Vanishing Dependents
Claim:  Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets.   Origins:  The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes  that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for  him).  Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income.  Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers  (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns.  After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend  made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics  that the  year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children  children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms  vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents.  For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989.  Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number  possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation.  "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated:  15 April 2014 Freakonomics    Lewin, Tamar.  "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care"   The New York Times.  6 January 1991.    Liebman, Jeffrey B.  "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?"   National Tax Journal.  December 2000  (pp. 1165-1186).
A four-line poem, also known as a quatrain, allegedly written by 16th-century philosopher Michel de Nostradamus described predictions of a future plague that would fall upon the world. (Some assumed that this so-called plague referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Snopes has previously debunked here.) here The alleged quatrain went on to describe a feeble man who was set to rule the western world with a jezebel after the plague. According to Snopes readers, renditions of this poem appeared to suggest that this man and jezebel either referred to U.S. President Donald Trump or President-elect Joe Biden, depending on the person sharing the poem. In the end, this fool ruler will cause the great eagle  presumably the United States  to suffer and fall. The below meme circulated in early 2021:   It is unclear where this quatrain originated from or who the original poster was. Nostradamus, who was also a French physician, first published Les Prophties in 1555. It is thought that his collection of poems, which are compiled in 10 sets of verses of 100 quatrains each, contain mythological and astrological predictions for the future world. In the centuries that followed his original publication, he has remained prominent in modern popular culture, often among internet users who share fabricated predictions falsely attributed to him. Les Prophties remained prominent Nostradamus is credited with accurately predicting many historical events, according to Rare Books Digest. And though many of his poems are largely vague and could apply to a number of events, some of his predictions do come eerily close to actual events. Rare Books Digest eerily close But the meme in question does not appear to make that list. A look through The Compleat Works of Nostradamus did not reveal any mention of a jezebel or a feeble man. And though the word plague was mentioned more than 30 times in the Nostradamus text, there is no instance where it occurs alongside the same wording as in the meme. look The Compleat Works of Nostradamus reveal Furthermore, it is also important to note that the quatrains written by Nostradamus do not follow chronological order. So, while they may be broken down into what the author considered to be centuries, these do not directly translate to the century in which any prediction was anticipated to occur. An unexpected controversy took root after the July 2016 Democratic National Convention (DNC) involving key speaker Khizr Khan, who took to the convention stage to speak about Donald Trump, Muslims in America, and the loss of his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan: Captain Humayun Khan   Khan's speech was preceded by brief introductory footage of Hillary Clinton describing his immigration to the United States, and how his son was killed in action in Iraq while guarding his Army unit. Khan reiterated his son's story and challenged Donald Trump (who has at times proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States) to read the U.S. Constitution: Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings ... Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America." If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities: women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. Donald Trump, you're asking Americans to trust you with their future. Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [Waved "Pocket Constitution."] In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law." Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one. Trump repeatedly issued comments about Khan via Twitter as the Khans were being interviewed about the speech and about Trump's reaction to it: Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our "leaders" to eradicate it!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016 I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016 July 31, 2016  This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 1, 2016 August 1, 2016  On 31 July 2016, the dispute escalated when Trump suggested to ABC's George Stephanopoulos and the New York Times' Maureen Dowd that Khan's wife Ghazala was silent during her husband's DNC speech because, as a Muslim female, she was not permitted to speak: Mr. Trump told Mr. Stephanopoulos that Mr. Khan seemed like a nice guy and that he wished him the best of luck. But, he added, If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably  maybe she wasnt allowed to have anything to say, you tell me. Mr. Trump also told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, Id like to hear his wife say something. A day earlier, Mrs. Khan told MSNBC that she was unable to bring herself to speak at the convention due to her ongoing grief over her son's death: Ms. Khan did speak to MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell, saying she cannot even come in the room where his pictures are. When she saw her sons photograph on the screen behind her on the stage in Philadelphia, she said, I couldnt take it. I controlled myself at that time, she said, while choking back tears. It is very hard. On 31 July, Ghazala Khan wrote an editorial for the Washington Post addressing the ongoing controversy. The same day Mrs. Khan's editorial appeared, bloggers Theodore and Walid Shoebat published a lengthy polemic stitching together circumstantial evidence to suggest Khizr Khan was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood: editorial Shoebat polemic The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to trump Trumps Muslim immigration policy of limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. But not so fast. Trump we have your