Did Babe Ruth Replace George Halas in the Yankees' Outfield?
"Papa Bear" George Halas is a legend in the world of professional football. A member of the charter group of inductees in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Halas was one of the co-founders of the National Football League (NFL) in 1920, and he is most famous for his long tenure as owner and head coach of the Chicago Bears franchise, which he led to multiple championships during a coaching career that spanned 40 seasons. George Halas is a legend in the world of professional football However, Halas actually began his professional sports career as a baseball player, piquing the interest of the New York Yankees while playing college ball and signing with the team after he was discharged from the U.S. Navy at the end of World War I. Halas reported to the Yankees for spring training in 1919 and made the remarkable jump from college player to big-league outfielder. That one season was the extent of Halas' major-league baseball career, however, as a hip injury limited his performance. He was sent down to the minors, and he opted not to return to pro baseball the following year. By the end of 1919, he was playing professional football, and in 1920 he took part in the meeting that formed the American Professional Football Association (which became the NFL in 1922). In the process, Halas purportedly gained another measure of sports immortality as the answer to the trivia question, "Whom did Babe Ruth replace as the Yankees' right fielder?"   But Halas couldn't have been "replaced" by Babe Ruth -- or anyone else -- in the Yankees' outfield (as he reportedly claimed for the rest of his life) because he had never been a regular in the first place. In his single season with the New York club, Halas took part in only a dozen games, and half of those appearances were as a pinch-runner or pinch-hitter. He played the outfield in only six games (five in right and one in center) before he was sent down, never to return. reportedly claimed played the outfield In 1919, the Yankees' primary outfielders were Ping Bodie, Duffy Lewis, and Sammy Vick. After New York acquired Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox during the 1919-20 off-season and installed him as a full-time outfielder, the player who suffered the greatest curtailment in playing time was Sammy Vick, who started 96 games in right field for the Yankees in 1919 but only 24 games in 1920 (and was then shipped off to the Red Sox at the end of the 1920 season). primary outfielders Sammy Vick All of us who eventually have to give up our jobs in favor of newer and better arrivals may like to think we were supplanted only by someone of world-class talent, but in this case, that notion was more wishful thinking than reality.
On Feb. 1, 2022, a Reddit user posted a video in the r/Unexpected subreddit titled: "Police were looking for drugs." The video purportedly showed Spanish police busting down a door and expecting to find marijuana or other drugs, but instead uncovering a Bitcoin mining farm for cryptocurrency. Reddit posted a video r/Unexpected video cryptocurrency We found that the clip was originally posted by the National Police YouTube channel on Jan. 28. It was recorded in Santiponce, Spain, which is near Seville. It's unclear on exactly what date the bust took place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ET6kbChkA On the official website for the Spanish police, a news release also from Jan. 28 provided in-depth details on the Bitcoin mining farm bust: news release Police investigations began on a possible indoor marijuana plantation that could be located in some stables located in Santiponce. After carrying out the first inquiries, the agents realized that the existing indications did not correspond to the cultivation of marijuana, but rather that these facilities could be hosting a cryptocurrency farm of which there are hardly any records in Spain. With this information, the stables were entered and searched, where the agents discovered modern facilities for mining cryptocurrencies. In other words, it's true that the police originally thought the buildings might house a marijuana operation. However, according to the release, before the door was busted down, police had made inquiries and expected that they would find not marijuana or drugs, but rather a Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency mining farm.  Inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube)  Research from NotebookCheck.net documented what was found in the raid and said that the electricity used by the Bitcoin mining farm was done in an illegal manner: NotebookCheck.net Over 21 Bitcoin mining ASICs were recovered from the location and what looks like five EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 graphics cards. The equipment, worth over 50,000, generated about 3,500 in revenue per month. The Bitcoin mine in question was relatively new, so it is unlikely that its owners came close to breaking even on their investment. Police are yet to identify who owns the farm in question and are investigating the matter. Like many other countries in the world, Spain does not have any laws against mining cryptocurrency, and mining is (somewhat) legal in the country. However, the electric connection for the Bitcoin mining farm was illegal and reportedly cost the state 2,000 per month. Regarding the illegal use of the electricity, the news release from police said: "Outside the premises, an illegal connection to the electrical network was located to power the equipment, observing a very high consumption of amps, which, according to technicians from the electrical company, could generate a monthly electricity fraud of 2,000 euros."  