kristin Sosanie, spokeswoman, Minnesota DFL, Sept. 1, 2011

Interview, Roberton Williams, the Tax Policy Center, Sept. 1, 2011

Interview, Will McBride, the Tax Foundation, Sept. 2, 2011

PoliGraph: GOP claim doesn't tell the whole story

Posted at 2:00 PM on August 31, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: PoliGraph

While Gov. Mark Dayton tours the state to talk jobs, the Senate Republican Caucus is circulating a flier via Twitter that criticizes what they call Dayton's anti-job administration.

During the legislative session, Dayton wanted to raise taxes on the state's wealthiest, which the GOP said would discourage businesses from hiring.

To make their case, the Republicans say in the flier that, "After cutting taxes and declaring the state 'open for business,' Wisconsin created 12,900 new private-sector jobs in June. ... This represents the largest one-month gain of private-sector jobs in Wisconsin since 2003."

The Senate GOP gets its numbers right, but the job situation in Wisconsin is far more nuanced than the flier lets on.

The Evidence

It's true that Wisconsin added 12,900 private sector jobs in June - the largest since 2003. In fact, the state's Department of Workforce Development later increased that figure to 14,800 private sector jobs.

These numbers are seasonally adjusted, but economists in Wisconsin point out that many jobs added in June were food service and leisure positions, which tend to disappear once the weather gets colder.

Economists also highlight that in July, the previous gains in the private sector were wiped out when Wisconsin lost 12,500 jobs from nearly all the state's industries.

On the whole, Wisconsin has been gaining jobs since January, 2010, when the state had its lowest post-recession job numbers. But month-to-month numbers are all over the map.

"A big jump up followed by a big jump down means the recovery is still rickety," said Laura Dresser, associate director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, a economics think tank.

Wisconsin's job climate reflects national trends, she said. Republican Gov. Scott Walker's administration echoed that observation when the July numbers came out.

If it were specifically Walker's policies at play, job growth would be sustained month-to-month, Dresser added.

That's precisely the point the Senate GOP's flier tries to make: Walker's new tax cuts led to job growth.

While several business-friendly, but relatively small, tax perks were adopted shortly after Walker entered office, they aren't immediate. So it's impossible to say whether they are directly related to the June jobs increase, economists say.

Still, it's possible businesses are hiring based Walker's overall tax platform, said Abdur Chowdhury, chair of the Department of Economics at Marquette University.

"The perception among the business community has been more positive," he said.

The Verdict

It's true that Wisconsin saw substantial job growth in June. But it lost an equal number of job losses the following month, which economists say mean one thing: much like the rest of the nation, Wisconsin's jobs climate is still a roller coaster.

As a result, the GOP flier is misleading.

SOURCES

Senate Republican Caucus flier on Dayton's job record, Aug. 30, 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, State reports a gain of 12,900 private-sector jobs, by John Schmid, July 21, 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,Wisconsin loses 12,500 private-sector jobs in July, by John Schmid, Aug. 18, 2011

The Department of Workforce Development, June Jobs Report, July 21, 2011

The Department of Workforce Development, July Jobs Report, Aug.18, 2011

Fox News, Channel 6, Governor Scott Walker signs tax cut bill, Jan. 31, 2011

MacIver Institute, Wisconsin's New Jobs Account for More than Half of Nation's Net Gain for June: While Nation Sputters on Jobs, Wisconsin Economy Begins to Hum, July 21, 2011

FactCheck.org, Walker's Tax Cuts, by Eugene Kiely, March 4, 2011

Wisconsin Budget Project, Live by jobs report, die by jobs report, Aug. 18, 2011

Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Wisconsin saw job growth in June, but the state is still suffering, June 2011

Email exchange, Chris Van Guilder, spokesman, Senate Republican Caucus, Aug. 30, 2011

Email exchange, John Dipko, spokesman, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Aug. 31, 2011

Interview, Laura Dresser, Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Aug. 31, 2011

Interview, Abdur Chowdhury, Marquette University, Aug. 30, 2011

Interview, Andy Feldman, BadgerStat, Aug. 30, 2011

PoliGraph: DCCC ad leaves out important details

Posted at 2:00 PM on August 24, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

If you've been filling up at gas stations in Minnesota's third congressional district, you may have noticed this political ad at the pump:

"Congressman Erik Paulsen voted to cut taxes for millionaires and end your Medicare."

The signs are part of a media blitz paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the fundraising arm for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The effort targets 44 Republicans including U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen.

The DCCC's ad treads a fine line between accurate and misleading.

The Evidence

The DCCC ad focuses on a budget resolution written by Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and passed by the House in April.

Paulsen voted for the resolution. It's important to know that the bill is basically Congressional guidance for spending and revenue changes. So even if Ryan's plan had passed the Senate - which it didn't - it would not have cut taxes or changed Medicare.

It's true that the resolution included a provision to lower the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, which could have affected the nation's top earners.

The second part of the DCCC's ad - that Paulsen voted to "end your Medicare" - is more nuanced.

The Ryan plan would have changed Medicare for those currently younger than 55, not seniors already enrolled or about to enroll in the program, as the DCCC ad implies.

Furthermore, Ryan's plan would not have ended Medicare per se, but it would have changed it dramatically for those 55 or younger.

Currently, the government pays doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients. Ryan's plan would have replaced the system with a voucher program. Beneficiaries would have used the cash to buy a private health insurance policy best suited for their medical needs.

Ryan also proposed linking the value of those vouchers to the Consumer Price Index, which has lagged behind increases in the cost of medical care. Over time, the payments Ryan proposed would buy less coverage as a result, and seniors would end up paying extra for coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Experts PoliGraph spoke with are split on whether the DCCC's claim is fair. Some, including Richard Kaplan, an elder law expert at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, say that Ryan's plan would have meant big changes to the current program, but it still would have provided government support.

Meanwhile, Karen Davis, a health policy expert with the Commonwealth Fund, agrees with the ad because Ryan's plan would have gutted Medicare's financial commitments and made the current program unrecognizable.

The Verdict

It's true that Paulsen voted for a budget framework that proposed cutting taxes for the nation's wealthiest and big changes to Medicare.

But the DCCC ad leaves out some important nuances, including the fact that Ryan's proposal wouldn't have affected those currently enrolled or about to enroll in Medicare. Furthermore, the Ryan proposal didn't "end" Medicare; it changed it dramatically.

For leaving out some important details, PoliGraph says this ad is misleading.

SOURCES

The Star Tribune, Democrats hit Paulsen at the pump, by Jeremy Herb, Aug. 23, 2011

The DCCC, DCCC Launches 'Accountability August': Republicans' Choosing Millionaires over Medicare, Aug. 9, 2011

The Washington Post, Votes on the FY 2012 Budget Resolution, accessed Aug. 24, 2011

The Path to Prosperity: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, April 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, letter to Rep. Paul Ryan, April 5, 2011

ABC News, House passes Paul Ryan budget proposal in partisan vote, by John Parkinson, April 15, 2011

Health Affairs Blog, Vouchers or premium support: What's in a name?, by Henry Aaron, April 6, 2011

The Internal Revenue Service, 2011 tax rate schedules, accessed Aug. 24, 2011

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Ryan Plan's "Path to Prosperity" Is Just for the Wealthy, by Chuck Marr, April 6, 2011

The Wall Street Journal, GOP Aim: Cut $4 trillion, by Naftali Bendavid, April 4, 2011

Interview, Jesse Ferguson, spokesman, DCCC, Aug. 24, 2011

Interview, Henry Aaron, the Brookings Institution, Aug. 23, 2011

Interview, Karen Davis, the Commonwealth Fund, Aug. 24, 2011

Interview, Richard Kaplan, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Aug. 23, 2011

Interview, Jack Hoadley, Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, Aug. 24, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Cravaack misses on defense cut claim

Posted at 2:00 PM on August 5, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Rep. Chip Cravaack was one of four Minnesota lawmakers who voted against the bill to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Among his reasons for rejecting the measure is that it would cut defense spending by half.

The debt ceiling "bill risks cutting 50 percent in current military spending, endangering our national security amid an ever-increasing and varied level of credible threats targeting the U.S. and our military operations," he wrote in an Aug. 3, 2011, Duluth News Tribune opinion piece.

Cravaack's claim is false.

The Evidence

The debt ceiling deal immediately trims $917 billion in discretionary spending over 10 years. Those savings are achieved in part by capping "security" spending, which includes the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security, among other branches of government. Congress will ultimately work out the details, but the White House projects that $420 billion will be saved.

The second round of cuts is less certain. A House and Senate panel is supposed to put together a plan by Thanksgiving to slash an additional $1.2-to-$1.5 trillion in spending; it could include defense spending cuts, but no one knows for sure - it's all up to Congress.

What it seems Cravaack is talking about is the worst case scenario, one that budget and defense analysts say is unlikely to occur given how the bill is set up.

If lawmakers can't agree on additional cuts by Thanksgiving, spending would automatically be reduced by $1.2 trillion. Half of those cuts would come from defense spending, and half would come from other areas of government spending. The idea is that conservatives won't want to dig deep into the defense budget, and liberals won't want to cut social safety net programs.

In that regard, Cravaack's statement is inaccurate. He says that the bill "risks cutting 50 percent in current military spending," which is not the case. Rather, half the $1.2 trillion will come from defense spending, which is largely Department of Defense spending.

Budget officials estimate that the federal government is slated to spend in the range of $6 trillion on peacetime defense activities over the next 10 years. To cut that in half would mean trimming $3 trillion from the defense department's budget.

Even if Congress can't work out additional spending cuts by Thanksgiving, the automatic spending cuts would only reduce the defense department's budget by about $490 billion over 10 years (the rest of the $600 billion would be made up in interest savings.) That's still far less than Cravaack's statement implies.

We sent an email to Cravaack's staff asking him to clarify his statement, but received no response.

Update: Cravaack's spokesman did get back to us, saying that his boss was referring to 50 percent of the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts.

The Verdict

Cravaack is wrong. The bill would not cut military spending in half. Instead, if lawmakers can't lay out a plan, half of the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts would come from defense.

SOURCES

The Duluth News Tribune, Congressman's view: Constituents asked for vote against debt deal, by Rep. Chip Cravaack, Aug. 3, 2011

The Cable, Levin and McCain: We have no idea how much debt deal cuts defense, by Josh Rogin, Aug. 2, 2011

Defense Buck Does Not Stop with This Debt Deal, by Winslow T. Wheeler, Aug. 2, 2011

A Dangerous Debt Ceiling Deal, By Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. August 1, 2011

The Washington Post, Will the defense cuts stick?, by Brad Plumer, Aug. 2, 2011

The House Rules Committee, Text of the Budget Control Act, accessed Aug. 4, 2011

National Public Radio, Pentagon Could See Deep Cuts In Debt Deal, by Rachel Martin, Aug. 3, 2011

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, How the Potential Across-the-Board Cuts in the Debt Limit Deal Would Occur, by Richard Kogan, Aug. 4, 2011

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Defense Funding in the Budget Control Act of 2011, by Todd Harrison, August 2011

The White House, Security Spending in the Deficit Agreement, by Office of Management and Budget director Jack Lew, Aug. 4, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, estimated impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011, Aug. 1, 2011

Interview, Winslow Wheeler, the Center for Defense Information, Aug. 4, 2011

Interview, Lawrence Korb, the Center for American Progress, Aug. 4, 2011

Interview, James Carafano, the Heritage Foundation, Aug. 4, 2011

Interview, Todd Harrison, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Aug. 5, 2011

Email exchange, Michael Bars, spokesman for Rep. Chip Cravaack, Aug. 4, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Ellison gets debt limit history wrong

Posted at 2:00 PM on August 3, 2011 by Catharine Richert (11 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Hours before the U.S. House of Representatives voted to raise the debt ceiling, Minnesota DFL Rep. Keith Ellison announced he couldn't support the plan because it cuts spending too deeply.

He also said the deal is unprecedented.

"This is the first time in the history of the United States that a debt ceiling increase, which is a routine thing, has been linked to deficit cuts, right - and budget cuts," he said. "This is the first time."

Several lawmakers, including Ellison, have repeated this claim. And they're all wrong.

The Evidence

The deal signed into law this week would raise the debt ceiling immediately by $900 billion and cut spending by $917 billion over 10 years. Congress will next have to approve a second ceiling increase of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion later this year, after a joint congressional committee identifies up to $1.5 trillion in additional cuts.

Automatic spending cuts kick in if Congress can't follow the plan.

Certainly the deal is unique in its savings and debt targets, but it's not the first time Congress has linked spending cuts to an increase in the debt ceiling:

1985: As part of a $175 billion debt limit increase, Congress first approved the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. While there were no specific spending cuts outlined in the legislation, the language set deficit reduction targets. Across-the-board cuts were built into the bill to keep the deficit from exceeding those targets - much like the triggers in the most recent debt deal.

1997: Former President Bill Clinton struck a deal with congressional Republicans to cut a net of $122 billion in mandatory spending over five years and raise the debt limit to $5.95 trillion from $5.5 trillion as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

2010: A $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase also revived statutory pay-as-you-go rules that require spending cuts under certain circumstances. If Congress were to cut taxes or mandated spending increases, spending would automatically be cut in other areas, though programs such as Social Security and Medicaid are exempt.

In other instances, lawmakers have attached a debt ceiling increase to budget bills essentially to accommodate projected spending.

Ellison's spokeswoman could not provide sourcing for the claim, saying that the lawmaker had heard it from colleagues.

The Verdict

Ellison said raising the nation's borrowing limit has never been paired with deficit cuts. But a look back on the debt ceiling's history shows that it's not the first time Congress has linked cuts and debt targets.

His claim is false.

SOURCES

National Public Radio News, Ellison Offers Progressive View Of Debt Deal, Aug. 1, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, the Budget Control Act of 2011, Aug. 1, 2011

The Associated Press, Questions and answers about the debt-deficit deal, by Jim Abrams, August 2, 2011

The White House, Office of Management and Budget, Historical Table: Debt Limit Increases, accessed July 28, 2011

Reuters, Factbox - Key elements of U.S. debt deal, Aug. 1, 2011

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Understanding the Debt Limit, July 14, 2011

PolitiFact Florida, Allen West says spending cuts are part of the debt ceiling increase for the first time in history, by Angie Drobnic Holan, July 29, 2011

The Congressional Research Service, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, July 20, 2011

THOMAS, Summary of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, accessed Aug. 2, 2011

The Congressional Research Service, Debt-Limit Legislation in the Congressional Budget Process, May 8, 1998

Interview, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Aug. 2, 2011

Interview, Ed Lorenzen, Senior Advisor, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Aug. 2, 2011

About PoliGraph

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Thissen's millionaire claim correct

Posted at 2:00 PM on July 27, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

DFL House leader Paul Thissen wasted no time using the final budget agreement to solicit cash from voters.

The day after the deal was signed, Thissen penned a fundraising letter, claiming that Republican leadership wouldn't compromise with his party on Gov. Mark Dayton's plan to temporarily raise taxes on Minnesotans wealthiest, "even though it would only affect 7,700 people, and even though only half of those people are Minnesota residents!"

Thissen's claim is basically correct.

The Evidence

During the campaign, Dayton maintained he'd raise taxes on the state's wealthiest to close the budget gap. Once he took office, that plan narrowed. In the final throes of the budget battle, Dayton offered to raise taxes only on Minnesotans making more than $1 million in taxable income annually, and only through 2013.

Republicans roundly rejected the idea, as they have all of Dayton's efforts to increase taxes; they contend that tax hikes will hurt small business owners and potentially prompt people to leave the state.

Thissen points out that half the people who would have been taxed don't live here.

According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, 7,700 millionaires are expected to file with the state for tax year 2011. About 3,900 of those returns are coming from year-long Minnesota residents.

The rest are from part-time or out-of-state filers. The former are people who move in the middle of the year and pay taxes in Minnesota and another state as a result. Non-residents are those who make money in Minnesota, such as income from a business or rent, but live somewhere else.

The revenue department can't say precisely how many returns are from part-time residents and how many are from non-residents, but estimates that most are from the latter group.

The Verdict

Thissen said that half of the millionaires Dayton's new plan would have taxed don't live in Minnesota year-round. For the most part, he's correct. According to the revenue department, about half of the 7,700 returns from millionaires come from people residing elsewhere.

SOURCES

Letter from Rep. Paul Thissen, July 21, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Dayton puts two new offers on the table, by Catharine Richert, July 6, 2011

Interview, Carrie Lucking, spokeswoman, House DFL Caucus, July 26, 2011

Interview, Minnesota Department of Revenue, Tax Research Division, July 26, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: McCollum's right on cost of war

Posted at 5:11 PM on June 23, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

President Obama on Wednesday outlined his plans to pull troops out of Afghanistan.

Here's how Rep. Betty McCollum responded to Obama's proposal to bring home some of the 33,000 troops he sent there in 2009.