back. The Shoebats went on to cite two papers written by Khan in 1983 and 1984 pertaining to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, described as "an intergovernmental oil company consisting of mainly Islamic countries" and a second titled "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law" (both of which were written prior to the family's move to the United States). With respect to the latter, Shoebat bracketed a not-present "Sharia" in the title and included a snapshot of the only page of the paper freely available (which in no part suggested support for Sharia law or membership in the Muslim brotherhood and appeared to be an academic piece, not an advocacy paper). The Shoebats maintained that in the paper "Khan shows his appreciation for the icon of the Muslim Brotherhood," referencing a citation holding that "The contribution to this article of S. Ramadans writing is greatly acknowledged." page However, the quoted text was suspiciously elided from the screenshot that appeared on Shoebat and looked far less damning in its actual context as an academic footnote:  The elided citation was offered as support of the assertion that Khan's work was undersigned by the "Saudi Wahhabist religious institution" and cited a "recent report" that Khan had moved from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, "a hotbed for the Muslim Brotherhood." That "recent report" was a Politico article that described the Khan "familys journey from Pakistan to the United Arab Emirates, and from there to Boston," which in turn referenced Khan's 2005 interview with the Washington Post about the recent loss of his son Humayun. In its original context, the interview revealed a very different picture than the one painted by the Shoebats: article interview [Khan] and his wife would talk often to their three boys about why they decided to come to the United States, he began. It was the 1970s, and Pakistan was under military rule. They came to Silver Spring to have more freedom and opportunity. "It sounds cliche," said Khan, 54, "but that is the story." His son was always reading books about Thomas Jefferson; that part of his passion was certainly his father's doing. When the boys were small, Khan would take them to the Jefferson Memorial. He'd have them stand there and read the chiseled, curving words about swearing hostility against tyrannies over the minds of men ... It was not exactly surprising, he continued, that Humayun quoted Jefferson in his admissions essay for the University of Virginia, a line about freedom requiring vigilance. It was a bit surprising, though, when he signed up for ROTC and told his dad that after graduation in 2000, he wanted to join the Army. "He said that it seems only fair and logical to join the Army," Khan said. "Because he wanted to complete the journey  he felt that ROTC had completed him as a person, and he wanted to give back. That's what he wanted to do." It was logical, Khan said, and how was a lawyer going to argue with logic? Humayun finished his four years of service and was preparing for law school when the Army called him back to duty. As he was moving into Iraq last year, Khan called him and they spoke briefly, a conversation he has turned over in his mind a million times since. His son said, "Remember I wrote that article for admission to U-Va.?" Khan said, pausing, taking the pen cap off and putting it on again, his voice steady. "He said, 'I meant it.' He said that. He wasn't going there through some thoughtless process, or thoughtlessly following orders. He thought he was serving a purpose." Khan recounted the details of his son's death to the paper in 2005, noting that by all accounts his son sent his unit to safety before running towards a suicide bomber: Over time, his colonel and his fellow soldiers told Khan how his son died, and that, too, had some sort of horrible logic to it. Humayun's job at the base in Baqubah was to inspect the soldiers at the gates, where crowds of Iraqis would sometimes gather. Humayun went early that morning, which was just like him. He saw a taxi speeding toward the gates, too fast, he thought. He yelled for everyone to hit the dirt. Then, as was his nature, he went running toward it, they said. "Ten or 15 steps with his hand outstretched," his father said, stretching his own arm out in front of him almost a year later, telling some ghost taxi to stop in a downtown conference room. The explosives detonated before the car could ram the gates or the mess hall nearby, where several hundred soldiers were eating breakfast. The Shoebat page was something of a Gish Gallop, patching together a pile of loosely or unrelated details to paint a picture of a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator in the Army who was killed before he could complete some undescribed subversive mission: Gish Gallop I can go on and on. Is it likely that Khans son was killed before his Islamist mission was accomplished? Only another type of investigation will determine that. Do they ever mention how many soldiers have died because of Muslim traitors? Do they ever bring up how many Christians in the US military were killed? Yet the modernists and homosexuals continue to attack Christians. But soon everything we need to know will be uncovered. As we say in the Middle East: the snow always melts and the sh*t under it will soon be revealed. The Shoebats' insinuations about the younger Khan directly conflict with all other published accounts about him. Had Humayun's intent in joining the Army been one of sabotage, there would be no reason to expect he'd ultimately lay down his life to stop a suicide bomber from killing scores of other American soldiers  yet by every telling, that is exactly how Capt. Humayun Khan died. The other big "smoking gun" Shoebat cited to support their theory that Khizr Khan is a Muslim Brotherhood operative is his work as an immigration lawyer. By their rationale, Khan bears a grudge against Donald Trump for the candidate's myriad statements about Muslims and immigration  but although it's true that Khizr Khan and his sons were Muslims immigrants to the United States, none of the "evidence" presented by Shoebat remotely supported the idea that Khan is an operative of the Muslim brotherhood. Not only were most of the points made about Khan by Shoebat unrevealing and tenuous, the heroic death of Humayun Khan flies in the face of claims the family were Muslims operatives seeking to harm Americans or work against U.S. interests. Capt. Khan enlisted in the U.S. Army by choice and died protecting his fellow soldiers; by contrast, the only "evidence" linking his family to the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant, decades-old papers written about OPEC and Islamic law by Khizr Khan before he immigrated to America.  Haberman, Maggie and Richard A. Oppel, Jr.  "Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire."
