Did George Clooney Slam Trump and His Talk of a 'Hollywood Elite'?
In December 2020, readers asked Snopes to check the authenticity and accuracy of a diatribe against outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump, widely attributed to actor and director George Clooney. The speech has been shared many thousands of times over the past three years, in social media posts, and in the form of memes. For unknown reasons, it enjoyed something of a resurgence in October and December 2020. shared thousands October December 2020 A typical post read: George Clooney's response after Trump accused him of being a "Hollywood elite". "Here's the thing: I grew up in Kentucky. I sold insurance door-to-door. I sold ladies' shoes. I worked at an all-night liquor store. I would buy suits that were too big and too long and cut the bottom of the pants off to make ties so I'd have a tie to go on job interviews. I grew up understanding what it was like to not have health insurance for eight years. So this idea that I'm somehow the 'Hollywood elite' and this guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet is somehow the man of the people is laughable. "People in Hollywood, for the most part, are people from the Midwest who moved to Hollywood to have a career. So this idea of 'coastal elites' living in a bubble is ridiculous. Who lives in a bigger bubble? He lives in a gold tower and has twelve people in his company. He doesn't run a corporation of hundreds of thousands of people he employs and takes care of. He ran a company of twelve people! "When you direct a film you have seven different unions all wanting different things, you have to find consensus with all of them, and you have to get them moving in the same direction. He's never had to do any of that kind of stuff. I just look at it and I laugh when I see him say 'Hollywood elite.' Hollywood elite? I don't have a star on Hollywood Boulevard, Donald Trump has a star on Hollywood Boulevard! Fuck you!"   Some of those posts and memes contained a small number of very minor tweaks in wording, but overall, they accurately and fairly attributed the diatribe to Clooney, who did indeed hammer Trump as a "guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet" and "lives in a gold tower," and did indeed finish his speech by telling Trump "Fuck you!" Clooney's remarks came in the context of an interview with the Daily Beast, published on Sept. 22, 2017. Many of the viral social media posts claimed Clooney was speaking in response to Trump's accusation that Clooney was part of a "Hollywood elite." interview But that's not quite right. The question (or prompt) to which Clooney was responding was, "Trump has been stoking this culture war between "coastal elites" and Middle America  the irony of course being that Trump himself is a "coastal elite." Below is the exchange as it appeared in its original context:
Claim: The McDonald's fast food chain will be closing 17,000 locations due to an increase in the minimum wage.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Is McDonald's closing 17,000 stores because of the $15.00 minimum wage? Origins: On 28 October 2015, the web site Now 8 News published an article reporting that 17,000 McDonald's locations would be closing by 1 April 2016 due to a recent increase in the minimum wage: The largest chain of fast food restaurants in the world has announced that the minimum wage increase from $8.75 an hour to $15 an hour has caused them to schedule the close 17,000 restaurants in the United States.With already decreasing profits, McDonald says this is the "straw that broke the camels back." The above-quoted story is a piece of fiction. The United States minimum wage, as established by federal law, is still $7.25 per hour (although some cities have approved a gradual raising of their minimum wages to $15 an hour), and McDonald's has not announced that they will be closing 17,000 stores due to any wage increases.Now 8 News is one of many fake news sites that attempts to attract traffic through the frequent publication of false rumors under clickbait headlines. frequent false rumors This isn't the first time that a fake news story has used "McDonald's response to a$15 minimum wage" as its basis. The equally disreputableNews Examiner posted a fake news story claiming that the restaurant chain would start using a robotic staff to avoid paying their employees $15 per hour. robotic   Last updated: 4 November 2015 Originally published: 4 November 2015 Claim:  President Obama's November 2010 trip to India will cost taxpayers $200 million per day.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] I have no first hand knowledge of this, just passing along. I could not belive this was true (but had also heard it on the air, thought was hype), but when you Google it and read a number of sites, it does appear to be true.  Tell him to stay there !!!  Just in case some of you dont follow current events as closely as I do (yes, I am a "news-junkie")  you may have missed the following information since it never appears in our wonderful newspapers or on most TV news.  The Barack Obama family is leaving tomorrow for a ten day trip to India .  This is going to be an historical and incredible trip, mostly in the numbers of people going, costs, etc.  1)       The entourage will include THREE THOUSAND  people 2)       FORTY aircraft will be making this trip 3)       TWO marine helicopters are being dismantled, flown to India, put back together to fly the Obamas around the country 4)       The entire 500 room Taj Mahal Hotel has been reserved for this group 5)       Cost is estimated to be $200 million PER DAY for ten days 6)       Keep this in mind when you get the next notice of an increase in your taxes!!! No one should ever wonder  why taxpayers are angry about this type of extravagance while most citizens are struggling with day-to-day costs of living, etc. Origins:  On 2 November 2010, the Press Trust of India published an article about U.S. President Barack Obama's upcoming 10-day Asian trip (scheduled to begin in India, followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), stating that  the American chief executive would be accompanied by a contingent of 3,000 people and would be taking over the entire 570-room Taj Mahal Palace hotel during his stay in Mumbai, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of about $200 million per day.  