"It is time for the U.S. to bring our troops home and limit the more than $2 billion per week being spent on this war while we face a serious fiscal crisis at home," she said in a June 23, 2011 press release. "After 10 years of service and sacrifice from American troops and a $400 billion investment by U.S. taxpayer dollars, the people of Afghanistan need to take control of their destiny and demonstrate to the world they can stand on their own."

McCollum's right: The war is costing a lot of money.

The Evidence

About $113 billion will be spent on Afghanistan operations in fiscal year 2011, or, about $2.4 billion each week, according to a Congressional Research Services report.

The U.S. hasn't always spent that much money in Afghanistan. In fiscal year 2003, the U.S. spent $306 million. In 2009, when Obama sent in more troops, the costs soared. .

On the second part of her claim, McCollum's estimate is a bit low. The U.S. has spent around $444 billionon Afghanistan war, which began right after 9/11. That includes funding for war operations, diplomatic efforts and the medical care for war vets, according to the same CRS report.

The Verdict

McCollum's claim is right. She gets an accurate.

SOURCES

Rep. Betty McCollum, Congresswoman Betty McCollum Responds to President Obama's Plan to Withdraw U.S. Troops from Afghanistan, June 23, 2011

The White House, Remarks by the President on the Way Forward in Afghanistan, June 22, 2011

CNN, Obama announces Afghanistan troop withdrawal plan, June 22, 2011

The Congressional Research Service, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other
Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11, by Amy Belasco, March 29, 2011

The Christian Science Monitor, Afghanistan troop drawdown: why Congress doesn't like it, by Gail Russell Chaddock, June 23, 2011

Interview, Maria Reppas, spokeswoman, Rep. Betty McCollum, June 23, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Dayton's tax claim largely true

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 22, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

As the state's political leaders stare down a government shutdown, Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton is repeating that his plan to raise taxes - a cornerstone of his budget proposal - would affect very few Minnesotans.

"[My plan] only raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Minnesotans and does not raise a single dollar of income taxes or any property taxes on the other 98 percent of Minnesotans," he said during a press conference in response to a new GOP plan.

Dayton's right that few people will feel the brunt of his tax plan.

The Evidence

Dayton's proposal would create a new 4th income tax bracket that would impose a 10.95 percent rate on single Minnesotans making more than $150,000, heads of household making more than $200,000, and joint filers making more than $250,000 annually - all after deductions.

According to the state revenue department, about 2 percent - or 45,440 of the state's roughly 2.4 million filers - would pay Dayton's new higher income tax rate.

Everyone else would see no change in their income taxes. And at this point, Dayton's plan doesn't alter state property taxes, nor does it cut city and county aid, which can lead to local property tax increases, so he can claim that his proposal won't increase property taxes, either.

But here's the part Dayton leaves out: his plan also expands and increases the sales tax on some products and services, including box seats and suites at sports stadiums, admissions to events such as car and home shows, and charges for digital video recording and satellite TV, among other things.

Dayton's plan also proposes increasing corporate taxes, which the revenue department predicts will trickle down to Minnesota residents.

All together, these new taxes would affect everyone, rich and poor. But the impact would be very small - less than a 1 percent increase for most consumers. For instance, if you make $85,000 annually, you're probably paying in the range of $1,300 in sales taxes every year. Dayton's plan would add an additional $8.50 to that.

The Verdict

For the most part, Dayton's plan doesn't weigh much on most Minnesotans. And while he doesn't mention that everyone will see a slight uptick in sales and corporate taxes under his plan, he is right that most Minnesotans would not see a property tax increase or an income tax increase as a result of his budget plan.

Dayton's claim gets an accurate.

SOURCES:

Gov. Mark Dayton, June 16, 2011, press conference

The Minnesota Revenue Department, Tax Incidence Study of the Governor's Tax Proposals, June 8, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Supplemental Budget Update #1, March 21, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Koch claim on Dayton's shutdown statement is right

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 17, 2011 by Catharine Richert (8 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

As the state faces a government shutdown, Senate Republican Majority Leader Amy Koch has been pointing out that Dayton said he would never let it come to this.

"Gov. Dayton promised voters he would not shut down government," Koch said in a press release June 10, the day 36,000 state workers were sent lay off notices.

In fact, Dayton did say he would reject a government shutdown during the 2010 campaign.

The Evidence

Dayton and the Republican-controlled legislature are at an impasse over $1.8 billion in spending for the next biennium. Dayton wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans to expand the budget, but Republicans are not on board.

Both sides have offered concessions since Dayton vetoed the Republican's $34 billion budget in May. Dayton said he would trim his tax plan and support more spending cuts. Republicans are willing to shift $202 million in tax breaks to other programs. If they can't reach a deal by July 1, state government will shut down. This week Dayton filed a court petition laying out his plans for which agencies would remain open during a shutdown.

During a debate in late October 2010, KSTP-TV reporter Tom Hauser asked Dayton what he would do in a situation very similar to the one the state is facing now. Dayton, at that point in time, was proposing raising taxes on many more people to raise $4 billion in new revenue.

"If you can't get the tax increases that you want, and you can't get the Legislature to go along with the vision that you have, how far would you be willing to go," Hauser asked. "Would you allow government to shut down in order to try to get things the way you see them?"

"No, I would not shut government down," answered Dayton. "Government imparts important services to the people of Minnesota and those services need to continue - public safety, the education system and the like."

A bit later, Dayton seemed to back track, saying that he "would not compromise on the principle that we need to make taxes more progressive in Minnesota."

Dayton's spokeswoman Katharine Tinucci says the situation is very different now.

"The legislature failed to pass a budget that [Dayton] could sign, and he is now working every day to find compromise, so they can pass a budget he will sign into law," she wrote in an email.

The Verdict

Koch says that Dayton promised no government shutdown. While she fails to point out that he made this comment during the campaign -- long before the current stalemate -- he was responding to a question that described a situation very similar to the one the state is in now.

As a result, Koch's first PoliGraph test is accurate.

SOURCES

Sen. Amy Koch, Republican Legislative Leaders Comment on Layoff Notices Sent to 36,000 State Workers, June 10, 2011

C-SPAN, Minnesota gubernatorial debate, Oct. 24, 2010

Minnesota Public Radio News, Dayton revises budget offer, by Tom Scheck, May 16, 2011

Interview, Michael Brodkorb, spokesman, Sen. Amy Koch, June 16, 2011

Interview, Katharine Tinucci, spokeswoman, Gov. Mark Dayton, Jun

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann claim on health care law ignores key information

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 15, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, PoliGraph

Rep. Michele Bachmann took part in her first presidential debate this week, and in addition to announcing she'll run for the White House, she made this statement about the new health care law.

"This is a job killer," she said. "The [Congressional Budget Office] has said that 'Obamacare' will kill 800,000 jobs."

Bachmann's claim contains some truth but leaves out some finer points that are worth exploring.

The Evidence

In August 2010, the CBO, Congress's nonpartisan number cruncher, released its Budget and Economic Outlook. It included an assessment of how the new health care law would affect the labor market. According to the report, provisions in the new law would reduce the amount of labor by about 0.5 percent.

That amounts to about 800,000 out of the 160 million projected workers in 2021, said CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in testimony on Capitol Hill in February.

But does that mean that the health care will "kill" 800,000 jobs? Not necessarily.

First, the CBO makes clear that, while some employers may choose to hire fewer people as the result of penalties brought about by the new law, the law "will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy...primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply."

However, a key assumption in the CBO analysis is that some people are only working to get benefits. And because the law offers new ways to get insurance that don't involve working, the CBO foresees two outcomes:

- Some people may opt to work less.

- Or, some people will leave their jobs and get coverage through Medicaid, which was expanded to include low-income, childless adults, or with government subsidies through the health care exchanges.

Medicaid benefits and health care exchange subsidies are only available to lower income earners, so the CBO predicts that the government assistance will effectively discourage some people from working to keep their income levels low.

The Verdict

Bachmann is correct that the CBO has predicted approximately 800,000 people won't work in 2021 as a result of the new health care law.

But she says those jobs will be "killed." In fact, the CBO assumes that many if those people may not want to work because they can get health coverage without having a job.

Without providing the full context around the number, Bachmann's statement is misleading.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, GOP debate, June 13, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update, August 2010

Politico, Health law to shrink workforce by 800,000, by J. Lester Feder and Kate Nocera, Feb. 10, 2011

CBO's Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010, Statement of Douglas Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, March 30, 2011

PolitiFact, Adam Hasner cites CBO, says health care law cuts 800,000, by Aaron Sharockman, June 8, 2011

The Washington Post, Fact Checker: Playing games with CBO testimony on jobs and the health-care law, By Glenn Kessler, Feb. 11, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty's tax plan complicates budget claim

Posted at 3:15 PM on June 10, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: Pawlenty fact check, PoliGraph

Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty recently laid out his plan to grow the economy, which relies heavily on tax and spending cuts.

"Cutting just 1 percent of overall federal spending for 6 consecutive years would balance the federal budget by 2017."

Pawlenty is right on the spending side of the equation. Cutting spending would help balance the budget. But his plan to cut taxes makes a balanced budget unlikely.

The Evidence

Pawlenty spokesman Alex Conant says cuts would be made starting with a "base year" and spending would be reduced 1 percent each year going forward. During that time, spending would be frozen.

In the current fiscal year, the nation spent about $3.6 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). One percent of that is $36 billion, leaving a fiscal year 2012 budget of roughly 3.59 trillion.

If the 1 percent spending cuts continued, by 2017 total federal spending would be around $3.4 trillion - about $1.26 trillion less than what the federal government would spend without the cuts. Assuming the Congressional Budget Office's 2017 revenue projection of about $4.07 trillion is in the ballpark, the nation would have a surplus of about $670 billion.

The math works out, but it doesn't tell the whole story of Pawlenty's vision for the budget. Along with the 1 percent cuts, Pawlenty is proposing big tax cuts, which would make it much harder to balance the budget in the future.

Specifically, he wants to lower the corporate tax rate from 15 percent to 35 percent and create only two individual income tax rates of 10 percent for the first $50,000 of income and 25 percent for the rest. Further, he wants to ax the capital gains tax, interest income tax, dividends tax and the estate tax.

In his speech, Pawlenty suggested that 5 percent economic growth over the next 10 years and the elimination of tax loopholes would help offset the tax cuts. But many economists have said that the goal is unrealistic; 5 percent economic growth is difficult to achieve even in good years.

Based on current law and CBO growth projections, Pawlenty's plan could cost upwards of $11.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis done by the Tax Policy Center.

In 2017, that could mean nearly $1.3 trillion in revenue lost to the federal budget, according to a separate analysis conducted by Michael Linden, director of budget and tax policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress. If so that means the 1 percent cuts wouldn't balance the budget after all.

Furthermore, budget experts are quick to point out that, while 1 percent may seem small, Pawlenty's cuts would be difficult to achieve without cuts to Medicare, Social Security and military spending, which dominate federal spending and account for much of the nation's projected spending increases.

The Verdict

Pawlenty's claim is correct: cutting 1 percent of spending annually would balance the budget by 2017.

But that assumes no changes in the tax code, and that's an unlikely scenario. While it's difficult to say precisely how Pawlenty's tax changes will affect the nation's coffers, initial estimates show that it could result in significant revenue losses.

So, Pawlenty's claim that a 1 percent cut in federal spending would balance the budget is accurate - but only if the government does not enact the tax cuts he proposes. Otherwise, it is unlikely.

SOURCES

Tim Pawlenty, A Better Deal: Governor Tim Pawlenty's Economic Policy Remarks, June 7, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012, accessed June 9, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, Budget Projections, January 2011

The Washington Post, Tim Pawlenty's Dubious Economic Assertions, June 8, 2011

The Washington Post, Pawlenty's magical economic plan, by Ruth Marcus, June 9, 2011

Interview, Alex Conant, spokesman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, June 9, 2011

Interview, Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy, The Center for American Progress, June 9, 2011

Interview, Gene Steuerle, the Urban Institute, June 9, 2011

Interview, Isabel Sawhill, The Brookings Institution, June 9, 2011

Interview, Eric Toder, the Urban Institute, June 10, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Walz right on oil imports

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 8, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, U.S. House

Tim Walz recently introduced a bill that would expand oil and gas production in the United States.

To build support for the legislation, Walz frequently points out that the nation spends big bucks daily on oil imports.

"America has talked about eliminating our dependence on foreign oil for decades, but we continue to spend too much time talking and too little time acting," he wrote in a May 31, 2011 op-ed in the Rochester Post-Bulletin. "Each day, we send $1 billion overseas that can't be used to invest in our own economy."

Walz gets this one right.

The Evidence

The price of oil fluctuates daily and so does the amount of oil the United States imports.

But using recent Energy Information Administration data, Walz's estimate is essentially correct.

For instance, in January, the United States imported about 11.9 barrels of oil daily for an average cost of $1.1 billion. In March, the country spent an average of $1.2 billion a day on oil imports.

In 2010, the cost was similar: Every day, the cost of oil imports was in the ballpark of $1 billion.

The Verdict

Walz is correct: the United States spends about $1 billion on oil imports daily.

SOURCES

The Rochester Post-Bulletin, It's time to unleash America's energy potential, May 31, 2011

Tim Walz, Bipartisan Energy Working Group Unveils Plan for Job Creation, Energy Independence, accessed June 7, 2011

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, May 2011

The Energy Information Administration, U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, accessed June 6, 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Crude Oil Prices, accessed June 6, 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Merchandise Trade Value, accessed June 6, 2011

The Truman National Security Project, Oil Addiction: Fueling Our Enemies, Feb. 17, 2010

Interview, Sara Severs, spokeswoman for Rep. Tim Walz, June 7, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Lawmaker's education claim only partially correct

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 3, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

As Gov. Mark Dayton and GOP legislative leaders look for an overall budget deal, individual parts of the budget are causing partisan friction.

One area is education funding. DFL lawmakers say the Republican majority is cutting K-12 funding by $44 million. Republican leaders say they're increasing funding substantially.

"This bill spends $450 million more on education than last session," said Republican Rep. Pat Garofalo, who chairs the Education Finance Committee, during a debate over the issue with Rep. Mindy Greiling, the top DFLer on the committee, on the May 23, 2011 broadcast of Midday.

Education finance is complicated stuff, and so is Garofalo's claim.

The Evidence

Including $500 million in federal stimulus dollars and delayed payments of $1.9 billion to schools, the state spent about $13.812 billion on K-12 education in the last biennium. Republicans are proposing a $14.278 billion education budget, which is an increase of about $466 million over last session.

So, by that standard, Garofalo's claim is accurate: Republicans are proposing more spending compared to the last biennium.

But state law requires all sorts of automatic spending increases to compensate for higher student enrollment, growth in special education and other factors.

And that's where DFLers make their point. Though the Republican bill covers the bulk of those automatic spending increases, it's still about $44 million short of the $14.321 the state was projected to spend in the coming biennium. (For their part, Republicans argue their plan is only $15 million less because of a new provision that requires school districts to pay back state loans for new buildings.)

DFLers also point out that the GOP proposal means cuts for individual school districts, including the Minneapolis, Albert Lea and St. Cloud districts, and spending increases for others, including many of the state's charter schools.

This is partly because the current bill shifts money from one program to another. For instance, 18,000 more students will be enrolled in public schools over the next two years, and the bill increases per pupil spending from $20 to $21. But those new dollars are being funded by cuts to special education funding, according to Tom Melcher, the state's education finance director.

The Verdict

On one hand, Garofalo's claim is correct. His panel's bill would increase education spending compared to the last two years and increase spending on some things, including per pupil spending.

But he neglects a fact that DFLers highlight: funding falls short of what the state would be spending if it followed current law, and that means some school districts will see cuts.

For leaving out those facts, Garofalo's claim is misleading.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, Midday, May 23, 2011

Gov. Mark Dayton, Letter to Rep. Kurt Zellers, May 24, 2011

Session Daily, House approves amended omnibus K-12 finance bill, by Kris Berggren, May 18, 2011

Minnesota House Fiscal Staff, General Fund Allocations - Projected FY 2012-13 Compared to FY 2010-11, March 2011

Minnesota House Fiscal Staff, Education Finance Committee: 2011 Session Appropriation Tracking, May 11, 2011

Interview, Rep. Pat Garofalo, May 31, 2011

Interview, Scott Russell, Policy Analyst, Minnesota Budget Project, June 1, 2011

Interview, Tim Strom, Legislative Analyst, Minnesota House of Representatives, June 1, 2011

Interview, Greg Crowe, Legislative Analyst, Minnesota House of Representatives, June 1, 2011

Interview, Tom Melcher, Program Finance Director, Minnesota Department of Education, June 2, 2011

PoliGraph: DNC ad distorts Pawlenty's comments

Posted at 2:00 PM on June 1, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Less than a day after Republican Tim Pawlenty announced he's running for president, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) posted an ad that implies the former governor has no idea why he wants to be in the White House.

Toward the end of the ad, the question, "Why are you running?" flashes across the screen.

Pawlenty's answer:

"I don't know," and "I wish I had a better answer for you."