An alternate view inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube)  In sum, the police seen in the video received information just prior to the bust that led them to expect that it was not marijuana or drugs that they would find, but rather the Bitcoin cryptocurrency mining farm that they eventually uncovered. Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know A tax on feminine hygiene products (also known as a "tampon tax")was notnew by the time social media interest in the topic appeared inMay 2016, but ascreenshot published by the page "Women's Rights News" contributed the buzz: screenshot    The image originated with a 15 January 2016 interview between YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen and President Barack Obama. The "I don't know anyone who has a period who thinks it's a luxury" comment was made by Nilsen, not the President: interview   The topic was already steadily popular.NYMag.compublished an article on 29 April 2016thatexplored social media interest in the tampon tax: article Pads and tampons have made political headlines in every single month of this year. In January, lawmakers in California, Utah, Virginia, and Michigan introduced anti-tampon-tax bills. They were mostly sponsored by women (shout out to Delegate Mark Keam in Virginia, though!). Notably, in each of those states, except California, the mostly Democratic sponsors are vastly outnumbered in their Republican-heavy legislatures. Also in January, the tampon tax made headlines when Obama learned about it while the camera was rolling, and declared he thought the tax was unfair. Then, in February, similar bills were introduced in Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. In March, the city of Chicago dropped its tampon tax, and a class-action lawsuit brought by women in Ohio and New York state added pressure to stop taxing periods. In April, the New York Senate unanimously passed the tampon tax bill. This is an astounding amount of national legislative momentum for an issue that was long considered to be womens private, shameful burden. Its no coincidence that efforts to end the tampon tax have cropped up alongside viral art projects, new businesses, and digital campaigns to destigmatize menstruation. The tampon tax is the perfect of-the-moment issue for lawmakers who want to signal their support for women  and take a stance on inequality. Ending the tax, which promises practical benefits for low-income women, is low-hanging fruit for legislators in liberal states. A widely circulated June 2015 map created byFusion illustrated the tampon tax with color coding. Most statestaxed feminine hygiene products, excepta few that had either specific exemptions orno sales tax at all: map   Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland specifically did not tax[PDF] feminine hygiene products. Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, and Delaware do not have sales tax on any items (including tampons). The rest ofthe states maintained atax on such products.One outlier was the state of New York, which moved in April 2016 to abolish the tax: tax moved The Republican-led Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill exempting feminine hygiene products from sales tax, two months after the debate over the so-called tampon tax reached Albany. The bill, sponsored by freshman Sen. Sue Serino, a Republican from Hyde Park, passed with 58 votes. The vote on the Senate floor took about one minute, just enough time for at least one period joke. It is a way of providing some tax relief to women everywhere, young girls in particular, Sen. Diane Savino said, thanking the bill sponsor. But on behalf of women of a certain age everywhere, I would love to offer a friendly amendment and ask for a rebate program, Senator Serino. But I know it would probably bankrupt the state.   Lawmakers in Michigan expressed interest in advancing a similar initiative, and the city of Chicago (but not the state of Illinois) axed the tax. On 12 April 2016, MarketWatch reported somemomentum both in and outside the U.S. to end the additional charges: Michigan Chicago reported The issue has made it onto the agenda in about 10 states, seven of which introduced the legislation, including New York (though Utahs never made it out of committee) and three, South Carolina, Tennessee and Illinois, that recently debated it. It has also gone international, with France cutting the sales tax in late 2015 and the European Union taking a stance on the issue this year. In May 2016, the majority of the 40 states with a tampon tax retained it (although New York was on its way to tax-free status for feminine hygiene products). By and large, social media tampon tax claims were accurate. To be clear, tampons weren't taxed at a special or higher rate than other taxable items  they simply were subject to sales tax in general.  Coughlin, Sarah.  "Chicago Removes Its Tampon Tax & The State Of New York Is On Its Way To Doing The Same."