Another report from the same source claimed the President would be "protected by a fleet of 34 warships" during his time in Mumbai: article report "The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said. About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments. [President Obama] will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there. "Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity. The information from that Indian article was quickly picked up and repeated as fact by a number of media outlets in the U.S. and elsewhere, but its veracity is dubious.  The only source for the claim about the mind-blowing $200 million per day expense outlay was a single foreign news report which quoted an anonymous Indian official and provided no detail whatsoever (or even a general explanation) about how the $200 million sum was derived or could possibly be expended. Any presidential trip abroad (the purpose of this trip is official business, not a personal "vacation," as claimed by some sources) involves considerable expense to transport and house security officials and presidential aides and staffers, and those costs will likely be on the higher side for this tripsince President Obama will be traveling to a city which was recently the target of terrorist attacks  and will be attending the G20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea, along with other world leaders (all of which requiresheightened security, as well as the presence of additional numbers of U.S. government officials).   G20 Summit However, citing a cost figure of $200 million per day stretches credulity to the breaking point: That number would entail a total outlay of $400 million for the two-day visit (a whopping $2 billion if the cost were applied across the entire ten-day trip), and even if President Obama were accompanied by a prodigious 3,000-person entourage, with the U.S. government picking up the entire tab for all of them, the U.S. would have to be spending the unbelievably staggering sum of $66,000 per person per day to reach that figure.   And, as the the Wall Street Journal observed, the details of the report are "demonstrably incorrect," and it certainly isn't the case that the U.S. will be picking up the tab for everyone traveling with the president: The report is demonstrably incorrect. It says the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai  it hasn't  and that the press traveling with Mr. Obama will be staying there. We won't. Besides, the press pays its own way at considerable cost to the media outlets, not the U.S. taxpayer. Additionally, U.S. officials disclaimed numeric figures cited for the President's Asian visit as "wildly inflated" and "absurd": White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure: "The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it's safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated," Vietor said.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell also outright rejected the claim that 34 warships would patrol the Mumbai coast while Obama is in town.  "I think there has been a lot of creative writing that's been done on this trip over the last few days," he said. "We obviously have some support role for presidential travel ... but I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we are deploying 10 percent of the Navy, some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president's trip to Asia  that's just comical. "Nothing close to that is being done, but the notion that president would require security as he travels to India and elsewhere should not come as a surprise to anyone," he said.  A military official also [said] the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most. Moreover, CNN  noted that the cost of similar trips undertaken by other presidents came nowhere close to the $200 million per day figure being claimed of President Obama's Asian visit: While the exact cost of Obama's 10-day trip to Asia is not known to the public, an examination of similar presidential excursions in the past support the likelihood that the $200 million-a-day figure is exaggerated. For example, an 11-day trip by then-President Bill Clinton to Africa in 1998 involving about 1,300 people cost $5.2 million a day, according to the federal Government Accountability Office, which adjusted for inflation. The U.S. government isn't likely to be forthcoming with a cost breakdown for President Obama's Asia trip (particularly since a large chunk of the expenses necessarily involve security arrangements, which obviously can't be publicly outlined or detailed), but it's probably safe to say that the ultimate cost will be well short of the claimed $200 million per diem figure. Some readers who inquired about this item amusingly garbled its details, mistaking Mumbai's Taj Mahal Palace hotel for the famous Taj Mahal mausoleum in Agra: Is it true that President Obama rented the entire Taj Mahal and is bringing in the near future, thousands of people to a meeting there? Last updated:  5 November 2010     Martinez, Luis.  "Pentagon Dismisses Reports of 34 Warships for Obama Trip Security."   ABCNews.com.   4 November 2010.     Robinson, Dan.  "Obama Aims to Expand, Strengthen Relationships on 10-Day Asia Trip."   VOANews.com.   1 November 2010.     Weisman, Jonathan.  "Fuzzy Math Dogs Obama's Asia Trip."   The Wall Street Journal.   4 November 2010.     CNN.com.  "Debunking the Myth: The Cost of Obama's Trip to Asia."   5 November 2010.     Economic Times.  "Force One Inspect Venues of Obama's Visit."   3 November 2010.     FOXNews.com.  "Security Entourage Earning Epic Reputation Ahead of Obama India Visit."   4 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "US to Spend USD 200 Mn a Day on Obama's Mumbai Visit."   2 November 2010.     Press Trust of India.  "White House Paraphernalia to Be in India for Obama Visit."   4 November 2010. In April 2020, as the global death toll from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic surpassed 100,000, social media users started to post messages about how Ivanka Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter and newly appointed member of the White House's council to reopen America, had a trademark in China on coffins: pandemic messages   While some shared this claim as if it were a "fun fact," others made a more direct connection between her company's trademark on coffins in China to the rising death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic:   According to multiple news reports, the first daughter's company, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, was truly awarded a trademark on coffins in China. However, this occurred in 2018, long before COVID-19 started to spread around the globe.  The Associated Press reported in May 2018 that her company had been awarded 13 trademarks in China over three months. These trademarks covered a variety of products, including baby blankets, coffee, perfume, and coffins: reported 13 trademarks Ivanka Trumps brand continues to win foreign trademarks in China and the Philippines, adding to questions about conflicts of interest at the White House, The Associated Press has found. On Sunday, China granted the first daughters company final approval for its 13th trademark in the last three months, trademark office records show. Over the same period, the Chinese government has granted Ivanka Trumps company provisional approval for another eight trademarks, which can be finalized if no objections are raised during a three-month comment period. Taken together, the trademarks could allow her brand to market a lifetimes worth of products in China, from baby blankets to coffins, and a host of things in between, including perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, books, coffee, chocolate and honey. Ivanka Trump stepped back from management of her brand and placed its assets in a family-run trust, but she continues to profit from the business. When users in April 2020 re-shared news stories about her trademarks amidst the global pandemic, many insinuated she would be capitalizing off of people's deaths, and that people in China would be required to purchase a Trump coffin. But that's not the case.  This confusion appears to be based on the conflation of the terms "trademark" and "patent." With a trademark, Ivanka Trump has the opportunity to sell products (in this case a coffin) bearing her company's name. A trademark does not give Trump's company any sort of exclusive deal to sell coffins in China. Other companies can still manufacturer and sell coffins just as always. patent Australia's ABC News noted that companies sometimes file for a trademark as part of a "defensive" strategy to prevent competitors from squatting on a brand's name: ABC News Companies register for trademarks for a variety of reasons. They can be a sign of corporate ambition, but in many countries, like China, where trademark squatting is rampant, companies also file defensively, to block copycats from grabbing legal rights to a brand's name. This appears to be the strategy of Ivanka Trump's company. Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump brand, said in a May 2018 statement that these trademarks were obtained during the "normal course of business." Klem also noted that trademark infringement was rampant, and that the company was trying to protect its brand: statement The brand has filed, updated, and rigorously protected its international trademarks over the past several years in the normal course of business, especially in regions where trademark infringement is rampant. ... We have recently seen a surge in trademark filings by unrelated third parties trying to capitalize on the name and it is our responsibility to diligently protect our trademark. It should also be noted that, as Snopes reported in 2019, Ivanka Trump was not running the company at the time that these trademarks were obtained. Ivanka stepped down from day-to-day operations in 2017 and announced that the company was closing down the following year: reported Ivanka Trump said in a statement announcing the closure:  statement "After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable future will be the work I am doing here in Washington. So making this decision now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners." While Ivanka Trump may have not had a hand in obtaining these trademarks, the government transparency advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) cautioned that these trademarks could still represent a conflict of interest in the future.  CREW wrote: wrote Ivanka announced the immediate closure of her brand in July 2018, citing her official government responsibilities in Washington, DC. However, her trademarks remain a potential conflict of interest as she continues to work on policy in the White House and meet with foreign leaders. To sum up: Ivanka Trump's company obtained several trademarks in China in 2018 that covered a wide range of products, including baby blankets, perfume, and coffins. This trademark gives the company the opportunity to sell Trump-branded coffins and prevents other companies from using the Trump brand to sell their own coffins. As of this writing, we've seen no reporting that Ivanka Trump's company (which she no longer operates) plans to manufacture or sell coffins in China.  Higgins, Tucker.  "Ivanka Trumps Chinese Trademarks Raise Questions About Potential Conflicts of Interest."
  CNBC  29 May 2018. Associated Press.  "Ivanka Trump Wins 13 New Trademarks From China in 3 Months."
  28 May 2018. ABC News.  "Ivanka Trump's Chinese Trademarks on Products From Baby Blankets to Coffins Raise Corruption Concerns."
  28 May 2018. Palma, Bethania.  "Did China Grant a Trademark to Ivanka Trump for Voting Machines?"
 Snopes.com.  9 October 2019. Zhang, Caroline.  "Ivanka Trum's Business Wins Approval for 16 New Chinese Trademarks Despite Shutting Down."
  Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.  5 November 2018. A photograph supposedly showing two women in the moment just before they were executed by an unidentified man is often shared with the claim that the gunman seen in the picture is the Argentine-born Cuban revolutionary figure Che Guevara, despite the fact that the executioner's face is not visible in the photograph:   This photograph is nearly always shared with anti-socialist sentiments and often posted along with barbs directed at politicians such as Bernie Sanders orAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Most commonly it is shared as a meme with the caption "This is the image of Che Guevara that should be seen on t-shirts." Bernie Sanders Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez meme caption Che Guevara is a controversial historical figure, regarded as anything from a cultural hero to little more than a wanton murderer. A number of articles, books, movies, and documentaries can assist those curious about the Marxist revolutionary in forming an educated opinion about his legacy, but this photograph should not be included in a hypothetical course on the subject, as it doesn't show Che Guevara. articles books movies documentaries Our investigation into the origins of this photograph took us from baseless claims on social media to archival photographs documenting wars in places such as El Salvador and Yugoslavia. Ultimately, however, our search ended in an unlikely location: Atlanta, Georgia. Before this image was first associated with Che Guevara in late 2017, the photograph was circulated attached to a different claim. In 2011, this picture was included in a gallery about the Farabundo Mart National Liberation Front (FMLN) during the Salvadorian Civil War, a bloody conflict which started in 1980 (thirteen years after Guevara's death): included   However, we could not confirm that this photograph truly shows a member of the FMNL during the Salvadorian Civil War. When we reached out to Martn lvarez Alberto, an El Salvadorian historian with a special interest in the FMNL, to ask if he was familiar with this photograph, he told us that he had never seen it and that he doubted that the picture was taken in El Salvador. Alberto noted that the men looked Caucasian, not Salvadorian, and that the building in the background was more typical of locations such as Europe or the United States. Susan Meiselas, a documentary photographer who worked in El Salvador during the Civil War, came to a similar conclusion: The buildings in this image did not resemble those in El Salvador. Meiselas also hypothesized that the photograph was taken in eastern Europe. The relatively modern wardrobe of the two women, and the suggestion that this photograph was taken in Eastern Europe, led us to examine photographs of theYugoslav Wars in the early 1990s. An image of DraganVasiljkovi, the commander of a Serb paramilitary unit called the Kninde who was found guilty of war crimes by the Republic of Croatia, appears to show similar fatigues: war crimes   This, of course, is not hard evidence that the photograph was taken during the Yugoslav Wars. In fact, when we talked tophotojournalistRon Haviv, who documented the Yugoslav Wars, he told us that he did not recognize the uniform of the man in the viral picture. So where was this photograph taken and whom does it show? Although our focus so far has been on war crimes, we had our doubts that this photograph even documented such a historical event. The nonchalant posture of the second man watching this alleged execution, the various people in the background who seem to be wearing backpacks, and the smoking bucket (which we hypothesize could be a makeshift fog machine), lead us to believe that this might be a photograph taken on the set of an obscure film production:   As it turns out, that's pretty much what this photograph shows. We uncovered another copy of this image on the web site for CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), where it is presented as a photograph taken in 1989 of a "Guerrilla Theatre" performance at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia: CISPES   We reached out to CISPES for more evidence that this was a theatrical production and they provided us with images showing a physical copy of this photograph which featured the words "Emory College Atlanta Mar 89" scrawled on the back:   This photograph does not document Che Guevara executing two women. It was taken in the late 1980s at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and depicts a performance by a local "guerrilla theater" group. Mastinu, Luca.  "Bufala Acchiappalike 'Quanto Era Benevolo Il Che.'"   Bufale.net.  12 October 2017. Cosgrove, Ben.  "Che Guevara: The Rorschach Revolutionary."   TIME.  28 October 2014. El Torogoz.  "Album 12 De La Memoria Historica."   Retrieved 28 July 2018. Magnay, Jacquelin.  "Captain Dragan Convicted of War Crimes."   The Australian.  27 September 2017. During floor debate, a Republican legislator complained that state expenditures on TV and film productions have extended to a long-running series celebrating cheating spouses.Really?Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker initially asked a House colleague about his proposed amendment to the House version of the 2014-15 state budget.Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said he sought to shift money from the states film and music marketing fund to teacher pensions. When last we wrote about the fund, overseen by the governors office, we noted the 2011 Legislature had agreed to spend $16 million each year to market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry, according to the May 26, 2011, House-Senate conference committee report.Laubenberg asked Leach: Would you like me to give you a couple of examples of things being funded with this money? At Leachs go-ahead, Laubenberg replied: How about Bad Kids Go to Hell, Cheaters, ...a TV series on spouses cheating on their wives, kind of glorifying the act of cheating--yeah, entertainment for some, unless youre the one cheated on.After listing other entertainment projects she described as helped along with state funds, Laubenberg closed: You know, if you want to watch this, fine, but I think you ought to do it on your own dime and not the states dime.To our inquiry, Laubenberg later left a message saying she had been reading from a list provided by Leach, whose office emailed us a spreadsheet listing more than 400 projects. A header on the spreadsheet says each one was paid by the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program through March 2013.More detail: The incentive program offers qualifying productions a shot at payments equaling 5 percent to 17.5 percent of the money they spend in Texas or 8 percent to 29.25 percent of eligible wages paid to Texas residents, according to agency information posted online, depending on budget levels and