Did Kanye West Buy Spotify?
On April 1, 2021, a rumor circulated online that billionaire rapper Kanye West bought Spotify, a popular music streaming platform with 155 million subscribers globally. The claim appeared to have originated with an article published by Thissongissick (TSIS), an online blog dedicated to music news. Thissongissick Its official: As of today, the fashion and music mogul has just acquired the ever-popular audio streaming platform, Spotify, wrote the website. Something big like this isnt unpredictable for West, but people are curious about his intentions for buying out Spotify.  Screengrab/Thissongissick  Thissongissick The article also claimed that the billionaire rapper was going to delete all songs but his own  a claim that sparked concern among some of the platforms 345 million active monthly users. Snopes contacted TSIS and Spotify for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. Even so, we should note that the article was published on April Fools' Day, and news of the buyout did not appear in any other reputable news publications. And a look through the Spotify news releases through April 2 did not reveal an announcement that marked the alleged buyout. April Fools' Day news releases As such, we rate this claim False. According to a statement released by Spotify on March 18, founder Daniel Ek was still the platforms CEO and had been overseeing the audio-streaming subscription service since it was launched in 2006. Spotify is headquartered and legally domiciled in Sweden, and because it is a foreign company, it is not required to disclose the same information as U.S. firms concerning share ownership, reported the financial website Investopedia on Jan. 7. The site noted that the top institutional shareholders of Spotify include Ek, as well as Sven Hans Martin Lorentzon, Baillie Gifford & Co., Morgan Stanley, Tencent Holdings Ltd., and T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. Still, no sign of West. Investopedia And though the Grammy-award-winning musician is indeed a billionaire (though not the richest Black man in American history), his personal fortune caps in around $1.8 billion. As of April 1, Spotify had a market cap valuation of over $52 billion, reported the investment company YCharts. richest Black man in American history YCharts Snopes staff also checked their own Spotify accounts, and found that the usual subscriptions, followers, and playlists were exactly as they should be.
Claim:  Incentives received by consumers through the "Cash for Clunkers" program are subject to taxes.  Origins:   People are often surprised to find out that zero-cost items (e.g., prize winnings, free  goods offered as marketing promotions, items given as gifts) may not require any immediate outlay of money, but they frequently do later  in the form of taxes on the value of the goods and services received.   gifts One group recently caught by such a surprise was some consumers who took advantage of the federal government's CARS program (commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers"), which offered incentives of up to $4,500 to those who traded in qualifying "clunkers" and purchased new vehicles.   Although incentives received through participation in the CARS program are not taxable at the federal level, residents of some states may have to pay some form of state and/or local taxes (such as excise or sales taxes) on the value of the incentives.   Residents of Maryland, for example: As it turns out, each state determines whether to tax the clunker money. Pennsylvania doesn't, for example, but Maryland applies its 6 percent excise tax to the incentive. "We treat that $4,500 as a down payment toward [the] car. We still tax the total value of the car," says Caryn Coyle, a spokeswoman with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration,  which collects the excise tax. And you can't, say, travel up to Pennsylvania to buy your new car there to avoid the Maryland excise tax. States have pacts with one another to collect taxes owed on car purchases by residents in other states, Coyle says. So a Pennsylvania dealer would have charged the Maryland excise tax anyway if [the car had been bought there]. If it's any consolation, there's no federal tax on the clunker incentive and you may be able to deduct on your federal tax return any state or local taxes paid on a new vehicle purchased this year from Feb. 17 through Dec. 31. And Nebraska: Nebraskans who take advantage of the government's Cash for Clunkers rebate might be surprised to learn those rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 don't reduce the amount of sales tax a car buyer must pay. State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald says he's received a number of complaints since the program started, but officials anticipated the issue and made sure that dealers knew about it beforehand. Nebraska law treats the government's clunker rebates as a "third-party rebate," so they don't reduce the taxable value of the new car like a trade-in or manufacturer's rebate does. So someone buying a $25,000 vehicle with the $4,500 clunker rebate would still have to pay taxes on $25,000. And South Dakota as well: [M]any of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable. "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," [Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson said. In North Carolina, however, the CARS incentives are subject to neither the state's highway use tax nor its income tax: According to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, "the