Datasets:

lzw1008

/

COLING25-FMD

like 2

FMD_test_0

When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs. Ive kept that promise.

08/19/2020

Rep. Abigail Spanberger sits in a yard with her parents during aTV ad, talking about the lessons they imparted. Growing up, my parents taught me, Correct whats wrong, maintain whats right, the Virginia Democrat says. Then, Spanberger addresses something shes trying to correct: Corporate donations to political campaigns. When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs, she says. Ive kept that promise. Spanberger is seeking a second term this fall in one of the nations most closely watched House races. Shes opposed by Republican state Del. Nick Freitas in Virginias 7th District which, prior to Spanbergers election in 2018, had a long history of voting Republican. The National Republican Campaign CommitteesaysSpanberger islyingin her ad and accepting backdoor corporate contributions. So we fact-checked Spanbergers claim that shes spurned corporate PAC contributions, and found it needs elaboration. According to herlatest filingswith the Federal Election Commission, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million in contributions since the start of 2019 through the end of June 2020. We found no money that came directly from corporations. But the NRCC has a small point. While Spanberger refuses direct corporate donations, she accepts contributions from PACs that do take corporate contributions. In other words, she receives a small amount of corporate PAC money that has been filtered. A corporate PAC is affiliated with a specific company that gathers donations from its employees and distributes it to politicians and political interest groups. Corporate funds cannot be contributed to the PAC. There are two main conduits that receive corporate PAC money and pass it on. One of the pipelines is formed by leadership PACs, which are set up bymostmembers of Congress to help candidates from their party. For example, Spanberger has received a maximum $10,000 from the Forward Together PAC, associated with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Forward Together hasaccepted contributionsfrom a list of corporations, including Merck, Citigroup, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Altria. We counted 60 leadership PACs that have contributed to Spanbergers campaign. The second conduit is formed by ideological PACs, which are established by groups focusing on special causes, such as regulation, defense or health care. Spanberger hasreceived $651,000from PACs since the start of 2019. About $111,000 of that money filtered down from corporate PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics - a Washington nonprofit that tracks political money. The Center made its estimate by converting the percentage of money each Spanberger PAC donor received from corporations to a fraction of money it gave to her campaign. Perspective As weve said, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million since 2019 began. The $111,000 that trickled in from corporations is 2.6% of all contributions to her campaign. Sixty members of Congress - including three Republicans - have promised not to accept corporate money, according to End Citizens United, a Washington nonprofit seeking to tighten campaign finance laws. Rep. Elaine Luria, D-2nd, is the only other Virginia congress member to make the pledge. Campaign finance advocates told us theyre unaware of any incumbent who is declining both corporate and leadership PAC money. End Citizens United has endorsed Spanberger largely because of her no-corporate-money pledge and is not upset by her acceptance of leadership PAC money, according to Adam Bozzi, spokesman for the organization. Michael Beckel, research director for Issue One, another Washington non-profit seeking campaign finance reform, also told us Spanberger has been consistent. Bozzi and Beckel said direct contributions often give corporations access to politicians. They said office holders are far less likely to feel beholden to a corporation when its money has been filtered through a leadership PAC. If anything, the candidate may feel indebted to the politician whose leadership PAC contributed to his or her campaign, Beckel said. Spanberger has kept her promise to voters, Bozzi said. Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said its become vogue for Democrats to decline corporate PAC money, but voters should be aware. Candidates trying to remove themselves are putting themselves in an awkward position because to completely shut themselves off from corporate donations right now is impossible, she said...If you need money to run a political campaign, unless youre independently wealthy, youre getting money from people. And most people work for corporations. Bettina Weiss, Spanbergers campaign manager, said, Abigail does not take corporate PAC money. Full stop. She accused Republicans of waging a farcical attack on Spanbergers fundraising. Weiss noted that Spanberger cosponsored theFor the People Act of 2019, a comprehensive voting rights, campaign finance and ethics bill aimed at reducing corporate influence on Congress. The measure, with236 cosponsors, passed the House and has stalled in the Senate. A final note:PolitiFact state bureaus have recently fact-checkedtwosimilarclaims by politicians who said they have rejected corporate PAC money, but didnt factor in leadership PAC money. Both claims were rated Mostly True. Our Ruling Spanberger says shes kept her promise to refuse corporate PAC donations. Shes raised $4.2 million - none directly from corporations, although an estimated $111,000 of corporate money has come in indirectly through other PAC contributions. Thats less than 2.6% of her campaigns take, but it counts. Realizing that it may be impossible to block all traces of corporate money from a successful congressional campaign, we rate Spanbergers statement Mostly True.

FMD_test_1

Are individuals involved in sex trafficking marking vehicles as possible targets?

08/25/2020

In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle began circulating on social media, accompanied by a warning about an alleged tactic used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy" or "1 female 1 baby," asserting that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme gained viral traction when it was posted on actor James Woods' Twitter account. The text read: "A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store, a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b). I'm just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is how sex traffickers are tagging cars. Please, please, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, be AWARE! Feel free to share! Won't be tagging my friend for personal reasons." The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have stated that they are unaware of any such activity. Before we examine the police statement regarding this matter, let's consider the game of telephone that helped this rumor spread. The text of this post indicates that this incident happened to a "friend of mine." As we read further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger—not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee, just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post garnered far wider circulation. As we moved further away from the rumor's origins, the details became increasingly muddled. One poster, for instance, claimed that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in that location. When we attempt to trace this rumor back to its origins, we find that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person asserting that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor lacks credible origins. The local Patch website reported that Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports of anything like this," Kelly stated. He also mentioned that the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities about any information indicating that criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor emerged on social media in July 2021. "AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry, but I'm educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!" On July 27, 2021, at around 3:30 PM, between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, a truck had a black Tahoe stop in front of it. A man got out and began asking the female driver of the truck for directions. She rolled down her window but had her seatbelt on and doors locked. As the man approached, he punched her in her left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully, she was carrying and grabbed her gun. He fled the scene. She called the police, who advised her that the mark "1FW" on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She had been marked somewhere, and this man followed her; when she was on a road alone, he attempted to take her. Thankfully, she is home with her family tonight. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. This is not the first time that such baseless warnings have gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we reported on the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were lying down in front of vehicles to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor claiming that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets. Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, states that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths regarding trafficking: The Polaris Project Myth: It's always or usually a violent crime. Fact: The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating, or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.

FMD_test_2

Missing Child: Ember Graham

09/01/2015

FACT CHECK: Is an infant named Ember Graham missing from her Happy Valley, California, home? Claim: An infant named Ember Graham is missing from her Happy Valley, California, home. Example: [Collected via Facebook, August 2015] My Ember is STILL missing. She went missing July 2, 2015 from Happy Valley, CA. She was six months old, wearing a size 2 Kirkland diaper. She has brown hair, and distinct brown downturned eyes. She is approximately 15 pounds and 2' 1". She is now 8 months old. She is a epileptic and needs to take special medication for her seizures, BUT that does not mean she still is not alive, she could survive without it. I'm begging anyone with any sort of information to please come forward! It could even be anonymously. I just want my baby back! I NEED her back. You could drop her off at any hospital, church, or fire station. Anywhere public. Or you could call anonymously by dialing *67 before you enter in the number. There is a $10,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the wearabouts of my little girl. Please call the Nor Cal top line at (530) 378-4491. Anonoymously or not! Please help me bring my baby home. Even if you have no information, please share her picture out there and tell everyone you know. We're relying on the public and the community for help now, we have spent every single day searching the surrounding areas and have found nothing, we have run out of real estate. Please help find my baby. #northerncalifornia #california #emberskye #missing #baby #missingbaby #8monthsold #littlegirl #epilepsy #theresacaputo #nancygrace #dateline #missingpersons #dr.phil #pleasecomehome Origins: On 25 August 2015, Facebook user JamieLee Tomlin-Graham published the above-quoted appeal to her personal Facebook page, seeking leads in the case of her missing infant daughter, Ember Graham. published A number of "missing child" pleas are outdated, inaccurate, or otherwise misstated on social media, but this one is relevant and current: Ember Graham indeed disappeared from her home in California in July 2015 and remains missing. Six-month-old Graham was last seen on 2 July 2015, and early in the investigation Shasta County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Pat Kropholler said father Matthew Graham was a person of interest in her disappearance: missing child Graham "In the case of Ember Graham the sole person of interest in her disappearance still remains with her father, Matthew Graham," Kropholler said in the press release. "The Sheriffs Office Major Crimes Unit has investigated tips received from the public and all other possible angles of a stranger abduction." "There is no evidence that a third party was involved, including anyone within the family," he said. "The motive of why he abandoned her or what lead to him disposing of her body died with him when he confronted officers with deadly force in Dunsmuir, California after he had carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint," Kropholler stated. A pacifier found on the side of a road in Ono, California, on 10 July 2015 was tested and determined to be baby Ember's. On 13 July Matthew Graham was killed in a shootout with police, an event that further complicated the investigation into Ember Graham's whereabouts: pacifier event Graham was spotted by Shasta County and Siskiyou County deputies and California Highway Patrol officers in Dunsmuir. He was shot and killed, according to the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. After the babys disappearance, authorities said Graham showed no remorse and didn't ask how they planned to find his daughter; they said he refused to submit to a voice stress test and asked for a lawyer. Investigators said they also found it tough to believe that a stranger could break into Grahams 25-foot camper trailer undetected and snatch Ember away, as he claimed. The home is surrounded by two fences and protected by guard dogs; the room where Ember slept apparently has no working door and can only be pried open with a screwdriver, which would make a lot of noise, detectives said. Pages on Facebook and Twitter have been created by Ember Graham's family to assist in the search for the child, and anyone with information has been asked to call the Shasta County Sheriffs Major Crimes Unit at (530) 245-6135. Facebook Twitter Last updated: 1 September 2015 Originally published: 1 September 2015

FMD_test_3

Did U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings Write a Bill to Keep All of Barack Obama's Records Sealed?

05/07/2019

On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. This bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the President's 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress's attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), claimed that Cummings's bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed." First of all, this meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed," meaning that records that would ordinarily be accessible to the public have been restricted via court orders. In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration), are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records), or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above—with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years—are federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included several provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed." These provisions include strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of federal records to clearly include electronic records, confirming that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form, granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record, authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives while legal custody remains with the agency or the President, clarifying the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems, empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings's bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overridden by the incumbent president or by court order. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records. For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for the enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administration's Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989, which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation, there was nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former president, as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (H.R. 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013, creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, essentially codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. H.R. 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president and grants the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records.

FMD_test_4

Are 20 Percent of Homicide Victims with Restraining Orders Killed Soon After Obtaining Them?