The ad takes Pawlenty's words out of context.

The Evidence

Citing a May 2011 Time magazine article, the ad claims even Pawlenty doesn't know why he's running for office.

But here's the rub: the author of that article asked Pawlenty when he started considering a run for president, not why.

"When I ask Pawlenty... exactly when he decided he was up to the grand challenge of the presidency, he answers in less than grandiose terms, explaining how he'd set up a political-action committee in 2009," wrote Time reporter Michael Crowley. "I try again, saying I am curious about when he first imagined himself worthy of the history books, ready to send soldiers to their deaths and endure the national stage's harsh toll. 'I don't know,' he replies. 'I wish I had a good answer for you on that.' "

Crowley wrote on May 23 that the DNC's ad was a "distortion" of his exchange with Pawlenty.

"Although our conversation touched on Pawlenty's rationale for running, my questions were after something different," Crowely wrote. "I was curious to know when Pawlenty, whose strength and weakness is his regular-guy persona, came to think of himself as presidential material."

The ad is meant to push Pawlenty to define his candidacy, says Alec Gerlach, DNC spokesman.

"Is he running as a tea party candidate, is he running as a moderate, or is he running on his record, which is abysmal?" Gerlach said.

The Verdict

The DNC twists Pawlenty's words, implying he doesn't know why he wants to run for president. Pawlenty said he didn't know when he started thinking of himself as presidential material.

The claim is misleading to the point of being false.

SOURCES

The Democratic National Committee, Ad: Why?, May 23, 2011

YouTube, Tim Pawlenty - A Time For Truth, May 22, 2011

Time Magazine, Pawlenty Makes GOP Bid Official: Is He Too Nice for His Own Good?, Michael Crowley, May

Time: Swampland, What Pawlenty Said, by Michael Crowely, May 23, 2011

Interview, Alec Gerlach, spokesman, Democratic National Committee, May 31, 2011

PoliGraph: Pawlenty doesn't tell whole story on ethanol

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 25, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: Pawlenty fact check, PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

There's a cardinal rule of presidential primary politics: don't knock ethanol in corn-state Iowa.

But that didn't stop former Gov. Tim Pawlenty from telling an audience there he'd phase-out ethanol subsidies if elected president.

"Even in Minnesota, when we faced fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies," he said during his announcement Monday that he's running for president. "That's where we are now in Washington, but on a much, much larger scale."

Pawlenty cut state ethanol subsidies - but he left out that he also promised to pay them back later.

The Evidence

Minnesota ethanol producers have been enjoying subsidies since 1987. For a long time, they got 20 cents from the government for every gallon of fuel they produced. The subsidy was meant to jumpstart small, farmer-owned operations.

When Pawlenty took office in 2003, the state was facing a budget shortfall. Pawlenty cut $20 million in ethanol subsidies that year - roughly three-fourths of the $26.8 million in payments slated to go out - and followed-up with a plan to reduce the payments to 10 cents per gallon in the coming biennium.

Pawlenty's plan didn't fly with rural lawmakers. Ultimately, he and the Legislature agreed to draw down the subsidy to 13 cents per gallon through fiscal year 2007, and pay producers the difference later on. According to a Legislative Auditor's report, the state paid out $50.5 million in so-called deficiency payments during the last biennium.

Furthermore, the program was always slated to end in 2010, so the ethanol subsidies would have halted regardless of Pawlenty's actions (though deficiency payments are still trickling out.)

Though Pawlenty wanted to cut ethanol subsidies, he also pushed to expand the state's requirement that every gallon of gasoline be blended with 10 percent ethanol. In 2005, the state approved Pawlenty's plan to require gas be mixed with 20 percent ethanol by 2013, a government mandate that's bolstered the market for the corn-based fuel.

The Verdict

It is true Pawlenty cut Minnesota ethanol subsidies, but he glosses over the fact that ethanol producers eventually got their money anyway.

That's enough to make this claim misleading.

SOURCES

YouTube.com, Tim Pawlenty in Des Moines - 2012 Announcement Speech, May 23, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, Lawmakers resist Pawlenty's proposal to cut ethanol subsidies, January 16, 2003

Minnesota Public Radio News, Ethanol bill nears crucial test, by Laura McCallum, March 16, 2005

Minnesota Department of Energy, Gasoline Pricing Facts for Consumers, accessed May 25, 2011

Office of the Legislative Auditor, Biofuel Policies and Programs, April 2009

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Cuts in the pipeline: Subsidies keep ethanol industry from fizzling, by Joy Powell, March 11, 2003

The St. Paul Pioneer Press, Session out but not over, by Patrick Sweeney and Bill Salisbury, May 20, 2003

Interview, Ralph Groschen, Senior Marketing Specialists, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2005

More

The Humphrey School

MPR News is hosting an online debate about ethanol. Find it here.

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Zellers wrong on professor pay

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 20, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_05_21_poligraph_20110521_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/05/21/poligraph_20110521_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R- Maple Grove, may have heard from some angry professors this week.

During a discussion about cuts to the state's higher education budget, Zellers said that college professors have seen their pay rise while other workers are getting paid less.

"It's... troubling when families have had a 30-or-40 percent pay cut and you see a college professor get a 20-or-30 percent increase in pay," he told Midday host Gary Eichten.

That's not correct. Most public school professors have seen pay cuts and salary freezes, not pay increases.

The Evidence

In 2009, faculty working for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU) agreed to a two-year pay freeze.

There were a few exceptions to this rule. Teachers at two-year schools could get a salary bump if they completed additional graduate work. Professors at MnSCU's universities received a 4.8 percent salary increase if they met career milestones. And university faculty promoted during the freeze earned more pay.

The University of Minnesota also tightened pay. During the most recent fiscal year, faculty salaries were cut by 1.15 percent. And in 2010, faculty salaries were frozen.

Daniel Wolter, spokesman for the U of M, says about 100 of the university's 4,100 faculty members at the Twin Cities campus were offered retention pay, which is given to teachers in particularly competitive fields who may be looking to leave the school. He said amounts of that pay vary based on the job and the type of research the professor is doing.

In a separate interview, Zellers said he misunderstood the headline of a 2009 MPR News story that focused on the $300,000 in bonuses paid to top MnSCU administrators, not faculty.

The Verdict

In some instances, college faculty saw pay increases in the last couple of years. But the majority of Minnesota's public school professors have been working under pay freezes and pay cuts.
Zellers' claim is false.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, Midday, May 16, 2011

The University of Minnesota, Equity During Budget Cuts, March 31, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, MnSCU bonuses to top staffers nears $300K, by Tim Post, Sept. 17, 2009

Minnesota State University - Mankato, State university faculty, MnSCU system reach tentative salary accord, Feb. 23, 2009

Interview, Daniel Wolter, News Service Director, University of Minnesota, May 19, 2011
Interview, Melinda Voss, spokeswoman, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, May 19, 2011

Interview, Russ Stanton, MnSCU Interfaculty Organization, May 20, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Simon misses on voting claim

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 18, 2011 by Catharine Richert (6 Comments)
Filed under: MPR in D.C., PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_05_21_poligraph_20110521_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/05/21/poligraph_20110521_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

The Legislature is weighing a controversial bill that would require voters to present a state-issued photo identification to vote.

Opponents say the proposal would block the state's elderly from casting ballots, as they are less likely to drive.

Among the opponents is Rep. Steve Simon, DFL - St. Louis Park, who frequently says that, "25 percent of seniors don't even have a photo ID."

That's the case in Wisconsin-- but not in Minnesota.

The Evidence

There's a lot of evidence that older people and minorities are less likely than the general population to have photo identification.

But to support their claim, opponents of the bill point to a 2005 Wisconsin study driver license data that found that only 25 percent of those over 65 have a driver's license or a photo ID.

That data is old and based on information from another state.

According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, about 10.5 percent of Minnesotans 65 and older do not have some form of photo identification. The figure is based on 2009 demographic data and is adjusted for annual mortality rates among the elderly.

The Verdict

Far more of Minnesota's oldest residents have photo identification than Simon contends. His claim is false.

SOURCES

Minnesota House of Representatives, Reps. Simon and Winkler Respond to Photo ID Demonstration, Jan. 26, 2011

The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin, by John Pawasarat, Employment and Training Institute, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, June 2005

Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Without Proof: A Survey of Americans' Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenships and Photo Identification, Nov. 2006

U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, accessed May 10, 2011

Interview, Carrie Lucking, spokeswoman, House leadership, May 5, 2011

Interview, Patricia McCormack, Director of Driver Vehicle Services Division, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, May 13, 2011

Interview, Keesha Gaskins, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice, May 10, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Simon marriage claim essentially right

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 13, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

There was emotionally charged debate on the Minnesota Senate floor this week as legislators weighed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

In the end, the Republican-controlled Senate passed the bill largely along party lines. But Sen. Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, who opposed the measure, says public opinion on the issue is shifting.

"I predict that over the arch of time, we will have marriage equality," he said in an interview with Morning Edition's Cathy Wurzer on May 11, 2011. "I think that when you look at the poll numbers, particularly amongst young people, they're off the charts."

"Off the charts" is an overstatement, but national support for same-sex marriage is growing.

The Evidence

A recent ABCNews/Washington Post poll shows 53 percent support same-sex marriages. That's up from just 32 percent in 2004, representing a "dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes" on the subject, according to the survey report. The Pew Research Center and CNN/Opinion Research Corporation also recently reported increasing support, though a Pew poll showed that opponents and proponents of gay marriage still evenly split.

Minnesota appears to follow the national trend. A Star Tribune poll released May 13, 2011, with a 4.7 percentage point margin of error shows that 55 percent of Minnesotans would oppose an amendment to ban gay marriage; in 2004, the same poll showed that 58 percent supported such an amendment.

On his FiveThirtyEight blog, statistics guru Nate Silver analyzed data on public opinion on same-sex marriage going back to 1988. His conclusion: the gap between supporters and opponents is narrowing. But while opponents are now in the minority, Silver wrote, "it is too soon to say with confidence that support for gay marriage has become the plurality position (let alone the majority one)."

So, support is on the rise, but it's not "off the charts" as Simon said.

Simon is correct that the majority of younger people tend to support same-sex marriage, and have for a while. For instance, the ABCNews/Washington Post poll showed that 68 percent of those younger than 29 support it. The Star Tribune poll found that 60 percent of those younger than 34 would oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The Verdict

Simon's overall point is correct. Support for same sex marriage is growing, especially among younger people.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, Morning Edition, May 11, 2011

ABCNews/Washington Post Poll:Gay Marriage, March 18, 2011

The Pew Research Center, Fewer Are Angry at Government, But Discontent Remains High, March 3, 2011

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Poll: April 19, 2011

PollingReport.com, Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights, accessed May 12, 2011

FiveThirtyEight, Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority, April 20, 2011

Pew Research Center, Support for Same Sex Marriage Edges Upward, Oct. 6, 2010

The Star Tribune, Minnesota Poll: Support falls for ban on gay marriage, by Rachel Stassen-Berger, May 13, 2011

The Star Tribune, Minnesota Poll: Majority oppose gay marriage ban, May 13, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: lawmaker's claim relies on just one source

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 12, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Minnesota Republicans are aiming to put issues on the ballot in 2012 election, among them a constitutional amendment that would define marriage in Minnesota as only between a man and a woman.

"I know that 78 percent...of the people in Minnesota want this decision to be given to them on a ballot," said bill sponsor Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, during an April 26, 2011, press conference.

Limmer's numbers are coming from one poll commissioned by groups that support a statewide vote on the issue.

The Evidence

The Senate has approved the amendment, and the House is expected to. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, but Limmer and other supporters of the bill say that changing the state constitution is necessary to prevent the law from being overturned.

One recent poll backs Limmer's contention that a broad majority of the public wants the issue on the ballot, about 74 percent of Minnesota voters. (Limmer's spokeswoman Susan Closmore said that he incorporated the 4 percentage point margin of error when making the statement.)

But it's important to highlight where those numbers are coming from. The poll, which surveyed about 600 Minnesota voters Jan. 10-13, 2011, was commissioned by the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage, two organizations that support the amendment.

Furthermore, the company hired to conduct the poll, Lawrence Research, is operated by pollster Gary Lawrence, who, according to news reports in the Minnesota Independent and the Washington Post, organized members of the Mormon Church Mormons in support of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that prevents gay marriage from being recognized by the state. Lawrence did not return calls to provide more details on his polling results.

So, Limmer is basing his claim on one poll commissioned by organizations that support putting a marriage amendment to a vote.

There's little current information for comparison, but polls done in 2009 and 2010 provide some context:

• A 2009 KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found that only 52 percent of Minnesotans would support a statewide vote to ban gay marriage.

• A 2010 Minnesota Public Radio News/Humphrey School of Public Affairs poll showed that 49 percent of Minnesotans oppose same-sex marriage.

• A 2009 Star Tribune poll found that a third of Minnesotans would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

The Verdict

Limmer's claim is rooted in a survey commissioned by two groups that have a stake in the debate over same-sex marriages. Because there are no other current polls to compare Limmer's numbers to, this PoliGraph test rates an inconclusive.

SOURCES

TheUptake, Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage Press Conferences, April 26, 2011

The Minnesota Family Council, Let the people vote on marriage!, by Chuck Darrell, April 14, 2011

The Star Tribune, Minnesota Poll: A Subtle shift on gay unions, by Mark Brunswick, May 1, 2009

Minnesota Public Radio News, Poll shows slight shift in gay marriage opinions, by Tim Pugmire, Sept. 28, 2006

Results of KSTP/SurveyUSA Poll, May 11, 2009

Minnesota Public Radio News, MPR-Humphrey Poll: Obama could struggle in MN in 2012, by Mark Zdechlik, Sept. 30, 2010

Smart Politics, How Supportive Are Minnesotans of Gay Rights?, by Eric Ostermeier, Oct. 11, 2009

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty right on Obama's health care record

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 6, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: Pawlenty fact check, PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_05_08_poligraphcravaackpawlenty_20110508_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/05/08/poligraphcravaackpawlenty_20110508_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

During the first Republican presidential debate of the 2012 campaign, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty reminded viewers that President Barack Obama was against a requirement that everyone buy health insurance before he was for it.

Just a few years ago, Obama "promised the nation he would do health care reform focused on cost containment, he opposed the individual mandate," Pawlenty said on
May 5, 2011.

Pawlenty got this one right.

The Evidence

While campaigning for the White House, then-Sen. Barack Obama wanted everyone in the country to have health care - he just didn't want to require people to buy it.

In fact, Obama and former Sen. Hillary Clinton frequently traded barbs over the issue: Clinton highlighted the so-called individual mandate in her plan, claiming her strategy would cover more Americans than Obama's would. Obama would counter that not everyone could afford health insurance.

"If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house," he told CNN in 2008. "The reason they don't have a house is because they don't have the money."

In 2009, just as debate over the health care bill was starting to heat up, a CBS News interviewer asked Obama, "Do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?"

"I have come to that conclusion," Obama responded. "During the campaign I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it."

Ultimately, the individual mandate became a focal point in the health care debate. The final law requires that everyone have health insurance by 2014. Those who don't will pay a fine.

The Verdict

It's true that Obama once opposed the individual mandate. Pawlenty's claim is accurate.

SOURCES

Fox News, Republican Presidential Debate, May 5, 2011

PolitiFact.com, Obama flip-flops on requiring people to buy health care, by Angie Drobnic Holan, July 20, 2009

FactCheck.org, They've Got You Covered?, by Lori Robertson and Jess Henig, February 14, 2008

CBS News, The Future of Health Care Reform, July 15, 2009

The New York Times, transcript of the Democratic debate in South Carolina, Jan. 21, 2008

The Cato Institute, Obama Flip-Flops on the Individual Mandate (Again), by Michael Cannon, July 19, 2010

The Kaiser Family Foundation, Summary of Coverage Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, April 14, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

PoliGraph: Cravaack's Medicare claim omits key details

Posted at 2:00 PM on May 4, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, U.S. House

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_05_08_poligraphcravaackpawlenty_20110508_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/05/08/poligraphcravaackpawlenty_20110508_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal includes a big change to Medicare. Most notably, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee aims to convert the program into a system that offers what he calls "premium support," which his detractors call vouchers. Among those defending Ryan's proposal is Rep. Chip Cravaack of Minnesota.

"The [new Medicare] benefits being proposed is what I receive in Congress right now," Cravaack assured listeners of April 14, 2011, Midmorning broadcast.

On the surface, there are similarities between the two plans. Look deeper, and the differences are stark.

The Evidence

Currently, the government pays doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients, though some beneficiaries also pay premiums and other costs.

The Ryan plan would change all that for those who are younger than 55. Starting in 2022, the government would provide beneficiaries with a payment, which they would use to buy insurance that meets standards set out by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), a branch of government that also sets standards for federal employee coverage. Just as federal employees do, Medicare beneficiaries would be able to choose a private plan from an array of choices.

That's where similarities between the plans end.