types of production, with both live-action and animated projects eligible.The spreadsheets sixth entry indicates $74,736.58 was paid March 22, 2013, to Bobby Goldstein Productions in Dallas in connection with Cheaters, which is described on the sheet as a reality show. Lower entries show previous payments to the company in connection with Cheaters, $72,714 in May 2012 and $100,082 in May 2011, respectively.By email, gubernatorial spokesman Josh Havens confirmed the state has paid about $248,000 since May 2011 to the Dallas company that produces Cheaters, which is among several hundred projects benefiting from such aid.The program met the incentive program requirements for economic impact and Texas resident employment, Havens said.By phone, the shows executive producer, Bobby Goldstein, told us that he hires more than 20 full-time and probably 30 part-time employees for the show and the company contributes a lot in taxes.So, is the legislator correct that the series celebrates unfaithfulness?Not so, Havens replied, pointing out the message that appears at the start of each episode stating that from the programs surveillance cameras, you are about to view actual true stories, filmed live, documenting the pain of a spouse or lover caused by infidelity. This program is both dedicated to the faithful and presented to the falsehearted to encourage their renewal of temperance and virtue. (We confirmed the text here. )Goldstein said: We dont make this show and make it look like somebody did something good. We point out they did wrong. Its sort of a scarlet A.We viewed excerpts of episodes placed on YouTube by viewers. Our impression was the show centers on confrontations between purported cheaters, cheatees and, often, involved third parties. A vivid example involved a cheating man punching his irate girlfriend in a parking lot; blood runs. Another excerpt showed a man being confronted in a bed as a dominatrix edges out of camera range.Critic Pete Vonder Haar described the show this way in an April 25, 2012, account in theHouston Press, an alternative weekly. The premise of the show is simplicity itself: a man or woman, suspecting their partner of philandering, contacts the steely professional Cheaters investigative team. They, in turn, put the suspected party under surveillance, amassing evidence of their infidelity for presenting to the complainant. A confrontation is arranged between the aggrieved party and their wayward lover. Hilarity then ensues, if by hilarity you mean emotional breakdowns and the occasional threat of physical violence.The article, which Goldstein called accurate, says the show is primarily taped in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, though there have been Houston-area forays.Im not one given to hyperbole, Vonder Haar wrote, but Cheaters is as great an American institution as baseball and morbid obesity. Who but the good old U.S. of A. would so brazenly combine our love of moralistic posturing (the wayward partners are referred to as suspects as if they were felons) with salacious, albeit (barely) pixelated footage of sexual transgressions.Finally, we revisited posted state guidelines for the incentives to see if any provision might restrict support for Cheaters. The guidelines say projects not eligible for the aid include those considered obscene as that term is defined in the states penal code, meaning something the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex. The code further lists explicit acts defined as obscene and also says something is obscene if taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.Havens said in his email that the Texas Film Commission felt the project fell well short of the definition of obscene.Our rulingLaubenberg said the state helped fund a show that glorifies cheating spouses.Mild point: The state-supported show, Cheaters, doesnt limit itself to exposing cheating spouses. Were not sure, either, that everyone would agree the show glorifies infidelity, considering its theme is to expose the practice and touch off emotional confrontations. The legislator could have clarified that an intended point of the show is that cheaters are wrongdoers.We rate the claim as Mostly True. Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005. Hillary Clinton, riding a bump in the polls, kept the heat on Donald Trump during a speech in Cincinnati that marked the first time she had campaigned alongside Elizabeth Warren, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party. Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism, Clinton said during thespeechon June 27, 2016. We dont take a position on whether Trump actuallyisone of the top threats facing the global economy. But we thought wed check to see whether Clinton has solid evidence that professional risk analysts have made that argument. So is Clinton right about how analysts have rated Trump? Basically, yes. When we asked the Clinton campaign what she was referring to, they pointed us to the periodic rankings of global risk published by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Economist Intelligence Unit -- an affiliate ofThe Economist, the London-based newsweekly -- is aresearch and analysisfirm that supplies clients, including businesses, with information about opportunities and risks around the world. The firmmade headlines in March 2016when it listed the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the biggest threats to companies capacity to operate at target profitability. The rankings are based on qualitative judgments of a how powerfully an event could affect the world and how likely it is to happen, the firm says. In its March ratings, the firm rated the risks from a Trump presidency as 12 on a 25-point scale. That ranked Trump sixth among the 10-item list of biggest threats, tied with the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy. But the Trump threat level increased in theJuly 2016 rankings. A Trump presidency now ranks as the third-biggest global threat, with an increased score of 16 on the 25-point scale. In the meantime, the risk from jihadi terrorism has remained constant with a score of 12. In the July ratings, the only higher scores were 20 for China experiences a hard landing and, in a tie with Trump, a 16 for currency volatility and persistent commodity prices weakness. Specifically, the firm wrote that although we do not expect Mr. Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton, there are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a sudden economic downturn. The writeup cited his hostility to free trade, his hard line on Muslims, his militaristic tendencies, his skepticism toward NATO, and his indifference to nuclear proliferation in Asia. The firm had never rated a pending candidacy to be a geopolitical risk to the United States and the world,an official told Politico. We checked with Robert Powell, the Economist Intelligence Units New York-based global risk briefing manager, to see whether he thought Clintons phrasing was accurate, and he said it was. Her quote does accurately describe our global risk scenarios, Powell told PolitiFact. Despite the high likelihood of more terrorist attacks, the impact on the global economy tends to be relatively slight -- indeed, most global stock markets rose on the day of the Brussels attacks, for instance. However, given that the U.S. economy is the biggest in the world, we believe a Trump presidency would have a major impact on the entire global economy. Clinton said risk analysts -- plural -- had determined Trump to be a threat, but we were unable to find any equivalent of the Economist Intelligence Unit report. (Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said that analysts was intended to refer to the multiple analysts within the Economist Intelligence Unit who came up with the ratings.) But we did find another major economic report that painted a grim picture of what could happen to the economy if Trump wins. On June 17, Moodys Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm,published its projectionsof what could happen to the economy under Trump-backed policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. (We fact-checked thepolitical backgroundof one of the Moody's authors in another report.) Four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trumps economic proposals can be reached, the Moodys team wrote. One, they will result in a less global U.S. economy; two, they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; three, they will largely benefit very high-income households; and four, they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment. Our ruling Clinton said, Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism. The analysts at one firm, the Economist Intelligence Unit, have declared the possibility of Trumps election to be the third-greatest global risk in its current rankings, a risk level that has only grown since the firm began including Trump in its rankings in March. And Clinton has accurately noted that the risk factor given to a Trump presidency is higher than the rating for Islamic terrorism on the firms list. We rate the statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/99685807-e596-4fa7-ad2e-de8cc4063c57 Gov. John Kasichs wish to sell off six state prisons has become yet another partisan political hot potato in Columbus. Then again, what isnt during budget season.But state Rep. Matt Lundy, an Elyria Democrat, kicked it up a notch with comments during a May 2 news conference called for the purpose of throwing cold water on the Republican governors plan to sell off five adult prison facilities and one youth detention center.Kasich has said the transaction could net Ohio a profit of $200 million.Lundy disagrees. He argues that there still will be bonds and improvement debts to be serviced and that will cut into the profit.He likened the proposal to an insane yard sale and questioned the logic of selling state assets during a down economic period when they may fetch low bids.He also accused Republicans in control of the House of helping Kasich to lure buyers.The substitute budget now adds in tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy these prisons, Lundy said. The House passed its version of the budget on May 5.Politifact Ohio decided to take a closer look.The House did propose a sales tax exemption, income tax deduction and commercial tax exclusion for any buyer that strikes a deal with Ohio to take over the prisons offered for sale. Lundy said such friendly trinkets will eat away at the states expect profits on the deal.So, why was it included? Kasichs proposal didnt offer the tax breaks but the House Republicans did.House Finance Chairman Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, said the tax provisions were added to assure that the private buyer of the prisons would be treated like any other state entity since they will essentially be performing a state function by housing inmates.Typically state entities dont pay taxes on their functions and that is true of local governments, as well, Amstutz said. And I think the desire is to maintain that status in order to provide for services at the lowest cost that we can.If the private entities were to pay these particular taxes, which go back to supporting the local communities where the facilities are located, then basically the state taxpayers would be subsidizing the local taxpayers at that point for a state function and typically we dont do that, Amstutz explained.State prisons spokesman Carlo LoParo noted, however, that any buyer of the state prisons would be expected to pay property taxes each year, which would net a huge amount of cash for the local governments where there facilities are located.Thats pretty substantial, LoParo said. He added that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections had closely monitored the House negotiations to make sure that a carve out for property taxes was not stuck in.We took pains to make sure there were no loopholes, he said. We fully expect them to pay property taxes to those communities where the prisons are located.The impact for local governments could be substantial.For example, there are two facilities offered for sale that are in Marion -- the North Central Correctional Institution that houses adults and the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, which is currently closed.Combined, the two properties are valued at $100 million, which would result in about $1.5 million annually in property tax collections for that small city. LoParo said that should be enough money help Marions police force pick up criminal investigations at the two facilities, which would fall to the city and not state highway patrol, as is currently the case.So where does Lundy land on the Truth-O-Meter.Lundy is correct that the the substitute budget includes tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy the prisons. There would be no sales tax on the purchase and there are other exclusions for income and commercial taxes.The administration is demanding that local property taxes absolutely be paid, which could yield significant revenue to local governments and schools.And Lundy is correct that the tax breaks and deductions in the budget bill were added in by the House.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Lundys comment as True. As we've noted many times in these pages, one common way in which people attempt to demonstrate the aptness of a particular social or political viewpoint is to put its expression into the mouth of a revered historical figure.  [Collected via e-mail, April 2008] This quote is going around the internet. I would like to know if it really came from Cicero as claimed. "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."  