Editor's note: This article was written by RTV6's fact-gathering partners at Politifact.
Mike Pence says there are more Hoosiers going to work than ever before
In his first major speech as the 2016 Republican vice presidential nominee, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence repeated a talking point about his economic record back home.
"There are more Hoosiers going to work than ever before," Pence said.
That’s similar to a comment Pence had made just over a week earlier, shortly before Trump chose him as his running mate.
The statistic isn’t as meaningful as it sounds.
Pence has a point that more people in Indiana are working today than at any time in history -- 3.07 million in May 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here’s a chart showing BLS data for Indiana as far back as the database goes online:
However, the historical peak Pence cites has more to do with long-term population growth than with the robustness of the economy. Economists agree that the most accurate way to analyze a statement like this is to look at the percentage of people working, not the raw number.
Otherwise, you could say that President Barack Obama at the depths of the Great Recession was presiding over a healthier job market than Ronald Reagan in his second term, because 25 percent more Americans were working. The difference was that the base U.S. population -- rather than job prospects -- grew substantially in the interim.
As a general rule, "focusing on the total number of people employed is misleading," Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs site Indeed, told us when we looked at Pence’s earlier comment.
Let’s take a look at what happens if you calculate the percentage of the Indiana population that is working.
According to the Census Bureau’s 2015 population estimate — the most recent one available — Indiana has a population of about 6.48 million. So 47.3 percent of Indiana residents were working this year.
By contrast, at the previous raw-number peak in Indiana employment -- May 2000 -- there were 3.02 million residents working. That year, the state had 6.08 million residents, so the percentage working was 49.7 percent.
In other words, a bigger percentage of Indiana’s population was working in 2000 than in 2016. That throws some cold water on Pence’s assertion.
These calculations use all Indiana residents as a baseline, regardless of age, but the same pattern holds if you just look at Indiana residents between the ages of 18 and 64, the prime working years.
Currently, 75.4 percent of Indiana residents in that age range are working. In 2000, the comparable figure was 80.5 percent. So by this measure, too, Pence is wrong about 2016 representing a historical peak.
Then there’s the more traditional measure of the health of the job market, the unemployment rate. This statistic uses as its baseline the number of people who are looking for a job, which makes it even more precise and in most cases more useful to economists.
Indiana’s current unemployment rate of 5 percent is what experts would generally consider good, but it’s hardly a historical low for Indiana. For most of the time between 1993 and 2008, Indiana’s unemployment was right around 5 percent and often even lower. Here’s a chart going back to 1976:
Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, noticed another pattern in the numbers. He used federal data to determine that even though the state’s working-age population grew by 311,000 between 2000 and 2015, the number of people actually working in the state increased by far less over that period -- only 45,400.
That does not seem like an obvious sign of a strong employment trend.
Our ruling
Pence said, "There are more Hoosiers going to work than ever before."
Literally, more Indiana residents are employed now than at any time in the past. But it’s a data point with very little meaning, since, as any statistician will tell you, it doesn’t take into account the size of the state’s population.
Looking instead at the percentage of Hoosiers working shows that the percentage was higher during the previous employment peak in 2000. And the widely used unemployment rate — which is even more precise because it is based on the number of residents who are actively looking for a job — has been lower than its current rate over long stretches of recent history.
We rate the statement Half True.
RELATED | WATCH: Mike Pence's radio show from the '90s | WATCH: Mike Pence's first speech at RNC in 2000
Mike Pence stretches claim of record education spending in Indiana at Republican convention
Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence joked at his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that most people don’t know who he is.
So he offered up his record as Indiana’s governor, an office he’s held since January 2013.
Pence claimed that Indiana has "the highest credit rating in the nation." In a separate fact-check, we rated that Mostly True. He also boasted that he oversaw "record investments in education."
"In my home state of Indiana, we prove every day that you can build a growing economy on balanced budgets, low taxes, even while making record investments in education and roads and health care," Pence said in his July 20 remarks.