highway use tax should be calculated on the final sales price of the purchased vehicle less the amount allowed for the trade in." As an example, if you bought a car with a $20,000 price tag and the dealership gave you $3,000 for your trade-in, then you got the $4,500 Cash For Clunkers incentive, you paid $12,500 for the car. That's the amount you've paid plus 3% as the standard Highway Use Tax. Hence, you are not paying taxes on the $4,500. The North Carolina Department of Revenue says because the incentive is taken as a coupon at the dealership, you will not have to file it as income on your taxes. Consumers who took advantage of the CARS program should check with their state tax departments for information about whether such incentives are taxable in their home states. Last updated:  29 August 2009    Neisteadt, Shawn.  "Some Surprised by 'Clunker' Tax.'"   KELO-TV [Sioux Falls, SD].  24 August 2009.    Zash, Chelsi.  "Can the Cash for Clunkers Incentive Be Taxed?"   WFMY-TV [Greensboro, NC].  24 August 2009.    Associated Press.  "Neb. Clunker Buyers Still Pay Full Sales Tax."    Newsday.  21 August 2009.    WJRH-TV [Tulsa, OK].  "Is Your Tax for Clunkers Taxable?"    21 August 2009. Scam:  Thousands of people were scammed out of millions of dollars in a "miracle cars" fraud.  Origins:  Affinity fraud is a type of scam wherein members of a close-knit group are exploited via a con artist's presenting himself as one of their own kind. Such grifts work on the principle that people who are like us  folks of our particular ethnicity or religion, who hail from our hometowns, who attend the same church (or club, or school), who live in the same neighborhood, or who have weathered similar hardships and setbacks to those we have endured  can be trusted. They talk our talk and walk our walk, and since we ourselves are honest people, we assume by extension that people who are so much like us must be just as trustworthy. The nature of the bond itself matters not; what matters is the victims' being led to believe they have a great deal in common with those who are about to cheat them out of their life savings. Affinity fraud The "Miracle Cars" scam that ran between 1998 and 2002 is a good example of affinity fraud. Before it finished running its course, thousands of churchgoers had been convinced to part ways with millions of dollars, all because they trusted as one of their own the person they handed their money to. In 1998, rumors began to circulate among congregations in California that a wealthy man named John Bowers had died a few years earlier, leaving behind a $400 million estate. Part of that estate reportedly included a huge inventory of vehicles that the estate's beneficiary, Bowers' adopted son Robert Gomez, had been instructed to sell at bargain prices to Christians who acted in accordance with the Bible's teachings. The proceeds of those sales were to be used to defray the estate tax on the inherited fortune. These rumors were started by Robert Gomez, who announced the deal from the pulpit of a church in one of Los Angeles' poorest areas, and the rumors were supported by James Nichols, Gomez's roommate, whose family had long been associated with the church where the pitch was made. For as little as $1,000 each, those of strong religious faith could acquire good, reliable cars  all they had to do was pick a vehicle they wanted off the handwritten list being circulated, pay the money requested, and wait for the estate to settle before receiving their cars. Those who chose to buy were given "contracts" in exchange for their checks, cash, or money orders, but those contracts did not include mention of the vehicles' identification numbers (VINs), that information supposedly withheld under a gag order issued by the judge probating the will.  The list of available vehicles was mouthwatering: one could have a practically brand new Toyota Camry for $1,000, a Lexus for $3,000, or a Cadillac Escalade for $6,500. News of this windfall fell on highly receptive ears, many of them belonging to folks of limited means who had up until then been making do with unreliable transportation (or none at all). But thanks to this dead millionaire's generosity, in due time they would be able to get to their doctors' appointments and tend to ailing relatives across town all on their own. A little time, a little money, and a whole lot of faith would set them on their way to vehicular-assisted freedom. Word about the purported deals circulated through grass-roots Christian networks across the nation, then escaped into the secular world. As the scam rolled along, Gomez and Nichols hired two women, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, to talk up the cars and to embroil further congregations in the scam. Churchgoers were told that God wanted to reward them and that all they needed was to believe. Congregations in various communities were worked into buying frenzies by these practiced pitchwomen, who presented themselves as fellow believers out to share good news with their brethren. Duped members of the clergy also preached the good news of the discounted cars  from their pulpits, adding another patina of credibility to the  pitch. As time went on and no cars appeared, faith in the scheme was maintained in a variety of ways. First, there was always the handy explanation that the cars were still tied up in the legal wranglings attendant to the disposition of a large estate. Court delays were therefore to be expected. Lack of information about the vehicles themselves (such as their