  The New York Times.  30 July 2016. Khan, Ghazala.  "Ghazala Khan: Trump Criticized My Silence. He Knows Nothing About True Sacrifice."
  The Washington Post.  31 July 2016. Khan, Khzir.  "Juristic Classification of Islamic Law."
  Houston Journal of International Law.  1983. McCrummen, Stephanie.  "Khizr Khans Loss: A Grieving Father of a Soldier Struggles to Understand."
  The Washington Post.  22 March 2005. Shoebat, Theodore and Walid Shoebat.  "What The Media Is Not Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump ..."
  Shoebat.  31 July 2016. Timsit, Annabelle.  "Seven Minutes That Shook the Convention."
  Politico.  29 July 2016. Facebook, Twitter, Google Images, and websites that collect famous quotes are full of posts and memes that claim TV icon Oprah Winfrey once said the words, "When people treat you like they don't care, believe them." The question was whether or not there was evidence that she said the words.  We looked back several years and found that the quote appeared to have first been shared by a handful of Facebook and Twitter users in July and August 2013. At that time, Winfrey's name was not attached to it. For example, this tweet was the oldest posting we could find of the words: July August Winfrey tweet  When we searched Twitter for a timeline of the quote's appearances there, it looked like it wasn't until August 2014 when Winfrey's name first appeared with it. This indicated that the saying was perhaps misattributed to her. Twitter first appeared  The saying was later tweeted by former professional fighter Gary Goodridge in April 2022, without any mention of Winfrey: tweeted  To continue our research, we performed a special search on Twitter. We searched for tweets that contained the quote and filtered the results to only show messages with more than 250 likes. That search returned 15 results. None of the 15 popular tweets showed Winfrey's name next to the quote. Several of the tweets credited the saying to "Anonymous." returned 15 results We also saw several Facebook posts on pages that collect inspirational sayings. Those posts credited the quote to "Hina," "Kate," "OmI," "Bella," "ADMIN 2," "Uzi," "ShahID," and several other names we did not recognize. No evidence we found showed that the quote originally came from any specific noteworthy person, let alone Winfrey. Facebook credited Days after we published this story, we received a tweet from a reader that included a video from 1997. In that video, Winfrey is talking to American author, poet, and civil rights activist Maya Angelou, telling her of the time that she taught her what she saw to be a valuable lesson. Winfrey told Angelou that she remembered her saying the phrase, "When people show you who they are, believe them." This was similar but slightly different than the quote in the meme. video Maya Angelou  Winfrey recounted the story of Angelou telling her the phrase like this: When she first told me this story, I was talking about some bad relationship or relationship gone bad, because of my own choices. And she was saying to me, "Why are you blaming the other person? He showed you who he was. He told you who he was." And, when you look back on bad relationships, like for myself, sitting in a window waiting on him to show up, not even answering the phone. This is before we had cellphones. Not even getting on the phone, because I was afraid if it was busy for one second that he would call and I would miss the call. Not taking out the garbage on the weekends, because I might be out taking the garbage out the moment that he called. Not running the bath water, because he might call while I'm running the bath water, and I might miss the phone. And waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. When you look at that process of waiting on somebody who has told you they were going to do something and told you they were going to be there for you and they were not, they are showing you in that moment exactly who they are. That means that's somebody who cannot be trusted. So why would you the next time trust that person? So, Maya Angelou said to me, when I was telling her one of these stories about, "I'm waiting and I couldn't believe it and he didn't call me and I don't know what happened," she was saying, "My dear," in her Maya voice, "My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?" And so the adjunct of that is, when people show you who they are, believe them the first time. Don't wait for the twenty-ninth time." In sum, Winfrey did once say a phrase somewhat similar to the words in the meme. However, if we were to give credit for the saying to anyone, that credit would go to Angelou. Within 24 hours of the deaths of a New Jersey couple, dubious web sites seized on the tragedy as fodder for their latest round of conspiracy theory-driven content. On 7 July 2018, 72-year-old Carole Paladino and her 73-year-old husband Jon Paladino were killed when their Newfield, New Jersey, home exploded. killed The next day conspiracy-minded sites, citing "4Chan and 8Chan users," published stories promoting the claim that Carole Paladino, a retired school nurse, was "due to testify" in a grand jury investigation against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:   The dubious alleged connection here is a two-year old controversy over Mylan Pharmaceuticals (who donated somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation) having increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400% over the course of several years -- something Hillary Clinton herself criticized the company over: controversy Over the last several years, Mylan Pharmaceuticals has increased the price of EpiPens by more than 400%. Theyre now charging