10/15/2018

With October marking Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S., readers contacted us regarding a graphic circulating online that shared an alarming statistic about homicide rates for partners who obtained restraining orders. The graphic, which was unattributed but bore the hashtag #DVAM2018, stated: 1 in 5 homicide victims with restraining orders are murdered within two days of obtaining the order, and 1 in 3 within the first month. The figures were taken from a 2008 study on intimate partner homicides (IPH). Although the data presented in the meme was accurate, it lacked some context provided by the original source and could therefore be potentially misleading when taken in isolation. According to that study, about 11% of 231 women killed by male intimates had been issued a restraining order. About one-fifth of the female IPH victims who had a restraining order were killed within two days of the order being issued, and about one-third were killed within a month. Nearly half of those with a restraining order had been protected by multiple orders. Victims killed in a shared residence (versus elsewhere) had lower odds of having a restraining order, whereas victims from rural (versus urban) counties, married (versus dating) victims, and Latino (versus non-Latino) victim-offender dyads had higher odds of having a restraining order. The type of weapon used was not associated with whether the victim had been under the protection of a restraining order. While the numbers used in the meme were quoted accurately, we are rating this item as a Mixture because it does not mention that the overwhelming majority of IPH victims reported by the survey who were killed by intimates (89%) did not have restraining orders in place. Omitting this piece of information could create a false impression regarding the effectiveness of restraining or protective orders, and more recent data supports their use as a deterrent against intimate partner violence. A 2011 study published by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire found that the quality of life improved for the 213 women they surveyed who had received civil protective orders. Half the women reported that the orders were not violated, and the majority of respondents reported declines in "days of distress and sleep loss" after obtaining those orders. The report concluded by noting that not only are civil protective orders effective, but they are relatively low cost, especially when compared with the social and personal costs of partner violence. The effectiveness is particularly relevant for low-income rural women, who face more personal and social barriers to stopping the violence, including higher unemployment and tighter connections to the violent partner. Rural women also have fewer community resources or alternatives available to help them. Therefore, increasing access to civil protective orders should be an important goal in helping victims and their children and in lowering the societal costs of partner violence. We contacted Katherine Vittes, the lead researcher for the 2008 study cited in the meme, seeking comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

FMD_test_5

John Kerry's Address Given on the Front Porch

10/20/2004

For John Kerry's Labor Day 'front porch' stop in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, neighborhood streets were closed, and residents were told to take down their Bush/Cheney signs. Neighborhood streets were closed: True. Residents were ordered to remove their Bush/Cheney signage: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Tuesday morning! John Kerry brought his "front porch meeting" to our Canonsburg, PA neighborhood on Labor Day morning. Since you will never hear the truth from the TV or print media, I thought that you should know from someone who was 'almost' there. The residents who live on the street where the event took place were not allowed to attend. Kerry brought in approximately 90 invitation-only VIPs. In addition, there was a hard-luck case who was about to lose her job at USAIR, and another was an elderly woman who was having health care problems. Neither one was from this neighborhood. The street was closed to all traffic the night before, and all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs. The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used eminent domain to claim the street for his purposes. Residents who have homes within the perimeter (approximately one full block) were kept behind a line away from the partisan crowd. The rest of us were not allowed within the one-block cordon. A neighbor from across the street came to the line where we were being kept and asked us to come onto his property. The police told us that we could stand on this man's FORMERLY private property! This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors. About 30 people (mostly neighbors) shouted down the street, "Let the neighbors in." We could barely hear Kerry speaking with his microphone because press buses were used to block us off from view! This morning's papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude. Even though most of the media was there to record our stories of not being included in the neighborhood forum, not one of them printed or aired the truth. This is what America will look like if Kerry becomes president. Get registered and get all of your friends registered to vote if they have not already. Kerry thinks that he is better than the rest of us, and he has the media on his side to make him out to be what he is not! Finally, last night as I drove down the street where the rally was, I was shocked to see Bush/Cheney signs in almost every yard on the street! Please send this e-mail on to as many people as you can. LET FREEDOM RING! Origins: On Monday, the 6th of September 2004, John Kerry took his campaign to Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, a working-class neighborhood near Pittsburgh. That day's schedule began with a front-porch question and answer session with supporters on West College Street at the home of Dale and Jody Rhome. It is that session of politicking which is the subject of the e-mail quoted above. Although not every claim made in the report can be substantiated or dismissed, some can. Statements made in two articles that appeared in the Observer-Reporter, the newspaper from the nearby town of Washington, Pennsylvania, after the 'front porch' meeting support the e-mail's claim of the street's being closed all night to traffic: "The 200 block of West College was shut down for the visit" and "On Sunday morning, the Rhomes and Kerry campaign workers went door-to-door on the street, alerting neighbors of Kerry's upcoming visit. [Said Jody Rhome] 'We also told them they had to get their cars off the street because the street was being shut down.'" However, its next assertion, that "all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs," appears to contradict a line from an Observer-Reporter article two days after the event: "In an effort to block out the few dozen Bush supporters on one end of the street, Kerry officials provided volunteers with various Kerry signs in key positions to block Bush signage." Had neighbors been made to take down their Bush/Cheney signs, nothing would have remained that required screening from sight. Yet the Observer-Reporter's statement might have referred to placards brandished by demonstrators rather than signs erected on people's lawns. However, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette account of the day makes it clear that fixed signs were not removed, saying: "Beth Soucie, who stood in a yard filled with Bush signs, said she will stick with the Republican incumbent." The description of the Soucie yard stands at odds with the claim of removed signs, as does the photo on this page of Mrs. Soucie and two other women standing in the Bush/Cheney-festooned Soucie yard. According to a blogger called Ilja who posts on the RightNation.us forums, his conversation with Stan Soucie, the husband of the Beth Soucie interviewed and photographed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, further argued against the 'sign removal' aspect of the account. In his 18 September 2004 post to the "Kerry Campaign Stop Angers Pennsylvania Neighborhood" thread, he reported: RightNation.us Angers He said that I could cite him [Stan Soucie] and that they were not told they had to take their Bush/Cheney signs down because there was a yard down the street from where they were standing with a whole lot of Bush signs in the yard. He did state that whenever the TV cameras would move to where a Bush sign was, the Democratic organization would hold their signs in front of the Bush signs to block out the view. However, since they were standing on a porch, the Democrat signs were not tall enough to block them. The e-mailed narrative states, "The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminent domain to claim the street for his purposes." If members of the police force said that, they were in error because Senator Kerry could not have invoked "eminent domain." One block of West College was cordoned off by the Secret Service, who are charged with protecting the nominee. The Senator would not have had much, if any, say in this. John Kerry was heckled during his remarks that morning and did engage in dialogue back and forth with his detractors, which means the e-mail's "This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors" should be viewed with skepticism. Also, that the Senator was heckled shows that the assembled crowd couldn't have been composed of only hand-picked VIPs; otherwise, there wouldn't have been that sort of sparring. This is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's account of some of those exchanges: With a friendly crowd in Canonsburg lobbing softball questions yesterday, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry could have ignored a pocket of hecklers that tried to disrupt his campaign. Instead, Kerry pulled the detractors into his Labor Day speech, part of the "front-porch discussions" he's been holding across the country. He told them their shouts and taunts couldn't cover up facts—namely, that America has had a net loss of 1.6 million jobs under President Bush. Gasoline prices are up 31 percent since Bush took office, and college tuition has grown more expensive by the year, he said. At the same time, he said, wages are down by $1,500 for "the average family." One heckler then shouted, "Yeah, Kerry, you're really average." Kerry pounced on the comment, replying: "No, I'm privileged, and my tax burden went down. I don't think that's right." Kerry said Bush, also a man of money and privilege, has worked hard to lessen tax payments for the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise, Kerry said, Bush has presided over an economy that is in disarray. Income for all Americans fell 9.2 percent in 2001 and 2002, according to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, Bush has rung up record budget deficits, and he will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to have lost more jobs than he created, Kerry said. "Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon all created jobs during their presidencies, even though they had wars to contend with," Kerry said. The jobs developed under Bush's administration are nothing to shout about, Kerry went on. He seized on a just-released Bureau of Labor Statistics report that said new jobs in growing industries pay $8,848 a year less than jobs that were lost, either because of shrinking industries or the exportation of work to foreign soil. "If you think that's moving in the right direction, go vote for the other guy," Kerry said to the hecklers. According to the e-mail, "This morning's papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had a different take on what was said and why: Patricia Romano of Canonsburg told Kerry that she has had 11 throat surgeries and must pay so much for prescription drugs that she had to get a part-time job at age 70. Hecklers drowned out Romano at one point. That prompted Kerry to say, "While the Bush people were rudely shouting, we had a 70-year-old woman trying to speak" about runaway costs of prescription drugs. The identity of the person who wrote this by now much-traveled account remains a mystery. Roughly three of every four copies that found their way to us were prefaced: "Received this from a very good friend in PA. She wants everyone to know what she saw." Yet in none of those forwards was the 'very good friend in PA' identified by name or her e-mail address provided; other than her gender and state of residence, nothing is known about the purported authoress of this chronicle. Paradoxically, about one-quarter of the narrations bear the name "Ken Armstrong," and about one-twentieth "Charles A. Walter." Both are decidedly male names, further muddying the question of authorship. Barbara "front porch remarks, back fence gossip" Mikkelson Last updated: 20 October 2004 Sources: Hazlett, Terry. "Prepping a Porch for Kerry." [Washington] Observer-Reporter. 8 September 2004 (p. A1). Simonich, Milan. "Kerry Jousts with Hecklers." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 7 September 2004 (p. A3). Walters, Patrick. "Heinz Kerry Visits Pittsburgh, Philadelphia for Labor Day Parades." The Associated Press. 7 September 2004. Warco, Kathie. "Rendell, Hoeffel Stump in S. Strabane." [Washington] Observer-Reporter. 7 September 2004 (p. A1).

FMD_test_6

Detailed Social Housing Initiative

07/28/2011

Claim: Video clip shows a Tacoma housing development "built for illegal immigrants" who are receiving "refugee pay." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] I want to move to Tacoma... to the good life! Here is a development in Tacoma, WA (Salishan) that was built for illegal immigrants! 1,325 homes created! Refugee pay offers them $2,642 per month in SSI benefits, plus food stamps, plus Section 8 housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn't you like to get a free ride like the illegals? Origins: As noted by Kathleen Merryman of the Tacoma News Tribune, the video clip linked above about the Salishan housing development on Tacoma's East Side has garnered a good deal of attention for that community: William B. Mount is going viral on Salishan. The Tacoman once used public access television to air his worldview and now posts videos on YouTube. About five months ago, he and a woman named Jane drove through Salishan on Tacoma's East Side with a video camera and a big box of misinformation. They delivered a 10-minute commentary on the mixed-use and mixed-income redevelopment of the worn-out public housing site and posted it on the video-sharing site. The stew of untruths simmered there. It's at a boil now. Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma City Council members are receiving e-mails from people upset over what he calls the misuse of Social Security funds. As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false: analysis Claim: "What you are looking at is a $225 million complex, $225 million complex, of housing out of the Social Security budget for 1,300 units." False: No Social Security funds were used to redevelop Salishan. Claim: "All welfare housing. All Social Security housing for foreigners will get $2,642 a month. All of that comes out of the Social Security budget." False: Of Salishan's renters, 97 percent are citizens of the United States, according to THA Executive Director Michael Mirra. "We know of no government program that pays $2,642 per month to foreigners," Mirra said. Claim: "The average income in here is about $13,000 per year, not including welfare, not including Social Security refugee pay, not including Women, Infants, and Children." False: The $13,000 figure is based on out-of-date 2000 Census data. As for the other sources, Mirra said: "We do not know of anyone who gets something called 'Social Security refugee pay.'" Claim: "This school was built by Tacoma specifically to house foreigners and welfare recipients." False. Lister Elementary School does not "house" any foreigners or welfare recipients. Claim: "They mollycoddle these foreigners who come across the border illegally." False. THA does not rent to people who are in this country illegally, and 97 percent of Salishan residents are U.S. citizens. Claim: "And they don't pay taxes. This housing is free if you are on Social Security refugee pay." False. Anyone who buys non-food goods and services in Washington State pays sales tax, and every Salishan household with earned income is subject to federal income taxes. Every Salishan rental household with an income pays rent. For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video. Last updated: 28 July 2011

FMD_test_7

Does Website for Wisconsin Republicans Say 'Prepare for War'?