VINs or the location where they were being housed) was explained as having to do with a gag order placed on the matter by the judge probating the will. And those who grew tired of waiting for their "miracle cars" and demanded their money back, got it  they were issued full refunds, acts that worked to frame the entire proposition as being on the up-and-up. After all, if one knew of a doubter who'd gotten his money back, didn't that prove that the people behind the "miracle cars" proposition were to be trusted? Yet all that belief to the contrary, it was a scam. There never were any cars to be had, either by those of strong faith or otherwise. There was also no deceased millionaire named John Bowers. By the time the fraud was uncovered and halted, believers across the nation had shelled out more than $20 million for vehicles that didn't exist, all on the strength of what they heard through their local churches. In all, 7000+ vehicles were "sold" during the run of the fraud, the list of available cars always expanding to include more vehicles for those determined to have them.  The two men who ran the con, James Nichols and Robert Gomez, received sentences of 24 years and 22 years respectively, while the two women they recruited, Corinne Conway and Gwendolyn Baker, received sentences of 14 months and 5 years respectively. All four were ordered to make restitution to their victims, but even after all their cash and assets were rounded up millions of dollars remained unaccounted for. On 17 March 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office posted a notice for the victims of the Miracle Cars scam, advising them that it was ready to begin mailing restitution checks to those duped by the fraud. Victims can expect refunds in the amount of approximately 6% of their total losses.  Most cons run on the basis of blinding potential victims to the underlying fraud by placing before them tantalizing mental images of great riches or extraordinary windfalls that are about to be theirs. The "miracle cars" scam had that in its promise of barely-used automobiles to be had for a mere pittance. Yet what truly caused this fraud to succeed was its "affinity" element:  the victims were especially trusting thanks to their reliance on the presumed commonality between them and those running the con. Themselves good Christians, they believed those who were telling them about the cars were also good Christians  they did not doubt that the cars existed or that there was a deceased millionaire who had left instructions that his fleet of vehicles was to be handed over to fellow Christians for a nominal fee.  In affinity scams, con artists sometimes provide returns to leaders of the targeted group first, then use those trusted individuals' names as proof of their own integrity. While no one at any level of the fraud received one of the "miracle cars," church leaders were duped into participating in the con through their own belief in the promised windfall, and a number of pastors stood before their flocks to share with their congregations the good news about the discounted vehicles. This phenomenon is part and parcel of an affinity scam: before anyone involved catches wise to the game being run, those being victimized enthusiastically recruit friends and relatives to share in the wealth, thereby themselves becoming unwitting agents of con men. "Miracle cars" victims not only had to overcome their reluctance to admit (even to themselves) that they might be getting taken, they also had to grapple with their own faith in God. Those running the game had the ones they were fleecing convinced that giving up on their "investment" was tantamount to turning their backs on God. He had a grand plan for them, and opting out of it would have demonstrated weakness in their faith, so they therefore chose to continue to believe. Barbara "lambs to the financial slaughter" Mikkelson Additional information:        'Miracle Cars' Scheme Targeted Churches, Religious Groups   (United States Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri)  Last updated:  28 April 2008   Sources:   Harris, Sheryl.  "Scam Artists Get Close to Victims."   Plain Dealer.  15 June 2006  (p. C5).    Logan, Casey.  "God's Little Acura."   The Pitch [Kansas City].  16 January 2003.    Tubbs, Sharon.  "Duped by Faith?"   St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2002  (p. D1).    Associated Press.  "Government Alleges Four Offered Discount Cars to People of Faith."   8 July 2002.    Associated Press.  "Two Women Sentenced to Federal Prison Terms for Roles in Miracle Car Scheme."   23 October 2003.    Associated Press.  "Man Must Pay Back $12.5 million, Serve 24 Years in Car Sales Scam."   4 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Final Man Sentenced in Miracle Cars Scheme."   11 December 2003.    Associated Press.  "Prosecutors Don't Want Convict to Benefit from Role in Miracle Cars Scheme."   24 September 2005. In January 2018, Rep. Joe Kennedy III attracted scrutiny from both left-wing and right-wing observers, after he was designated to give the official Democratic response to President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address in January 2018.  right-wing On 28 January 2018, this meme appeared, making claims about the Massachusetts Congressman's purported links to the pharmaceutical industry, and his record on several major issues: meme   This is Joe. Pharmaceutical companies have given Joe $348K since 2011. Joe has $434K of stock in a company charging $1,000 per pill for a live-saving drug. Joe opposes legal marijuana and universal healthcare legislation. Don't be like Joe.  