Refinery29.  13 April 2016. Court, Emma.  "New York Is The Latest State To Scrap Tampon Tax."
MarketWatch.  12 April 2016. Friedman, Ann.  "How Ending The Tampon Tax Became Viral Legislation."
NYMag The Cut.  29 April 2016. Hillin, Taryn.  "These Are The U.S. States That Tax Women For Having Periods."
Fusion.  3 June 2015. Larimer, Sarah.  "The 'Tampon tax,' Explained."
Washington Post.  8 January 2016. Miller, Faith.  "Why Two Senators Want To Get Rid Of Michigan's 'Tampon Tax.'"
WILX.  14 April 2016. Velasquez, Josefa.  "Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Eliminating 'Tampon Tax.'"
Politico New York.  11 April 2016. After Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saluted legislation potentially giving voters more sway over local property taxes, we wondered afresh about how Texas ranks nationally in terms of property tax burden. Patrick, talking upa proposalhatched by fellow Republicans led by Houston state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, said in a Nov. 29, 2016,press release: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation, and Texans have told us loud and clear that common-sense property tax reform legislation is long overdue. In January 2016,we found Mostly Truethe same claim by a Bexar County legislative aspirant. The business-orientedTax Foundation, a national group, drew on 2013 Census Bureau datato mapthe average amount of residential property tax paid as a percentage of home value state by state. By that metric, the Texas rate of 1.9 percent proved higher than the rates in 44 states; it was topped by the rates for Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois and No. 1 New Jersey at 2.38 percent. Still, we noted, property taxes in Texas are levied locally in Texas, resulting in ample differences in the burden depending on where taxpayers live. Rankings yet to be updated Not a lot has changed since we reached that conclusion. For starters, the rankings  showing Texas with the sixth highest mean effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing  havent been updated, the foundations Jared Walczak said to our inquiry. Yet, Walczak also told us by email, this does not make Texas a high-tax state. Texas has chosen to rely more heavily on property taxes, and less heavily on other taxes, than many peer states, foregoing some altogether. The state's tax structure is an important part of its economic success, and it is inevitable that, when a state foregoes an individual income tax, some other tax will be somewhat higher than it might otherwise have been. In fact, the foundation has previously reported that in 2012Texas ranked 46thin state-local taxes per resident. Why property taxes can be high Property taxes might be higher here becauseunlike most states, Texas levies no state income tax. Notably too, unlike in some states, Texas property tax rates are set locally, not by the state,according to the Texas state comptroller, with government units spending the revenue to provide local services including schools, streets and roads, police and fire protection and many others. Moreover, the state lacks the constitutional authority to levy a property tax, as the Texas Legislative Council noted in a2002 overviewof local taxes statewide. Generally under the current system, a county appraisal district does an annual property valuation, then each area city, county, school and special district (like hospital and road districts) sets the respective tax rate necessary to raise the money needed to fund the related adopted budget. And according to Census data, property taxes in 2013, the latest year of available data, were the source of 81.6 percent of local tax revenue in Texas (the national average for this figure was 46.7 percent). Updated information is to be posted Dec. 9, 2016, bureau spokesman Sean Patrick told us by email. Regional differences When we looked into this topic before, advocates including Dick Lavine of the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities and Dale Craymer of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association suggested we consider acomparison studyby the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy showing that property owners in the biggest cities of Texas, especially Houston and San Antonio, had some of the highest property taxes in 2014 compared with large cities in other states. That remained so the next year, according to aJune 2016 institute studyindicating, for instance, that El Paso homeowners in 2015 ranked No. 3 among the countrys 50 most populous cities in homestead property taxes on a $150,000 property or $300,000 property. Among the 50 cities, homestead taxes in large Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio ranked No. 5 (Fort Worth) to No. 13 (Houston), according to the report. The disparity between property taxes by county comes through in real-dollar terms, although measures of taxes in terms of dollars paid can be distorted by the difference in home prices from county to county. A Tax Foundationmapshows in real dollars just how much property taxes vary from county to county based on IRS data reflecting the amount of real estate taxes deducted from federal taxes. In 2013, Texas counties with residents paying the most were Travis ($7,553), Kendall ($6,916) and Fort Bend ($6,813), while those paying the least are Dickens ($1,325), Stonewall ($1,425) and Hudspeth ($1,450). Another factor to think about when considering the property tax burden for the average Texan is the rate of home ownership. The Tax Foundation map showing Texas tied for sixth-highest in property taxes considered the percentage of home value thats paid in property taxes on owner-occupied housing. In 2015, 61.1 percent of Texas housing was owner-occupied, tying the state with Oregon for the nations sixth-lowest rate,according tothe Census Bureau. Our ruling Patrick said: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation. While it may be true that on average, Texas property taxes are the sixth-highest in the nation, the actual taxpayer burden on residents can vary greatly by locality, making the average less representative. We rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check Claim:  Participating in a 'Not One Damn Dime Day' is an effective way to protest the war in Iraq. Status:  Probably not. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] National Anti-War Boycott It doesn't really matter that everyone will be out spending what they didn't the next day  a point or two will have been made: Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since ourpolitical leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime fornecessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations andfunnel cash into American politics. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200+ brave young Americans and (some estimated) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan  a way to come home. There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed.  For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people. Please share this email with as many people as possible. Origins:  Evaluating e-mails urging people to participate in some form of protest is always difficult, because (except in the rare cases where a hoax or a joke has been taken seriously) they can't be "true" or "false."  The protests may succeed, fail, or achieve some intermediate result, but whether to participate is a matter of individual choice.  We don't know who came up with the idea for the Not One Damn Dime! protest  Not One Damn Dime!  (it is often falsely attributed to newsman Bill Moyers) or what level of participation it might achieve; all wecan do is offer an opinion about its likelihood of success.  In this case our opinion is that someone has taken the futile concept of slacktivism to a new extreme. slacktivism Some protests are functional; they involve people taking direct action to achieve the desired result, such as chaining oneself to a tree to prevent its being cut down.  Other protests are symbolic; they seek to inform the public or call attention to an issue through activities such as holding marches or making speeches.  Sometimes protests are a combination of the two: chaining oneself to a tree is a functional but necessarily short-term solution, yet such an event is usually covered by the media and thus helps to publicize the cause of conservation. So which form of protest is this supposed to be? Its ostensible purpose is a symbolic one  to "remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal"   which leaves us wondering how this form of protest is supposed to help effect any change in circumstances The merits and conduct of the U.S. war with Iraq have been endlessly debated, in every medium, since the U.S. invasion of Iraq nearly two years ago.  The war in Iraq was the primary issue in a long, contentious, headline-dominating presidential campaign that ended just a few months ago.  The war is still one of the lead stories in the news nearly every day.  Many different polling organizations and major news outlets regularly survey public opinion on the issue.  If the result desired by those who would engage in this protest hasn't yet been achieved, it's not because the issue hasn't received enough publicity or those "in power" are insufficiently aware of it. All that aside, the suggested scheme is one of the least effective forms of symbolic protest one could devise: it literally proposes that people do nothing, and doing nothing generates little, if any, publicity or news coverage.  Massing thousands of people in one place and engaging speakers to make rousing public speeches provide vivid, well-defined images for the news media to pick up on, but pictures of people not spending money just don't make compelling fodder for newspapers and television.  (Images of normally bustling malls, restaurants, and airports standing eerily devoid of human traffic might make for a good news story, but public opinion on this issue is far too divided for this protest to be able to bring all business to a grinding halt.)  Even worse, when you call upon people to do nothing, how is anyone supposed to gauge the success of your efforts?  There's no way to distinguish those who are doing nothing out of principle from those who are simply doing nothing out of  habit. As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark.  Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business.  But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government)  those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees.  These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income.  (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end  restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)  Whether the desired goal is laudable or not, a protest that has little chance of succeeding at its purpose but a high likelihood of harming innocent parties does no one any good.  As we always say about these kinds of things, results are generally proportional to effort: If the most effort one is willing to put into a cause is to do nothing, then one should expect to accomplish nothing in return. Last updated:  14 January 2005    Sources:   Graves, Rachel.  "Inaugural Protest Ideas Sprout Across Internet."   Houston Chronicle.  10 January 2005.    Moscoso, Eunice.  "Internet Campaign Urges Economic Boycott on Inauguration Day."   The Palm Beach Post.  12 January 2005.    Richmond, Alex.  "Protesting? Do Something, Not Nothing."   The Trentonian.  12 January 2005.    Wilson, Craig.  "On Jan. 20, War Protest Will Turn on a 'Dime'."   USA Today.  