up to $600 for a two-EpiPen set that must be replaced every 12-18 months. This both increases out-of-pocket costs for families and first responders, and contributes to higher premiums for all Americans and their employers, Clinton said in a statement released to reporters by her campaign. Thats outrageous  and its just the latest troubling example of a company taking advantage of its consumers ... [I]ts wrong when drug companies put profits ahead of patients, raising prices without justifying the value behind them Given that John Paladino worked at a funeral home and Carole Paladino was a retired school nurse, it's unlikely that either of them would have been testifying before a grand jury about the operations of a large pharmaceutical company. Moreover, prosecutors in Gloucester County have told news outlets (and reiterated to us) that foul play is not suspected in the Paladinos' deaths, so any "news" story attempting to link their demise to a deliberate and furtive criminal plot to keep the couple from testifying against Hillary Clinton is merely another iteration of the "Clinton body bag" rumor that has been disseminated online since Clinton's husband, Bill, was president back in the 1990s. outlets Clinton body bag Melamed, Samantha et al.  "Two Dead in New Jersey House Explosion: 'It Was a Huge Ball of Fire.'"
  Philadelphia Inquirer.  7 July 2018. Everett, Rebecca.  "Retired School Nurse, Husband Killed in Earth-Shaking House Explosion."
  NJ.com.  7 July 2018. Memorable and low-budget -- that's the type of election campaign Robert J. Healey Jr. likes to wage. While the other candidates campaigned for months and spent millions in the most expensive governors race in Rhode Island history, Healey didnt enter the contest until shortly after the September primary, when he replaced the Moderate Partys original candidate, who was unable to run because of illness. Healey, who has repeatedly run for lieutenant governor with the intention of abolishing the office, and who spent the 2002 election season handing out campaign condoms with the slogan Nothing never felt so good, got 21.4 percent of the vote after mail ballots were counted in the 2014 gubernatorial election. While the major party candidates, Democrat Gina Raimondo and Republican Allan Fung, saturated the airwaves with commercials, Healey made a few campaign appearances and put up a few signs. But his performance in televised debates in October won him support from a lot of people who like his unconventional style -- or didnt much like Fung or Raimondo, who won the race. The day after the election, Healey told Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick that hespent just $36.29on his campaign. He madea similar claim on WPRO, where morning host Gene Valicenti congratulated him on his strong showing. Thank you. For 35, for 38 bucks, not bad, Healey said. I probably should have spent twice as much. I would have doubled my numbers and maybe be the governor. Valicenti joked that he didn't count gas money. I know, Healey responded. (But) I had to go there anyway. The Moderate Party candidate -- who also founded the Cool Moose Party -- has cited similar numbers in other venues. That prompted a reader to question the accuracy of Healey's statements. Someone had to spend money for those garish signs over I-195. And those signs weren't cheap, the reader said. Indeed, there were more than a few Healey signs throughout the state. We decided to check. Healey'smost recent filingwith the Rhode Island Board of Elections, for the period ending Oct. 27, 2014, shows that he raised no money and spent nothing during the previous 20 days.His previous reportshows that he gave himself $35.31 and spent it all on cell phone expenses. Healey told us the amount jumps to $36.29 when you add the price of the only two purchases he made since his last financial report -- a pair of postage stamps. Filings for the Moderate Party itself show that it spent no money on Healey's race either, at least through Oct. 27. So where did the money for the signs come from? Healey said a lot of supporters downloaded the public-domain images ofhim and his artworkfrom his website so anybody could produce anything. They printed their own. In addition, a local sign maker printed up his own signs and sold them at cost. The candidate also recycled signs from his past campaigns for lieutenant governor. We just crossed out the word 'lieutenant' and gave those away, said Healey. He also painted a campaign message on the wall of a building using old black paint. He initially had trouble opening the cans of Rust-Oleum paint because the covers had rusted shut. I found that rather ironic. They should make cans that don't rust, he said. In the end, I didn't spend any money on signs. Not at all, Healey asserted. In addition, people printed up a ton of T-shirts. I don't know what people did with them. But we're creating small business in Rhode Island. We're giving people jobs. We recycled everything -- anything I could cross out the word 'lieutenant.' We recycled buttons. We had some old bumper stickers from when I ran for governor in '98. In the attic, I found a case of Cool Moose combs, which I had in '86. Yardsticks, he said. And did he have any leftover condoms? We did, but they all expired in 2003. We didn't want to be giving out expired condoms. So when Robert Healey says he spent only about $36 on his campaign, all the evidence points to a truly shoestring operation. We rate his claim asTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) In late July 2020, Snopes readers asked for verification of numerous social media posts that stated Target had canceled its annual "Shop with a Cop" program, which is officially known