Pharmaceutical industry donations An article from GritPost.com elaborated on these claims: article Rep. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) might be pharmas favorite Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, given that hes received more than $57,000 from the pharmaceutical/health products industry in this current election cycle alone. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, thats approximately four times more than pharmas average contribution to House Democrats. Over the course of his short Congressional career, Kennedy has received more than $348,000 since 2011. The source of these claims about contributions to Kennedy is the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC-based non-profit that tracks political donations on the web site Open Secrets.  Open Secrets The figures in the article are accurate; the industry's contributions to Kennedy total $348,077 over the course of his six-year career as a politician. career Investments in pharmaceuticals The Grit Post article and the meme also allege Kennedy had personal investments in a controversial pharmaceutical company. Grit Post writes: As the Boston Globe reported last year, Rep. Kennedy has more than $434,000 invested in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead is the manufacturer of life-saving hepatitis C drug Sovaldi  which Gilead recently increased to $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for a treatment.  While it's true Kennedy has investments in Gilead, this claim is slightly misleading and out of date. In May 2016, the Boston Globe reported that the Congressman had "earned stock value of up to $434,999 from investments in Gilead Sciences Inc" and furthermore: Boston Globe His holdings in Gilead, as of the end of 2015, totaled between $180,004 and $450,000, according to financial disclosures. So actually, Kennedy's investments in Gilead could have been as low as $180,004 at the time of the Boston Globe article in May 2016. The Globe was careful to point out that members of Congress are not required to provide exact figures for their personal investments and assets, but rather ranges. Grit Post left out this detail.  In any event, Kennedy provided a more up-to-date financial disclosure at the end of 2016, which showed his investments in Gilead by then totalled between $80,003 and $200,000.  2016 Financial disclosures for 2017 have not yet been published.  Whatever the exact amounts involved, Kennedy's investment in Gilead has been controversial largely because the company sells Solvadi, its brand name for the drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat Hepatitis C. As Grit Post points out, Gilead Sciences has attracted criticism for the high price of Solvadi which is $1,000 per pill or $84,000 for a course of treatment. criticism Kennedy's investment is part of a trust fund managed by a financial adviser. Craig Holman, from the advocacy group Public Citizen, told the Globe in 2016 that the profits Kennedy and the company were making were "harming many of the citizens of Massachusetts." trust fund According to Open Secrets, 19 members of Congress (as well as Donald Trump) held shares in Gilead Sciences in 2015.  members Stance on marijuana The Grit Post meme's claim that Kennedy opposes marijuana legalization is accurate. While the national conversation has shifted to discuss recreational marijuana's legalization, over the years many leaders have come to voice support for the medical uses for marijuana. However, Kennedy not only opposes recreational use, but he has a record of voting against measures to protect and enhance access to medical marijuana. In 2015, Kennedy was one of 10 Democrats who sided with a Republican majority to pass a bill that wouldamong many other thingsrestrict funding for states that wanted to legalize marijuana. The bill died in Senate. record among many other things Grit Post also correctly pointed out that Kennedy, in a 2016 interview, said "I don't think marijuana should be legalized." interview Stance on universal healthcare The meme's claim that Kennedy opposes "universal healthcare legislation" requires closer examination. In September 2017, Kennedy expressed tentative support for a single-payer healthcare system, but hesitated to support bills then before the House of Representatives and Senate that would have expanded Medicare.  House Senate At the time, Kennedy told Boston Public Radio the bills were "100 percent right on the value that they're trying to enshrine into federal law -- that healthcare is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by the few..." Boston Public Radio However, he said there were "details" in the House bill (introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers) with which he was 'struggling.' When pressed, Kennedy said he supported universal healthcare, but said a single-payer system (funded by taxes and administered by the government) was "a way that we could get there, and that's great, but I think that the critical piece to this is ensuring that everybody gets access to quality, affordable, accessible healthcare..." So Kennedy has given theoretical support to universal healthcare, but has been fuzzy on the details of how it should be achieved, and he did not support specific legislation that, if passed, would have massively expanded health coverage in the United States. Shaw, Jordan.  "Pharma's Favorite Democrat Is Giving the Official Response to Trump State of the Union."