The federal employee plan isn't much different from private sector employee-sponsored coverage: the federal government - or the "employer" - pays roughly 75 percent of premium costs, and federal employees pick up the remainder.

That ratio is commonly called the "Fair Share" formula because even if health care costs rise, the federal government is required by law to pick up the bulk of the tab.
Ryan proposes to link Medicare payments to the consumer price index, which has lagged behind increases in the cost of medical care. Over time, the payments Ryan is proposing would buy less coverage as a result, potentially making it difficult to purchase plans similar to those enjoyed by federal employees.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under the Ryan plan, by 2030, the average 65-year-old beneficiary would be paying 68 percent of his or her benefits compared to 25 percent under current law.

It's also worth pointing out that no detail has been given on how OPM would structure these plans and what sort of benefits insurance providers would be required to include. So, it's impossible to say whether Medicare coverage would be like coverage Cravaack gets.

The Verdict

There's a nugget of truth in Cravaack's claim: the Republican plan envisions that Medicare and federal employee benefits would have to meet standards set by the same branch of government, and that both groups would get to choose from an array of private plans.

But Cravaack's statement that the GOP Medicare proposal is "what I receive in Congress right now" is misleading to the point of being false because the government is guaranteed to cover 75 percent of his premium costs, regardless of how expensive health care gets. That's not the case for the new Medicare plan proposed by the GOP; in fact, it is likely beneficiaries will end up paying far more than they do now.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, Midmorning, April 14, 2011

The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise, accessed May 3, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Paul Ryan regarding proposed changes to Medicare and Medicaid, April 5, 2011

The New York Times, Comparing Ryan's Medicare Plan to What Congress Gets, by Uwe E. Reinhardt, April 18, 2011

The Congressional Research Services, Health Benefits for Members of Congress, by Barbara English, Sept. 25, 2007

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Handbook, accessed May 3, 2011

The Commonwealth Fund, Stark Choices: The Health Care Budget Proposals from the President and the House of Representatives, April 29, 2011, by Karen Davis

PolitiFact.com, Mike Pence said the Republican Medicare proposal will allow seniors to buy the same kind of health care as Congress, by Angie Drobnic Holan, April 13, 2011

The Washington Post, Fact Checker: GOP Medicare plan 'just like' Congress's coverage?, by Glenn Kessler, April 30, 2011

Interview, Shawn Ryan, spokesman, Rep. Chip Cravaack, May 2, 2011

Interview, Jack Hoadley, Georgetown University Health Policy Institute, May 3, 2011

Interview, Stuart Guterman, Vice President for Payment and System Reform, the Commonwealth Fund, May 3, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Rybak is right on taxes

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 29, 2011 by Catharine Richert (6 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_29_atc_poligraph_20110429_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/29/atc_poligraph_20110429_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Before former Gov. Tim Pawlenty arrived in Boston, Mass., a few weeks ago to speak at a tea party rally, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak gave his take on the former governor's record.

"The facts are this: Under Tim Pawlenty, the average tax rates went up for the bottom 90 percent... of Minnesotans. The richest 10 percent had their average taxes go down," Rybak said during an April 14, 2010, conference call with Boston reporters. "So if the Tea Party wants to represent the top 10 percent of the country and raise 90 percent of the people's taxes, they'll love Tim Pawlenty."

There's truth to Rybak's claim, but he leaves out an important detail.

The Evidence

Rybak is talking about the effective tax rate, which is the ratio of taxes to income.
Generally speaking, he's correct. Between 2002, the year before Pawlenty took office, and 2008, the wealthiest Minnesotans - the top 10 percent - saw their effective state and local sales tax rate decline slightly. Meanwhile, lower earners generally saw their rates increase slightly.

And Pawlenty's policies played a role in that shift. For example, he supported cuts to Local Government Aid, which prompted some local governments to raise property taxes for many Minnesotans. That increase largely hit middle-and-lower income earners, according to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. A new cigarette fee backed by Pawlenty also changed effective tax rates.

But something else happened during Pawlenty's time in office: The richest Minnesotans got richer, in part due to unusually high capital gains income. So, while taxes may have increased for everyone in the state, in terms of percent of income, those changes were less dramatic for the state's wealthiest.

The Verdict

Rybak is correct that effective tax rates went up a bit for lower earners, and down slightly for higher earners. These changes have to do with how much money Minnesota's wealthiest made during Pawlenty's tenure, but they were also affected by changes in tax policy.

Though Rybak didn't provide all the details in his conference call, his claim is close enough to be accurate.

SOURCES

Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2011 Tax Incidence Study, March 2011

Interview, John Stiles, spokesman, R.T. Rybak, April 28, 2011

Interview, Aaron Twait, Research Director, Minnesota Taxpayers Association, April 28, 2011

Interview, Paul Wilson, Director of Tax Research, Minnesota Department of Revenue, April 29, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Klobuchar energy claim wrong

Posted at 3:00 PM on April 27, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_29_atc_poligraph_20110429_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/29/atc_poligraph_20110429_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Recently, DFL Sen. Amy Klobuchar teamed up with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Gov. Mark Dayton to talk about alternative fuels.

"We are making almost as much biofuels now as we import oil from Canada," Klobuchar said during an April 20, 2011 news conference.

Klobuchar got this one wrong. The United States imports a lot more oil than the biofuel it produces.

The Evidence

The most recent annual data on oil imports and ethanol production is from 2010. According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S. companies produced a daily average of 883,000 barrels of ethanol and biodiesel combined. Meanwhile, the nation imported an average of 1.88 million barrels of oil from Canada.

So, Canadian oil imports are almost twice the amount of biofuel we produce.

Klobuchar based her calculation on the actual gasoline produced from oil imported from Canada, says spokesman Linden Zakula. Generally speaking, a 42 gallon barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline. "In the future she looks forward to using the more exact term," Zakula said.

Among other sources, Klobuchar's staff points to a report put together by Growth Energy, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents ethanol producers, which shows that in 2009, the U.S. made about 750,000 barrels of ethanol daily and imported a little over 1 million barrels of gasoline from Canada.

But even then, energy experts point out that a gallon of ethanol doesn't contain as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. They say comparisons among fuels are more accurate when they're based on energy content.

The Verdict

Klobuchar said that we make nearly as much biofuel as we import oil from Canada. In fact, the U.S. imports about twice as much Canadian oil as domestically produced alternatives.

Her claim is false.

SOURCES

YouTube, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on biofuels, April 20, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio News, USDA chief discusses renewable energy in Minn., by Tom Scheck, April 20, 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Fuel Ethanol Overview, March 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Biodiesel Overview, March 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Monthly U.S. Net Imports from Canada of Crude Oil (Thousands of Barrels per Day), accessed April 27, 2011

The Energy Information Administration, Biofuels in the U.S. Transportation Sector, February 2007

The Energy Information Administration, Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries, March 30, 2011

Growth Energy, Ethanol: America's Growth Energy, accessed April 26, 2011

U.S. Department of Energy, Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) Definition, accessed April 26, 2011

Interview, Linden Zakula, spokesman, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, April 26, 2011

Interview, Chris Thorne, spokesman, Growth Energy, April 26, 2011

Interview, Steven G. Grape, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil, Gas, and Coal Supply Statistics, April 26, 2011

Interview, Elizabeth Wilson, Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy and Law at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, April 26, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

Poligraph: Pawlenty tells part of the story on teacher pay

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 22, 2011 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: Pawlenty fact check, PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_22_atc_poligraph_20110422_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/22/atc_poligraph_20110422_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

On the campaign trail, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty likes to tout Q Comp, a program that pays teachers more when their students perform well.

"We were the first state to go statewide in the country to have performance pay for teachers to pay them other than just on seniority but on performance," Pawlenty said in a speech in Iowa last month.

Pawlenty's claim needs a lot of context.

The Evidence

Q Comp is a voluntary program that the state approved in 2005. Any school district in the state can apply, but must meet five criteria to be accepted. Among those requirements are regular teacher evaluations, teacher skill development, and school and classroom-wide performance standards; there's a lot of flexibility in what standards or goals schools choose.

To get paid more, teachers must meet those standards.

Minnesota wasn't the first to adopt a plan that pays teachers based on performance as Pawlenty said, though it's fair to say that the state has been among the earlier adopters.

According to Vanderbilt University's National Center on Performance Incentives, which keeps a database of all current federal, state and local programs, Arizona launched a statewide form of merit pay in the 1980s that allowed teachers to advance in salary if they gained new teaching skills and their students did better in class. No new funding has been approved since the mid-90s, but the program still serves a handful of Arizona school districts that enrolled early on. In 2000, the state approved an education sales tax to fund district pay-for-performance plans.

Meanwhile, North Carolina has been giving high-performing teachers annual bonuses since 1996 as part of a statewide program to improve school performance, though funding for those bonuses has been frozen for the last three years.

Pawlenty also said that the program is statewide. It's a phrase Pawlenty uses to distinguish Q Comp from regional or local programs in other states, said his spokesman Alex Conant. While it's true the program is available across the state, it's important to point out that only 50 school districts - or about 15 percent of the state's 339 districts - are participating in the 2010-2011 school year. Roughly 40 percent of the state's charter schools are involved.

The Verdict

Pawlenty walks a fine-line with this claim. Minnesota wasn't the very first state to adopt a statewide merit pay program, but it was one of the earlier adopters. Furthermore, Pawlenty's distinction that the program is statewide can be confusing to those listening to his speeches. It's available statewide, but only a fraction of schools are enrolled.

For both those reasons, Pawlenty's claim is misleading.

SOURCES

Tim Pawlenty's speech at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, March 7, 2011

Minnesota Department of Education, Quality Compensation for Teachers (Q Comp), accessed April 21, 2011

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 122A.414 Alternative Teacher Pay, accessed April 21, 2011

Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, Q Comp: Quality Compensation for Teachers, Feb. 2009

The Minnesota Secretary of State, School Districts in Minnesota, accessed April 21, 2011

The ABCs of Public Education: 2009-10 Growth and Performance of North Carolina Public Schools Executive Summary, October 14, 2010

National Center on Performance Incentives, State-By-State Resources, accessed April 21, 2011

National Center on Performance Incentives, Arizona State Incentives, accessed April 21, 2011

Education Commission of the States, Pay for Performance Proposals in Race to the Top Round II Applications, By Stephanie Rose, July 20, 2010

Education Commission of the States, Classroom Site Fund (CSF), accessed April 21, 2011

Arizona Department of Education, Career Ladder, accessed April 21, 2011

Education Commission of the States, Teaching Quality--Compensation and Diversified Pay--Pay-for-Performance, accessed April 21, 2011

Interview, Steve Dibb, Acting Director, Q Comp, Minnesota Department of Education

Interview, Student Performance Improvement Program Coordinator, Independent School District 15-St. Francis, April 21, 2011

Interview, Susan Burns, program manager, National Center on Performance Incentives, April 21, 2011

Interview, Kathy Christie, Chief of Staff, Education Commission of the States, April 21, 2011

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: lawmaker's spending claim ignores key information

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 20, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_22_atc_poligraph_20110422_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/22/atc_poligraph_20110422_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

During a recent House Tax Committee hearing, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, made an oft-repeated claim about Gov. Mark Dayton's budget.

"The governor's proposal expands state government," he said on April 13, 2011. "It expands state government 22 percent."

Gottwalt isn't telling the whole story of the state's finances.

The Evidence

In the current biennium, the state expected to spend about $30.2 billion from the general fund, the state's primary pot of money. Dayton says he wants to spend about $37.3 billion in the upcoming biennium.

That's about a 23.5 percent increase in spending. So, on one hand, Gottwalt's claim is within range.

However, Gottwalt sidesteps two important facts: In the current biennium, Minnesota received $2.3 billion in federal stimulus money to stabilize the state's budget and help pay for Medicaid. And to balance the budget, the state agreed to put off paying schools an additional $1.9 billion. Despite the delay, the state has told schools to continue spending normally by tapping reserves or using credit.

According to the Minnesota House Fiscal Staff, those actions allowed the state to pay for about $4.2 billion more than the general fund would support in the current biennium, essentially bringing general fund spending to $34.4 billion.

Factor in federal dollars and the school payment shifts, and Dayton is proposing only an 8.4 percent spending increase.

The Verdict

In the current biennium, it looks like the state will spend about $30.2 billion. But that number is artificially low because of one-time federal stimulus dollars and a school payment shift.

As a result, Gottwalt's claim is misleading.

SOURCES

Minnesota House Fiscal Staff, General Fund Spending Increase: FY 2010-11 to FY 2010-13, March 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Gov. Mark Dayton's FY 2012-13 Biennial Budget, Feb. 12, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, General Fund: Fund Balance Analysis, Governor's Revised Recommendations, March 16, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, February 2011 Budget Forecast, accessed April 19, 2011

Interview, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, April 19, 2011

Interview, Bill Marx, Chief Fiscal Analysis, Minnesota House of Representatives, April 19, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

PoliGraph: Peterson overreaches in budget claim

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 15, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, U.S. House

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_18_atc_poligraph_20110418_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/18/atc_poligraph_20110418_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson says the House Agriculture Committee is taking a disproportionate hit under GOP Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan.

"Overall, we're talking about a 25 percent cut for [the Agriculture Committee], and we're not seeing 25 percent cuts to other parts of the budget bill," the 7th District Democrat told the Fergus Falls Daily Journal on April 12, 2011.

The Agriculture Committee, which Peterson serves on, could see big budget cuts, but it isn't the only one.

The Evidence

The Ryan proposal outlines future spending for 16 House committees. Six of them, including Armed Services, which is slated to get $1.7 trillion over 10 years and Foreign Affairs, which is expected to get $242 billion over 10 years, would see no budget cuts.

The remaining 10 committees would see billions slashed from their allowances, including the Agriculture Committee. Under current law, Peterson's panel is expected to get about $760 billion over the next 10 years. If Ryan's budget is adopted, that figure would be reduced to about $585 billion - about a 25 percent reduction in the panel's budget authority.

Those cuts include a $30 billion reduction in farm subsidies and a $127 billion reduction in spending on food stamps.

But Peterson is incorrect when he implies that other committees aren't seeing 25 percent cuts. For instance, the Education and Workforce Committee will see a more than 250 percent cut in its budget authority. The Homeland Security Committee will see an 88 percent cut in its budget authority. And the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over health programs including Medicare, would see a 30 percent reduction in its pool of cash.

It's worth noting that the committees that would see the largest percentage cuts would produce the smallest savings. For instance, cutting the Homeland Security's budget will only save the government $16.6 billion compared to the $177 billion Ryan wants to pull from the farm committee's pockets.

Still, even when it comes to dollar amounts, the Agriculture Committee comes in a distant third compared to the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees, which would both see about $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade.

The Verdict

Peterson correctly points out that his committee would see a 25 percent reduction in spending if the Ryan budget is passed. That's a lot of money, but Peterson misleads people when he contends that other committees aren't in the same boat. In terms of percentages and dollar amounts, other panels would see bigger cuts.

SOURCES

The Fergus Falls Daily Journal, Peterson: Ag subsidy cuts excessive, by Tom Hintgen, April 12, 2011

The House of Representatives Budget Committee, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget - Fiscal Year 2012, accessed April 14, 2011

Congressional Research Service, Reductions in Mandatory Agriculture Spending, Jim
Monke and Megan Stubbs, May 19, 2010

Interview, Liz Friedlander, spokeswoman, House Agriculture Committee, April 14, 2011

Interview, Brian Riedl, The Heritage Foundation, April 14, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Ellison tax claim right

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 13, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_18_atc_poligraph_20110418_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/18/atc_poligraph_20110418_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

DFL U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison isn't too happy about a deal to keep the government funded through September.

In an April 11, 2011 interview on MPR News, Ellison said that the 11th-hour compromise relies too much on spending cuts and not enough on revenue.

"The problem is not that we need to cut, cut, cut, the problem is that we have two-thirds of all American corporations that don't pay any taxes," he said.

Ellison is on solid ground with his claim.

The Evidence

Ellison points to a 2008 Government Accountability Office report to support his claim. The study, which looked at corporate income taxes paid between 1998 and 2005, appears to be the most recent analysis of the issue.

According to the report, about 66 percent of all United States corporations didn't pay any income tax in 2005, the last year included in the study. That percentage didn't change much between 1998 and 2004. It's important to point out that only 3 percent of all the firms reported no income taxes in every year examined in the study.

There are plenty of reasons why a business doesn't report corporate income tax. For instance, some may have had an operating loss in previous years, and newer operations may not be making enough to be taxed.

The Verdict

Ellison is correct: based on the most recent data, roughly two-thirds of all U.S. corporations don't pay income taxes.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio News, Midmorning, April 11, 2011

The Government Accountability Office, Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, July 2008

Associated Press, Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax, Aug. 12, 2008

Tax Policy Center, Boring Report Prompts Sensational Claims on Corporate Tax Avoidance, by Eric Toder, Aug. 20, 2008

Interview, Micah Clemens, spokesman, Rep. Keith Ellison, April 11, 2011

Interview, James White, Government Accountability Office, April 12, 2011

Interview, Eric Toder, Urban Institute, April 12, 2011

Interview, Alan Viard, American Enterprise Institute, April 12, 2011

Interview, Chuck Marr, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, April 12, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Thissen correct - cuts will cost jobs

Posted at 2:00 PM on April 8, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_08_atc_poligraph_20110408_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/08/atc_poligraph_20110408_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Minnesota House Minority Leader Paul Thissen says Republican budget plans put jobs at risk.