13 January 2005  (p. D1) Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. When it comes to family budgets, one of the biggest bites can be child-care costs. Just how big is that bite? Child care costs account for 24% of a WI familys budget.This is well above the 10% affordability threshold established by the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human services. Paid Family Leave would allow parents the flexibility necessary 2 ensure they are able 2 put their family first, state Rep. David Crowley, D-Milwaukee, saidOct. 22, 2019in a Twitter post. Crowleys tweet came on the same day Assembly Democrats reintroduced the Wisconsin Family Medical Leave Insurance Act. Under the bill, Wisconsin workers without employer-funded family medical leave would be able to buy into a state-run insurance program. The proposal would expand the states current family medical leave law to allow individuals to take leave for more family members, including care of grandparents and siblings. According to a Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, a covered individual who is on family or medical leave would be eligible, beginning on Jan. 1, 2024, to receive up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave insurance benefits. This is thethird timethe measure has been introduced; it has not gained support from Republican lawmakers. Is Crowley, who has announced hiscandidacyfor Milwaukee County executive, on target about the cost of child care for Wisconsin families? Lets take a look. The evidence When asked for backup, Crowleys staff pointed us to a 2018United Wayreport. The report focused on a population group that has been given the acronym ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. The ALICE Report was part of a collaboration between the United Way in Wisconsin and 16 other states. Indeed, the report itself includes a line that is nearly identical to Crowleys tweet: In the Household Survival Budget, child care accounts for24 percentof the Wisconsin family budget, well above the 10 percent affordability threshold established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But where did the numbers come from? Officials with the state Department of Children and Families told us they do not collect that data. They pointed us to a series of advocacy groups, as opposed to any government agency or repository. According to the United Way, the reports child care budget is based on the average annual cost of care for one infant and one preschooler in registered family child care homes -- the least expensive childcare option. The most recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports,dating from 2016onward, recommend that child care be considered affordable if out-of-pocket costs are equivalent to 7% of total household income. In earlier years, dating back to at least 2015, the federal benchmark for child care affordability was reported as 10%, the figure referenced in the second part of Crowleys tweet. Additional groups Other advocacy groups have done their own tallies -- though each measures a slightly different thing: Economic Policy Institute: A July 2019 report from the institute puts the average cost of infant child care in Wisconsin at $12,597 a year. The report states that care for one infant would take up 18.5% of a median familys income in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is ranked 20th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia for most expensive infant care. The groupssource listincludes the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Child Care Aware of America and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Care Aware: According to a2017 report, the average cost of center-based infant care across all states tops 27% of the median income for single parents, an increase of 3 percentage points from findings in the groups 2016 report, Parents and the High Cost of Care. The group says it obtains data through surveys of state child-care referral agencies. For states that did not respond to the survey, child care capacity and price data was pulled from publicly accessible databases and market rate surveys. Center for American Progress: On average, a family making the state median income in the United States would have to spend 18% of its income to cover the cost of child care for an infant, according to a November 2018report. The 18% number is based on the state median income for a family of four, which comes from 2018U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesdata. Its also important to flag that the 18% number is the cost of child care for an infant in a center-based program. If you are focused on home-based child care as implied by one part of the statement we would note that the number for home-based family care is 11%, Steven Jessen-Howard, a Center for American Progress spokesman, said in an email. The high cost of child care is out of reach for most working families, said Simon Workman, co-author of the American Progress report in a statement. In short, each of the studies support Crowleys central point that child care costs consume a far greater share of an average Wisconsin familys budget than is recommended -- though the estimates vary, from 11% to 27%. Our ruling Crowley said child care costs account for 24% of a WI familys budget. Child care costs can vary, of course, based on age of the child, number of children receiving care and where the care is provided. But each of the available reports supports Crowleys main point -- that the costs far exceed the recommended amount -- even if the numbers come up somewhat different in each analysis. At PolitiFact Wisconsin, a statement is Mostly True when it is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. This fact-check has been updated to change an emailed quote mistakenly attributed to Julia Cusick of the Center for American Progress to Steven Jessen-Howard from the same organization. Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information  respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.  The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"  accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll."