Cicero, 55 BC Surely if one of great minds of our civilization, someone who lived hundreds (or even thousands) of years ago, said the very same thing we're thinking today, then surely that's proof we've hit upon some eternal truth that should be sagaciously heeded. In short, attributing apocryphal quotations to everyone from Confucius to Abraham Lincoln is an attempt to capitalize on the maxim that "great minds think alike." One prime representative of this phenomenon is the passage reproduced above, which warns about the perils of governments' overspending their budgets and lavishing too much money on foreign aid and welfare programs. For the last half century it has been attributed to Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero and widely quoted by politicians and pundits seeking to bolster their arguments in favor of fiscal conservatism. For example, Louisiana representative Otto Passman, who for thirty years "pursued a relentless battle against spending for foreign aid" in the U.S. Congress, read these words into the Congressional Record on April 25, 1968: read these words into the Congressional Record Mr. Speaker, the record shows that in all ages where republican forms of government have been lost, it has been through the pretense of a share-the-wealth program, a blind faith in public officials, and apathy on the part of those who could act but did not. To mention only one of many, many examples from past history, may I quote from a statement made by Cicero over 2,000 years ago: The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt, the mobs should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence. History reveals that public officials heeded not the warning  therefore, the government collapsed. On March 29, 1971 the Chicago Tribune published a letter from a reader who invoked the same words to make a similar point: Someone said years ago: "The more things change, the more they are the same." Today's problems are not new. The Roman Empire faced bankruptcy 2,000 years ago, as more and more power was concentrated in central government and government spending grew. Cicero spoke out against the trend. This great Roman senator said: "The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. The mobs should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence." Romans ignored Cicero; Rome fell. History is great if we learn from it. It is not too late for the United States to heed those words out of the past. Those words were never uttered by Cicero, however; and the reason no one ever quoted them as such until about fifty years ago is because they weren't written until 1965. They sprang from the pen of Taylor Caldwell, a fiction writer best known for historical novels such as Captains and the Kings, her 1972 best-selling chronicle of the rise to wealth and power of an Irish immigrant named Joseph Francis Xavier Armagh (which was also made into a popular television mini-series in 1976). popular television mini-series Caldwell penned several novels based on real-life religious and historical figures, including Genghis Khan (The Earth Is the Lord's), Cardinal Richelieu (The Arm and the Darkness), Saint Luke (Dear and Glorious Physician), Saint Paul (Great Lion of God), Aspasia (Glory and the Lightning), and Judas Iscariot (I, Judas). Her 1965 effort A Pillar of Iron was a historical novel about the life of Cicero, the great Roman statesman who "is a pillar of iron as he publicly maintains his search for honor and justice under law in the face of plots against his life and his country." Although A Pillar of Iron often drew directly from the recorded speeches and letters of Cicero for its dialogue, it was nonetheless a work of fiction, and the now famous statement from Cicero about "balancing the budget" was an invention of Caldwell's and not a reproduction of Cicero's own words. In fact, the novel doesn't even present these words as something spoken by Cicero, but rather as a summation of Cicero's political philosophy presented as a preface to an imagined conversation between Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida: Reared in republican virtues, Cicero found himself frequently confounded by Antonius. Antonius heartily agreed with him that the budget should be balanced, that the Treasury should be refilled, that public debt should be reduced, that the arrogance of the generals should be tempered and controlled, that assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt, that the mobs should be forced to work and not depend on the government for subsistence, and that prudence and frugality should be put into practice as soon as possible. But when Cicero produced facts and figures how all these things must and should be accomplished, by austerity and discipline and commonsense, Antonius became troubled. "But this  or that  would bring hardship on this  or that  class," Antonius said. "The people are accustomed to lavish displays in the circuses and the theaters, and the lotteries, and free grain and beans and beef when they are destitute, and shelter when they are homeless and a part of the city is rebuilt. Is not the welfare of our people paramount?" "There will be no welfare of the people if we become bankrupt," said Cicero, grimly. "We can become solvent again, and strong, only by self-denial and by spending as little as possible until the public debt is paid and the Treasury refilled." "But one cannot  if one has a heart at all  deprive the people of what they have received for many decades from government, and which they expect. It will create the most terrible hardships." "Better that all of us tighten our girdles than Rome fall," said Cicero. As Jess Stearn observed in In Search of Taylor Caldwell, this imagined historical conversation was reflective of Caldwell's own political outlook much more than Cicero's: "She was a conservative politically, believing the spoils belonged to those who toiled for them. There were not free lunches. She abhorred the welfare philosophy that gave handouts to free-loaders, decrying rewards for indolence and incompetence." Or, as John Blundell aptly quipped in Ladies for Liberty, "Taylor Caldwell gives us fiscal policy, civil service reform, cuts in aid to less developed countries, and welfare reform all in one sentence." The reproductions of Caldwell's words as a historical quote from Cicero have altered the original a fair bit over the years: the admonition that "prudence and frugality should be put into practice as soon as possible" was quickly dropped from the end of the sentence; "people" have replaced "mobs" as the ones who should be "forced to work and not depend on the government for subsistence"; the proclamation that the "arrogance of the generals should be tempered and controlled" now refers to generic "officialdom" rather than military figures; and the warning that this advice need be followed "lest Rome become bankrupt" has mutated into the more ominous-sounding "lest Rome fall." Blundell, John.  Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History.