as "Heroes & Helpers," in an effort to "distance themselves from Police Officers." Here is an example of one such post circulating on Facebook:   Similar posts also made the rounds on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were talking about the rumor on Twitter but didn't offer any evidence for the claim. posts website We reached out to the source itself, asking Target Corporate whether it had ended the long-standing program that pairs children from low-income backgrounds with local law enforcement officers for holiday shopping trips funded by charitable donations. A spokesperson for Target told us that the program will continue, although details about how it will move forward amid the COVID-19 pandemic are still pending. In response to our question asking whether the program had been canceled, the company sent the following statement: We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season. Like many of our holiday programs, were carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season. The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, per Target. program The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and conversation about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded. George Floyd However, Target, as of this writing, doesn't plan to cancel the program as a result of the racial justice protests. With the information currently available, we rate this claim  A Bullseye View.  "Target Teams Up with Donnie Wahlberg to Celebrate 10 Years of Heroes & Helpers."
  4 December 2019. Trujillo, Damian.  "Shop With a Cop Foundation Considers Name Change to Reconnect with Community."
  KNTV.  2 July 2020. Hill, Evan, et al.  "How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody."
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. House Speaker Armond Budish kicked off what he called his rhetoric reality tour last month in Columbus hoping to fight back against House Republicans who have painted Democrats with the usual tax and spend brush.At a news conference, Budish got uncharacteristically lathered up, saying that Democrats have made the cuts that Republicans wouldnt in slicing almost $2 billion from the current $50.5 billion general revenue fund budget.The mild-mannered Beachwood Democrat then attacked the House Republican record from 1994 to 2006 when the GOP controlled the 99-member lower chamber (as well as the governors office and the Ohio Senate).Never once did they actually cut spending or reduce the state budget. Even when they cut taxes in 2005, they increased spending, Budish said. They never paid for their tax cuts.Instead, they put off the bills until last year using budget gimmicks, he said.Those are fairly inflammatory claims, and just the kind of thing that PolitiFact Ohio likes to check out, so we did some digging to see if Budish was right.First, we pored over the state budget details dating back to 1994. We quickly saw that the first part of his statement is true, as long as Budish is talking about the entire budget and not individual programs that may have seen cuts at one time or another.From 1994 to 2006, the seven state budgets approved while Republicans were in complete  control increased spending an average of 9.39 percent from one budget to the next. The closest thing to a cut under Republican control was the 2005-06 budget, which went up only slightly, but included a 21 percent across-the-board income tax reduction spread over five years  which is the tax cut Budish is referring to in his comment.So far, so good.But to evaluate the second portion of Budishs statement where he says Republicans never paid for their tax cuts, you need a brief education in the numerous changes made to the states tax structure in 2005 by lawmakers. In a nutshell, a number of taxes of business and individual taxes were adjusted at the same time  some were increased by lawmakers in 2005 while others were cut or phased out entirely.A pair of business taxes that were phased out slowly by the budget that was passed in 2005 were the tangible personal property tax and the corporation franchise tax. They were replaced by a new tax on businesses called the Commercial Activities Tax, or CAT, which was phased in as the duo was ramped down.While those changes affected businesses, individual taxpayers were also affected by tax changes, including a sales tax hike and a 21 percent cut in the personal income tax rates for everyone in Ohio spread across five years.That was the plan anyway. But last year Gov. Ted Strickland proposed, and lawmakers approved, pushing the fifth year of that tax cut back a year to fill a hole in the state budget.But Budish isnt totally correct when he says that the Republicans never paid for the tax cuts contained in the 2005 state budget. In fact, the 2007 state budget passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Strickland had about $1.8 billion less in revenue because of the tax cuts of 2005, according to a 2009 state budget document. That, by law, required adjustments to the budget in other places to keep the state budget balanced.Still, the impact in 2007 of the tax cuts was fairly light compared to the impact that had been projected for the current budget -- $4.2 billion. But when lawmakers adopted  Stricklands proposal to push back the final year of the income tax cuts that pushed back some of the effect. The state actually ended up with $3.4 billion less to spend in the current budget than if the tax changes of 2005 never happened.So lets get to the grading card and see what we got:   Budishs statement is largely accurate but needs additional information to see the full picture. Thats why we rate Budishs statement as Mostly True. Claim:  Six outrageous-but-real lawsuits showcase the need for tort reform. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This is what's wrong with the world:        1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000.00 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store.  The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. 2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000.00 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord.  Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. 3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning.  He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food.  This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change. 4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock Arkansas was awarded $14,500.00 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. 5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500.00 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. 6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth.  This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses. Origins:   This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications: a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case.  The earliest version concluded with a seventh item that has since been snipped away, likely after someone noticed it was the venerable microwaved poodle legend. Its inclusion would have immediately called into question the truthfulness of the other six cases for any number of folks familiar with urban legends. The remaining six were still false, but they weren't as obviously false as the following poodle tale and thus wouldn't have set the alarm bells ringing: microwaved 7. And just so you know that cooler heads do occasionally prevail: Kenmore Inc., the makers of Dorothy Johnson's microwave, were found not liable for the death of Mrs. Johnson's poodle after she gave it a bath and attempted to dry it by putting the poor creature in her microwave for, "just a few minutes, on low,"  The case was quickly dismissed. A version of the list that began circulating in the spring of 2002 has yet another urban legend included as its final item, the venerable cruise control legend: cruise control In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded  $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Some versions bear the following footer, although many omit it: PLEASE ASSIST OUR LAW OFFICES IN A TORT REFORM PROGRAM.  WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT A STOP TO THESE INSANE JURY AWARDS BY SENDING THIS E-MAIL OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN THE HOPES OF SWAYING PUBLIC OPINION.  PLEASE FORWARD IT TO EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS YOU KNOW.Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio Mary R. Hogelmen, Esq.Law Offices of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and ThomasDayton Ohio There is no law firm of Hogelmen, Hogelmen, and Thomas in Dayton, Ohio, as a call to directory assistance quickly confirmed. This detail was included to give the mailing credibility in the eyes of those who received it: if a law firm had pulled this list together to build grassroots support for its tort reform program, then it went without saying a pack of lawyers had properly researched each item and were guaranteeing the information provided. But of course this detail was as false as everything else in the e-mail. Speaking about implied credibility, we note that the "outrageous lawsuits" list has made it into the newspapers at times, which only works to add to the perception that the information given in it is reliable. In June 2002, the New York Daily News presented it solely as an e-mail it had received, making no statements as to its likeliness to be real or detailing any attempts that publication might have made to verify any of the entries. (Had such attempts been made, the Daily News would have quickly found the article you're now reading, which originally appeared on this site a full ten months prior to the Daily News piece.) Fake or not, a list of outrageous awards bestowed upon those whose actions  nay, misbehaviors  had brought them to grief would fall upon very receptive ears because current feeling is very much against large jury awards for frivolous claims. This e-mail preaches to the choir in that it "confirms" what is already deeply believed. Numerous states have enacted measures to reform their civil law systems in response to the problem of frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury awards. Tort reform usually amounts to placing a cap on punitive damage awards, making the state's joint-and-several liability law more equitable, and limiting judge and court shopping (which means cases are tried in front of whomever they've been assigned to rather than the judge the plaintiff figures will be most sympathetic). Though the cases described in the e-mail are fake, real lawsuits of equal silliness can be found in abundance. An equally impressive list could easily have been compiled by anyone with access to a news database and a few moments to spare. For instance:  In March 1995, a San Diego man unsuccessfully attempted to sue the city and Jack Murphy Stadium for $5.4 million over something that can only be described as a wee problem: Robert Glaser claimed the stadium's unisex bathroom policy at a Billy Joel and Elton John concert caused him embarrassment and emotional distress thanks to the sight of a woman using a urinal in front of him. He subsequently tried "six or seven" other bathrooms in the stadium only to find women in all of them. He asserted he "had to hold it in for four hours" because he was too embarrassed to share the public bathrooms with women.  