"Last week, the House Higher Ed budget put 1,200 employees at Minnesota's colleges and universities on notice" he wrote in an April 5, 2010, press release. "The tax bill will slash another 1,700 jobs in counties and cities across Minnesota... With [the state government jobs] bill, the Republican Majority not only hands out an additional 754 pink slips, but also slashes support for private sector job creation."

Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, is right that cutting government spending would cost jobs, but his numbers are hard to pin down.

The Evidence

The House version of higher education funding bill would cut about 17.7 percent from the University of Minnesota's budget and mandate a tuition cap of up to 5 percent. That could mean the loss of 600 to 700 jobs, said Richard Pfutzenreuter who is the Treasurer for the University of Minnesota.

But he points out that those numbers include employees who will retire early and jobs that will remain vacant. Only a fraction will be layoffs, he said. Further, it's unlikely the university would balance its budget only by cutting jobs, he said. Rather, it will be a mix of trims.

Meanwhile, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) budget would be cut nearly 16 percent. As a result, the system is looking at either 554 staff reductions or 490 faculty reductions, including retirements and unfilled positions. That's about 3 percent of the system's 19,300 person workforce, according to spokeswoman Melinda Voss.

All told, that's about 1,200 jobs. But Thissen's figure is on the high end because it's unlikely all cuts would come from layoffs. And those figures include retirements and unfilled positions as well.

Thissen points to an estimate from Gov. Mark Dayton's office to support the second part of this claim that the House tax bill will result in 1,700 job losses. The bill cuts state aid to communities, which must be made up through property tax increases or by cutting spending and jobs.

Finally, Thissen underestimates the number of jobs lost as the result of the state government funding bill. That legislation requires a 15 percent across the board cut of all state executive branch employees by 2015, which translates to about 4,900 jobs - not 754 jobs as he states. Those jobs can be cut through layoffs, retirements or hiring freezes.

The Verdict

Thissen's numbers are based on fact, but he leaves out some important points. For instance, he doesn't mention that it's unlikely that the University of Minnesota will cut only jobs to save money, nor does he point out that employment reductions would be made through retirements and hiring freezes, not just layoffs. And his claim on the tax bill relies on just one source--Gov. Mark Dayton.

Given all these caveats, it was a tough call. But overall, Thissen is correct that the spending bills being debated in the House would likely mean government job losses throughout the state.

SOURCES

Rep. Paul Thissen, Laying Waste to the Job Creation Foundation: Statement from Minority Leader Paul Thissen on House Pink Slip Bill, April 5, 2011

Minnesota House of Representatives, Summary: Higher Education Omnibus Appropriations, March 30, 2011

Facts about the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, accessed April 7, 2011

Legislative Testimony by President Robert H. Bruininks, Minnesota House Higher Education Committee, Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011

On Campus, Why do college officials use dire but impossible budget scenarios, By Alex Friedrich, February 25, 2011

Minnesota House of Representatives, State Government Finance Omnibus Bill, accessed April 7, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Workforce Report 2010, accessed April 7, 2011

Minnesota House of Representatives, Tax Omnibus Bill, accessed April 7, 2011

Interview, Carrie Lucking, spokeswoman, Rep. Paul Thissen, April 7, 2011

Interview, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Treasurer, University of Minnesota Board of Regents, April 7, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann shutdown claim on point

Posted at 1:00 PM on April 6, 2011 by Catharine Richert (8 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, Michele Bachmann, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_08_atc_poligraph_20110408_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/08/atc_poligraph_20110408_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Congress has until the end of the week to broker a deal to fund the government through September. If they don't, some lawmakers warn that governmental activities will come to a halt.

But U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann says that a government shutdown is "actually a slowdown."

"About one-fourth of the federal workforce would be furloughed. Three-fourths of the federal workforce would stay in place, Social Security checks would continue to go out, the military would continue to be paid, and all essential services" would remain active, said Bachmann she said during a March 31, 2010 interview with reporters.

Bachmann's claim is correct.

The Evidence

Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse over how much to cut spending. If Congress fails to approve funding this week, the government is legally required to shutdown.

But that doesn't mean Washington will go dark.

President Barack Obama and members of Congress would stay. And a White House official confirmed that military personnel would be retained and continue to earn money, but they wouldn't be paid until funding is approved. Jobs that protect life or property, such as law enforcement officials, would also be exempted.

The White House also confirmed that roughly 800,000 workers would be furloughed. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government employs roughly 2.8 million civilians, so that means roughly 28 percent would be temporarily out of work. Bachmann's estimate is in range.

Social Security checks will continue to go out, so on that point, Bachmann is also correct.

But approval of Small Business Administration loans would be put on hold, national parks and museums would be closed, and at the height of tax season, the Internal Revenue Service will stop processing paper returns.

The Verdict

Bachmann is correct that a shutdown is more like a slowdown.

SOURCES

Rep. Michele Bachmann, speaking with reporters on March 31, 2011

Congressional Research Service, Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects, Clinton T. Brass, Feb. 18, 2011

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1; Section 9, accessed April 4, 2011

The Office of Management and Budget, Sec. 124 - Agency Operations in the Absence of Appropriations, accessed April 4, 2011

The House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Government Shutdown I: What's Essential, Dec. 6 and 14, 1995

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, number of federal employees 1995-1996, accessed April 4, 2011

The Social Security Administration, History of the SSA 1993-2000, accessed April 4, 2011

Reuters, Factbox: What happens in a U.S. government shutdown?, Feb. 28, 2011

The Christian Science Monitor, If a government shutdown occurs, what actually happens?, by Gail Russell Chaddock, Feb. 23, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty climate claim right, with caveats

Posted at 1:55 PM on April 1, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: Pawlenty fact check, PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_01_atc_poligraph_20110401_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/01/atc_poligraph_20110401_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Once upon a time, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty supported a cap-and-trade plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Cap-and-trade sets an overall limit on pollution and lets businesses bid for the right to continue emissions.

Now, Pawlenty says his support for cap-and-trade was "a mistake." But he's also pointed out that he's not the only potential Republican candidate who has a mixed record on the issue.

"Everybody in the race - at least the big names in the race - embraced climate change or cap-and-trade at one point or another," he said on the March 28, 2011, episode of the Laura Ingraham radio show. "Every one of us."

Not every GOP hopeful has tried to tackle climate change, but many of them did.

The Evidence

Pawlenty's spokesman did not respond to questions about who the "big names in the race" are, but it's clear that a number of Republicans who are frequently mentioned as potential candidates have changed their position on climate change.

• Sarah Palin: As governor of Alaska, Palin formed a subcabinet to tackle climate change, and she became involved in the Western Climate Initiative, a group with the goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. She also supported capping emissions as Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election. But just months after McCain lost, she wrote in an op-ed that President Barack Obama's cap-and-trade plan was a "threat to our economy."

• Newt Gingrich: In 2007, the former House Speaker said that "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system" is something he would "strongly support," and in 2008, he made an ad with Rep. Nancy Pelosi saying that the country, "must take action to address climate change." Since then, Gingrich has blasted legislation to cap emissions.

• Mitt Romney: As Massachusetts governor, Romney first supported a regional plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but ultimately backed-off because he feared it would be too expensive for consumers. More recently, he's said that cap-and-trade would have a "devastating impact" on the economy.

• Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor has also sent mixed messages about his stance on climate change.

Still, there are three potential candidates in the field who have not changed their position on climate change.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has been a leading GOP advocate for climate action, setting a goal to bring Utah's emissions down to 2005 levels by 2020. So far, it appears he's not wavered on the issue.

Meanwhile, it appears former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who once lobbied for energy companies, and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann have never flirted with the idea of supporting cap-and-trade.

The Verdict

Minus Barbour and Bachmann, Pawlenty is right that most potential GOP candidates have "embraced climate change or cap-and-trade at one point or another."

Pawlenty isn't precise on this one, and it's also tough to say just who is and who isn't a big name in the race right now. He's close enough that his claim passes the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

YouTube, The Laura Ingraham Show, March 28, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio, Pawlenty, Doyle and other Midwest governors sign on to global warming pact, by Stephanie Hemphill, Nov. 15, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio, Pawlenty's current climate change stance differs from past , by Tom Scheck, Sept. 23, 2009

PolitiFact.com, Palin flips on her support of cap-and-trade, by Catharine Richert, July 20, 2009

The Washington Post, The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End , by Gov. Sarah Palin, July 14, 2009

Time.com, On Global Warming, No Clear Skies For Most 2012 GOP Contenders, by Michael Scherer, March 24, 2011

YouTube, Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich Commercial on Climate Change, accessed March 31, 2011

Frontline, Interview with Newt Gingrich, February 15, 2007

Atlanta Journal Constitution, Newt Gingrich: Cap-and-trade is 'an energy tax' and a job-killer, by Jim Galloway, April 24, 2009

ABC News, Gingrich Rips Obama Budget's 'Energy Tax'; OMB Says Higher Costs Offset by Tax Credit, by Teddy Davis, February 27, 2009

YouTube, Mitt Romney on Cap and Trade, October 7, 2009

Grist, Is Jon Huntsman the greenest GOP presidential hopeful?, by Lisa Hymas, February 2, 2011

The Associated Press, The 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates' positions on the issues, by Calvin Woodward, Dec. 18, 2007

The Boston Herald, Romney OK with plan on emissions, July 24, 2003

The Star Tribune, Michele Bachmann: 'Cap and trade'? More like 'tax and spend', by Rep. Michele Bachmann, June 9, 2008

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann's health care claim tough to verify

Posted at 2:00 PM on March 30, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, Michele Bachmann, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_04_01_atc_poligraph_20110401_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/04/01/atc_poligraph_20110401_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

As Rep. Michele Bachmann tours the country testing the waters for a potential presidential run, she'll be talking a lot about Congress's recent health care overhaul.

In a March 23, 2010 speech in Iowa, Bachmann said that most Americans want to overturn the law.

"From the day it passed one year ago until today, there hasn't been one week that a majority of Americans haven't said 'kill that bill,'" she said.

Bachmann's claim is hard to substantiate, in part because she uses only one poll to back it up.

The Evidence

Bachmann spokesman Andy Parrish points to a Rasmussen Reports poll that's been taken regularly since Congress passed the health care overhaul in March 2010. (As far as PoliGraph can tell, this is the only poll that's asked the question weekly for the past year).
According to that data, a majority of likely voters said they would support repealing the new law. The most recent numbers show that 58 percent of those polled strongly favor or somewhat favor getting rid of the bill.

But that's just one poll. In fact, the numbers are all over the map.

For instance:

• A Kaiser Family Foundation poll done earlier this year found that 39 percent of participants supported Congress replacing the health care law with a Republican alternative or axing it all together.

• A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 45 percent would support eliminating the law and 46 percent would support keeping the law.

• A January 2011 CNN poll found that 50 percent of voters would support repealing all provisions of the law compared to 42 percent who would support keeping the law intact.

• And a New York Times/CBS poll conducted three times in the last six months shows that less than 50 percent of respondents would support repealing the health care overhaul.

Some of these polls show that voters only want parts of the law overturned, not all of it.

The Verdict

Bachmann's correct that there's solid support for repealing some or all the health care bill. What's unclear is whether the majority of Americans do, or if they have every week for the last year. One poll supports this claim, others don't.

As a result, Bachmann's claim is Inconclusive.

SOURCES

Michele Bachmann, Facebook profile, speech, March 23, 2011

Rasmussen Reports, Health Care Law: 58% Now Favor Health Care Repeal, March 28, 2011

Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll: February 2011, accessed March 29, 2011

The New York Times, CBS poll, January 15-19, 2011, accessed March 29, 2011

CNN Opinion Research: January 14-16, 2011, accessed March 29, 2011

NBC/Wall Street Journal Survey, January 13-17, 2011, accessed March 29, 2011

Pollster.com, Health care plan: Favor/Oppose, accessed March 29, 2011

The Washington Post, Is support for repeal vastly overstated?, By Greg Sargent, Jan. 21, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

PoliGraph: Rybak gets tax numbers right

Posted at 1:46 PM on March 25, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_03_25_poligraphrybak_20110325_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/03/25/poligraphrybak_20110325_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Republican legislators are targeting local government aid as they attempt to erase the state's $5 billion deficit.

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak defended the program on his blog, arguing against the contention that state aid is a handout.

"Minneapolis helps keep the state afloat," Rybak wrote. "This year alone, we will send $367.5 million more to the state in sales and property taxes than the state has promised us back in LGA."

Rybak's numbers are on point.

The Evidence

LGA is given to Minnesota communities that would have a hard time paying for services with property taxes alone. Both the House and Senate are debating bills that would cut LGA; the House bill would phase out aid for Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth.

Rybak lays out a lot of reasons why he thinks cutting LGA is a bad idea, pointing out that Minneapolis puts more in the state coffers than it takes out in state aid.

He's correct.

City budgeters estimate that the state will collect roughly $380 million in sales taxes and roughly $75 million in commercial property taxes from Minneapolis.

Minus the $87.5 million in LGA Minneapolis is slated to get in 2011, the city is expected to provide the state with $367.5 million this year.

The Verdict

For his first PoliGraph test, Rybak earns an Accurate.

SOURCES

The Mayor's Blog, Urgent: Need your help today to hold the line on property taxes, by Mayor R.T. Rybak, March 18, 2011

Minnesota State Legislature, House Research: The City LGA Program, by Pat Dalton, January 2009

Minnesota Public Radio News, Senate GOP bill slashes local government aid, by Tim Pugmire, March 23, 2011

The City of Minneapolis, 2011 Budget, accessed March 23, 2011

The Minnesota Department of Revenue, Minnesota Sales and Use Tax: Instruction Booklet, accessed March 23, 2011

Interview, John Stiles, spokesman, Mayor R.T. Rybak, March 22, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Franken's oil tax claims in the ballpark

Posted at 2:00 PM on March 23, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, U.S. Senate

To slash the deficit, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., need to go after the big bucks, says Sen. Al Franken.

Case in point: tax breaks for oil and gas companies.

"Over the past decade, the five largest oil and gas companies have made $1 trillion in profit," Franken said during a March 9, 2011, floor speech after the Senate rejected a bill to cut spending. "Yet they are benefiting from tax subsidies that have been in place since as far back as 1916. Eliminating these wasteful subsidies will bring in about $64 billion over 10 years."

Franken's savings estimate is off by billions, but his underlying point is on target.

The Evidence

In inflation adjusted dollars, it's true that the largest oil and gas companies operating in the United States made about $893 billion over the last decade. Franken said $1 trillion, but he's still in the ballpark.

It's also true that oil and gas companies benefit from a slate of tax breaks and subsidies meant to spur investment and production, some of which have been in place for many decades. If they were all eliminated, it would save the government roughly $46 billion over 10 years, according to the Office of Management and Budget. An additional $10 billion could be saved by axing a foreign tax credit that largely benefits oil and gas companies, a perk that Franken also advocates eliminating.

Still, Franken's saving estimate is high because he's also counting the nonconventional fuels credit, a tax break that's no longer available to the vast majority of oil and gas producers. Franken's office estimated it would $20 billion over 10 years; in reality, it will only cost $100 million through 2014.

The Verdict

Franken's numbers are off by 12 percent, but he is essentially correct. Eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies would save billions.

It's a close call given the bad math, but Franken's claim passes the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

Sen. Al Franken, floor speech, March 9, 2011

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, accessed March 21, 2011

The Center for American Progress, Eliminating Tax Subsidies for Oil Companies, by Sima J. Gandhi, May 13, 2010

The Center for American Progress, Big Oil's Lust for Tax Loopholes: Oil Prices and Profits Rise While Big Oil Defends Its Tax Loopholes, by Daniel J. Weiss, January 31, 2011

The Environmental Law Institute, Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies
to Energy Sources: 2002-2008, September 2009

The Congressional Research Service, Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies:
Current Status and Analysis, February 27, 2007

The U.S. Treasury Department, General Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue Proposals, February 2011

The Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates Of Federal Tax Expenditures For Fiscal Years 2010-2014, December 2010

Interview, Ed Shelleby, press secretary, Sen. Al Franken, March 14, 2011

Interview, Daniel Weiss, senior fellow, Director of Climate Strategy, The Center for American Progress, March 14, 2011

Interview, Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform, Doing What Works program, March 18, 2011

Interview, Lisa Goldman, senior attorney, Environmental Law Institute, March 21, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: lawmaker gets tax claim wrong

Posted at 2:30 PM on March 11, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

On the floor of the Minnesota Senate, Tax Committee Chair Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, made this prediction about Gov. Mark Dayton's income tax plan:

"The Senate fiscal staff has prepared an analysis, Madam President," Ortman said on March 3, 2011. "It's dated 2/24/11, and it shows that Gov. Dayton's proposal would actually impose that 10.95 percent on all income earners in the state of Minnesota within 15 years, because the governor doesn't index the top bracket."