We were curious whether Pence, currently in his third year as Indiana’s governor, really has passed "record investments in education."
Well, it depends on how you count it. In raw dollars, Pence’s claim holds up. But when adjusted for inflation, education spending at its highest point under Pence is still lower than it was in 2010 and 2011, before Pence took office.
We got some help from Larry DeBoer, a professor of agricultural economics at Indiana’s Purdue University who has compiled state budget data.
Prior to Pence, Indiana education spending for K-12 and higher education combined peaked at $9.3 billion in 2011, according to DeBoer’s data. Not adjusting for inflation, education spending has surpassed that peak every year from 2014 on. Estimated spending in the current fiscal year tops $10 billion.
But adjusted for inflation, estimated spending for the current fiscal year is about 1.1 percent less than it was in 2011. The graph below shows raw dollar spending in blue and inflation-adjusted spending in red. (For calculating the inflation-adjusted spending, DeBoer used 1982-84 dollars according to the Consumer Price Index.)
While education spending under Pence is certainly on the rise, the pace of that increase proves not to be so dramatic when adjusted for inflation.
Also, the graph appears to show a huge jump in spending leading into 2010. DeBoer noted that this reflects a big change in the spending structure among the state and localities, so it’s not useful to compare education spending today to pre-2010.
One more way to put the state’s education spending in context is to look at its size compared with the Indiana economy. Education spending as a share of total Indiana income has been on a consistent decline since 2010, but it is becoming a bigger share of the state budget overall, DeBoer noted.
Our ruling
Pence said that as Indiana governor, he has made "record investments in education."
In raw dollars, Pence’s statement is accurate. However, when adjusted for inflation, education spending at its highest point under Pence is still lower than it was in 2010 and 2011, though only marginally so.
Pence’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.
ALSO READ | He could be your next VP: Who is Mike Pence? | TIMELINE: The governorship of Mike Pence
Mike Pence touts top Indiana credit rating achieved before he became governor
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, the Republican nominee for vice president, introduced himself to the nation during a speech at the Republican convention in Cleveland by trying to show that he knows how to handle big budgets.
A five-term member of Congress who assumed the governorship three and a half years ago. Pence contrasted the federal government's $19 trillion debt to his state's finances.
"We in Indiana have a $2 billion surplus, the highest credit rating in the nation, even though we've cut taxes every year since I became governor four years ago," he told the crowd.
Measuring a governor by his state’s credit rating is something we hear often. People criticized New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for his state’s credit rating while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tried (and failed) to use Florida’s credit rating to his benefit.
A credit rating is an assessment of a state’s ability to repay its lenders, not just today but for years to come. The opinion, issued by ratings agencies, matters because the lower the rating, the higher the interest rate the state faces when it wants to borrow money. It’s kind of like a credit score for states.
So what’s the story with Indiana and Pence?
Pence is correct that Indiana has the highest credit rating a state can receive, though you can also say there a lot of states tied for first place.
The three ratings agencies — Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings — have given Indiana its highest credit rating, AAA, since April 2010
Not only Indiana
The most recent long-term compilation of state-by-state credit ratings we found was compiled by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew tracked the ratings from Standard & Poor’s, from 2001 through May 2014.
It shows that Indiana's rating is AAA, the highest. But several other states share that distinction as well.
As of May 2014, 14 other states also had AAA ratings.
Pew noted that three states — Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia — have held a AAA credit rating for at least 50 years.
Pre-dated Pence
Indiana maintained AAA status during Pence’s term. But it achieved that feat before Pence took office.
Pence became governor in January 2013. State officials say Indiana had a top credit rating since 2010.
A Dec. 4, 2012, report from the state's public finance director says the AAA Fitch rating was earned in April 2010, the same time Moody's Investor Services, the third major rating agency, upgraded Indiana's credit rating to Aaa from Aa1.
The Northwest Indiana Times reported at the time of those credit upgrades that the Fitch and Moody’s ratings went up because both agencies had recalibrated their rating systems for states.