  Grit Post.  28 January 2018. Rozier, Alex.  "Joe Kennedy III Profits from Stock in Expensive Hep C Drug."
  Boston Globe.  5 May 2016. Angell, Tom.  "Dems Pick Anti-Marijuana Kennedy for Trump State of the Union Response."
  Marijuana Moment.  28 January 2018. Sweeney, Chris.  "The Interview: Joe Kennedy III."
  Boston Magazine.  11 September 2016. Bedford, Tori.  "Joe Kennedy Supports Single-Payer, But Only in Theory."
  WGBH-TV.  14 September 2017. Stephen Colbert has intervieweda slew ofpresidential candidates in the first weeks of his new job hosting CBSThe Late Show, including Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. His time with Cruz on Sept. 21 stood out for a fact-filled back and forth about a major Republican role model, President Ronald Reagan. Colbert asked Cruz if he could agree with Reagans support of amnesty for undocumented immigrants and record of raising taxes amid budget shortfalls. Cruz said of course not before pivoting to Reagans most conservative accomplishments, one being that he signed the largest tax cut in history and spurred economic growth. You know, when Reagan came in, from 1978 to 1982, economic growth averaged less than 1 percent a year. Theres only one other four-year period where thats true. Thats true from 2008 to 2012, Cruz said. Colbert jumped in, saying But when conditions changed in the country, he reversed his worlds largest tax cut and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. So its a matter of compromising. PolitiFact explored Cruzs point about economic growth inanother fact-check. We wondered if Colberts retort was on the money or overstated. (Its our first fact-check ofColbertin his new role  and the first one in five years, period.) Did Reagan really shift course on tax cuts when the growth stopped? A CBS press contact did not return an email for comment. Reagans tax cut As Cruz said, the Gipper really did cut taxes  with the help of Congress  in his first year as president. The largest tax cut in history that Cruz mentioned is in reference to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a $38 billion phased-in cut ($99 billion in 2015 dollars). Put in the way that economists prefer to discuss tax cuts, it represented 1.91 percent of the countrys gross domestic product. This law included across-the-board cuts of about 30 percent to statutory income tax rates. As Colbert said, Reagan raised taxes, too. Two laws, one in 1982 and another in 1984, were especially dramatic. These laws generally raised taxes by removing tax loopholes, not by raising the tax rate, said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Still, Baker said, the loopholes were big ones. Reagans tax increases 1982:The most significant tax increase Reagan signed was also the first. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (yes, another law with a very sexy name) increased taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP. The 1982 tax increase was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, said economist Bruce Bartlett, who advised Reagan on domestic policy and then worked as Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the George H.W. Bush administration. (An analysis by Jerry Tempalski, an analyst in the Office of Tax Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Treasury,agrees.) This law was driven by pressure to attack the federal budget deficit, as well as the impression that Reagans tax-cutting was partially responsible for lower-than-expected tax revenues. Bartlett, who reviewed Reagans tax record forTax Notesin 2011, cited aTreasury estimatethat the 1982 law raised taxes by almost 1 percent of GDP, or about $150 billion in modern dollars. Specifically, it rolled back some but not all of the 1981 tax cut for writing off equipment, and it repealed 1981 safe harbor leasing provisions, said Stephen J. Entin, senior fellow at the Tax Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in the Reagan administration. 1983:A law Reagan signed in 1983 aimed to keep Social Security afloat by increasing payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some high-earners. This cost $24.6 billion, or almost $50 billion in 2015 dollars, through 1988, according to an administrationestimate. 1984:The Deficit Reduction Act that Reagan signed rolled back part of the 1981 cut on buildings, Entin said, with the idea that Congress would enact spending cuts. But many of those cuts were either never enacted or were later restored, Entin said. This led to $25 billion in tax receipts. Reagan also signed tax increases in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988 (as well as a couple other laws with revenue reductions). So where does that leave Reagans tax record on the whole? Its mixed. On one hand, revenues were lower as ashare of GDPin his last year in office (17.6 percent of GDP in 1988) compared to the year before he took office (18.5 percent of GDP in 1980), according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. However, the thrust of the 1981 tax cut that Cruz touted on Colberts show didnt prove to have lasting effects on the whole. A 2006 Treasury Departmentanalysisoffers another view of the plunge after the 1981 law and the subsequent changes that wound it back. Reagans staff tallied up the effect of major legislation on tax receipts over his tenure for his final budget proposal (page 4-4). The 1981 tax cuts comprised most of the total $275 billion in tax relief, but the other side of the ledger listed $133 billion in cumulative tax increases. Thus, Reagan took back about half the 1981 tax cut with subsequent tax increases, Bartlett wrote. Our ruling Responding to Cruzs assertion that Reagan signed the largest tax cut in history, Colbert said he reversed it and raised taxes when revenues did not match the expectations. Legislation that Reagan signed over his time in office and raised taxes did not completely reverse the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act. But the broader point