Ortman's claim that all Minnesotans would pay higher taxes because Dayton's plan does not account for inflation is an exaggeration.

The Evidence

Ortman is talking about is "bracket creep" - the movement of taxpayers into higher brackets when their income increases due to inflation.

As Dayton's plan stands, the new tier would not be indexed for inflation, unlike Minnesota's current brackets. That means more people would end up paying the higher rate over time.

But the Senate fiscal report Ortman refers to does not support the claim that all Minnesota taxpayers would be affected by the 10.95 percent rate within 15 years. In fact, it doesn't even project that far. For all taxpayers to be captured by the new rate within the next 15 years would require an explosion in wages or a significant increase in inflation, say tax experts.

"The point is that everybody is going to be affected by this," Ortman said of her claim. "Yes, it's theoretical, but it's there."

The Verdict

It is highly unlikely all Minnesota taxpayers will be paying Dayton's proposed top rate in 15 years.

Ortman's claim does not pass the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

Senate Fiscal Report: Analysis of Gov. Dayton's 4th Tier Without Inflation Adjustment, Feb. 24, 2011

MPR News, FAQ: Making sense of Dayton's budget proposal, by Madeleine Baran, and
Elizabeth Dunbar, February 15, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Minnesota Biennial Budget: FY 2012-2013, accessed March 10, 2011

Supporting documents from Sen. Ortman, March 10, 2011

Interview, Sen. Julianne Ortman, Tax Committee Chair, March 3, 2011

Interview, Mark Haveman, Executive Director, Minnesota Taxpayers Association, March 10, 2011

Interview, Kit Borgman, spokeswoman, Minnesota Department of Revenue, March 9, 2011

Interview, John Spry, Associate Professor, University of St. Thomas, March 10, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann wrong on health law claim

Posted at 12:15 PM on March 9, 2011 by Catharine Richert (14 Comments)
Filed under: Bachmann fact check, Michele Bachmann, PoliGraph

Michele Bachmann has a bone to pick with the authors of the health care reform bill.

"There was a Congressional Research Service report that just was issued in February, and we discovered that secretly, unbeknownst to members of Congress, over $105 billion was hidden in the Obamacare legislation to fund the implementation of Obamacare," she said during her March 6, 2011 appearance on Meet the Press.

In a separate press release issued March 4, she said the funding was a "new $105 billion levy on American taxpayers."

Bachmann's figure of $105 billion is in the ballpark. But she's wrong to say the number was a secret.

The Evidence

Bachmann's office did not return PoliGraph's emails or phone calls for clarification on her statement, but it appears she's referring to a February, 2011, Congressional Research Service report that outlines appropriations and funding transfers in the health care overhaul.

According to that CRS report, the bill includes nearly $105 billion in spending through 2019 for new programs created by the health care bill, such as the health insurance exchanges, and existing programs, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program.

But to say that this funding was somehow hidden from lawmakers is false. Spending was clearly outlined in the legislation, and lawmakers had about three months to read the text before voting on it. Furthermore, many of these provisions, such as a temporary program for those who have pre-existing conditions, which will get $5 billion, and a plan to create health insurance co-ops, which will get $6 billion, got a lot of media attention throughout the health care debate.

Bachmann's separate claim that the $105 billion in spending is a "levy on American taxpayers" is false. While the health care bill is paid for partly with tax increases and partly with savings from programs like Medicare, Bachmann is referring to spending appropriations, not new taxes as her claim would imply. And at least $11.8 billion of that funding is simply being transferred from existing spending, such as Medicare Part A, to new programs.

The Verdict

Bachmann is correct to say that there is $105 billion in funding in the health care bill. But her claim makes it appear that this is news. It is not. And the appropriations she's referring to are not tax increases.

By cloaking the numbers in claims that the Obama administration is hiding the money, her claim goes beyond misleading to false.

SOURCES

Meet the Press, Sunday, March 6, 2011

Press Release, Bachmann Calls on President to Apologize, March 4, 2011

The Congressional Research Service, Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), by C. Stephen Redhead, October 14, 2010

The Congressional Research Service, Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), by C. Stephen Redhead, February 10, 2011 (Get link)

The House of Representatives, Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended through May 1, 2010, accessed March. 7, 2011

Thomas, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, accessed March 7, 2011

Thomas, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, accessed March 7, 2011

The Kaiser Family Foundation, Summary of the New Health Reform Law, March 26, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office, Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009-2010, December 2010

Reuters, FACTBOX-Major tax provisions in U.S. healthcare bill, March 22, 2010

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Dayton voting claim hard to back up

Posted at 2:21 PM on March 4, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: Mark Dayton, PoliGraph

During his recent rounds on radio and television, Gov. Mark Dayton has been touting the fact that neither he nor his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have a mandate to govern because no one got the majority of the vote.

"I was elected with 43 percent of the people who voted in the last election and the Republican majorities in the Senate and the House were elected with 41 percent and 40 percent respectively," he said during an interview on TPT's Almanac last month.

He repeated a similar claim Tuesday on MPR News' Midday.

Dayton's numbers don't hold up.

The Evidence

Of the nearly 2.1 million votes cast for governor in 2010, Dayton got roughly 919,000 votes - or about 43 percent. So he gets that percentage right.

About 2 million people voted for candidates for the Minnesota Senate. Of those votes, 49.72 were for a Republican; not a majority, but a lot closer than Dayton's claim.

Additionally, roughly 2 million people voted in Minnesota House races. Of those, 50.44 percent cast ballots for a Republican.

Dayton's staff responded, saying that he's talking about the percentage of voters who elected winning candidates - the votes that helped the GOP take both chambers.

By that measure, Dayton's contention would have been better served if he had the percentages right -- 35 percent went to winning GOP candidates in both chambers, not "41 percent and 40 percent respectively."

The Verdict

Dayton only considered the percentage of voters who cast ballots for winning candidates. His comparison fails to point out that far more people voted for Republican legislators in the 2010 election.

The governor's statement is misleading to the point that it earns a false on the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

MPR News' Midday, March 1, 2011

TPT, Almanac, Feb. 18, 2011

Minnesota Secretary of State, General Election Results for Governor, last updated Jan. 19, 2011, accessed March 3, 2011

Minnesota Secretary of State, Senate Race Results, accessed March 4, 2011

Minnesota Secretary of State, House Race Results, accessed March 4, 2011

Interview, Katie Tinucci, spokeswoman, Mark Dayton, March 3, 2011

Interview, Steven Schier, professor, Carleton College, March 4, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Seide claim on unions holds up

Posted at 4:00 PM on March 2, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph

As a battle over public employee bargaining rights rages in Wisconsin, Minnesota labor leaders are touting the positive effects of union membership.

For instance, Eliot Seide, Executive Director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, defended the benefits of unionization during an interview with MPR News last week:

"The 10 states where [unions are] most dense, the poverty rate is lower, health care is better, household income is higher, education spending per pupil is higher, and frankly the quality of life is better because trade unions in this country - public and private - have created the middle class and are essential to a democracy in this country."

Seide's facts are correct and comparisons are fair. But whether unions lead to a better quality of life is another story.

The Evidence

Seide is comparing states with the largest percentage of unionized workers, which include New York, Alaska and Washington, to states with the lowest percentage, which include South Dakota, Oklahoma and a handful of southern states.

According to Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data, Seide's comparisons are all correct. For instance, the average annual median income in states with robust unions is $56,412, while states with sparse unionization have an average median income of $43,816. Poverty rates in these states tend to be lower and more people have health care coverage.

Coincidence? Yes and no.

Labor academics and economists agree that it is misleading to imply that unions are responsible for creating a better quality of life, because there are many other factors that lead to higher income and lower poverty rates.

That said, labor experts also noted that unions have historically supported and backed politicians who support policies that lead, for instance, to higher education spending; public employee unions have long pushed for more education dollars because their members, namely public school teachers, benefit from such spending increases.

The Verdict

This is a tough claim to rate because of Seide's concluding assertion -- that unions are responsible for a better quality of life. It's simply an overstatement. Still, his facts are accurate and comparisons are correct. It's also accurate to say that unions have played a role in shaping public policy, including efforts to increase education spending and lower the poverty rate.

So with those important caveats, Seide's claim passes the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

Minnesota Public Radio, Midday, Feb. 25, 2011

The AFL-CIO, Right to Work for Less, accessed March 1, 2011

AFSCME, Minnesota Council 5, Why Unions?, accessed March 1, 2011

The AFL-CIO, Unions Raise Wages for All Worker, accessed March 1, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state, accessed Mar. 1, 2011

The U.S. Census Bureau, Income data, 2009, accessed March 1, 2011

The U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, Sept. 2010

The U.S. Census Bureau, Health Insurance Coverage Status by State for All People: 2009, accessed March 1, 2011

The U.S. Census Bureau, Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data, accessed March 1, 2011

The Washington Post, How Do Unions Affect State Spending and Taxation?, by Ezra Klein, Feb. 25, 2011

Interview, Jennifer Munt, spokesperson, AFSCME Council 5

Interview, Morris Kleiner, professor, The Humphrey School of Public Affairs, The
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, March 2, 2011

Interview, Alex Keyssar, professor, The Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, March 1, 2011

Interview, Daniel DiSalvo, professor, The City College of New York - CUNY, March 2, 2011

Interview, Richard Levins, professor emeritus, Department of Applied Economics, The University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, March 1, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Zellers exaggerates tax increase impact on businesses

Posted at 3:00 PM on February 25, 2011 by Catharine Richert (7 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, Mark Dayton, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_02_25_zellerspoligraph_20110225_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/02/25/zellerspoligraph_20110225_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

They claim Dayton's proposed $4 billion in new revenue will hurt small businesses, as House Speaker Kurt Zellers pointed out in a Feb. 18, 2011 email to constituents.

"These tax increases will fall disproportionately on job creators," Zellers wrote. "Approximately 92 percent of small businesses pay their taxes through the individual income tax."

Zellers is exaggerating the impact of Dayton's proposal.

The Evidence

Zellers' concern centers on Dayton's proposal to impose a 10.95 percent income tax rate on single filers making more than $85,000 in after tax income and couples making more than $150,000 in after tax income. Those making more than $500,000 in taxable income annually would see an additional 3 percent surtax, making Minnesota's top income tax rate 13.95 percent. GOP legislators, including Zellers, say these income tax hikes will hurt small businesses most.

There are several ways to measure the size of a small business. In some cases, the Small Business Administration (SBA) looks at a firm's annual receipts; in others, it focuses on the number of employees. Regardless, Zellers is correct that about 92 percent pay taxes through the individual return.

But the SBA definitions don't mean much when it comes to taxes because some large companies pay their taxes through the individual return, and some very small companies pay corporate taxes.

Instead, The Minnesota Department of Revenue examines how much money individuals report from a business enterprise on their personal income tax returns. These dollars come from sole proprietorships, S-corporations and partnerships, which tend to have fewer employees.

Each year, about 360,000 individuals - or about 16 percent of all tax returns - report some sort of flow-through income, according to revenue department. Of those, only about 40,000, or 11 percent, would be affected by Dayton's new tax plan - that is, people making more than $85,000 in after-tax income and couples making more than $150,000 in after-tax income.

Zellers is wrong that the impact of Dayton's proposal would hurt the vast majority of Minnesota's small businesses, as his claim implies.

The Verdict

The verdict on Zellers' claim is false. He correctly points out that 92 percent of "small" Minnesota firms pay taxes through the individual return. But from there, the facts to support his claim get murky. It is false that most small businesses would be hit by the new tax, as Zellers' claim implies; only 11 percent would feel the effect.

This claim fails the PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

The Small Business Administration, Minnesota: Small Business Profile, accessed Feb. 23, 2011

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Fiscal FAQ, accessed Feb. 24, 2011

The Minnesota Department of Revenue, Governor's Proposed Income Tax Changes and Flow-Through Businesses, accessed Feb. 24, 2011

The Minnesota Legislature, Taxation and Small Business in Minnesota, by Nina Manzi and Joel Michael, January 2011

Minnesota Public Radio, U of M economist on how state tax rates affect jobs, by Tom Crann, Feb. 16, 2011

The Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards
Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, accessed Feb. 23, 2011

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Employment Distribution by Size of Firm and Major Industry Division, accessed Feb. 24, 2011

Growth and Justice, An Analysis of a Proposal to Add a Fourth Tier to Minnesota's Individual Income Tax, By Marsha Blumenthal, Ph.D. and Charles Quimby, May 11, 2009

Interview, Jodi Boyne, spokeswoman, House Speaker Kurt Zellers, Feb. 24, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Dayton tax increase big, maybe not biggest

Posted at 2:00 PM on February 23, 2011 by Catharine Richert (2 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, Mark Dayton, PoliGraph

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_02_25_zellerspoligraph_20110225_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/02/25/zellerspoligraph_20110225_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

For instance, GOP House Majority Leader Matt Dean objects to the $4 billion in new taxes and surcharges contained in the bill. They represent "the largest tax increase in Minnesota's history," Dean said during a Feb. 15, 2011 press conference.

Largest in the state's history? Maybe.

The Evidence

In an attempt to reduce the state's deficit, Dayton's budget proposes tax increases and new fees amounting to $4.129 billion over the 2012-2013 budget period - roughly 11 percent of Dayton's overall two- year general fund budget.

This claim is tricky to sort out. First, the state doesn't have adequate tax data going back to Minnesota's earliest days, so it's difficult to say whether Dayton's plan would be the largest in Minnesota's history.

Still, there are some notable tax moments in Minnesota's recent history that serve as good benchmarks.

The "Minnesota Miracle": For many years, communities relied on local taxes to support their schools and services. But in the late 1960s, less affluent towns were having trouble raising enough money to adequately support education and services. In 1971, the Legislature approved a sweeping package of tax changes meant to equalize school and services funding across all Minnesota towns. Called the "Minnesota Miracle," it was estimated to generate $580 million over two years in new revenue - about $3 billion in today's dollars - and represented about 20 percent of the 1972-1973 $2.8 billion general fund.

Income Tax Surcharges: In the early 1980s, the state was facing major revenue shortfalls. In an attempt to make up for the loss, the legislature approved more than $1 billion in new taxes between 1981 and 1984. Today, those changes would be valued at more than $2 billion. But each tax change was relatively small. For instance, a 7 percent income tax surtax - later increased to 10 percent - raised roughly $230 million in new revenue between 1981 and 1983, or nearly $500 million today. It represented about 3 percent of the 1982-1983 $8.2 billion general fund.

The 2008 Transportation Taxes: In 2008, the Legislature overrode Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a massive transportation bill, which raised the gas tax by 5.5 cents per gallon and included other transportation fees. At the time, legislative researchers estimated the bill would raise roughly $6 billion over 10 years. Based on that projection, the taxes will add an average of $1 billion to the state's coffers every two years.

The Verdict

Dean's claim is Inconclusive because it's difficult to check it against every tax increase in the state's history. However, it appears that Dayton's revenue proposal is quite large compared to some of the state's recent tax increases. But as a percentage of the two-year general fund budget it would still be smaller than the "Minnesota Miracle."

SOURCES

The Uptake, GOP, DFL Leadership Reacts to Gov. Dayton's Budget, Feb. 15, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, FY 2012-2013 Biennial Budget, accessed Feb. 15, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Historical Expenditures: General Fund and All Funds, accessed Feb. 17, 2011

The Minnesota Historical Society, Public Education - The Minnesota Miracle, accessed Feb. 16, 2011

The William Mitchell Law Review, The Minnesota Disparities Act of 1971: The Twin Cities' Struggle and Blueprint for Regional Cooperation, by Myron Orfield and Nicholas Wallace, March 7, 2007

Minnesota History, The Minnesota Miracle: A Roundtable Discussion, Winter 2007-2008

Strong Towns, A Brief History of Minnesota's System of Local, Government Finance: 1960‐2010, accessed Feb. 15, 2011

Minnesota Legislature, Laws 2008, Chapter 152: Preliminary Resource Estimates (FY 2009 - FY 2018), accessed Feb. 16, 2011

Center for Educational Policy Studies, Chronology of Minnesota's Fiscal Crisis July 1, 1979 though Dec. 31, 1982, January 1983

Minnesota Legislature, Fiscal Review 1981-1981, January 1985, accessed Feb. 16, 2011

The Star Tribune, Editorial: Fact or fallacy: Legislators blur the line, March 1, 2008

Minnesota Public Radio, State's Gas Tax Goes Up Today, by Tom Weber, April 1, 2008

Interview, Mark Haveman, Executive Director, Minnesota Taxpayers Association, Feb. 17, 2011

Interview, Rep. Phil Krinkie, President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Feb. 15, 2011

Interview, Scott Russell, Policy Analyst, Minnesota Budget Project, Feb. 16, 2011

Interview, Joel Michael, House Legislative Researcher, Feb. 15, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Dayton's accuracy on job growth claim depends on data set

Posted at 3:30 PM on February 17, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: Mark Dayton, PoliGraph

During his State of the State speech, Gov. Mark Dayton made some troubling observations about Minnesota's economy, including this one:

"Our employment growth averaged in the bottom 10 among the 50 states during the past decade," he said on Feb. 9, 2010.