01/12/2021

On Jan. 12, 2021, news reports surfaced alleging that a web page for Wisconsin's St. Croix County Republican Party told supporters to "prepare for war," despite urging from the state party to remove the message and the deadly insurrection by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol the previous week. The reports were true. As of this report, the homepage for the local Republican group in northwestern Wisconsin read, "Si vis pacem, para bellum," the Latin adage meaning "if you want peace, prepare for war." Underneath that heading, the page stated in English: If you want peace, prepare for war. The phrase, originally coined in the 4th or 5th century, embodies the concept conveyed in earlier works such as Plato's "Nomoi" and carries with it a modern interpretation of "Peace Through Strength," a cornerstone of conservative beliefs. Welcome to the digital battlefield. The message also perpetuated the conspiracy theory that "Democrats in concert with the Marxist left and a complicit mass media" were running a coordinated scheme to undermine conservative Americans and attempt to overturn Trump's 2016 presidential win, without providing proof to support the claims. The page also alleged that Trump's political opponents colluded in an illegal scheme to block him from serving another presidential term, though numerous court battles and reviews by election security experts proved that did not happen. Rather, President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump under election laws outlined in the Constitution and federal and state statutes, receiving at least 270 electoral votes. After those false claims, the St. Croix Republican Party's homepage stated that Trump radically changed the party and that "patriots need to continue the fight" and "stand and be counted as a conservative warrior" to uphold the Constitution and remove "leftist tyrants" from elected positions in Wisconsin. According to online archives of the URL, stcroixrepublican.org, the website at one point called for "eliminating" those political opponents instead of removing them. The St. Croix County party's chairman, John Kraft, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the homepage included the phrase "prepare for war" before the deadly insurrection in defiance of Biden's presidential win on Jan. 6. He did not specify when the page was first posted and did not respond to the local newspaper's question about whether he considered taking down the message after the attack by right-wing extremists. Kraft told the newspaper he "can't help what twisted inferences local Democrats choose to attribute to it." On Jan. 9, Kraft stated on his Facebook page that "it's never been clearer that we are absolutely at war with the left," according to The Associated Press. A representative of the group did not respond to Snopes' request for an interview for this report, though updates will be posted if someone returns the message. According to Wisconsin Republican Chairman Andrew Hitt, the state party does not control the local parties and had asked St. Croix County Republicans to remove the call to "prepare for war" before the violent insurrection, though he did not specify a date for the request. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Especially in light of recent events, it's an ill-chosen phrase to express their sentiments. We suggested at an earlier date they remove this, but they declined to take our advice."

FMD_test_8

This Is Not a Real Photo of the Pope in a Puffy Coat

03/26/2023

On March 25, 2023, a photo that appeared to show 86-year-old Pope Francis out and about in a fashionable white puffer jacket went viral on social media. As many who saw it suspected, it was actually a deepfake image created via artificial intelligence (AI). It originally appeared on Reddit in the r/midjourney subreddit. Midjourney is an app that generates images from natural-language prompts, much like DALL-E, another well-known AI image-generating app. Many Midjourney experimenters share their creations in the subreddit. The image was part of a gallery comprising four different views of the pope in a puffy coat. March 2023 was something of a breakout month for AI-generated deepfakes. Mid-month, former U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he expected to be arrested soon in connection with the Stormy Daniels hush-money case prompted a flood of deepfake images on social media, positing imaginative scenarios surrounding such an arrest.

FMD_test_9

Did an 11-Year-Old Girl Shoot and Kill 'Illegal Aliens' Burglarizing Her Home?

05/02/2007

A story about two armed "illegal aliens" killed during an attempted home invasion by an 11-year-old shotgun-wielding girl was posted to LibertyPost.org on 25 April 2007: Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. Although the account was widely cited as a validation of "anti-illegal immigration" and/or pro-gun ownership positions, confirmation of the tale as a real-life incident was lacking. The only documentation for this item was numerous web sites all citing the same information, with no details of time or place (other than a reference to Montana). Searches of news databases (including Montana-based newspapers) failed to turn up any corresponding news stories containing any of the four names provided, and the name of one of the putative criminals ("Ralphel Resendez") just happened to echo an alias (Raphael Resendez-Ramirez) used by Angel Maturino Resendiz (also an undocumented immigrant), the infamous "Railroad Killer." Railroad Killer Although many versions of this item cited the home invasion incident as having taken place in Butte, Montana, that area's sheriff said no such thing had occurred in that city: When asked about the authenticity of the events described in this story, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh told The Montana Standard that his office never investigated such an incident. "This never happened," Walsh said. The story claims the girl shot and killed the two intruders while she was home alone. The story doesn't provide a street address or attribute the information to any official sources. Walsh brushed off the story as an urban myth. "It's amazing how these things get around," he said. The only news story (of recent vintage) we could turn up about a minor using a shotgun to kill two armed intruders attempting a home invasion robbery took place in December 2006 and involved a 17-year-old boy in Texas (rather than an 11-year-old girl in Montana): news story An overnight home invasion robbery attempt in northeast Harris County ended in a hail of gunfire that left two suspects dead. Investigators said a 17-year-old was home with his cousin when four armed men kicked in the door and started shooting. The teen pulled out a shotgun of his own and fired back at the suspects, killing two of them. Going back almost twenty years to 1988, we did find a news story about an 11-year-old shooting and killing two home intruders, but again the details didn't match the example cited above: Switzer, S.C. An 11-year-old boy who had been left alone after school shot and killed two men as they tried to steal a videocassette recorder from his family's home, police said. William Todd Knight, the son of Billy and Ann Knight, "acted very wisely," said Spartanburg County Coroner Jim Burnett. "His life was in danger, he looked for an escape and could not find one ... he was a very brave young man." Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department Capt. John Blackwood said the boy was watching cartoons in his parents' bedroom Monday afternoon when he heard noises at the front door of the family's brick, ranch-style home. Todd told officers he was scared, so he went to his room for the .22-caliber rifle his father had given him for Christmas and loaded four rounds. He then went to the front door and saw a man he described as "rough" pounding on the door. The man finally left in a white Datsun. Todd said he resumed watching cartoons and about 10 minutes later heard banging, this time at a dining room window. He saw two men climbing through the dining room window. The boy said he went into the bathroom to climb out the window, but saw the white Datsun was parked in the back yard. Todd told police he went back to the hallway, peeked around the corner into the den and was spotted by one of the intruders as they were taking the VCR. Todd then fired three rounds at the men, who dropped the VCR and fled. When police arrived, one of the dead men was found face down next to a woodpile in the back yard, approximately 50 to 75 feet from the house, while the second man was in the driver's seat of the white two-door Datsun. In October 2012, a 12-year-old Oklahoma girl shot (but did not kill) an unarmed burglar who broke into the house while she was home alone: Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered. "I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra [said]. Petrified, she called her mom Debra. "I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911." The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee. Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home. Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn. At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun. Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house. They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary. In January 2015, an 11-year-old Michigan girl armed with a shotgun was reported to have scared away (but not fired upon) a home intruder: An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect later taken into custody during a home invasion in Lapeer County's North Branch Township. The girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway. One person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun. The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home. Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter. "The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon." Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure. "She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by." In August 2015, an 11-year-old St. Louis boy left home with his 4-year-old sister reportedly staved off several home invasion attempts before finally shooting and killing a 16-year-old intruder, although accounts differ as to what actually took place: accounts Authorities said an 11-year-old child and his 4-year-old sister were at their home when two men attempted to break in. The suspects attempted to get into the home twice, but failed. They made their way inside through the front door on the third attempt around 2:30 p.m. After the suspects entered the home, police said, the 11-year-old picked up a gun and fatally shot Lamonte Streeter. According to police, Streeter's body was found inside the home and evidence collected at the scene indicate that he was shot while inside. Some neighbors are providing a different version of events. One woman, who said she saw the shooting, [said] the 11-year-old and Streeter were arguing on the home's front porch when the shots were fired. "The little boy's (person shot) jumped up and went towards there and laid down and he lands in the doorway. He was always sitting on the porch, he never went inside the house," said a neighbor. The second alleged intruder, identified by police as a 22-year-old man, was arrested shortly after the incident on suspicion of burglary, police said. Acosta, Roberto. "11-Year-Old Uses Shotgun to Scare Off Suspect Home Invasion." The Flint Journal. 1 February 2015. Emeigh, John Grant. "Fake Story Still Circulating on Internet." The Montana Standard. 13 December 2007. Greenblatt, Mark. "Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary." ABC News. 20 October 2012. Associated Press. "Boy, 11, Shoots, Kills 2 Intruders." The [Elyria, OH] Chronicle Telegram. 15 March 1988 (p. 6). KHOU-TV [Houston]. "Teen Shoots, Kills 2 Would-Be Robbers." 28 December 2006.

FMD_test_10

Spokane Man Saves Ducklings Jumping from Building Ledge

07/30/2008

Mallard ducks frequently make their nests at ground level, but for whatever reason a female Mallard in downtown Spokane, Washington, chose a cement awning ten feet up an office building for her nesting site. As detailed in viral email at the time, the duck laid her clutch of eggs just outside the window of Joel Armstrong, a senior loan officer at Sterling Savings Bank, and he arrived at work one day in May 2008 to find the ducklings hatched and the mother standing on the edge of the awning. As Armstrong watched, mama duck then flew down to the sidewalk below, and her ducklings started lining up on the ledge to jump down onto the hard concrete below to join her: Something really amazing happened in Downtown Spokane this week and I had to share the story with you. Some of you may know that my brother, Joel, is a loan officer at Sterling Bank. He works downtown in a second story office building, overlooking busy Riverside Avenue. Several weeks ago he watched a mother duck choose the cement awning outside his window as the uncanny place to build a nest above the sidewalk. The mallard laid nine eggs in a nest in the corner of the planter that is perched over 10 feet in the air. She dutifully kept the eggs warm for weeks and Monday afternoon all of her nine ducklings hatched. Joel worried all night how the mamma duck was going to get those babies safely off their perch in a busy, downtown, urban environment to take to water, which typically happens in the first 48 hours of a duck hatching. Tuesday morning, Joel came to work and watched the mother duck encourage her babies to the edge of the perch with the intent to show them how to jump off! The mother flew down below and started quacking to her babies above. In his disbelief Joel watched as the first fuzzy newborn toddled to the edge and astonishingly leapt into thin air, crashing onto the cement below. My brother couldn't watch how this might play out. He dashed out of his office and ran down the stairs the sidewalk where the first obedient duckling was stuporing near its mother from the near fatal fall. Joel looked up. The second duckling was getting ready to jump! He quickly dodged under the awning while the mother duck quacked at him and the babies above. As the second one took the plunge, Joel jumped forward and caught it with his bare hands before it hit the cement. Safe and sound, he set it by the mamma and the other stunned sibling, still recovering from its painful leap. One by one the babies continued to jump to join their anxious family below. Each time Joel hid under the awning just to reach out in the nick of time as the duckling made its free fall. The downtown sidewalk came to a standstill. Time after time, Joel was able to catch the remaining 7 and set them by their approving mother. At this point Joel realized the duck family had only made part of its dangerous journey. They had 2 full blocks to walk across traffic, crosswalks, curbs, and pedestrians to get to the closest open water, the Spokane River. The onlooking office secretaries then joined in, and hurriedly brought an empty copy paper box to collect the babies. They carefully corralled them, with the mother's approval, and loaded them up into the white cardboard container. Joel held the box low enough for the mom to see her brood. He then slowly navigated through the downtown streets toward the Spokane River, as the mother waddled behind and kept her babies in sight. As they reached the river, the mother took over and passed him, jumping into the river and quacking loudly. At the water's edge, the Sterling Bank office staff then tipped the box and helped shepherd the babies toward the water and to their mother after their adventurous ride. All nine darling ducklings safely made it into the water and paddled up snugly to mamma duck. Joel said the mom swam in circles, looking back toward the beaming bank workers, and proudly quacking as if to say, 'See, we did it! Thanks for all the help! Thankfully, one of the secretaries had a digital camera and was able to capture most of it (except the actual mid-air catching) in a series of attached photographs. Please join me in celebrating my brother The Downtown Duck Hero! [Ed. note: Yes, we're aware that the captions to the pictures displayed above reference nine ducklings, even though ten are plainly visible in some photographs.] Joel Armstrong himself described what happened for Spokane television station KREM: "The first duckling goes to the edge and... smack. Just hits the sidewalk," he said. Horrified, Armstrong darted out of his office and to the sidewalk below. The duckling laid motionless for about 10 seconds before regaining its senses. The next thing Armstrong knew, all the ducklings had instinctively lined up on the ledge ready to follow the first one's lead. Now lined up a like a centerfielder, Armstrong proceeded to shag ducks like falling baseballs from the sky with his bare hands. "In one instance two jumped at the same time," he said. Armstrong caught both. "I truly think the entire time the mother duck could sense I was trying to help," he said. "She just stood there and allowed me to catch them." Armstrong and some of his Sterling Savings co-workers then tried to escort the mother and her offspring to the Spokane River, but the ducklings were too slow to dodge traffic and make it all the way to the water under their own power. So their human helpers obtained a cardboard box, placed the ducklings into it, and walked them to the river, where the little fowl quickly took to the more hospitable aquatic environment. "It was amazing watching them jump," Armstrong said. "Could you imagine the second day of your life having to jump from a building to get home?" Armstrong's story quickly spread on the Internet in the form of the narrative reproduced above, put together by his sister, Candace Mumm. narrative In May 2009, the "duckling rescue" scenario was repeated when a second brood of ducklings hatched on the ledge at Sterling Savings Bank and was once again caught by Joel Armstrong as they jumped from their nest. hatched Variations: A March 2009 variant shifted the setting of this piece from Spokane to San Antonio; the duckling savior to "Michael R" (said to be an accounting clerk instead of a loan officer); and the bank to "Frost Bank." Also, instead of just "onlooking secretaries" helping corral the ducklings, the variant reported that "several San Antonio Police Officers" helped get the ducklings into the box to be carried to the river. Blocker, Kevin. "Man Catches Ducklings Jumping from Ledge." KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. 26 May 2008. KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. "Duck Makes Nest on Spokane Office Ledge ... Again." 1 May 2009. KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. "Duck Family's Amazing Journey Caught on Tape." 19 May 2009.