 June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey."
 February 2017. The economic struggles of ordinary Americans are getting a good airing this presidential season and a statistical finding from the Federal Reserve provides ammunition for a candidate in either party who wants to make the case that too many people have been left behind. Washington PostreporterHunter Schwarzplugged some Fed data into a little segment called By the numbers, in the newspapers June 8, 2015, edition: 47: The percentage of Americans who cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money, according to the Federal Reserve. The dollar figure caught our eye. It seemed surprisingly low. Other researchers have tried to gauge the financial vulnerability of American households to an economic setback, but typically, the amounts they test are much higher, in the thousands of dollars. We thought wed take a closer look. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Board began asking Americans how well theyre doing financially. In May, the Fedreleased the 2014 results. The questions ranged from retirement planning, to how people managed any student debt they might have, to whether they think their overall situation is headed up or down. To measure participants sense of financial vulnerability, the survey asked them to imagine they had an emergency expense that cost $400, and it asked them how they would cover it. The better-off group said they would use cash-on-hand or a credit card that they would pay off in a month. Others said they would use a credit card but take time to pay it off, or they might borrow from a family member or a pay-day loan company, or they might sell something. And some said there was no way they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. Across the more than 5,800 people who completed the online survey, 53 percent said they would be able to pay essentially immediately. That left 47 percent who said they could not. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent), the report said. Interestingly, making over $100,000 a year was no guarantee of security. About a quarter of the more affluent group said that at the very least, they would pay off the $400 over time. As this chart from the report shows, ethnicity and income strongly affected the ability to absorb a $400 outlay. Other studies George Washington University business professor Annamaria Lusardi and two colleagues (Daniel J. Schneider at Princeton University and Peter Tufano at Oxford University) conducteda similar surveyin the depths of the recession in 2009. Their study asked people how they would handle a sudden $2,000 bill that they had to pay in 30 days. About half the respondents said they would probably or certainly be unable to cope with such an emergency out of their own funds. Lusardi said she considers the results comparable. The Federal Reserve had a lower amount, but it had to be paid right away, she told PunditFact. We gave people more time, so I think the percentages are consistent. In fact, even with five years separating the surveys, it is the similarity in the responses that caught her eye. Lusardi said it is a sign of the recessions deep damage to the typical Americans balance sheet. Until recently, the labor market and wages have been stagnant, Lusardi said. In the recession, many families used up their reserves of liquidity. It takes a long time to reestablish a good financial situation. There are other indications that most Americans live with a limited financial cushion. When the government shutdown for two weeks in 2013, aUniversity of Michigan research teamtracked a hefty drop in household spending among government workers. Even though their paychecks were interrupted only a short time, households cut their outlays in half, and many delayed paying their mortgages and credit card bills. Some racked up high cost credit card debt that took them up to nine months to pay back. Lusardis 2009 research included a number of other western nations. For the record, the United States ranked sixth out of eight in residents saying they would certainly or probably be able to manage a sudden $2,000 bill. Rank/Country Percent able to cope Rank/Country Percent able to cope 1. Italy 80.1 5. Portugal 54.1 2. Netherlands 73.2 6. United States 50 3. Canada 71.7 7. Germany 49.4 4. France 62.8 8. United Kingdom 47.8  Our ruling Schwarz said 47 percent of Americans cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money. The only caveat here, and its a very minor one, is that figure represents the number of people who say they cant make that payment, based on a Federal Reserve Board survey. The Federal Reserve Board results are in line with a similar study and related research. We rate the claim True.