While the state's job growth in the last decade has been lackluster, Minnesota's rank is difficult to pinpoint.

The Evidence

Dayton's facts come from a report by Minnesota2020, a left-leaning think tank that argues the state is in poor economic health. According to the report, Minnesota's employment growth rate rank sank from 26th in 2002 to 46th in 2007, but was on the uptick again toward the end of the last decade.

PoliGraph crunched the numbers, too, and found that between 2000 and 2010, Minnesota's rank hovered around 30th place - not in the bottom 10.

It appears the Minnesota2020 report used employment data from the Local Area Unemployment branch of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which can include those who are self-employed and farm workers. PoliGraph used employment data based on the number of payroll jobs in the country from the Current Employment Statistics branch of the BLS, which likely accounts for the different rankings.

But regardless of where Minnesota ranks, the data underscore Dayton's overall point: The state's unemployment growth has been less than impressive over the last decade, lagging behind other states and the national average.

The state experienced above average population growth throughout the 1990s, and that translated to more jobs. But in 2001, the country fell into a recession. Minnesota's job growth stalled around that time, and it hasn't been able to bounce back since.

The reasons are a bit mysterious, according to state economists. In part, Minnesota's job growth deteriorated along with national declines in manufacturing. Other industries, including financial services and the airline business, have suffered, and slow housing and construction industries may also have played a role. And it may be that some employers have been more productive with a smaller workforce.

All that said, employment growth is just one of many factors used to gauge a state's economic health. Indeed, the state's unemployment rate has consistently remained below the national average, Minnesotans make more income per capita than many other states, and Minnesota's employment ratio - meaning the percent of working age people that do have a job - ranks among the top 10 in the nation.

The Verdict

PoliGraph ranks this claim Inconclusive because Minnesota's employment growth ranks differently depending on the way you measure it. That said, Dayton's overall point is correct: Minnesota job expansion in recent years has been modest at best compared to other states.

SOURCES

Minnesota2020, On Our Way to Average: Ranking Minnesota's Economic Performance, by Jeff Van Wychen, January, 2010

Employment Growth Rankings: 2000-2010, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Non-Farm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted, created Feb. 11, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Minnesota Economic Outlook, Nov. 2010

Minnesota Management and Budget, State Revenues on Forecast Since November, Jan. 2006

Minnesota Management and Budget, State Revenues on Forecast in February and March, April 1999

Management and Budget, November and December Revenues Less than Forecast, January 2001

Minnesota Management and Budget, Economic Outlook, Nov. 2008

The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Economic Challenges Facing the Upper Midwest, March 2004, accessed Feb. 12, 2011

Minnesota's Economics and Demographics: Looking 2030 and Beyond, by Tom Stinson and Tom Gillaspy, July 2008

Minnesota State Demographic Center, The Long Run Has Become the Short Run: Budget Implications of Demographic Change, Feb. 3, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Differences Between Data Series, accessed Feb. 16, 2011

Interview, Jeremy Drucker, spokesman, Gov. Mark Dayton, Feb. 9, 2011

Interview, Art Rolnick, former director of research, Minneapolis Federal Reserve; Senior Fellow, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Feb. 11, 2011

Interview, Tom Gillaspy, State Demographer, Feb. 14, 2011

Interview, Catherine Varner, Economist, Bureau of Labor Statistics

More

The Humphrey School

PoliGraph: Dayton gets jobs number claims right

Posted at 11:52 AM on February 10, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: Mark Dayton, PoliGraph

Minnesota's economy was the theme of Gov. Mark Dayton's first State of the State speech delivered Wednesday.

To help make his point, Dayton said that fewer people are working today than were working eight years ago.

"Last December, there were over 77,000 more Minnesotans unemployed than in December 2002, just before Gov. Pawlenty took office," he said on Feb. 9, 2011. "There were 5,881 fewer people working in Minnesota than there were eight years ago, even though our state's population grew during that time by over 286,000 people."

Dayton's numbers are right, but they deserve some context.

The Evidence

In Dec. 2002, roughly 128,000 people were unemployed. Now, that number stands at approximately 206,000 unemployed - a difference of about 78,000, as Dayton estimated. Further, it's correct that 5,881 fewer people working in Minnesota these days, according to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Dayton's also in the ballpark on population growth.

But while Dayton's numbers are right, it's important to consider them in context. The national recession had a sizeable impact on Minnesota, including significant job losses between 2008 and 2009; the peak came in May of 2009, when more than 250,000 people were out of a job. In fact, before the middle of 2008, it was unusual for more than 140,000 people to be jobless.

So, Dayton's figures may be rosier had there been no recession.

The Verdict

With some context, Dayton's good on his numbers.

SOURCES

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Minnesota Unemployment Statistics, Dec. 2002 - Dec. 2010, accessed Feb. 9, 2011

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, Minnesota Population Estimates, 1998-2009, accessed Feb. 9, 2011

The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, The Recession Hits Home, by Dave Snef, June 2009

The Minnesota Geospatial Information Office, Minnesota Population Estimate, accessed Feb. 9, 2010

Interview, Jeremy Drucker, spokesman, Gov. Mark Dayton, Feb. 9, 2010

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Marquart's property tax claim based on reasonable estimates

Posted at 1:58 PM on February 2, 2011 by Catharine Richert
Filed under: MN Legislature, PoliGraph

Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, may not be a household name but he recently spoke about an issue that's making headlines all over Minnesota: the state's projected $6.2 billion deficit.

In debate on the House floor on a Republican-backed proposal to cut $1 billion in state spending, Marquart said this on Jan 27: "Make no doubt about it, this bill creates up to over $300 million of new property tax increases on our senior citizens on fixed incomes, our families, our farmers and our small businesses."

Marquart is on firm ground with his numbers, but local governments will make the final decision on property taxes.

The Evidence

Marquart voted against the Republican-controlled Legislature's first stab at reducing the state's deficit. The legislation would make permanent many of the one-time spending cuts Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature agreed on last year. Included in those cuts is a $487 million reduction in state aid to local governments and counties.

The Minnesota Department of Revenue estimates that these cuts will result in more than $300 million in new property taxes. To come up with this figure, budget crunchers use a formula that predicts property taxes will increase roughly 66 cents for every dollar the state cuts in aid. The assumption is based on historical data, and is reviewed annually by researchers at the revenue department and the Legislature.

So, Marquart's claim is plausible. But it's important to point out that the Legislature doesn't set property taxes; local governments do.

Further, the budgeting formula is based on an estimate. For example, it would be incorrect to assume that all local governments will increase property taxes. In fact, researchers at the revenue department and in the Legislature say the formula may be on the high end because many local governments have not raised property taxes as a result of the recession.

The Verdict

While it remains to be seen how much property taxes will increase, Marquart has a firm foundation for making his prediction.

His statement ranks an accurate on this PoliGraph test.

SOURCES

Minnesota State Legislature, text of H.F. 130, accessed Feb. 1, 2011

Minnesota State Legislature, Summary H.F. 130, accessed Feb. 1, 2011

Minnesota Department of Revenue, Analysis H.F. 130, Jan. 25, 2011

Minnesota Public Radio, Minn. House passes $1 billion state budget cut, by Tom Scheck, Jan. 28, 2011

Interview, Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, Jan. 31, 2011

Interview, Pat Dalton, House Research Department, Feb. 1, 2011

Interview, Eric Willette, Property Tax Research Director, Minnesota Department of Revenue, Feb. 1, 2011

More

The Humphrey School

PoliGraph: Pawlenty public employee claim checks out

Posted at 2:00 PM on January 28, 2011 by Catharine Richert (7 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_01_30_pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/01/30/pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Like many of his fellow Republicans, Pawlenty believes that public sector workers are overpaid.

"Why are government employees making 22 percent more than their private-sector counterparts, plus enjoying better benefits and nearly perfect job security?," Pawlenty wrote on page 276.

Pawlenty gets this one right, with a few caveats.

The Evidence

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), public sector workers - including all federal, state and local employees - make roughly 22 percent more in raw wages compared to the private sector.

Generally speaking, public sector employees get a wider variety of benefits as well, such as health care, pension and better paid leave. For instance, in 2010, it cost state and local governments an average of $13.85 per worker to cover benefits compared to an average of $8.20 in the private sector.

Many economists argue the disparity between private sector pay and public sector pay is due to the larger number of blue-collar jobs in the private workforce. These jobs pay less, effectively drawing down average wages.

Note that Pawlenty is talking about an overall average. In many instances, job-to-job comparisons show that public workers make less than their private sector counterparts. For instance, a lawyer working for the government makes an average of $98,120 annually, while a lawyer working in the private sector makes $137,540 a year - a significant difference. And government economists make about one-third less than their private-sector counterparts.

The Verdict

All in all, this claim is accurate.

Sources

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates by ownership: Cross-industry, private ownership only, accessed Jan 27, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2009 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: Federal, State and Local Government, accessed Jan. 26, 2011

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - Sept. 2010, Dec. 8, 2010

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer costs for employee compensation, September 2009

The New York Times, Are Federal Workers Overpaid?, by Nancy Folbre, Oct. 13, 2009

The Cato Institute, Employee Compensation in State and Local Governments, by Chris Edwards, Jan. 2010

The Cato Institute, Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent, by Chris Edwards, Aug. 24, 2009

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty spending claim lacks context

Posted at 2:00 PM on January 27, 2011 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_01_30_pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/01/30/pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

Pawlenty frequently says that he drove down state spending during his administration.
Here's what he wrote about the issue on page 183 of his book:

"The average two-year increase in Minnesota state spending from 1960, the year I was born, until I became Governor was about 21 percent. We brought that down dramatically to an average of 1.7 percent per year during my time as Governor. And for the first time in the 150-year history of Minnesota, we reduced state spending in real terms."

At first blush, his claim checks out. But a deeper look reveals Pawlenty is being selective with the numbers and is omitting important context and adjustments.

The Evidence

Minnesota writes new budgets every two years, so spending can be measured in one- and-two year cycles.

Yes, according to Minnesota Management and Budget, the average two-year spending increase between 1960 and 2003, the year Pawlenty took office, was indeed roughly 21 percent.

However, the numbers used to figure the rate of increase were not adjusted for inflation or population growth. Accounting for these variables would show flatter state spending over time. As a result, Pawlenty's performance looks stellar.

Moreover, Pawlenty compared his one-year average rate of spending increase (1.7 percent) with the unadjusted two-year average, which inflates the gap between spending under his administration and his predecessors'. The state's unadjusted one-year average is 10 percent. (Inflation-adjusted data are not available.)

Furthermore, Pawlenty's claim doesn't reveal two favorable events in the most recent budget cycle: roughly $500 million in federal dollars for K-12 education that effectively lowered state spending in fiscal years 2010-2011 and the delay of $1.9 billion in payments to schools to future budget cycles.

The final part of Pawlenty's claim, that for the "first time in the 150-year history of Minnesota, we reduced state spending," is even harder to pin down, in large part because the Legislature and budget department don't readily have data going back that far. And even if the numbers were available, the General Fund of 1860 would be too different from the General Fund of 2011 to compare accurately.

Nevertheless, it appears that Pawlenty is being selective with the numbers on this point, as well. According to the budget department, it's a fact that the 2010-2011 two-year budget cycle is the only time since 1960 that the state decreased spending in terms of dollars. But on an annual basis, general fund spending declined in 1983, 1986, and 2004 as well, according to the same document.

The Verdict

The average state spending increase was indeed smaller during Pawlenty's administration.

However, Pawlenty's claim is misleading because he mixes a two-year average with a one-year average to make his spending restraint look stronger than it was. And when comparing the recent record with past decades he also doesn't account for inflation and population growth, federal stimulus money and an accounting shift. Finally, the governor cites 150 years of history with no source for where he got his information.

SOURCES

Minnesota Management and Budget, Historical Expenditures: General and All Funds, last updated Dec. 2, 2010, accessed Jan. 25, 2010

Minnesota 2020, State of the State Fact Check, by Jeff Van Wychen, Feb. 11, 2010

Minnesota Budget Bites, Governor's Budget Spares K-12 But Cost Shifts Remain, by Scott Russell, Feb. 22, 2010

Interview Bill Marx, Chief Financial Analyst, Minnesota House of Representatives, Jan. 26, 2010

Interview, Jay Kiedrowski, Senior Fellow, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Jan. 25, 2010

Interview John Pollard, spokesman, Minnesota Management and Budget, Jan 26, 2010

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty claim on federal spending leaves out key information

Posted at 2:00 PM on January 26, 2011 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_01_30_pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/01/30/pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

In the book Pawlenty bemoans big spending on President Barack Obama's watch.
"President Obama has overseen the first two budgets with trillion-dollar deficits in American history," he wrote on page 266. "He has racked up more debt than every President from Washington to Reagan combined."

On the surface, Pawlenty's claim is correct. But it implies that Obama is solely responsible for runaway spending. In fact, the deficit had already exceeded $1 trillion before the president took office.

The Evidence

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the deficit was $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009 and $1.3 trillion fiscal year 2010 - the first trillion dollar deficits in history, as Pawlenty correctly points out. (Because these figures are not adjusted for inflation, economists tend to compare deficits as percentage of gross domestic product. By that measure, the largest deficit in history occurred in 1943.)

He's also correct that more has been added to the national debt during the Obama administration than "every President from Washington to Reagan combined." When Reagan left office, the national debt was $2.190 trillion, according to CBO. During the first two years of the Obama administration, roughly $3 trillion has been added to the national debt, according to the Treasury Department.

But as is often the case with the federal budget, this story is more complicated than it seems.

Budget crunchers think in terms of fiscal years, which begin on Oct. 1 and end on Sept. 30. So a sizeable chunk of new spending in Obama's first year was the result of big-ticket items passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.

Almost half the spending increase - about $245 billion - stemmed from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Further, revenue declined 17 percent between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 as a result of the recession. That added to the deficit-- defined as the difference between the money the federal government takes in and the amount of money it spends each year.

In fact, before Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, CBO had already estimated that the 2009 deficit would be at least $1.2 trillion.

But Obama isn't off the hook. Another $200 billion was added to the deficit as result of the spending in the stimulus bill, one of Obama's first major legislative efforts.

The Verdict

This PoliGraph test is misleading.

It's true that Obama's first two years in office were marked by trillion dollar deficits and debt. However, it's misleading for Pawlenty to pin blame on Obama when, in fact, Obama inherited big spending increases and massive revenue shortfalls from his predecessor.

SOURCES

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt, and Interest, accessed Jan. 22, 2010

Bloomberg News, U.S. Deficit for 2009 Totals $1.4 Trillion, Budget Office Says, By Brian Faler and Julianna Goldman, Oct. 8, 2009

The Congressional Budget Office, Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009, Nov. 6, 2009

The Congressional Budget Office, Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public,1970 to 2009, in Billions of Dollars, January 2010

The Congressional Budget Office, Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009, Oct. 7, 2009

The Congressional Budget Office, Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010, Oct. 7, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019, Jan. 7, 2009

The Cato Institute, Don't Blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit, by Daniel J. Mitchell, Nov. 19, 2009

The Treasury Department, The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It, accessed Jan. 22, 2010

Interview, Alex Conant, spokesman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Jan. 20, 2010

Interview, Jim Horney, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 23, 2011

Interview, Daniel Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, Jan. 23, 2010

More

The Humphrey School

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty health plan claims largely true

Posted at 2:00 PM on January 24, 2011 by Catharine Richert (4 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

Embed | Help

Copy and paste the HTML below to embed this audio onto your web page.

Audio player code:
<iframe title="minnesota_news_features_2011_01_30_pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64s_player" type="text/html" width="319" height="83" src="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/syndicate.php?name=minnesota/news/features/2011/01/30/pawlentypoligraph_20110130_64" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

sponsor:

In the book Pawlenty writes about health care and his efforts to reduce costs in Minnesota.

He writes that he wanted to cut costs and improve results, and encourage competition by getting consumers more involved in making decisions.

Among the examples Pawlenty mentions is the Minnesota Advantage Health Plan, a program that offers lower co-pays and deductibles to state employees who visit hospitals, doctors and clinics that provide high-quality health care at a low cost.

"State employees overwhelmingly chose care from lower-cost, high-quality providers - and premium increases in the program have been relatively small or flat for five years," he wrote on page 177.

Parts of Pawlenty's claim are correct. But there are some caveats.

The Evidence

Under the Minnesota Advantage Health Plan, the state ranks health care providers according to efficiency and cost. Employee co-pays and deductibles are lowest for providers that are ranked as offering high-quality health care at low cost. Less efficient providers are ranked at higher cost levels and enrollees pay more to visit them.