FMD_test_11

Is This Surprising Payment from an Unknown Individual Genuine?

04/02/2020

In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package to address the COVID-19 pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, a several-year-old check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media. Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences by misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account. A little common sense would be relevant here: If simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check. Clearly, that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks. The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank or the victim discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works. Unfortunately, the term "clear" sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writer's bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your bank's computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly—usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000—and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writer's bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account—even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and you're the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them for the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit counterfeit checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: Fake checks drive many types of scams like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you don't know asks you to deposit a check—sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed—and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment—they're stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers you've deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and you're stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank. The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared.

FMD_test_12

Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?

08/16/2017

In the aftermath of violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 (and in the context of a wider debate over the removal of Confederate statues), a particular quote spread on Facebook and Twitter, appearing to indicate Abraham Lincoln's opposition to racial equality. On 14 August, the remarks formed part of a Dallas Morning News column by former Texas State Senator Jerry Patterson, who wrote: wrote During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist. The quote as presented by Patterson, and in several Facebook and Twitter posts, is authentic. Lincoln did make those remarks on 18 September 1858. They came at the beginning of his opening speech at the fourth of seven famous debates with Stephen Douglas, during Lincoln's unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. Lincoln had been under attack from Democrats who accused him of supporting racial equality, and his comments were a defense against those allegations. Facebook Twitter There is no official transcript of those debates, and the accounts published at the time in two Illinois newspapers the Republican Chicago Press and Tribune and the Democratic Chicago Times often diverged along partisan lines, according to Rodney Davis and Douglas Wilson's annotated "Lincoln-Douglas Debates" (page vii.) page vii Nonetheless, here are the most relevant remarks, as reported in the pro-Lincoln Chicago Press and Tribune on 21 September 1858. You can read that day's report in full here. here Chicago Tribune Archives Despite the frequent spinning of the speeches by both newspapers, there appears to be consensus on Lincoln's Charleston remarks regarding racial equality. The Chicago Times report, reprinted in Harold Holzer's 1993 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, does not significantly vary from that published by the Press and Tribune: reprinted I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man. Of course, this excerpt from one speech does not represent the totality of Lincoln's views on race and racial equality, but the remarks were far from a complete outlier, and Lincoln's views were more complex and uncomfortable than the prevalent modern impression of him as the racially-enlightened Great Emancipator. We spoke to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, author of several books on Lincoln, including The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. Eric Foner "There's no question that: one, before the Civil War, Lincoln hated slavery. He always did," Foner told us: Two, he shared many of the prejudices of his society. That was a deeply racist society both north and south before the Civil War. He did insist that black people were entitled to what they call the natural rights of man life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... And also that black people were entitled to what they used to call the fruits of their own labor. During the Civil War, Foner says, Lincoln's views evolved radically as he was exposed to black people such as Frederick Douglass, who were far more talented than he had assumed, and as the efforts of freed slaves in the Union army earned them, in Lincoln's view, the right to citizenship. Just before his death, Lincoln gave a speech in which he mentioned the possibility of giving black Union soldiers and wealthy black elites the right to vote, in direct contradiction to his 1858 remarks. And yet, Foner told us, for a long time Lincoln's plan for black people in the United States largely consisted of arranging for them to the leave the country and set up colonies elsewhere. Foner also warned against overemphasizing the importance of ethnicity to Lincoln by isolating specific racist remarks he made: The fact is, Lincoln said almost nothing about race. He was not that interested in race...Race was not a major intellectual construct for Lincoln...And the 1858 speech was purely defensive. That doesn't excuse it, but he was being attacked in those debates as believing in negro equality. "Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincolns moral compass", the Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates wrote in 2009, "racial equality was not": 2009 ...Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldnt afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis--vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War. Gates concluded: [Lincoln] certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race... By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed and loved the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. Patterson, Jerry. "If We Mean to Remove Memorials of White Supremacists, that Includes Lincoln." Dallas Morning News. 14 August 2017. Davis, Rodney O.; Wilson, Douglas J. [eds]. "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates." University of Illinois Press. 2008. Chicago Daily Press and Tribune. "Mr. Lincoln's Speech." Chicago Tribune Archive. 21 September 1858. Holzer, Harold. [Editor]. "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates." Fordham University Press. 2004. Gates Jr., Henry Louis. "Was Lincoln a Racist?" The Root. 12 February 2009.

FMD_test_13

Is This Meme About Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations Accurate?

07/07/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of 2020, social media was rife with misinformation about the disease and potential treatments for it, as exemplified by the following meme: All of the substantive statements contained in this meme are false or purely speculative, as detailed below: "The COVID-19 vaccine will be mandatory in order to go back to school." As of this writing (mid-2020), no effective COVID-19 vaccine exists, nor is it known when (or if) one will become available. Should such a vaccine be produced, whether children will be required to take it before returning to school is a decision that will be made at local levels and based on a variety of factors. No one can assert at this time with any reliability that all schoolchildren everywhere will have to be vaccinated to attend school again. "They will contain RFID chips." The notion that citizens will be subjected to compulsory, involuntary implantation with RFID chips (so the government can better track them) is an old conspiracy theory trope with no basis in fact. The specific claim that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a pretext to push a vaccine with a microchip capable of tracking Americans (along with the rest of the world's population) is one that we have already debunked at length. RFID chips debunked at length "The Bible says you will break out into boils." The Bible does not say that humans will "break out into boils" as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations or RFID chips. The Bible is silent on both these subjects, as vaccination and RFID technologies were not developed until many centuries after the texts that comprise the Bible were written and compiled. "Many kids will die from the COVID-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately." As no effective COVIO-19 yet exists, no one can say that "many kids" will die from it, nor, obviously, that any children have already died from it. The latter rumor is also one we previously debunked at length here on Snopes.com debunked at length

FMD_test_14

Was Hillary Clinton Offered a Plea Deal in August 2017?

08/10/2017

On 8 August 2017, NewsMax author Ed Klein published an article ("Hillary's Plea Bargain") heavily insinuating that Hillary Clinton had been quietly offered a plea bargain due to the Justice Department's belief that the former candidate was prosecutable on "a number of counts." That claim rested on a solitary anonymous source, purportedly a "Clinton lawyer." That designator was not further qualified or explained, and it seems contradictory that a lawyer purportedly working on Clinton's behalf would leak such a potentially damaging tidbit about his client to the author of several anti-Clinton books. Klein claimed that "discussion" of a plea took place in July 2017 between the unnamed lawyer and "a high-ranking Justice Department" official: The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney ... During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey's decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts. Under the Justice Department's plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe. Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary's pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees. The article concluded with a stipulation that the source had "cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment," whereas Clinton had not been charged with any crime. No other news reports we located carried a version of the claim that was not sourced from Klein's article, and his Twitter header suggests that he is perhaps emotionally invested in the prospect of Clinton's theoretical indictment: header Despite doubling down on his remarks about the Clinton investigation, there seemed to be a discrepancy in communication, because after the article was published, he told [America Talks Lives Miranda] Khan that the Department of Justice was considering reopening it, not that they had reopened it. They are seriously thinking of reopening this investigation and therefore if she doesnt take the plea agreement, which I agree with you, she almost certainly wont, I think they will then proceed with this investigation and this is going to drag on for a long time and in a way balance the investigation thats going on with President Donald Trump and his campaign advisers regarding so-called collusion with the Russians. The outlet was far from the first to take issue with Klein's sourcing and attribution. In 2012, Politico reported: reported On the other hand, his Clinton book was strewn with serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes, and the overall themes don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life. The disdain for Klein's previous efforts haven't necessarily broken along political lines. Of the same tome, conservative New York Post columnist John Podhoretz said in 2005: said Curious and revealing. Because if any book in recent memory reads as though it has been written out of greed a greedy hunger to separate millions of conservative book buyers from their hard-earned 25 bucks it is Ed Klein's "The Truth About Hillary." This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. It's June 2005. Hillary Clinton has been a major public figure in the United States for nearly 15 years. Somehow I imagine that if, indeed, she had "embraced" lesbianism "as a revolutionary concept" during her college years years that have been written about exhaustively we would have heard about it before now ... We also probably would have heard by now that Bill Clinton learned Hillary was pregnant with Chelsea by reading about it in an Arkansas newspaper. This detail is offered up by a single source an "investment banker from New York" in the course of a story about how Bill "raped" Hillary while on vacation in Bermuda in 1979. Coupled with the claim was a second assertion that Clinton never bothered to inform her husband she was pregnant. In 2005, Klein (in his own words) "dial[ed] back" during an interview about the passage on C-SPAN2, essentially retracting the claim in its entirety: interview HOST: OK. Is it true that Bill Clinton found out that his wife was expecting by reading the newspaper? KLEIN: Yes. HOST: Tell us a little bit more about that. KLEIN: Well, let me actually dial back. HOST: All right. KLEIN: I suspect that Bill Clinton knew that his wife was pregnant since she was pregnant for three months by the time the announcement came out. But it is true that the announcement was not made in the names of Governor and Mrs. Clinton or Governor and Ms. Rodham as she was then known, but was made in her name alone, and that she made the announcement and Bill Clinton said to my source, whom he was speaking to on the phone, "Guess what, you'll never you'll never believe this, but I'm sitting here reading that Hillary has announced she's pregnant." That's how he found out that she HOST: The announcement had been made. KLEIN: The announcement had been made. In 2014, The Guardian reviewed a subsequent Clinton book, Blood Feud: reviewed On a sunny afternoon in May last year, we are told, Hillary Clinton gathered six girlfriends from Wellesley's class of 1969 for a boozy lunch at Le Jardin du Roi, a bistro near her home in Chappaqua, New York. Recently liberated from the State Department, Clinton is said to have let loose on her erstwhile boss, accusing President Obama of having no hand on the fucking tiller. Klein discloses breathlessly that the wines had been carefully chosen by Roi, the owner of the restaurant, and that Roi waited on Hillary personally and prepared a special vegan dish for her after the former first lady told him that she was trying to lose weight. There is, however, a problem with this centrepiece of Blood Feuds prologue. Le Jardin du Roi was not named after the backyard of a man called Roi. It means The Garden of the King, or The Kings Garden in French. Its just the name of the restaurant, a puzzled staff member told the Guardian when reached by telephone. The name of the man who owns the restaurant is Joe. This is not the first glaring factual error to have made its way into Kleins reporting. It is not even the first time a mistake has been made in the very first anecdote of one of his books ... Two publishing industry sources familiar with the situation confirmed a report by BuzzFeed [in 2014] that Blood Feud had been dropped by its original publisher, William Morrow, because the content did not pass a vetting by in-house lawyers. When youre at an imprint of HarperCollins, which is part of NewsCorp, they take that stuff very seriously, and they check all of your sources and notes and they want to know where you got stuff, said one. Klein's suggestion that Hillary Clinton was to be indicted and had already been offered a plea deal quickly travelled through hyperpartisan corners of the Internet, but a number of criticisms of Klein's relationships with facts and sources have dogged his work from at least 2005, with numerous prominent conservative journalists among his most vocal critics. Klein, Ed. "Hillary's Plea Bargain." NewsMax. 8 August 2017. Podhoretz, John. "Smear For Profit." New York Post. 22 June 2005. Swaine, Jon. "Edward Klein: The Difference Between The Truth And A Lie." The Guardian. 14 July 2014. Taylor, Sarah. "Report: Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Reopened Clinton Purportedly Offered Plea Deal." The Blaze. 9 August 2017. Thrush, Glenn. "Ed Klein's Obama Book Debuts At #1 On Times List -- Knocks Caro To #2." Politico. 24 May 2012.