Our ruling
Pence said, "We in Indiana have ... the highest credit rating in the nation."
It actually shares that distinction with several other states and those top ratings predate Pence's governorship by a few years or more.
Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True.
RELATED | Trump introduces 'small-town boy' Mike Pence
Mike Pence's inaccurate claim about Clinton's Benghazi role and response
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence officially accepted the GOP’s nomination for vice president July 21, 2016, in Cleveland, and didn’t miss a beat when it came to assailing Hillary Clinton.
"It was Hillary Clinton who left Americans in harm's way in Benghazi and after four Americans fell said, 'What difference at this point does it make?' " Pence said, eliciting loud boos from the audience.
We’ve heard a version of this attack several times at the Republican National Convention, with some versions more accurate than others.
Both parts of this particular claim are inaccurate. There is no evidence showing Clinton personally "left Americans in harm’s way in Benghazi." And while he’s using Clinton words, he’s misattributing their meaning.
Leaving Americans ‘in harm’s way’
We reached out to the Trump campaign to clarify what Pence meant by Clinton leaving "Americans in harm’s way" but didn’t hear back immediately.
It could refer to her alleged inaction after the attacks in sending troops to the scene. Or, to her allegedly brushing off requests for more security at the Benghazi compound. Or, her "sleeping through" the attacks. No matter, all of these claims are inaccurate -- some more so than others.
Let’s take a look one by one.
Before he officially got the job, Pence knocked Clinton for taking "13 hours to send help to Americans under fire."
We rated that False. Clinton was not responsible for sending help to Benghazi; that fell to military officials. The Defense Department attempted to send help to the scene, but was unable to reach Benghazi before the deaths occurred.
Others have accused Clinton of ignoring requests for more security for the Benghazi consulate. It’s undeniable that officials in Libya repeatedly asked for better security, but there’s no evidence that Clinton herself was aware or that she willfully denied them.
And finally, Pence may have been making his running mate’s point that the Benghazi victims were "left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed."
That’s also False. Clinton was not literally sleeping when the attacks unfolded, as it was mid afternoon in Washington. Emails show she worked late into the night.
Taking Trump’s and Pence’s claim more broadly, was Clinton inattentive as the attacks unfolded?
In its recently released report, the House select committee on Benghazi did conclude that there were State Department and overall administrative failings, but Pence and Trump blamed Clinton specifically.
And neither that probe nor the seven congressional investigations before it have suggested Clinton was personally responsible or could have prevented the attack.
Clinton, for her part, has accepted responsibility for the attack as the head of the State Department at the time.
‘What difference at this point does it make?’
Pence’s claim that she made this oft-repeated comment in response "after four Americans fell" is also inaccurate.
Clinton’s comments, said during a hearing months after the attack, was not an expression of apathy over the deaths.It was an exasperated response to Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressing Clinton on why State Department officials in Washington didn’t call their counterparts in Libya to determine the cause of the attack (protests over a video mocking Islam or a planned terrorist attack).
Clinton told Johnson her priority was figuring out how to rescue them, not pressing them for information, and it wasn’t appropriate to talk to the them before FBI interviews. When Johnson continued to press her for a more straightforward answer, Clinton gave her exasperated answer.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?" she said.
(You can read the full six-minute transcript here, courtesy of PolitiFact Wisconsin.)
Our ruling
Pence said, "It was Hillary Clinton who left Americans in harm's way in Benghazi and after four Americans fell said, 'What difference at this point does it make?' "
It’s reasonable to argue that Clinton, as head of the State Department, should shoulder some responsibility for the bureaucratic failures that may have contributed to the tragedy. But there’s no evidence that suggests, as Pence does, that Clinton was personally responsible for or could have prevented the deaths of the four Benghazi victims.
As for Clinton’s comment, it did not come "after four Americans fell," but in a subsequent congressional hearing. She was responding to a senator’s repeated questioning over why she didn’t call department workers in Benghazi to figure out the cause of the attack, not to the fact that four Americans had died.
We rate Pence’s claim Mostly False.