Doctors, clinics and hospitals compete to be in the lowest cost category and, as a result, get more business. For the state and its employees, the program has meant lower health care costs.

So, Pawlenty's characterization of the program is on point, as is his claim about the program's popularity. Currently, about 85 percent of state employees are visiting low-cost, high efficiency providers, according to Minnesota Management and Budget.

It's also true that in 2006, 2010 and 2011, insurance premiums did not increase.
In some years, however, Advantage premiums did go up. A summary from Pawenty's office points out that these increases were frequently lower than "other large Twin Cities employers." (The summary doesn't say which employers or how many.)

But to say these increases were "relatively small" is somewhat misleading. In several instances, the average Advantage premium increase was more than the national average, according to a recent budget department analysis.

For example, in 2005, Advantage premiums went up an average of 15.1 percent compared to the national average of 9.2 percent. In 2007, the Advantage average went up 9.9 percent compared to the national average of 6.1 percent. However, overall Advantage health care premiums have been on the decline in recent years.

There's also one key point to make about Minnesota Advantage that may be lost on readers of Pawlenty's book: He didn't start the program. Rather, Minnesota Advantage was the result of negotiations between state employee labor unions and management; it was launched in 2002, the year before Pawlenty took office.

That said, bargaining between labor and MMB continued during the Pawlenty administration, and further changes were made to the program that have helped make Minnesota Advantage more cost effective.

The Verdict

It was close, but the PoliGraph rates this claim as accurate.

Pawlenty is correct that many Minnesota Advantage participants have chosen low-cost, high-quality providers. And he's right that premiums haven't increased at all in some years.

That said, it's important to note that while premium increases have been on the decline in recent years, they have spiked higher than the national average in some instances. Furthermore, Pawlenty does not make clear that Minnesota Advantage actually started before he took office in 2003.

SOURCES

Courage to Stand, by Tim Pawlenty

Summary of changes to the state employee health plan under the Pawlenty administration

Office of the Legislative Auditor, State Employee Health Insurance, Feb. 2002

Minnesota Management and Budget, Minnesota State Employee Group Insurance Program: Biennial Report, 2007-2008, accessed Jan. 21, 2011

Minnesota Management and Budget, Minnesota Advantage Health Plan 2011, Benefits Schedule, accessed Jan. 21, 2011

The Council of State Governments 2004 Innovations Award Program, Application Form from Minnesota Advantage Health Plan, accessed Jan. 18, 2011

Minnesota Association of Professional Employees Letter to President Barack Obama, Feb. 22, 2010

Interview, Alex Conant, spokesman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Interview, Barbara Holmes, Assistant Commissioner and State Labor Negotiator, Minnesota Management and Budget, Jan. 20, 2011

Interview, Jim Monroe, Executive Director, Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, Jan. 18, 2011

Interview, Peter Benner, Former Executive Director, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 6, Jan. 18, 2011

More

The Humphrey Institute

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Bachmann right on beer, wrong on bacon

Posted at 12:39 PM on September 1, 2010 by Catharine Richert (5 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2008: U.S. MN CD6, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: U.S. House, PoliGraph

Beer. Bacon. Corn dogs.

What sounds like the recipe for a great day at the Minnesota State Fair is also the subject of Michele Bachmann's latest ad against her DFL opponent Tarryl Clark.

"While you're at the fair, you should know that Tarryl Clark here voted to raise taxes on your corn dog, and your deep-fried bacon and your beer," Jim the Election Guy, a fictional character featured in Bachmann's ads, tells viewers. "So, if you see Tarryl Clark while you're at the fair, just ask her: What's up with voting to tax my beer?"

Here's what's up with that: When it comes to corn dogs and bacon, Bachmann's claim is on shaky ground. But she's right that Clark voted for higher taxes on beer.

The Evidence

Bachmann's staff points to a handful of votes Clark cast during her time in the state senate as support for the claim.

Corn dogs and bacon

First, it's important to note that Minnesota's sales tax does not apply to food bought at the grocery store. But it does apply to food that is sold in restaurants or by other food vendors, including those at the state fair.

In 2008, Clark voted for a constitutional amendment that would have raised the sales tax by 3/8 of 1 percent to protect water and land - commonly known as the Legacy Amendment. After the Legislature passed it, voters approved the tax increase.

So, it's wrong to say that Clark voted for the sales tax increase. Rather, she voted to let Minnesotans vote on the Legacy Amendment.

Bachmann's campaign also points out that Clark voted twice in 2007 and 2008 respectively against amendments that would have allowed a referendum on a metro area sales tax increase meant to help pay for transportation improvements.

Bachmann reasons that, without the referendum, voters did not have the opportunity to stop the sales tax. But that's a stretch: voting against a referendum is not the same as voting for a sales tax increase on corn dogs and bacon as the ad says.

Beer

In 2009, Clark voted several times to increase taxes on beer, wine and liquor. But the legislation was vetoed, so the beer sold at the state fair is not subject to a recent tax increase as the Bachmann ad implies.

The Verdict

It's true that Clark voted for a sales tax increase on beer. But Bachmann's ad is wrong when it comes to corn dogs and bacon: Clark never voted to increase taxes on either.

Sources

YouTube, "State Fair," accessed Aug. 31, 2010

Minnesota Department of Revenue, Fact Sheet: Food and Food Ingredients, accessed Aug. 31, 2010

Michele Bachmann for Congress, Script and Fact Sheet, accessed Aug. 31, 2010

Tarryl Clark for Congress, Fact Check: Michele Bachmann Uses Voter-Approved Legacy Amendment to Attack Tarryl Clark, Aug. 31, 2010

Senate Journal, April 3, 2006, page 4525

Senate Journal, March 23, 2007, page 1267

Senate Journal, Feb. 21, 2008, page 6637

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, accessed Aug. 31, 2010

Senate Journal, May 8, 2009, page 4466

Senate Journal, April 24, 2009, page 2754

Interview, Zach Rodvold, campaign manager, Sen. Tarryl Clark, Aug. 31, 2010

Interview, Sergio Gor, spokesman, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Aug. 31, 2010

More

The Humphrey Institute

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Dayton education claim debatable

Posted at 1:40 PM on July 21, 2010 by Catharine Richert (10 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: Minnesota Governor, PoliGraph

Mark Dayton's latest TV ad takes aim at Gov. Tim Pawlenty's education funding record.

"Pawlenty cut funding by $1,300 a student," according to the DFL gubernatorial candidate's television spot.

Dayton gets his numbers right, but his claim should come with some caveats.

The Evidence

Minnesota public schools receive funding from a variety of sources, including state and local taxes, fees and federal dollars.

Dayton's claim focuses on state aid, and originated with research done by Jeff Van Wychen, a fellow with the think tank Minnesota 2020.

The numbers are straightforward: Adjusted for inflation, the state gave schools about $8 billion in 2003; in fiscal year 2011, schools will get $6.9 billion. Using attendance figures from the Minnesota Department of Education, inflation adjusted per-student funding has dropped by about $1,300 from $9,700 in 2003 to about $8,400 in 2011.

But experts say it's important to view these figures in context.

Most agree that accounting for inflation is fair when looking at the state's long-term education spending because it helps determine schools' purchasing power. But they pointed out that Dayton does not make it clear that he's talking inflation-adjusted numbers.

In fact, the hard numbers show that if you take out inflation, state aid for schools has been on a slight upward trend under Pawlenty's administration.

According to Minnesota Management and Budget, in nominal dollars schools received about $6 billion in state aid in fiscal year 2003. Since then, the number has slowly risen to the current figure of $6.9 billion.

The Verdict

On one hand, Dayton's claim is correct: Factoring in inflation, per-student state aid has dropped by about $1,300. What that figure demonstrates is that schools are getting less for every dollar they spend on students today than they did in 2003.

What Dayton's ad fails to point out is that, in nominal dollars, education funding has increased slightly, though perhaps not dramatically enough to keep up with cost of educating Minnesotans. So, to say that Pawlenty cut funding is misleading. In fact, Pawlenty has frequently protected K-12 education dollars in his budget, as he did in his most recent proposal.

As a result, Dayton's claim is inconclusive.

Sources

MarkDayton.org, "Forged" TV ad, accessed July 19, 2010

Minnesota 2020, Minnesota's School Investment Keeps Falling, by Jeff Van Wychen, accessed July 19, 2010

Minnesota 2020, Taking the Spin out of Inflation Estimates, by Jeff Van Wychen, accessed July 19, 2010

Minnesota Management and Budget, May 2010 End of Legislative Session Price of Government, accessed July 19, 2010

Minnesota Public Radio News, Pawlenty uses stimulus money to reverse budget cuts, by Tim Pugmire, March 17, 2009

Minnesota Public Radio News, Pawlenty's budget: K-12 spared, higher ed sees cuts, by Tom Weber, Feb. 15, 2010

Interview, Brian Klass, policy director, Mark Dayton, July 19, 2010

Interview, Jeff Van Wychen, fellow, Minnesota 2020, July 19, 2010

Interview, Aaron Twait, Research Director, Minnesota Taxpayers Association, July 19, 2010

Interview Jim Horney, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 19, 2010

Interview, Tim Strom, Legislative Analyst, Minnesota House of Representatives, July 19, 2010

Interview, Jay Kiedrowski, Senior Fellow, the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, July 19, 2010

Interview, Curt Yoakum, spokesman, Minnesota Management and Budget, July 20, 2010

Interview, Scott Croonquist, Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan School Districts, July 21, 2010

More

The Humphrey Institute

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Pawlenty misses on strike comment

Posted at 11:30 AM on July 7, 2010 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: PoliGraph, Tim Pawlenty

During his recent travels around the country, Gov. Tim Pawlenty made a pit-stop in Tennessee to speak at the Republican Party's annual dinner.

In his June 25, speech, Pawlenty touted his efforts to reform "that entitlement perspective in Minnesota."

In Minnesota, he said, "the longest transit strike in the history of the United States of America shut down the bus system for 44 days because our bus drivers thought it was okay to work for just 15 years and then have the government pay for their health insurance for the rest of your life."

A quick Google search shows that the 2004 Metro Bus strike is hardly the longest in U.S. history.

The Evidence

Pawlenty cites this bit of Minnesota history often, according to Alex Conant, a spokesman for Pawlenty. In an e-mail, Conant wrote, "it turns out it was only the longest in the modern history, and there have been some that were longer."

Indeed, here are a few transit strikes that beat the 2004 Metro Bus shut-down:

• In 1983, workers for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority staged a 108-day strike.

• In 1967, Honolulu bus drivers stopped working for 68 days in an effort to get better pay.

• In 1958, Los Angeles bus drivers launched a strike that lasted 54 days.

The Verdict

Pawlenty's characterization of the 2004 Metro Bus strike is off by a long-shot. This claim is false.

Sources

Trains Magazine, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), by Matt Van Hattem, June 30, 2006

The Honolulu Star Bulletin, Longest stoppage halted buses for 68 days

The Los Angeles Times, Buses Put in Shape to Roll Again Today After End of Long Strike, accessed June 30, 2010.

Interview, Alex Conant, spokesman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, July 1, 2010

More

The Humphrey Institute

About PoliGraph

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Severson wrong on rejected ballots

Posted at 11:31 AM on June 16, 2010 by Catharine Richert (3 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2010, PoliGraph

State Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, says that if he's elected Secretary of State, he'll do a better job of making sure military personnel overseas have their say in local elections.

During the 2008 elections, "military ballots were 16 times more likely to be rejected by local officials than other absentee ballots," Severson wrote on his Web site. Severson repeated the claim at a press conference on June 7 at the State Office Building.

Absentee ballots played a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the Senate election recount.

But Severson's claim is based on data that have since been corrected by the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C., think tank and the original source of this claim. In fact, the rejection rate for military ballots was quite a bit lower. Although the correct information is easily found by reading the revised report, the data remain incorrect on Severson's web site.

The Evidence

The data Severson cited was published in October of 2009 by the Center for the American Experiment, which got its data from an analysis published by the Heritage Foundation in July of 2009. The Center for the American Experiment did not list its sources.

But according to Hans von Spakovsky and Eric Eversole, authors of the Heritage Foundation report, they initially misread some important numbers and determined that military absentee ballots were 16 times more likely to be rejected than regular absentee ballots.

In March, they corrected their report and posted the accurate information on their web site.

"If the military voter in Minnesota cast his or her absentee ballot, that ballot was nearly two times more likely to be rejected by local election officials, as compared to other absentee voters statewide," the Heritage Foundation report now reads.

The Verdict

Severson's claim came from two reports that had the numbers wrong. In fact, military absentee ballots were two times more likely to be rejected than compared to regular absentee ballots - far less than Severson stated.

It's a false for Severson's claim.

Sources

Dan Severson for Secretary of State, accessed June 9, 2010

The Heritage Foundation, America's Military Voters: Re-enfranchising the
Disenfranchised, by Hans von Spakovsky and M. Eric Eversole, July 28, 2009. Updated March, 2010.

The Center for the American Experiment, No Longer a National Model: Fifteen Recommendations for Fixing Minnesota Election Law and Practice, by Kent Kaiser, October, 2009

Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, Minnesota's Elections -- Transparent, Verifiable, and Accurate, Feb. 25, 2010

Moritz Law School, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment, accessed June 10, 2010

Minnesota Blue Book 2009-2010, Chapter 10: Minnesota Votes, accessed June 10, 2010
Interview, Dan Severson, June 10, 2010

Interview M. Eric Eversole, author of America's Military Voters: Re-enfranchising the Disenfranchised, June 10, 2010

Interview, Kent Kaiser, author of No Longer a National Model: Fifteen Recommendations for Fixing Minnesota Election Law and Practice, June 10, 2010

Interview, Kathy Bonnifield, Associate Director, Citizens for Election Integrity-Minnesota, June 10, 2010

More

The Humphrey Institute

About PoliGraph

Comment on this post

PoliGraph: Kelliher Medicaid Claim in Grey Area

Posted at 11:30 AM on June 9, 2010 by Catharine Richert (1 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: Minnesota Governor, PoliGraph

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL-endorsed candidate for governor, says the state should move early to shift thousands of low-income residents from two state programs into Medical Assistance, Minnesota's Medicaid program.

It's a good idea because it will bring money back to the state, she said in a May 25, 2010, press conference.

"For every dollar we put in, $7.50 [will come] back to the state," Kelliher said.

Kelliher's statement falls into a grey area. Minnesota will be getting a lot of federal money, but her statement is misleading because it implies an impressive return on investment.

The Evidence

Kelliher wants to shift people who get health insurance from two state programs--General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) and MinnesotaCare--into Medical Assistance (MA).

The state and federal governments split the cost of MA. The other two programs don't get any federal funding.

The new federal health care law expands Medicaid coverage to low-income people who don't have insurance now--the same kind of people the state now pays to cover under GAMC and MinnesotaCare - and requires the federal government to match state spending.

For Minnesota, this means shifting patients from GAMC and MinnesotaCare into MA, effectively dissolving most of the two programs that would otherwise cost the state about $1.2 billion over the next three years.

The shift also translates into $1.4 billion in federal dollars. Because the state will have to match federal Medicaid money it will still have to spend the $1.2 billion, plus another $188 million.

The reason the cost goes from $1.2 billion to a combined state and federal total of $2.8 billion is because MA would cover many more people than the two state programs do now and provide enhanced benefits. Under the new federal law all states will have to expand Medicaid in 2014.

The Verdict

On one hand, the plan sounds like a good deal for Minnesota. Kelliher is correct that for every new dollar the state invests in MA, $7.50 in federal funding will come back to Minnesota.

But Kelliher's statement glosses over the important point that the state will spend $188 million in addition to the $1.2 billion it would otherwise spend on GAMC and MinnesotaCare. All told, the state will have to expend the same amount as the federal government.

As a result, Kelliher's claim is inconclusive.

Sources

Minnesota Public Radio News, Kelliher on the MA opt-in, May 25, 2010

Minnesota Public Radio News, Federal health law becoming an issue in governor's race, by Tom Scheck, May 25, 2010

Minnesota Department of Human Services, Medical Assistance, accessed June 3, 2010

The Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Coverage and Spending in Health Reform, by John Holahan and Irene Headen, May 2010

The Kaiser Family Foundation, Financing New Medicaid Coverage Under Health Reform: The Role of the Federal Government and States, May 2010

The Minnesota State Legislature, health care budget details, accessed June 5, 2010

E-mail Interview, Matt Swenson, Spokesman, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, June 3, 2010

E-mail Interview, Karen Smigielski, Communications Manager, Minnesota Department of Human Services, June 4, 2010

Phone Interview, Stephen Parente, Professor, Carlson School of Management, June 3, 2010

Phone Interview, Martha Heberlein, Research Analyst, Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, June 4, 2010

Phone Interview, Lynn Blewett, Director, University of Minnesota's State Health Access Data Assistance Center, June 4, 2010

More

About PoliGraph

The Humphrey Institute

Comment on this post