Colbert makes is on point. Reagan agreed to raise taxes to deal with budget deficits, even if he wasnt enthusiastic about it. We rate the claim Mostly True. In the contest for the hearts and minds of voters, Democrats have been claiming that the economy is really improving and the Republicans have been saying they can make the anemic recovery even more robust.During theonline-onlyportion of the Aug. 28 Providence Journal-WPRI debate among Democrats David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, both running in the 1st Congressional District, incumbent Cicilline was asked how he would tackle the massive national debt.Cicilline said that in addition to cutting spending and closing loopholes in the tax system, the pace of job creation needs to increase.When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months, he said.We've heard a lot of chatter about the job numbers and whether they really indicate a recovery, so we decided to look further.First, a look at what the employment situation was like when Obama took office.Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in January 2009, when the president was sworn in, the country lost 818,000 jobs. (The numbers do not include farm workers and are adjusted for seasonal shifts in employment, but that's the standard way of calculating employment and unemployment rates. )That's 17 percent more than the 700,000 jobs Cicilline cited. (To put the numbers in perspective, the losses for the first three full months that Obama was in office averaged 738,000 per month. The average job loss for the last three full months of the Bush administration was 651,000. )When it comes to thenumber of monthsin which the United States has had job growth, Cicilline's timeframe was also somewhat off.BLS datashow that the last time the United States lost jobs was in September 2010, when 27,000 jobs were lost.That's 22 months ago, not 24.How significant have the increases been?Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institutiontold PolitiFact Nationalin May that the economy needs to create 90,000 to 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with the number of people coming into the work force.During 7 of those 22 months, including as recently as April, May and June of this year, job growth was below 100,000. In 8 of the 22 months, it was over 200,000.When we asked his campaign for the source of Cicilline's statement, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner sent usa White House blog itemfrom Aug. 3 reporting: The economy has now added private sector jobs for 29 straight months. We confirmed that with the BLS database, but this is for non-government jobs, and Cicilline didn't make that distinction in his debate comment.Our rulingIn the debate, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said: When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.We want to note, as we repeatedly have, that even though there's been improvement in the job numbers during the Obama administration, a president's ability to influence the economy is severely limited.As for Cicillines comment, he understated the job losses occurring when President Obama took office and, by the most commonly used measure, he overstated by two months the timespan of continued job growth. But his main point -- that there has been growth for nearly two years -- is sound.Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 Eight years after Gov. Rick Perry proudly introduced his plan for the future of transportation in Texas, his campaign declared that vision null and void in a blog post during the Republican gubernatorial debate Thursday night.The Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, said the post, which was entered at 7:26 p.m.The TTC -- unveiled in January 2002 as an approximately $200 billion plan for 4,000 miles of toll roads, rail lines and utility lines criss-crossing Texas in bundles -- has become an issue in the GOP primary contest between Perry, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina, a businesswoman from Wharton. Hutchison has released online ads alleging that the controversial initiative, which drew the wrath of Perry opponents and some allies, is alive and well. One of the most vocal critics of the corridor idea was the Texas Farm Bureau, because it would have required the state to acquire a considerable amount of farmland.We decided to investigate the health of the Trans-Texas Corridor.The Texas Department of Transportation pronounced the TTC dead, in concept and in name, in January 2009. But some remnants of the project are still on the books.For one, the Trans-Texas Corridor concept remains in the states Transportation Code and other official documents, which Hutchison says is evidence that the project endures. An attempt to remove those references failed during the 2009 legislative session with the death of a measure regulating the Texas Department of Transportation.As for the road projects that were envisioned under TTC, only two were still kicking after January 2009: the centerpiece, a tollway twin to the Interstate 35 corridor that would run from Dallas to San Antonio, and Interstate 69 between the Rio Grande Valley and Texarkana.But the I-35 twin was buried in October 2009 when a state environmental study of several years duration concluded with a no-build recommendation. The only vestige of that plan is the 49 northernmost miles of the Texas 130 tollway, which skirts the Austin areas eastern edge from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge, and another 40 miles south from there to Seguin that are under construction by a private consortium. However, that project was under way before Perry proposed the TTC.The I-69 project lives on and is currently in the planning stages.However, two years earlier, in 2007, the Legislature dealt a major blow to one of the main tenets of the TTC  for the state to issue long-term leases to private companies to build and operate toll roads  by placing a moratorium