  New York: Algora Publishing, 2013.  0-875-86865-7  (p. 145). Caldwell, Taylor.  A Pillar of Iron.
  Lake Oswego, OR: eNet Press Inc., 2013.  ASIN B00CEINOCW. Collins, John H.  "False Quotations."
  Chicago Tribune.  20 April 1971. Connolly, Jerry.  "Warning from the Past."
  Chicago Tribune.  29 March 1971  (p. 14). Lueck, Thomas J.  "Otto Passman, 88, Louisiana Congressman Who Fought Spending."
  The New York Times.  14 August 1988. Stearn, Jess.  In Search of Taylor Caldwell.
  New York: Stein & Day, 1981.  0-812-82791-0. Tench, Helen.  "Cicero's Rome Quarried for a Scholarly Novel."
  Ottawa Citizen.  14 August 1965 (p. 24). Congressional Record [House].  "History's Warning."
  25 April 1968  (p. 10635). UPDATE 6:15 p.m., Sept. 26, 2014:We revised the story below to note that at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum Wiley said almost 1,000 workers have six-figure salaries. This additional information, pointed out by a reader, didn't change our rating of the claim we checked. Rich rich rich! City of Austin employees strike it rich! Sorry. We got carried away by a claim at a forum for Austin City Council candidates thrown by the League of Women Voters and the City of Austin. According to anAustin American-Statesmannews storyposted online Sept. 16, 2014, a council candidate, lawyer Jay Wiley, said the day before theres room in the city budget to staff offices in each of the 10 newly created single-member districts. Wiley, running in District 6 in Northwest Austin, also said at the forum: Weve got, actually, over 1,000 city employees that make six-figure salaries. Does that add up? We failed to reach Wiley to learn the origin of his figure. Meantime, city spokeswoman Melissa Alvarado emailed achartindicating that as of Sept. 1, 2014, 879 workers earned from $100,089 to $304,657. To follow-up queries, Alvarado sent a chart listing 24 vacancies at that time for positions paying $100,000 or more. So, you could say the city had 903 positions paying six figures at the time Wiley spoke. Alvarado said the city then had 11,852 workers, which means its $100,000-plus earners accounted for 7 percent of its workers. Plus, more workers were heading into the six-figure class shortly. To our inquiry, Alvarado said 3.5 percent raises taking effect Sept. 21, 2014, (before the start of the new fiscal year in October) would result in 1,162 employees earning $100,000 or more. At that time, she said, the city expected there to be another 36 open positions paying more than $100,000 each. So at that time, the city projects, 1,198 positions will pay six figures. Alvarado said the city had 12,780 positions budgeted for fiscal 2015. We also looked at which city workers make the most. Peruse that sampling below. Top-Paid Employees City of Austin Sept. 1, 2014 NAME TITLE/DEPARTMENT SALARY Larry Weis General Manager/Austin Energy $304,657 Marc Ott City Manager $269,755 Paul Hinchey Medical Director/EMS System $246,688 Michael McDonald Deputy City Manager $220,126 Cheryl Mele Chief Operating Officer/Austin Energy $211,494 Kerry Overton Deputy General Manager, Shared Services/Austin Energy $211,494 Sue Edwards Assistant City Manager $203,860 Robert Goode Assistant City Manager $203,860 Humberto Lumbreras Assistant City Manager $203,860 Anthony Snipes Assistant City Manager $203,860 Reynaldo Arellano Assistant City Manager $200,116 Art Acevedo Police Chief $199,118 Claire Hart Chief Financial Officer $206,003 Elizabeth Little Senior Vice President/Austin Energy $202,716 Jose Cabanas Rivera Deputy Medical Director, Office of the Medical Director $200,969 Source: Information provided by City of Austin, September 2014. The fullchart is here. After we initially posted this fact check, a reader pointed out thar Wiley said at a Sept. 23, 2014, forum the city has almost 1,000 workers earning six-figure salaries. Our ruling Wiley said more than 1,000 city workers make six-figure salaries. When he spoke, 879 workers earned more than $100,000, meaning he overshot. Then again, raises were about to take effect lifting workers in this pay category to 1,162. We rate the statement 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.