(AP)

“At this moment, the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million. That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million — 219 times.”

— House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Sept. 15, 2011

In a speech Thursday before the Economic Club of Washington, Speaker Boehner made an impassioned case about how federal regulations were harming businesses and imperiling jobs. This is indeed an important issue — one that the Obama administration claims it is also trying to tackle.

As part of his evidence, Boehner pointed to “219 new rules” that were in the works, which he said “will cost our economy at least $100 million.” He suggested the impact could be immediate. As he put it, “our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million — 219 times.”

Boehner, in recent weeks, has pressed the White House for answers about these 219 new rules. In a letter to President Obama dated Aug. 26, Boehner wrote: “This year the Administration’s regulatory agenda identifies 219 planned new regulations that have estimated annual costs in excess of $100 million each.”

So we wondered — where did this “219” number come from? And does it really mean what Boehner suggests?

The Facts

The federal government is required to identify regulations that could have an economic impact of more than $100 million, but people frequently misunderstand what that means. It does not necessarily mean $100 million in costs; in fact, it can also mean more than a $100 million in benefits.

(Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

“Everything in this proposal, everything in this legislation, everything in the American Jobs Act is the kind of proposal that in the past, at least, has been supported by Democrats and Republicans. Everything in it will be paid for.”

— President Obama, Sept. 14, 2011, Raleigh-Durham, N.C.

We had not intended to wade into this issue, thinking the answer was self-evident, but we have been bombarded with requests from readers who want to know whether the president’s claims are correct.

 Has “everything in this legislation” been supported in the past by Democrats and Republicans?

 Is everything in his $447 billion proposal paid for?

 Seriously, if you really believe any of that, we have the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. But, to be sure, the president is only following time-honored Washington traditions when he makes both of these claims.

The Facts

 We asked an administration official for documentation that both Democrats and Republicans previously supported every single proposal in the jobs bill. We received an impressive-looking 30-page document, complete with quotes and links to bill votes and the like.

(SCOTT AUDETTE/REUTERS)

Rep. Ron Paul:   “I'm a taxpayer there [Texas]. My taxes have gone up. Our taxes have doubled since he's been in office. Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly triple. So, no, and 170,000 of the jobs were government jobs. So I would put a little damper on this, but I don't want to offend the governor, because he might raise my taxes or something.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry : “While I've been governor, we have cut taxes by $14 billion, 65 different pieces of legislation. You may have not seen them, Representative Paul.”

— Exchange during the CNN-Tea Party Express debate, Sept. 12

This story has been updated.

A Texas showdown erupted briefly during Monday night’s Republican debate in Tampa when moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Texas Rep. Ron Paul whether Lone Star Gov. Rick Perry deserves credit for job creation in their state.

Paul laughed off the suggestion and made four claims about Perry’s tenure: rising taxes, increased spending, growing debt and more government jobs.

Perry shot back that he signed 65 tax-saving measures to cut $14 billion in taxes.

All politicians slice and dice statistics to put their record in the best possible light. Who had the better argument in the debate?

The Facts

 We asked both campaigns to justify their claims. The Paul campaign answered with a detailed fact sheet, but the Perry campaign did not respond to calls or e-mails. Still, we found a document on the Perry Web site that helped explain where he got the $14 billion figure for his tax cut claim.

(SCOTT AUDETTE/REUTERS)

“We decided it was in the best interest of those young people to give them the opportunity to go on to college and to have the opportunity their pursuing citizenship in this country, rather than saying, you know, we're going to put you over here and put you on the government dole for the rest of your life.”

--Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sept. 12, 2011

This line in Monday’s GOP debate, sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express, puzzled us.

 Perry, under attack by his rivals for allowing illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition and receive financial aid at Texas’ public universities, responded that he was trying to make sure they did not end up on welfare.

 That’s an interesting but strange argument.  We sent a query to the Perry campaign, asking for an explanation, and as usual did not get a response.

The Facts

After the Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that illegal immigrant children must be educated free of charge in public schools, Texas in 2001 became the first state in the country to pass an in-state tuition law. Many states have now followed suit.

(Reuters)

The Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Fla., co-hosted by CNN and the Tea Party Express, was feisty and provocative, with many of the candidates relying once again on bogus “facts” that we have previously identified as faulty or misleading.

The debate marked a remarkable shift in tone by Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the issue of Social Security, barely five days after he labeled the venerable old-age program “a Ponzi scheme” doomed to fail. This week, he said it was a “slam dunk guaranteed” for people already on it.

Last week, we explained why the Ponzi scheme label was not true — and also provided readers with a primer on Social Security for those who want to learn more. In Monday night’s debate, Perry and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney tangled over the issue again, and Romney had better command of the facts, as far as the two men’s books were concerned.

“The real issue is that in writing his book Governor Perry pointed out that, in his view, that Social Security is unconstitutional, that this is not something the federal government ought to be involved in, that instead it should be given back to the states … . Governor Perry, you’ve got to quote me correctly. You said ‘it’s criminal.’ What I said was Congress taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund is like criminal, and that is, and it’s wrong.”

— Mitt Romney

Romney gets points for correctly quoting both Perry’s book, “Fed Up,” and his own book, “No Apology.” On page 58, Perry labels Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and even unemployment insurance as “unnecessary, unconstitutional programs.” While promoting his book last year on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Perry went further, suggesting Social Security should be dismantled and simply become a state responsibility.

(Jae C. Hong/AP) Texas Gov. Rick Perry:  “He [Romney] had one of the lowest job creation rates in the country. So the fact is while he had a good private sector record, his public sector record did not match that. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: “I came into a state that was in real trouble. … We ended up with 4.7 percent unemployment rate. I'm proud of what we were able to do in a tough situation.”