on new public-private toll road partnerships, with several exceptions. That moratorium in effect became permanent last year when the Legislature failed to extend the authority for such leases beyond Sept. 1, 2009.The roads in the corridor plan technically could be built without public-private partnerships, but the state doesnt have the money to do so. In any case, rural opposition to building any sort of twin roads to interstates was at the heart of the plans collapse.The I-69 initiative was one of the exceptions to the moratorium, but only a section of the approximately 600-mile road, the piece south of Refugio, can be a public-private partnership. And Chris Lippincott, a TxDOT spokesman, said that the decisions about exactly where the road will go and whether it will be tolled have not yet been made. The Texas Transportation Commission ordered that the road be laid down over existing highways, with free frontage roads alongside, except in areas where there is not an existing highway. This is much different from the original Perry concept of entire new road, rail and utility corridors.Texas still has a long-term transportation plan, but its not the TTC. In a January 2009 statement describing the changes being made to TTC, Amadeo Saenz, executive director of TxDOT, said that the new plan would be called Innovative Connectivity in Texas/Vision 2009 and that any projects that had existed under TTC, such as an I-35 twin, would be developed individually, if they happened at all.Summing up: We found that some language in the state Transportation Code and the much-altered highway I-69 project survive from Perrys original TTC vision. But its centerpiece paralleling I-35 is truly dead, and beyond that, the corridor plan retains only a faint statutory pulse. We rate Perrys statement as Mostly True. In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities. May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an expos of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart. A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a "pay-for-play" scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation  The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security  uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States' uranium production capacity in 2017)  thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits. one-tenth During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million, Schweizer claimed in Clinton Cash. Among those who followed Schweizer in citing the transaction as an instance of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City: speech Hillary Clintons State Department approved the transfer of 20% of Americas uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Trump's campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton "gave American uranium rights to the Russians": press release ad  An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, "So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?"   The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or ApproveAmong the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.  nine law All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved. said said There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn't mean that 10 to 20 percent of America's uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom's mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. letter The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One's not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services  or any other export license or license amendment  the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements. Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via "book transfer" to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn't necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). article To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius's assurances that "the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia." NRC officials also say they're unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. cited The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not MatchOf the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share  $131.3 million  came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.  came sold off Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times  Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company's chairman: according His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he said.  In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The $500,000 fee  among Mr. Clinton's highest  was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences. Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. The timing of Telfers Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton's Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary  that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure MistakesOne fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation's practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed  specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: pledged discussion It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors. Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it's crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it  however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval  information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony "indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. reported On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. announced Becker, Jo and McIntire, Mike."Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal."
The New York Times.23 April 2015. Becker, Jo and Van Natta Jr., Don."After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton."
The New York Times.31 January 2008. Diamond, Jeremy and Collinson, Stephen."Trump: Clinton Is a 'World-Class Liar.'"
CNN.22 June 2016. Giustra, Frank."Statement of Frank Giustra."
