PoliGraph

PoliGraph: Pawlenty doesn't tell whole story on ethanol

2011-05-25T18:25:23Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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 Specialist, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2005

PoliGraph: Zellers wrong on professor pay

2011-05-20T18:02:19Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Simon misses on voting claim

2011-05-18T18:41:39Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Simon marriage claim essentially right

2011-05-13T18:40:00Z

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 opposes 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: lawmaker's claim relies on just one source

2011-05-12T18:24:11Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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 Minnesota Independent, Details scant on marriage amendment poll touted by GOP, by Andy Birkey, May 6, 2001

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

PoliGraph: Pawlenty right on Obama's health care record

2011-05-06T17:47:21Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Cravaack's Medicare claim omits key details

2011-05-04T16:37:02Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Rybak is right on taxes

2011-04-29T16:56:54Z

Before 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Klobuchar energy claim wrong

2011-04-27T19:45:43Z

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 biofuel 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

Poligraph: Pawlenty tells part of the story on teacher pay

2011-04-25T17:56:55Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: lawmaker's spending claim ignores key information

2011-04-20T18:32:48Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

SOURCES

Minnesota Management and Budget, Gov. Mark Dayton's FY 2012-13 Biennial Budget, Feb. 12, 2011

Minnesota House Fiscal Staff, General Fund Spending Increase: FY 2010-11 to FY 2010-13, March 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

PoliGraph: Peterson overreaches in budget claim

2011-04-15T18:11:35Z

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," he 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 $763 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Ellison tax claim right

2011-04-13T18:35:02Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Thissen correct - cuts will cost jobs

2011-04-08T18:07:28Z

Minnesota House Minority Leader Paul Thissen says the 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Bachmann shutdown claim on point

2011-04-06T18:57:30Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

ABC News, Political Punch: No New Small Business or Housing Loans, No Military Pay, No New Clinical Trials: What Would a Federal Government Shutdown Mean For You?, by Jake Tapper, April 6, 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 2011, 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

PoliGraph: Pawlenty climate claim right, with caveats

2011-04-01T19:28:58Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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, 2007

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

PoliGraph: Bachmann's health care claim tough to verify

2011-03-30T18:41:19Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Rybak gets tax numbers right

2011-03-25T17:19:47Z

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 popular talking point 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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: Franken's oil tax claims in the ballpark

2011-03-23T18:41:34Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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

PoliGraph: lawmaker gets tax claim wrong

2011-03-11T20:31:08Z

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.

-- By Catharine Richert

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