Perry: “But Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.”

Romney: “Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, Governor.”

Former Utah Gov. John Huntsman: “I hate to rain on the parade of the great Lone Star governor, but as governor of Utah, we were the number-one job creator in this country during my years of service. … And to my good friend Mitt, 47th just ain't going to cut it, my friend — not when you can be first.” 

— Exchange during the GOP debate at the Reagan library, Sept. 7, 2011

That was a remarkably silly discussion over job creation at last week’s GOP presidential debate, as two former governors and one current governor tangled over who performed best at creating jobs.

Business cycles play an important role in job creation, as do events (such as national economic policy) that are far beyond a governor’s control. The quality of jobs matters, too, rather than just numbers. A governor can implement policies that have some impact, but the effectiveness of those policies might only be felt long after that person was in office.

Politicians can also slice and dice the data to put their performance in the best possible light. Huntsman has released a video ad to make his case that he was No. 1 in job creation while Romney was only No. 47. But as our colleagues at Factcheck.org pointed out, Huntsman’s campaign compared different data sets. Using the same data changed the results. When Massaschusetts placed in 47th place, Utah under Huntsman ranked fourth — not first.

(LARRY DOWNING/REUTERS)

“Pass this jobs bill”

— President Obama, Sept. 8, 2011

At first blush, President Obama’s jobs speech Thursday night did not present many opportunities for fact checking. He did not try to boast about what he had accomplished — given the grim economic situation that might have been a bad move — or try to place the blame for the current situation on his predecessor.

Many details about his jobs bill are still sparse. He tossed out various claims about how much Americans or businesses would receive in tax cuts, and the numbers appeared reasonable, but that’s why the details matter. We were amused that one specific construction project he cited — a bridge between Ohio and Kentucky — just happened to be the states of his two chief nemeses — House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Certainly, Republicans might object to the way Obama framed some of the choices — “tax loopholes for oil companies” or “tax credits for small businesses.” Or “tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires” or “teachers back to work.” (Note: we generated some controversy some months back when we criticized the president for the “millionaires and billionaires” phrase.)

We note with approval that Obama changed his language on stalled trade bills. We recently gave him a Pinocchio for saying it was Congress’s fault, but in the speech he used more neutral language, saying “it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements.” But his claim that regulatory reform will save “billions of dollars in the next few years” is dubious. Every president promises that.

The speech mostly gave us a sense of déjà vu. From the president’s language, you would never know that Congress already has acted under his watch to save jobs — the $800 billion stimulus plan passed shortly after he took office.

“Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs,” Obama proclaimed in a speech to a similar joint session of Congress on Feb. 24, 2009. We’re not sure about the jobs saved part, but the country has certainly not created net jobs since then — there are almost 2 million fewer jobs since he made those remarks 2 1/2 years ago. That gives a sense of the economic burden he will carry into his reelection campaign.

So here’s a pop quiz. Which of the following quotes came from the 2009 speech, and which quotes came from the speech this week?

(Chris Carlson/AP)

“It [Social Security] is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years today you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.”

--Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Sept. 8, 2011

When the front-running presidential candidate for the Republican Party makes such an inaccurate statement about such a fundamental government program during a debate, it’s time for a primer on Social Security. Here are some answers to basic questions about the program, which is frequently mischaracterized in political discourse.

What is Social Security?

Social Security was created in response to the pervasive poverty during the Great Depression. It is designed to provide workers with a basic level of income in retirement, as well as disability pay and life insurance while they work.

(Jae C. Hong/AP)

That was a rip-roaring Republican debate Wednesday night at the Reagan library. As is our practice, we will quickly assess a number of claims and then perhaps come back later with a deeper look at some issues.

The debate started with a back and forth between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry over job creation during their tenures. This in many ways is a silly discussion — governors and even presidents are very much at the mercy of the economic situation they inherited — and Romney actually framed it well:

“The states are different. Texas is a great state. Texas has zero income tax. Texas has a right-to-work state, a Republican legislature, a Republican Supreme Court. Texas has a lot of oil and gas in the ground. Those are wonderful things. But Governor Perry doesn’t believe that he created those things. If he tried to say that, why, it would be like Al Gore saying he invented the Internet.”

(Gore actually did not put it quite that way, but never mind.)

So, for the moment, we are going to set aside the job discussion, stipulating that each man has his claims and counterclaims, and focus on other issues.

“It is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.”

— Gov. Perry

Perhaps the governor does not know the dictionary definition of a Ponzi scheme. Here’s what Merriam-Webster says: “An investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.”

(Michael Lutzky/THE WASHINGTON POST)

Somehow, there are still people who don’t believe that on Sept. 11, 2001, a group of terrorists seized four commercial jetliners and piloted them toward New York and Washington, killing thousands of people.

Never mind the reams of sober and professional reports that have explored what actually happened and why. Instead, a cottage industry of myths has sprung up about that terrible day, such as:

* that a missile struck the Pentagon, not a Boeing 757

* that U.S. air defenses were ordered to “stand down” on 9/11

* that government agents gathered all of the passengers from the four jets on Flight 93, and then brought it down

* that World Trade Center 7 was professionally demolished.

A team of journalists from Popular Mechanics has done a remarkable job exploring 25 of the most prominent conspiracy theories. Their findings have been recently published in an updated edition of the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths,” edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan.

The book completely demolishes all of the most outlandish assertions, using actual facts and information provided by an impressive array of experts. It is well worth reading. As a reader service, we provide a summary of Popular Mechanics’ findings on some of the most persistent myths.