Topics of claims by or about politicians that PolitiFact took a look at last week included tax deductions for birds, the potential impact of the Republican health care bill on veterans, and Karen Handel's budget history as Georgia secretary of state. You might be surprised at which was the only one rated true. Here are abbreviated versions of our fact checks. Full versions can be found at www.politifact.com.
The federal tax code includes “deductions for birds flying across America.”
— President Donald Trump on May 11, 2017 in an interview with ‘The Economist’
As a golf course owner, the president has reason to know about this part of the federal tax code. The tax deductions in question involve what are known as “conservation easements,” agreements by which a landowner pledges to forgo development. The land remains in its natural state and, among other things, can provide habitat for animals, including migratory birds.
In typical easements, the landowner continues to own the land itself, but donates the right to develop it to a nonprofit organization that promises not to build on it. The difference between its pre-donation and post-donation value can be deducted on the landowner’s tax returns as a gift. According to Forbes, Trump has donated easements for land on the Trump National Golf Club in Los Angeles and the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., and for his personal estate in Westchester County, N.Y., as well as his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach.
Our ruling
Trump is right. Conservation easements to protect wildlife, including but not limited to migratory birds, can be used as tax deductions. He should know: By all indications, he's saved millions in tax payments by using them. We rate the statement True.
“What does Trumpcare do? Yank tax credits away from veterans unlike any other American.”
— Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., on May 9, 2017 in a press conference
This issue is more complex and less far-reaching than Blumenthal’s exaggerated one-liner suggests. It is possible that if the Republican bill were to become law in its current form, a subset of veterans might not get financial assistance to choose private insurance over health care through the Veterans Administration. But the language of the bill actually treats veterans like “any other American,” as opposed to what Blumenthal said. And there are regulations the Trump administration could pursue to blunt any impact.
To qualify for tax credits that subsidize insurance premiums, a person cannot be eligible for other affordable health insurance options such as employer-provided insurance or Medicaid, or for military-related health care. But there is an exemption to that rule under the Democratic-supported Affordable Care Act. Veterans who qualify for Veterans Administration health care (not all do) but aren't enrolled in that system are eligible for subsidized premiums. The Republican bill doesn't include language that would have the same effect.
Blumenthal said the Republican bill in its current form could affect as many as 8 million veterans, but not all 8 million are in the market for a tax credit to help them buy private insurance. Many get health care through other means, such as Medicaid, their employer, or TRICARE, the military health benefits program.
Our ruling
Blumenthal's statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.
“Karen Handel’s office budget increased a whopping 42 percent.”
— Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on May 3, 2017 in a political ad
We found the administrative cost of running the secretary of state’s office while Handel held it rose by nearly 39 percent from 2007 to 2009, or 47 percent from 2007 to 2010 — which is close but not quite what the ad claimed. However, the cost of the department overall actually fell by about 8 percent from 2007 to 2009, or 10 percent from 2007 to 2010.
Between 2008 and 2009, there was a reshuffling of activities within the secretary of state’s office. It had investigators spread across three separate programs. Handel consolidated them.
The state budget brief for 2008-09 shows that the rise in the administrative budget was offset by decreases in certain activities of other divisions within the department. The spending increases are largely only on paper. In reality, money was shuffled around.
Our ruling
Most of the increase in the secretary of state office's budget came from moving around work — and the money to pay for it — inside the department. The rise in the administrative budget was offset by cuts elsewhere. The ad's statement leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.
About the Author