FMD_test_15

Does This Photograph Show Beetles Embedded in a Dog's Mouth?

11/21/2015

In mid-November 2015, a photograph purportedly showing what resemble common ladybugs and Japanese beetles embedded on the roof of a dog's mouth began circulating via Facebook: Most of the users who shared the above-displayed image on Facebook included a variation of the following message: SOMEBODY ASKED ME TO PASS THIS ALONG .... Japanese Beetles and Lady Bugs can attach to the roof of your dog's mouth, and make him/HER become ill. Symptoms include excessive drooling. Check your dog's mouth and remove any insects. While we haven't been able to identify who the "Somebody" is in the above-quoted Facebook post, a message posted by the Hands & Paws group did provide some information about the image's origin: provide This posted photograph is recent posted by a vet tech and when I saw the photo started doing research - because I too thought there was no way the photo could be real. There is no photoshop there is no hidden agenda. It's just me. The Founder of a tiny little dog rescue in Florida finding the photo and the facts behind the photo amazing, astonishing and wanted to share the information with my fellow dog lovers. We reached out to Hands & Paws for more information about the image without results, but multiple incidents are on record of beetles embedding in dogs' mouths, such as this one from November 2016: this one Frances Jiriks brought her pooch Bailey into Hoisington Veterinary Hospital after he refused to eat, she told KAKE. He was also foaming at the mouth and a bit lethargic, the dog owner said. When they arrived at the animal clinic, Dr. Lindsay Mitchell discovered between 30 and 40 lady beetles clinging to the roof of Baileys mouth. The beetles look nearly identical to ladybugs though they secrete a mucus which allows them to stick, as they did inside Baileys mouth. The bugs were successfully removed from the dogs mouth, but Mitchell warned their presence could pose a variety of health risks to mans best friend. [Video here] Video here In 2008, Lindsey Derek published an article in the journal Toxicon about the subject: article A six-year old mixed-breed dog presented with severe trauma to the oral mucosa suggestive of chemical burn. Sixteen Harmonia axyridis (Coccinellidae) were removed from the oral cavity, which revealed trauma consistent with chemical burn. The beetles had become embedded in mucosa covering the hard palate and required manual removal. A diagnosis of beetle-induced chemical burn was warranted and consistent with the nature of the chemical constituents of H. axyridis hemolymph. That article also included a photograph of the beetles in the dog's mouth, which closely resembled the image circulated in November 2015: KAKE-TV [Wichita]. "Lady Beetles Causing Problems for Pet Owners." 19 October 2016. Schladebeck, Jessica. "Photo of Kansas Dog with Mouth Full of Asian Lady Beetles Illustrates Health Issue for Pups." [New York] Daily News. 4 November 2016. Stocks, Ian C. and Derek E.Lindsey "Acute Corrosion of the Oral Mucosa in a Dog Due to Ingestion of Multicolored Asian Lady Beetles." Toxicon. 10 May 2008.

FMD_test_16

Says taxes paid by the poorest residents of Texas are above the national average.

03/14/2011

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation. In his latest blast, posted online on Feb. 27, he critiques the state's reputedly low taxes. "Texas taxes are low, at least if you're in the upper part of the income distribution," Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average. It is undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes—sales and property—impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptroller's latest study of tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income on general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report states that households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend, on average, no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes. The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009 that Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue—a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income than it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax. Yet do the state's poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average? By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released on Nov. 18, 2009, by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The study indicates that the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of their income on these taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and the next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of their income, respectively, on state and local taxes, according to the study. Conversely, the study states that the 60 percent of Texas families earning $31,000 or more contribute a smaller portion of their income to state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less. Texas is among 10 states with particularly regressive tax systems, the study notes. One result is that low-income families pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy, while middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families. We reached Matt Gardner, the institute's director. He stated that the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He mentioned that it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner provided with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the state's past studies of tax incidence, remarked, "It sounds like what they did is very logical." Gardner affirmed that Krugman's comparison accurately reflects the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pay and the national average appears small; the Texans paid only 0.2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, that's $60 more. Though measurable, it's not a huge difference, Gardner noted. Footnote: Krugman's statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institute's previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than their counterparts nationally. However, the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid a smaller portion of their incomes in state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner explained. We rate Krugman's statement as True.

FMD_test_17

Does AARP Support the Democratic Party?

08/19/2020

In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party. It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim, Hahn, Steve. "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan." AARP. 26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?" Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org. "IRS Definition." 3 March 2011. AARP. org. "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity." Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA." 1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.

FMD_test_18

Did Ghislaine Maxwell Attend Chelsea Clinton's Wedding?

04/27/2022

A photograph frequently shared on social media appears to show convicted sex trafficker and former Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell watching as former U.S. President Bill Clinton walks his daughter, Chelsea, down the aisle at her wedding. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her mother, was also in attendance but is out of frame in the picture. It is true that this is a real photograph, available on the Getty Images licensing website. It has not been doctored, and the woman circled below in film director Adam McKay's 2019 tweet is indeed Maxwell. The photograph of Maxwell at Clinton's wedding received a wave of new shares in April 2022 following news that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was buying Twitter. The picture was reshared in response to other social media users (who presumably dislike Musk) sharing a real photograph of him standing near Maxwell at a public event. The photograph of Musk and Maxwell was captured at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party in 2014. Musk later tweeted that he didn't know her and that she had "photobombed" him. According to BBC.com, Chelsea married investment banker Marc Mezvinsky at the Astor Courts estate in New York on July 31, 2010. A no-fly zone was in place above the Hudson Valley, and nearby roads were closed as guests arrived in limousines. Television star Oprah Winfrey, film director Steven Spielberg, Hollywood actor Tom Hanks, and singer Barbra Streisand are reportedly among the 500 guests. Earlier, actors Ted Danson and his wife Mary Steenburgen told reporters in the town of Rhinebeck, where many of those invited were staying, that they were both excited about attending the ceremony. Weeks prior to the wedding, on June 18, 2010, New York Magazine's Intelligencer reported that Chelsea purportedly had a firm policy on who was to be invited. According to the article, "bride-side sources" said that Chelsea "instituted a strict no-strangers policy" and that "she must personally know every invitee." Years later, in 2019, Politico published that "a person familiar with the relationship" said that, prior to the 2010 wedding, Chelsea had become close with Maxwell, something that a spokesperson for Clinton later disputed. Maxwell's family knew Trump before Epstein arrived on the scene, and she continued to socialize with Chelsea Clinton after Epstein was jailed on sex offenses. Maxwell first grew close with the Clintons after Bill Clinton left office, vacationing on a yacht with Chelsea Clinton in 2009, attending her wedding in 2010, and participating in the Clinton Global Initiative as recently as 2013, years after her name first emerged in accounts of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse. A person familiar with the relationship said that Ghislaine was the contact between Epstein and Clinton. She ended up being close to the family because she and Chelsea became close. Lawyers for Maxwell did not respond to requests for comment, and a spokesperson for Clinton disputed the idea that the two women were ever close. The reference to Epstein being "jailed on sex offenses" referred to his previous time behind bars in 2008 and 2009, prior to the 2010 wedding. A secret plea deal reached in 2007 required Epstein to serve 18 months in jail, followed by 12 months of house arrest. He ended up leaving jail after around 13 months. At the time, reports indicated there were "roughly" 40 girls who had been identified as victims. On Aug. 10, 2019, after Epstein was arrested again on sex trafficking charges, he was later found dead in his jail cell. An autopsy ruled that it was a suicide by hanging. A wave of new conspiracy theories began following his death. We previously published a fact check about a picture of Epstein with former President Clinton. It was also an authentic photograph, published in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of Vanity Fair. In sum, yes, Maxwell was in attendance at Chelsea Clinton's wedding and was photographed in the background behind the Clinton family.

FMD_test_19

Do 643,000 Bankruptcies Occur in the U.S. Every Year Due to Medical Bills?

04/21/2016

In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) claiming that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy due to medical bills every year, while in several other first-world countries, bankruptcies related to medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those countries). At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably, the item in question was a 19 July 2013 publication by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis, NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article stated that in 2013, over 20% of American adults were struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies would be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, the study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately, this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered, and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obama's universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically, a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure. Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on the reliability of the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site stated that their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of bankruptcy filers. BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in five states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1,032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors' stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcies explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus, we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors' 62.1%) of U.S. bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from U.S. Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in a January 2016 New York Times article on the subject. Research on

FMD_test_20

Is the USPS going to close soon due to the impact of COVID-19?