Geo.ca.25 April 2015. Grimaldi, James V., Ballhaus, Rebecca, and Nicholas, Peter."Gifts to Hillary Clintons Family Charity Are Scrutinized in Wake of Book."
The Wall Street Journal.22 April 2015. Herb, Jeremy.  "House Republicans Investigating Obama-Era Uranium Deal."
 CNN.  24 October 2017. Hirsh, Michael."Bill and Hillary's Excellent Adventure."
Politico.25 April 2015. Kessler, Glenn.  "The Repeated, Incorrect Claim that Russia Obtained '20 Percent' of Our Uranium."
 The Washington Post.  31 October 2017. Kiely, Eugene. "The Facts on Uranium One."
FactCheck.org. 1 November 2017. McElveen, Josh.  "CloseUP Rewind: Hillary Clinton's First 1-on-1 Interview Since Declaring."
 WMUR.  27 July 2016. Pilkington, Ed."Clinton Cash: Errors Dog Bill and Hillary Expos  but Is There any 'There' There?"
The Guardian.5 May 2015. Qiu, Linda.  "Donald Trump Inaccurately Suggests Clinton Got Paid to Approve Russia Uranium Deal."
PolitiFact.30 June 2016. Robertson, Lori."Fact Check: Trump's False 'Corruption' Claim."
NBC News.25 October 2015. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison.  "FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Administration Approved Controversial Nuclear Deal with Moscow."
 The Hill.  17 October 2017. Solomon, John and Spann, Alison. "Uranium One Deal Led to Some Exports to Europe, Memos Show."
The Hill. 2 November 2017. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "NRC Approves Transfer of Control of Uranium Recovery Licenses to Russian Firm."
 24 November 2010. U.S. Dept. of Treasury."The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)."
20 December 2012. Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill. Updated [1 November 2017]: Added clarifications, more sources, and the announcement of a congressional investigation. Correction [16 November 2017]: Previous versions of this article incorrectly stated that no Uranium One-produced uranium had been exported to foreign countries. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. It's been more than three decades since the original "Home Alone" film was released. However, fans of the 1990 movie were still noticing details they may have missed in past viewings, like the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. details We previously reported that the black-and-white gangster films depicted in "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" were not real classics. We also published a story about the fact that Catherine O'Hara was the same actress who played both Kate McCallister (Kevin's mother in "Home Alone") as well as Moira Rose on the TV series "Schitt's Creek." The news may not have shocked some of O'Hara's fans, but the number of likes, comments, and shares on various TikTok videos showed that not everyone realized she played both characters. were not real classics story Speaking of the McCallisters, we decided to take another closer look at "Home Alone" after a TikTok video purported to shine a light on an obscure detail: the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. TikTok video In the plot for "Home Alone," the young Kevin McCallister is accidentally left at home while the rest of his family flies to Paris for a Christmas vacation. A series of events allows the mishap to occur, and one of those was the loss of his airplane ticket:   The TikTok video was posted by @scouseblu on Dec. 17, 2020. The Twitter account @FilmEasterEggs considered the moment to be an Easter egg: posted @FilmEasterEggs  Some responded saying they already knew about the ticket being thrown into the garbage, while others expressed surprise:     One Twitter user claimed that the airplane ticket going into the trash was an "integral plot point," which was potentially questionable:  In "Home Alone," the McCallister family runs through the airport and hands their stack of tickets to a gate agent. However, the gate agent did not appear to look at the tickets, but she did conduct a headcount as they walked to the airplane. While the videos from TikTok and Twitter showed the ticket going in the trash, preceding shots showed a row of cups in front of the tickets and passports:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  After Kevin attacks his older brother Buzz for eating all of the cheese pizza, the stack of tickets and passports are briefly visible for a split second before several cups of milk all come crashing down:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  Milk was mentioned in the scene by Kate and was likely chosen by writers because of its ability for the white color to obscure the ticket during cleanup. The stack of tickets and passports all got soaked, but only Kevin's ticket made it in the trash. Freeform aired double features of "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" multiple times in December 2020. Some of the showings included interesting tidbits about the films, in what the Disney-owned channel called its "Pop'n Knowledge Edition." One of those tidbits popped onscreen the moment that Kevin's ticket was thrown in the trash. Freeform also partially edited a sceneout of the sequel "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." partially edited a scene