A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.  In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.  In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving. Although the cases cited above were all eventually dismissed, they still managed to work their way at least partway through our court system. When we hear such stories, it's hard not to be rabidly in favor of tort reform  these kinds of cases make it appear that the idiots have taken over the asylum and only the rapid institution of some rules is going to bring things back into a semblance of sanity. Yet this solution is not all skittles and beer; many see such changes as potentially denying those in need of legal remedy their day in court and refusing them their right to be heard. The cap on jury awards is also viewed by some as unfair to the seriously injured, who may well require a large sum to afford the cost of living with whatever disability someone else's negligence or recklessness left them with. Capped awards are also scant deterrent to large corporations who could easily afford the judgments against them and therefore have little reason to mend their ways. Big Business is poised to benefit under tort reform in that it will no longer need to fear the courts. It can also be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgment goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgment went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media.  (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Consumer Attorneys of California provides a good description of this case). this case Tort reform thus has both its advocates and its adversaries. On the one hand, we bridle at the thought of the terminally clueless being rewarded for their folly  that strikes us as just plain wrong. We also fear for the continued wellbeing of the small- to mid-sized business which can ill afford to fend off one frivolous lawsuit after another and thus stands in danger of being litigated to death. Also, even when litigants do not prevail, costs associated with their suits rain down onto the average citizen through his taxes (some of which underwrite the judicial system) and through increased prices for goods produced by firms who had to mount legal defenses.  Yet on the other hand, we don't want to see those who have legitimate cause denied their right to sue (or in the case of the seriously injured, their right to sue for an appropriate amount). We also don't want to see corporations run unchecked, free to turn out whatever dangerous product they like because the combination of capped awards and their deep pockets render them bulletproof. It's a complicated issue, one not made any easier to make sense of by lists of fake cases of horrendous miscarriages of justice. One has to wonder why someone is so busy trying to stir up outrage and who or what that outrage would ultimately benefit. Additional information:  George W. Bush's first act upon becoming the Governor of Texas was to reform that state's civil justice system. In January 1995, just after being sworn in, he convened a session of the Legislature to tackle tort reform. Within weeks he signed bills to limit punitive damages to $750,000, cut down on "venue shopping" for favorable judges and juries, and made it easier for judges to impose sanctions on plaintiffs who file frivolous suits.  Sightings:  The "woman in a store trips over a toddler, then sues the store" fiction was incorporated into an episode of the television drama Boston Legal ("Tabloid Nation," original air date 8 April 2008). Last updated:  11 April 2008    Sources:   Associated Press.  "Men's Room Invasion Prompts Suit."   The Fresno Bee.  1 April 1995  (p. F8).     Coile, Zachary.  "Bush's Formula to Win Over Business."   The San Francisco Examiner.  2 October 2000  (p. A1).     Elias, Paul.  "So What's a Little Litigation Between Friends?"   The Recorder.  14 December 1999  (Court Watch; p. 4).     Heller, Jonathan.  "Man Seeks $1.5 Million from City; Says Library Cat Attacked His Dog."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  5 May 2001  (p. B2).     Littlefield, Dana.  "Suit Over Library Cat's Attack Bites Back at disabled Dog Owner."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  31 July 2004  (p. NC3).     Perkins, Joseph.  "We All Pay When Others File Frivolous Lawsuits."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  18 May 2001  (p. B7).     Perry, Tony.  "A One-Man Campaign for More Women's Restrooms."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 1995  (p. A3).     Riffel, James.  "Jury Rejects Claims of Disabled Man Against City for Cat Attack."   City News Service.  30 January 2004.     Vogt, Andrea.  "Ludicrous Lawsuit Against University of Idaho Rears Its Ugly Head."   Lewiston Morning Tribune.  2 August 1994  (p. A1).     New Jersey Lawyer.  "Moral of a Burger Suit: Don't Eat and Drive."   15 November 1993  (p. 3).     [New York] Daily News.  "Mighty Quinn."   25 June 2002  (Sports, p. 63). Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. President Donald Trump said the tax bill passed in December has already led to millions of workers getting bonuses. Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars, Trump said during the State of the Union Jan. 30. In December, Trump signed a bill into law thatlowered the corporate tax ratefrom 35 to 21 percent. Trumps numbers echo the finding of a conservative group that had compiled company announcements about bonuses, but the majority of companies bonuses appeared to be $1,000 or less, not the thousands and thousands Trump said. Trumps numbers match a compilation byAmericans for Tax Reform, a group started by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. Americans for Tax Reform advocates against tax increases andsupportedthe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December. Americans for Tax Reform used company press releases and media reports to compile a list of announced bonuses or other financial benefits. The group found that as of the day of Trumps State of the Union speech, at least 3 million Americans are receiving special tax reform bonuses. American Airlines, FedEx, Home Depot, Nationwide Insurance, Walmart and Walt Disney Company were among the companies that announced bonuses. In total, at least 286 companies have announced wage and salary increases, bonuses, or 401(k) match increases, or in the case of public utility companies, lower rates. Trump said that many of the bonuses are thousands of dollars per worker. But it appears that the majority of the company announcements were for bonuses of $1,000 or less. The list includes about nine companies that announced bonuses of $2,000, includingFiat Chryslers 60,000 employees. Some companies were very clear about who deserves credit for the bonus. The Hammock Source in North Carolina was one of many companies to announce employee bonuses following the passage of the tax bill. The company handed out the bonuses in envelopes that said, Trump Republican tax reform bonus. We at The Hammock Source want to continue to invest in the people that have made our business successful, CEO Walter Perkins III said in a press release Jan. 25. President Trumps tax cuts will provide the funds to make this desire a reality. We hope that other business will follow our lead and give back to their employees as well. The Americans for Tax Reform analysis was only of recent bonus announcements and did not include a historical comparison to determine how many of these companies gave bonuses in recent years. Its not unusual for manycompanies to give bonuses. Experts say that Trumps claim is lacking important context. The bonuses only affect a small percentage of American workers. Willis Towers Watson, a global human resources consulting firm, surveyed 333 large and midsize employers in January to ask about their plans related to the tax bill. The survey showed that about 6 percent said they provided profit sharing or a bonus in 2017 and 5 percent planned to do so in 2018, while 10 percent were considering it. A slightly smaller number had given wage increases or planned to do so. AReuters/Ipsos pollshowed 2 percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the tax law. The poll was conducted of 5,254 adults Jan. 12-23. Economists say it will take more time to fully assess the economic impact of the tax reform bill. Labor trend experts said that amid a tightening labor market and low unemployment, companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told PolitiFact that one-time bonuses are a low-risk way for companies to pass on some expected benefits of the tax bill to workers without being on the hook for sustained higher base wages. In this hiring environment, plans for pay increases are likely to have already been in the works, and the passage of the recent tax bill may simply have been the occasion for announcement rather than the cause, he said. The news coverage following the new tax policy may have led some employers to announce pay or benefit changes in an effort to stay ahead of competitors. This is not to say the tax bill hasnt affected recent decisions to raise wages at all, but the full impact of tax reform on the job market is something that well only know in time  years or even a decade from now, Chamberlain said. Brian Kropp, HR practice leader at Gartner, an information technology research and advisory company, told PolitiFact that companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. While, it is true that some companies have used the tax cut to provide bonuses for employees, the majority of companies had already been increasing, or planning to increase rewards, well before the tax cut, he said. Companies announcing bonuses by the end of 2017 do get a tax advantage of claiming a deduction in that tax year, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder told PolitiFact. A payment in 2017 would be deductible at a 35 percent rate; the same payment in 2018 would be deductible only at the new 21 percent rate, Toder said. My understanding is companies would only have had to announce the bonus by the end of 2017 to claim the deduction in tax year 2017; they would not literally have had to send out the checks. Any surge in bonus payments now probably says little or nothing about how the corporate tax cuts will affect wages in the long-run, Toder said. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute who favored the corporate tax changes in the bill, said that the response from corporations was a surprise. Taxes matter to businesses, and they respond, he said. However, bonuses are a short-term response to the tax bill, which is less important than potential long-term changes, such as whether corporations will build new factories or purchase more machinery. Trump said, Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars. Americans for Tax Reform, a group that supported the tax reform bill, found that at least 3 million Americans are receiving bonuses that the companies said were related to passage of the tax bill, based on company press releases and news reports. However, economists and labor experts say it will take years to fully assess the economic impact of the tax bill. In this tight labor market, its possible that some businesses were already planning to give out bonuses or other financial incentives to retain workers. We rate this claim Mostly True.