04/29/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In April 2020, during an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to social-distancing restrictions to curb the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, the United States Postal Service (USPS) remained in operation. Canvassing city streets and rural roads with packages of prescriptions, food, and bills, the mail carriers provided a lifeline for many Americans who feared leaving their homes during the pandemic. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federally run Postal Service must serve all Americans equally, regardless of where they live. However, with a novel virus spreading from person to person, that commitment to service came at a cost: 1,800 USPS employees had either tested positive for or were suspected to have contracted COVID-19 as of April 25, according to the National Association of Letter Carriers. More than 40 such workers had died. The virus's toll on employees' health was not the only pandemic-fueled problem for leaders of the Postal Service; a decline in mail deliveries—a leading source of revenue for the agency—due to business shutdowns raised worries that the national mail carrier would not economically recover from a coronavirus recession. From high-profile Democrats in Washington, D.C., to lesser-known musicians who said they rely on USPS to help them run independent labels, supporters across the country took to Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to call attention to what they feared were limited days left for USPS. Many of the social media posts included calls to action. Supporters rushed to buy stamps, hoping any type of profit boost would stave off a collapse, or urged people to contact U.S. lawmakers and tell them to help the Postal Service with federal funds. As of April 28, almost 390,000 people had signed an online petition on Change.org to express their support for USPS, while more than 440,000 people had endorsed an open letter using an automated texting service (texting "USPS" to 50409) that promised to contact congressional representatives on behalf of petitioners. In the age of COVID-19, having a healthy and strong postal service is more important than ever. More and more Americans are relying on the USPS to deliver medicines, food, and essentials now that social distancing is a matter of life and death. Seeing those pleas online, numerous people contacted Snopes to investigate the validity of the claim that the national mail carrier was, indeed, on the brink of closure due to the pandemic. To get to the root of each assertion, we began by analyzing the history of funding for USPS—which is an independent executive agency and has not received taxpayer funding in decades—and changes in how Americans rely on it. As online communication advanced between 2010 and 2020, USPS's volume of first-class and marketing mail decreased—a problem for the agency's bottom line because stamps and other postal products to send that type of mail yield lucrative profit margins. Meanwhile, private competitors such as Amazon and FedEx grew in popularity and reach, raising USPS's package volume because the agency contracts with them (often for what's called the "last mile" of deliveries in rural or remote areas). Such shipments for the USPS increased from 3.1 billion in 2010 to 6.2 billion in 2018, federal data show. But market trends aside, the agency has run in the red for years, with a total of $143 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt as of fall 2018 (an amount that is double its annual revenue), according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The debt, in large part, is a result of a congressional mandate on how the agency must fund retiree pensions and health benefits for employees. In 2006, under the George W. Bush presidential administration and a Republican-led Congress, the federal government enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forced USPS to calculate what it expected to spend on the benefits over the next 50 years and then prepay that amount between 2007 and 2016. The math rounded out to an expense of about $5.6 billion annually. However, in 2012, the agency began defaulting on the payments. That history aside, the pandemic is only exacerbating the agency's already-troubled financial situation. Addressing a group of congressional lawmakers on April 9, Postmaster General Megan Brennan said mail volume had dropped 30 percent in the early days of the crisis, and she expected that decline to reach 50 percent by the end of June. For this fiscal year, which runs from October 2019 to September 2020, she said the Postal Service was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due "directly to COVID-19" in 2020 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could "run out of cash this fiscal year" (or by the end of September) without federal intervention. "The sudden drop in mail volumes, our most profitable revenue stream, is steep and may never fully recover," she later told The New York Times. Further details on the potential downturn were unknown; it was not explained where, or to what extent, regions may first notice interrupted USPS service due to the profit loss, nor if the agency would maintain its existing payroll of some 640,000 employees or close altogether. Using the COVID-19 outbreak in their rationale, some lawmakers—primarily U.S. House Democrats—attempted to rally support for and extend more federal money to help USPS in spring 2020. Among the leaders of the public outcry was Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., who is a member of the House government operations committee that oversees the Postal Service. He told The Washington Post: "I'm so frustrated at how difficult it has been for a long time to galvanize attention and action around an essential service. And maybe the pandemic forces us all to refocus on this service and how essential it is and how we need to fix it while we can before it gets into critical condition." The requests came to a head in March 2020 during negotiations over a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Initially, lawmakers agreed to set aside $13 billion in federal dollars for USPS that the agency would not have to repay. However, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to U.S. President Donald Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the CARES Act while leaving its funding boosts to help small businesses, passenger airlines and air cargo carriers, and most U.S. taxpayers via one-time stimulus checks, among other provisions that aimed to jump-start the economy. According to a senior Trump administration official and a congressional official, Trump would have vetoed the entire bill if it had contained any such funding to help the postal agency, The Washington Post reported. "We told them very clearly that the president was not going to sign the bill if [money for the Postal Service] was in it," the Trump administration official said. In last-round debates over what to include in the CARES Act, however, a bipartisan pair of senators (Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis.) proposed what some federal leaders considered a compromise between Trump and USPS advocates: a $10 billion loan to help the agency cover operating expenses through the spring of 2020. Trump signed the CARES Act into law on March 27, including the provision that read: But as of mid-April, the Postal Service did not have access to the funds. Despite Trump's approval of the legislation, the USPS-specific provision required additional signatures from both him and Mnuchin before the agency could request the loan money. While signing off on other aspects of the federal stimulus bill on April 24, Trump said he would not sign the loan unless the service fulfilled his long-standing request to raise prices on shipping and postal materials to cover its debt—a call to action based on a false assertion that the service loses money by delivering for Amazon. (Government analysts have said that type of price change could lead to private delivery competitors swooping in on USPS's business and, perhaps, offering cheaper prices for easy city routes and fewer options for rural Americans, and it would only raise a marginal amount of new revenue compared to USPS's total debt.) At the signing, Trump said: "The

FMD_test_21

Knopp says he upheld a campaign promise not to join the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

02/23/2013

Freshman Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, is clear that lawmakers need to fix the Public Employees Retirement System this year and that they themselves should not be part of the system. He pledged during his campaign to decline membership in PERS. Earlier this month, Knopp's office issued a press release stating that along with being sworn into office, he upheld a campaign promise not to join the state retirement program known as the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). "It is very important to me to honor the promises that I've made," Knopp is quoted as saying in the release. "If we don't fix PERS now, there will be fewer firefighters protecting our communities, fewer police officers on the streets, and fewer teachers in the classroom." PERS is contentious. Lawmakers reformed the system in 2003, curbing benefits for new employees going forward. Some lawmakers say it's still too generous. Public employee unions firmly assert that the benefits were bargained for and are fair. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, wants to find savings in the system, as do Republicans; House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, is lukewarm to the idea. Public employees generally favor Democrats with campaign help and money, so it's not surprising to hear that Knopp, a Republican, promised to opt out. But PolitiFact Oregon also recalled that before he joined the Senate this year, Knopp was a three-term member of the Oregon House. In fact, he was House majority leader when lawmakers tackled reform in 2003. We were pretty sure he had been a member of PERS. Knopp's office confirmed what we thought to be true. He joined the system in 1999, when he was first elected to the House, and remained an active member until 2005, when he left office. As a member for six years, he was vested in the system. The money continued accruing until 2010. What happened in 2010? Knopp needed money for a family medical emergency, so he cashed out his account. The total gross amount was $8,167.07, which we acknowledge is not an astonishingly high figure. Retirement benefits are calculated based on pay and length of service, and legislators don't earn much, about $20,000 a year. Still, we think his previous membership is a relevant detail curiously missing from an otherwise glowing press release. If PolitiFact Oregon were in office and had made public employee retirement a major part of our platform and had promised to opt out, we think we'd make it explicit that we had once been part of PERS, in the interest of full and complete disclosure. In any case, Knopp had three options when he was sworn into office this year: join the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan, which is the pension system he's criticizing; join the Oregon Savings Growth Plan, which is like any other deferred compensation plan; or decline to join a retirement plan. Knopp chose the deferred compensation plan. The state—his employer, the taxpayers—contributes 6 percent to his plan. The state does not pick up the additional 6 percent of salary on behalf of employees, as it would under PERS. We had two questions for the senator from Central Oregon: One, why not publicize the fact that he was a member—for more than a decade—of the system he is now criticizing? And two, why take a retirement option at all? Let's take the retirement question first. Knopp told PolitiFact Oregon that he's not opposed to compensation for legislators. He just doesn't want them to vote on a system in which they have a stake. To that end, he has co-sponsored a bill to prohibit future legislators from joining PERS or the deferred compensation plan, because they shouldn't be forced to be in the system, as he was. "Actual or perceived, there needs to be somebody who completely represents citizens and taxpayers, without a conflict," he said. As to the first question, Knopp said he disclosed his previous membership on the campaign trail. When his Democratic challenger said Knopp was a PERS member at an October 2012 candidates forum, he replied, "I closed my account years ago, honestly, to pay some medical bills when my daughter had two brain surgeries." We understand that the retirement system in 1999 was not the legislative issue that it was in 2003 or that it is in 2013. But why didn't he close his account before 2003, when it was clear he'd have to vote on PERS reforms? He said it wasn't clear at the time whether he could. Why not close the account in 2005, after leaving office? He said he co-sponsored a bill in 2003 that offered a financial incentive for people with inactive accounts to close their accounts. He thought it unseemly to benefit from that legislation—although we checked, and he wouldn't have qualified. Then why wait until 2010 to close his account? Knopp didn't have a clear answer. He acknowledges that had he not needed the money in 2010, he would have continued to be a member. Knopp has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the Public Employees Retirement System. He served as the House chairman of the committee to reform PERS in 2003. He promised voters that he would not accept PERS this year, and he followed through on that promise. What Knopp failed to mention is that he was a member of PERS who closed his account in 2010 because his family needed the money. Knopp could have closed his account in 2003—and avoided the conflict then—or he could have closed his account when he left office in 2005. None of that takes away from the accuracy of the statement—he honored his pledge to stay out of PERS—but it is additional information that we deem missing from his press releases. We rate the statement Mostly True.

FMD_test_22

We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years.

06/09/2015

Before announcing that he was going to announce his presidential candidacy, former Gov. Jeb Bush told a crowd at an Orlando event that he was dedicated to conservative principles like reducing the size of government. We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years, he said on June 2, 2015, at Gov. Rick Scotts Economic Growth Summit at Walt Disney World. He also touted high job-creation numbers during his term. Bush is expected to officially announce his candidacy on June 15. Meanwhile, we wondered whether his claim about shrinking the state government workforce passed muster. Working through the cuts Bush served two terms between 1999 and the start of 2007, and proposed cutting25 percent of state employeesearly in his term. He didnt cut that many, but he did oversee a reduction in state workers. His Right to Rise PAC sent us state payroll numbers from Bushs tenure that backed the claim. A Bush spokesman said the data came from the Legislatures General Appropriations Act (i.e., the approved state budget) each year, minus workers for the State University System andtemporary employeesfor which the governors office isnt responsible. These are legitimate numbers, but can be hard to parse. To find them in the annual budget, which usually clocks in at more than 400 pages, youd have to add them up from the positions listed for each state agency. You can sift through each budget if youd like, but we decided to look at it a slightly different way to make it a little simpler for you to gauge, using the states Department of Management ServicesAnnual Workforce Report. Thats a general snapshot of state personnel, how much they make and what jobs they do. Part of that count is theState Personnel System, which includes about two-thirds of state employees in more than 30 different agencies and departments. It also excludes university and temporary jobs, and a few others. The numbers arent exactly the same as what Bushs PAC provided, but the State Personnel System shows who is employed by state agencies at any given time. Year General Appropriations Act State Personnel System employees 1998-99 127,363 124,838 1999-2000 126,723 124,160 2000-01 125,007 123,505 2001-02 120,091 120,581 2002-03 117,869 117,561 2003-04 116,797 115,504 2004-05 116,317 113,030 2005-06 116,463 108,706 2006-07 113,633 108,866 Total change -13,730 -15,972 Percent change -10.8 percent -12.8 percent Either way you slice it, Bush can claim the state workforce he had a say over did shrink during his tenure, generally in the terms he noted. The Annual Workforce Report has the added bonus of keeping track of how many employees an agency gains or loses each year. That shows that departments like Children and Families, Health, and Corrections all lost plenty of positions under Bush, who focused on privatizing state services. That privatization of government work has been controversial. For example, contractors working for the Department of Children and Familieshave been criticized for cost overrunsand running an ineffective, or even dangerous, privatized foster care program. Similar problems have been debated for contracts withpayroll servicesandprivately run prisons, among others. Florida International University public administration professors Howard Frank and David Guo said that instead of focusing on how many state jobs were eliminated, its better to consider whether the moves really saved the state money. The Department of Management Services doesnt dissect the differences betweenjobs that were cut and the contractsthat replaced them. That makes it difficult to untangle exactly how much the state may have saved by privatizing, automating or consolidating government positions. The state now has the lowest number of government workers per capita in the United States. But Bushs workforce cuts between 1999 and 2007 came as the states population ballooned by about 3.5 million and the budget jumped from$48.6 billion to $73.9 billion. Our ruling Bush said, We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years. He was referring to a specific count of workers in state agencies cut between 1999 and 2007, and in context we can consider his numbers pretty accurate. Experts told us its important to keep in mind that privatizing state jobs or cutting positions doesnt mean its necessarily cheaper or better for taxpayers. The statement, however, is accurate, and we rate it True.

FMD_test_23

Says he was known as Veto Corleone for cutting spending as Florida governor.

05/26/2015

Former Gov. Jeb Bush has resurrected an infamous moniker from his days in Tallahassee on the campaign trail in an attempt to show he is the godfather of fiscal conservatism. During a meeting with business leaders in Portsmouth, N.H., on May 20, 2015, Bush pointed out that he was well-known for using the line-item veto at his disposal as governor. "They called me Veto Corleone, which was something I was quite proud of," Bush said, citing a reference to Marlon Brando's character in The Godfather. He added that he vetoed 2,500 separate line items totaling $2 billion over his eight years. Bush has brought out that anecdote several times during the run-up to a presidential campaign, implying he would again focus on cutting wasteful spending. We wondered if he was accurate in claiming that nickname. We made our own inquiries and found that yes, pork projects really did sleep with the fishes. Bush came into office in 1999 vowing to use his line-item veto on state spending he didn't like, and he followed through with a vengeance. He also wanted the state to focus on building reserves. That first year, he shocked lawmakers by slashing $313 million out of the $48.6 billion budget approved by the Legislature. It was more than double the previous veto record of $150 million set by Republican Gov. Bob Martinez in 1988. The Senate was so angry about the cuts that they sued Bush over his partial veto of funding for an extended school year. The Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled that Bush defied the state Constitution by cutting $16 million out of a $40 million appropriation to keep schools open longer. They said he either had to cut all of the program or none of it. Media reports said John Thrasher, then speaker of the House, dubbed Bush Veto Corleone after the fictional mafia don (spelled Vito Corleone) for his liberal use of the power. Thrasher, who is now president of Florida State University, confirmed to PolitiFact Florida that he coined the nickname, which seemed to be something of a friendly dig. Thrasher's collegial relationship with Bush was apparent in 2000 when Thrasher brought the budget to Bush's office while wearing a white lab coat and a stethoscope to make sure the governor had a heart. Bush answered by approving a couple of Thrasher's pet projects, then chopping another $313.7 million out of appropriations. Here's a look at how much Bush vetoed from each year's budget: Year Total state budget Amount Bush vetoed 1999 $48.6 billion $313 million* 2000 $51 billion $313.7 million 2001 $48.3 billion $288.8 million 2002 $50.4 billion $107 million 2003 $53.5 billion $33 million 2004 $57.3 billion $349 million 2005 $64.7 billion $180 million 2006 $73.9 billion $448.7 million * The state Supreme Court ruled a $16 million veto in 1999 unconstitutional. The first year of Bush's second term, in 2003, Bush cut a low of $33 million, but $7.2 million of that was funding for high-speed rail. Bush later led an effort to repeal a constitutional amendment requiring the creation of high-speed rail transit in the state. Bush also saved the most for last, hacking $448.7 million out of the 2006 budget, including a university tuition increase, spending on parks and police vehicles, as well as job training and education programs. That year, state spending was up to $73.9 billion, a 52 percent increase from his first year in office. "It's never easy," Bush said in 2006. "You always hurt people's feelings. I don't enjoy that. And I'm always surprised that people are surprised. I've been consistent. There should be no surprises. And the people who really follow the budget knew that." We should note that if Bush wins the presidency, he likely won't get to whack as much. A president doesn't have a line-item veto and has to either accept or reject an entire piece of legislation. Our ruling: Bush said they called me Veto Corleone as governor for his frequent use of the line-item veto. He did have a fondness for ruthlessly slashing projects he deemed wasteful or not in line with his agenda. Thrasher confirmed he nicknamed the governor after the fictional mobster. This is one favor we grant Bush. We rate the statement True.

FMD_test_24

Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as part of the Biden proposal?

09/16/2021

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden's American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan intends to fund all of this through higher taxes on income earners and increased reporting requirements for banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have drawn the ire of several banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: "The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600, regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers." Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns: The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal: "Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy. The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions to report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to oppose this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately." We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after December 31, 2022, states: "This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner." This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the IRS would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. The latter is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions exceeding $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cash flows above $600, that doesn't mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year—gross inflow and gross outflow—and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo but wouldn't require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can obtain other information through audits. According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility in raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. The Tax Notes report also states that the Treasury Department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third-largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income, amounting to $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: "Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance." Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, "Only the prior year's total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January." Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBA's consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may impose on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already provide a lot of data to the IRS and that this would impose additional costs on their systems. The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burdens on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, necessitating system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to realize: "Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges." Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAP's analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: "Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS's data security is already much better than that of the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially larger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for." The Biden administration's bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers' privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. By deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On October 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600; Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?" "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600—that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes." Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the banks are portraying it.

FMD_test_25

Did Biden Say if Israel Didn't Exist, the US 'Would Have To Invent an Israel'?

02/08/2024

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback In late 2023 and into 2024, as the Israel-Hamas conflict continued, a number of social media posts highlighted U.S. President Joe Bidens longtime support of Israel. Many such posts sought to criticize him for that support as the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment approached more than 27,000. posts criticize killed The posts included an old video clip of then-U.S. Sen. Biden from 1986 in which he allegedly said, [Supporting Israel] is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region. (Screenshot via X) Biden indeed said the above words, in the context of opposing an arms sale to Saudi Arabia. He argued that sending weapons to that country would compromise Israel's security. Biden was arguing during a Senate debate for overriding a presidential veto pertaining to arms sales in Saudi Arabia. In May 1986, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a congressional resolution that sought to block his request to sell advanced missiles to Saudi Arabia. May 1986 Biden supported the prohibition of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and called on the Senate to override Reagans veto because it would put Saudi Arabia in the position of having to support their Arab brethren against Israel. The quote in question emerged at the end of Bidens statement, transcribed below. supported Around three hours' worth of the Senate debate, including Bidens full statement, is available for viewing on C-SPAN. We transcribed sections of Bidens speech below (emphasis, ours): C-SPAN Quite frankly, the Saudis are an 80-member family oligarchy that finds themselves adrift in the midst of an Islamic revolution, the consequences of which they do not comprehend any more than we [...] the government of Saudi Arabia, is the anachronism of the 20th century in the Middle East, and the fact of the matter is [...] the Saudis have no choice but to fund the PLO. The Saudis have no choice but to be supportive of their Arab brethren. The Saudis have no choice but to do that for in fact, about 55,000 Palestinians control the infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. They literally have their hands on the spigots [...] that control the oil. And so I would suggest to my colleagues we should not be viewing this so much in terms of whether or not the Saudis are good guys or bad guys. We should view it in terms of what is realistic. Madam President, it is this senator's opinion that it is totally unrealistic to expect the Saudiswith or without our help in terms of arms salesto do anything other than maintain a policy which they have had, which is one that is not particularly helpful to our interest. And furthermore, I would suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that we're doing a disservice to Saudi Arabia. [...] For I believe the Saudis do not want to have a war with Israel. But I believe once we send their arsenal soaring in terms of sophisticated weapons, they will be put in the untenable position the next time there is a conflict in the region, of having to get directly involved, of having to move with their Arab brethren. For if they don't, they will be moved. Biden went on to argue that the U.S. should support Saudi Arabia through other means, including helping its internal security, and concluded by saying Israel could not afford to have an unstable Saudi Arabia either (emphasis, ours): argue We do not have a Middle East foreign policy at this moment and to suggest that we are going to substitute an arms sales package for a policy in the name of trying to suggest that this is a litmus test once again. I've been here 14 years. I'm tired of being subjected to a litmus test by the Saudis. Litmus test by anyone else. We should operate and move in what is the naked self interest of the United States of America. And if we wish to help the Saudis, what we should be doing for Saudi Arabia is helping them with their infrastructure as it relates to their domestic security requirements. [...] We should be dealing with their ability to protect their own internal security from within. [...] if we look at the Middle East, I think it's about time we stopped those of us who supportas most of us doIsrael in this body, for apologizing for our support for Israel. There's no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region. In June 1986, the Senate voted to uphold Reagans veto with a narrow margin of a single vote. However, opponents of the arms sale also claimed a victory because the overall package of sales was reduced significantly. uphold claimed This was not the only time Biden used such language to describe his support for Israel. In 2020, Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed a 1986 document detailing Biden's meeting with Israel's ambassador in Washington, D.C. In the meeting, Biden was thanked for supporting aid to Israel, to which Biden reportedly said, Thats our best investment, where we get the biggest bang for our buck." Haaretz Levinson, Chaim. Rare 1986 Document Reveals Bidens Views on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Haaretz, 28 Dec. 2020. Haaretz, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-12-28/ty-article/rare-1986-document-reveals-bidens-views-on-israel-and-saudi-arabia/0000017f-f2ca-d8a1-a5ff-f2ca769b0000.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Osgood, Brian and Linah Alsaafin, Tamila Varshalomidze. UN: 300k in North Gaza at Risk of Famine as Israel Continues to Block Aid. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-us-says-space-for-truce-deal-israel-vows-war.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Roberts, Steven V. PRESIDENT VETOES EFFORT TO BLOCK ARMS FOR SAUDIS. The New York Times, 22 May 1986. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/22/world/president-vetoes-effort-to-block-arms-for-saudis.html.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. "Senate Session." June 5, 1986 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?45851-1/senate-session. Accessed 8 Feb. 2024.

FMD_test_26

Stephanie Cegielski Was Not Donald Trump's 'Top Strategist'

03/29/2016

On 28 March 2016, Stephanie Cegielski, a one-time strategist for the "Make America Great Again" super PAC, published an open letter to Trump supporters on the website xoJane. Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy. The letter immediately went viral, and while some pondered Cegielski's main talking point (that Donald Trump doesn't want to be president and didn't expect to be the GOP frontrunner), others questioned whether Cegielski was really Trump's top campaign strategist. Complicating matters, the headline appeared to contradict the body of the article. xoJane identified Cegielski as Trump's "top strategist" in their title, but Cegielski identified herself as the "Communications Director of the 'Make America Great Again' Super PAC" in her open letter to Trump supporters. In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness. I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money. Cegielski was identified as a "spokeswoman" for the super PAC in an August 2015 article published in Politico, and Cegielski called herself a "consultant" on her LinkedIn profile. While Cegielski's official title may be unclear, it's certain that labeling her "Trump's top campaign strategist" is incorrect. Cegielski worked for a super PAC (which, despite the name, is not legally recognized as a political action committee and by law cannot contribute directly to or coordinate with a political campaign, although they can use raised funds to campaign independently) and not for Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Hope Hicks, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told Yahoo News that Cegielski was never employed by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Evidently, she worked for a super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. The "Make America Great Again" super PAC went dark as of October 2015 amid ongoing scrutiny of where the money was coming from and going to, and whether the committee had direct ties to the Trump campaign.

FMD_test_27

Truckers' Strike

09/06/2005

Claim: Truckers are poised to strike over rising fuel prices. OF AND INFORMATION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Good Morning Friends,I have spoken with a few independent truckers in the past 24 hours, and they ALL have indicated to me that there will be a nationwide trucker strike by the Teamsters Union & Major Independents commencing between 8 & 12 September 2005. They will be protesting the high price of fuel nationwide, and intend to bring the Nation to her knees, as they did in the early seventies. I have no reason to doubt these individuals, as their grapevine is usually accurate, and this poses a serious problem for the Nation at large. Almost everything moves by truck across this country, and it won't take very long for our merchants shelves and gasoline storage tanks to empty resulting in serious shortages in food and fuel. So, be prepared.... fill your pantries and autos prior to the eighth of September!!!! Unlike the contrived oil and gasoline shortages of the early seventies, the US is not in the position of turning open the spigot and allowing the oil and refined products to flow. Because of the hurricane, the lack of new refineries, and the lack of an ingenious national energy policy, these shortages are real and will be exploited by the Teamsters Union. Every domestic refinery is producing gasoline and home heating oil at maximum capabilities, and combined with the shut down of the refineries in the Gulf due to the hurricane, along with the inability to pump crude oil from the Gulf region, there will be serious shortages for approximately two months. This is a serious National emergency!!!! There have already been long gasoline lines in the South this Labor Day weekend, as many with whom I have spoken from that region have stated to me that in some areas of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, gasoline is already being rationed. These individuals are being allowed only 10 gallons each.... just enough to get by during this shortage. Every Governor of the above mentioned states have asked their citizens to stay at home over the holiday, thus trying to avoid a disaster in the making. Wal-Mart has announced that their entire fleet of trucks will stop moving good and services effective Tuesday, September 6th... they know that something is in the making, and don't want to jeopardize either their trucks or personnel during the National Strike. Every independent trucker with whom I have spoken, has stated to me that they will not roll during this time frame, as the Teamsters mean business!!!! Terry......Teamster Union Member [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Are you aware American's are considered greedy? - Saudi Arabia 2005 target price for selling oil was $21 a barrel. Currently, they're selling oil at almost $70 a barrel, while their cost of producing that barrel is just $1.50 . (Fortune, Financial Times, New York Mercantile, Exchange) Consider this E-mail a WARNING...Truckers unions losing patience with the Federal Government and the U.S. Oil Companies... truckers are advised to watch for signs of terrorist activity (AP).Under pressure, major freight carriers strike early agreements with Teamsters Union . 88,000 unionized truckers are getting the brunt of fuel costs, the major Truckers Unions and drivers has had about enough of getting ripped off. With truckers unions and drivers claiming unreal fuel expenses the unrest and shift is beginning to give birth to a National Truckers Strike. There have been some severe strikes in years past and the talk is complete shut down. Even the owner operators will park their rigs and go out and even work at menial jobs just to survive. The cost of operationhas been eating away their truck payments. One comment was said at a local, "I wonder if the banks have big enough parking lots to hold the repossessions" . The anger has begun to intensify with drivers and the Truckers Union which is directed towards Federal and Oil Companies. August 17th 2005 a small nucleus of Tanker and Trailer drivers begun to organize in Alabama. It is said three Unions have started to react with the drivers and are threatening to strike for lower fuel prices or else. It has elevated to a fever to contact and encourage their counterparts in other States throughout the nation to strike, Nationwide. If this threat begins to take form, there are preparations that MUST be started NOW. The trucking industry is the prime provider for pretty much everything we have and enjoy in our home. One major item happens to be our FOOD, then our Fuel, medical supplies, clothing, housewares, building materials, emergency supplies when disaster happens, it goes on and on and on. Get the point, this fuel expense is beginning to take its toll. It is vitally serious and important for you to increase your immediate food supply, purchase can food items, canned meat, (most of these canned items have a shelf life of 5 Years.) NOW is time to STOCK UP and not when the trucks stop rolling. THIS IS A WARNING IN ADVANCE. Inform your friends and families include the elderly. You are asked to send this to anyone and everyone. This threat is real, do nothing now and you will find out. [Collected via e-mail, March 2008] I drive a delivery truck, and stopped at a truck stop off of I - 95. There was a group of truckers standing around talking, and I happened to hear them talking about the upcoming strike planned for the first of April. It is in response to the unaffordable diesel prices, and our government's lack of help to the independent businessman. I was told by them that I should try and stay off of I-95 and to stock up on food stuffs because its gonna get really expensive, really quick. Has any one else heard of this? I have noticed that the local grocers I deliver to have doubled their on hand supply of foodstock, and have noticed that prices have started to really go up quite a bit, really quickly. This might be one heck of a great april fools joke, but what if it isn't? Origins: Various e-mails about a looming independent truckers and Teamsters union strike began arriving in inboxes everywhere in the last week of August 2005. However, at that time there was no mention of an impending nationwide labor action on the Teamsters web Teamsters site, nor was there an announcement from Wal-Mart that its fleet of trucks would suspend operations on Tuesday, September 6th (as claimed in e-mailed warnings). And, in the event, no such truckers' strike ever did materialize. In March 2008, rumors once again began to circulate that truckers would stage a strike on 1 April 2008 (not as a mandatory union-sponsored work stoppage, but as a grassroots demonstration supported by independent truck owner-operators) to protest the rising price of diesel fuel. Until a few years ago diesel fuel had generally been cheaper than gasoline, but emissions standards requiring the use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) have driven up diesel prices to the point that it is now often more expensive than gasoline. (As of mid-March 2008, the average price of diesel fuel in the U.S. was $4.037 per gallon, while gasoline prices averaged $3.275 per gallon during that period.) ULSD Every 5-cent increase in the price of diesel results in an estimated $1,000 increase in truckers' annual expenses, and in March 2008 independent truckers began talking about staging a one-day nationwide trucker shutdown on 1 April 2008 to protest the prospect of their "going broke out on the highway wearing our trucks out": A trucker's strike may be looming on the horizon. Many independent over the road truck drivers are fed up with rising fuel and insurance costs and are looking into organizing and trying to join together to take rigs off the road and that would mean shortages at supermarkets, convenience stores and if it was carried out to the extreme, eventually at every retail outlet in America. Everything that gets delivered to a retail store in your city or town is eventually delivered by a truck, and if it were highly organized a strike could paralyze the economy. Whether such a shutdown will take place, how widespread participation will be, and how effective such an action will be in ameliorating truckers' rising fuel expenses is something that will only be known in the aftermath. There is precedent for independent truck owners and operators banding together to strike over rising fuel costs (although the word "strike" is being used here not in its familiar sense of an action waged against employers to force better wages, benefits, or working conditions for employees, but a work stoppage intended to paralyze industry and thereby force a change in government policy). In February 1974, four months after OPEC had declared an oil embargo against the U.S. and other western nations over their support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a group known as the Owners/Operators Independent Drivers Association of America staged a national strike to protest the spiraling costs of fuel, fuel shortages, and reduced speed limits. (In response to the OPEC oil embargo, President Nixon had signed a bill imposing a 55 MPH speed limit on interstate highways.) The ten-day strike resulted in numerous acts of violence, prompting Pennsylvania governor Milton Shapp to activate National Guard units to assist in providing security for commercial vehicles and roadways. The conditions that prompted the strike largely evaporated when OPEC ended its embargo the following month. Last updated: 26 March 2008 Byrd, Gene. "Trucker's Strike Looming: Fuel Cost Protest in April, Real or Hoax?" The National Ledger 24 March 2008. CNNMoney.com. "Gas Prices Rise." 28 March 2008. The Quad City Times. "Whispers Grow of Nationwide Truckers Strike." 26 March 2008.

FMD_test_28

Did President Trump Shut Down the White House Phone-In Comment Line?

01/24/2017

On 23 January 2017, the web site Addicting Info published an article reporting that the news Trump administration had dismantled the White House call-in line in order to "ban the public" from calling to offer comment or protest: article Trump Bans The Public From Calling The White House To Comment Or Protest In another attempt to stifle freedom of expression, President Trump and his administration have dismantled the White House switchboard comment operating system. Instead, callers will be told to take their complaints and comments to Facebook and other White House social media platforms. While it's true that the White House call-in comment line was inactive as of January 2017 (we called the number and were informed by an automated voice message that the comment line was closed), it's inaccurate to say that the Trump administration "banned" the public from calling the White House or "dismantled" the White House switchboard. call-in When Donald Trump was sworn in as the new President of the United States on 20 January 2017, both a peaceful transition of power and a digital transition of assets took place. For instance, the majority of content on WhiteHouse.gov was removed and archived at ObamaWhiteHouse.archive.gov in order to give the Trump administration the opportunity to populate the government web site with their own content. Similar changes were made with the @POTUS Twitter account. content @POTUS In this case, the White House comment line was shut down nearly a week before President Trump took office. On 14 January 2017, the Washington Times reported that the Obama administration had closed down the phone-in comment line: reported President Obama is done listening at least by phone. The White House comments line, 202-456-1111, is no longer working and apparently hasnt been operational for weeks. The line is normally staffed by volunteers. Callers to the line hear a recorded message: The comment line is currently closed, but your comment is important to the president. The recorded message advised callers to send comments for the White House via Facebook Messenger. Although President Obama's White House Facebook account had Messenger installed, as of the moment President Trump's does not: Messenger While one could argue that President Trump's administration was slow to pick up the digital reins in the days immediately following his inauguration, it's incorrect to say that he "dismantled" the White House call-in line. It's more accurate to say that the White House call-in comment line was closed at the end of President Obama's term, and the Trump administration did not reinstate it in the first few days of his presidency. Denson, Ryan. "Trump Bans the Public from Calling the White House to Comment or Protest." Addicting Info. 23 Janaury 2017. Boyer, Dave. "White House Shuts Down Call-In Line." The Washington Times. 14 January 2017.

FMD_test_29

Was $30 million donated by Planned Parenthood to Democrats in order to sway the outcome of the Midterm Elections?

04/23/2018

On 18 April 2018, the Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections. A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates. However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented funds to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member. A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the midterm elections. Targeting people of color, young people, and women is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and do not build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative, which the coalition is calling Win Justice, are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization. Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend funds on political activities. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities that are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law. Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage in such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections.

FMD_test_30

2011 W-2 tax documents and HR3590 legislation

05/25/2010

Claim: Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law! Origins: This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms. However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only. (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers. Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers a small minority of the work force would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated: 25 May 2010 The New York Times. "Cadillac Plans." 15 January 2010. The Washington Post. "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?" 12 January 2010.

FMD_test_31

Did US Unemployment Reach Record Low Due to Trump?

10/13/2020

During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked "from day one" in the White House to drive down American unemployment to "record" low levels evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's "pro-growth agenda" was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. news release Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: reiterated About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that "50 year" claim and said his administration is responsible for the "best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country." He tweeted: tweeted The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he "has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln," and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. claimed After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers. This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the "Current Population Survey." Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. Bureau of Labor Statistics According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) The survey Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the "the lowest level in more than 50 years" under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term Jan. 20, 2017 to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.) Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5% the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed) was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. Trump was correct According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that "an unusually large number of people in their prime working years" were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. BBC economists' analysis Federal Reserve System's board of governors CBS News We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: were true technically ended But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit. Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. "At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend," economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. told MSNBC In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: NBC News The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. Thats not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but its hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: labor statistics by NPR So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data we rate this claim "false." per economists BBC News. "US Jobless Rate At Lowest Since 1969." 3 May 2019. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer." Accessed 13 October 2020. Wingfield, Brian. "The End of the Great Recession? Hardly." Forbes. 20 September 2010. Jones, Chuck. "Trump's Economic Scorecard: 3 Years In Office." Forbes. 10 February 2020. Horsley, Scott. "FACT CHECK: Who Gets Credit For The Booming U.S. Economy." NPR. 12 September 2018. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Which President Gets The Credit For The Booming Economy?" MSNBC. 10 September 2018.