Did President Trump 'Go Ballistic' on 'Fox and Friends'?
On 21 May 2019, in the midst of House Judiciary Committee hearings during which chairman Jerrold Nadler threatened to cite former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn for contempt over the latter's defiance of a congressional subpoena -- just a few days after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had rejected a House subpoena demanding President Trumps tax returns -- a graphic related to those events was circulated via social media.   defiance rejected That graphic purported to be a screenshot from the Fox News Channel, documenting that the president had phoned in to the Fox & Friends morning program and "gone ballistic," declaring that Democrats could "subpoena me and my administration for the next 10, 15, 20 years and we will never capitulate." "I am in charge, this is my country, and I will do as I please," Trump supposedly threw in for good measure:  But President Trump made no such pronouncement on Fox & Friends. And many sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the screenshot allegedly documenting the claim did not match the standard Fox News Channel fonts and rendering used for on-screen text and chyrons: The Trump quote going around today is a poorly done Photoshop. I found the original image that was manipulated. Note that the crawl at the bottom of the screen matches. Also, the "Trump goes ballistic" line is the wrong font on the fake version. pic.twitter.com/GTkpp2LXg1 pic.twitter.com/GTkpp2LXg1  David Finster (@d_finster) May 21, 2019 May 21, 2019  The screen crawl seen at the bottom of the image displaying a statement about something that threatens to suppress unpopular ideas and manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion references a 25 April 2019 federal court decision which blocked enforcement of a Texas law requiring state contractors to certify they dont boycott Israel. enforcement Reuters.  "Our Subpoenas Are Not Optional, Nadler Warns McGahn."
  The New York Times.  21 May 2019. Associated Press.  "Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of Anti-Israel Boycott Law."
  25 April 2019.
Claim:   A mysterious "large weird truck convoy" in Virginia remains unexplained. : : Video shows a large convoy of tractor trailers in Virginia.     : No one knows why the convoy occurred.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] I saw the following post on Facebook today with the caption 'ALERT: Virginia Highway Completely Closed for Mysterious Convoy. I'm wondering if there's any truth to it.  Origins:  On 25 October 2014, a Facebook  user posted video of a large truck convoy spotted in Virginia involving dozens of tractor trailer trucks. The clip depicted several semis traveling on Virginia's Interstate 64 under what appeared to be State Trooper escort. video The unusual sighting and temporary interstate shutdown caused widespread speculation on social media sites as to what could possibly have been afoot. The most widely circulated clip of the large truck "parade" captured several branded trailers as they passed, including Coca-Cola and Walmart vehicles, further confusing the convoy's witnesses as to why the trucks might require a police escort. One user's comments echoed concerns repeatedly expressed as the truck convoy video circulated on sites like Facebook: I can tell you one thing. These trucks are transporting more than you think ? It's all starting. Some will know what I'm talking about and other's will just keep believing what FOX news tells them and vote for the candidate who lies the best ! We are SOOO screwed !  Well, we who are paying attention, know something big is going to happen for sure and really soon ! So many things and all of them are so close together........ I see a dictatorship being announced, military hitting the streets, jets overhead, forced Ebola/flu immunizations (rather true or not) Martial Law, food/water shortages, etc....... We'll see ? Many people worried the event was a covert maneuver to transport supplies, hide medical equipment, or engage in otherwise suspicious activity  fears that particularly loomed large due to the then-current concern over Ebola.  covert maneuver However, the convoy's purpose wasn't hard to discover with a small amount of digging: The truck convoy is a unique one-day celebration where police escort a convoy of trucks through cities and towns in 38 states and Canada. The event helps raise funds and awareness for Special Olympics athletes. About 110 vehicles participated in the ride. In 2013, over $20,000 was raised with 49 trucks participating in Virginia's nearly 50-mile round-trip convoy along Interstate 95 from Caroline County to Henrico County, according to a press release sent by Virginia State police. The footage from Virginia was taken during a leg of the Special Olympics' World's Largest Truck Convoy, described thusly on the organization's website: website Inspired by the powerful impact Special Olympics had on his life through his participation in the Law Enforcement Torch Run, combined with his family's involvement with the trucking industry, Norm Schneiderhan, a Corporal with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, created the Truck Convoy, a one-daycelebration of the trucking industry to help raise awareness and funds for Special Olympics.  Post by ABC 8 News - WRIC.   Post ABC 8 News - WRIC  Although some drivers in Virginia were confused and alarmed by the truck convoy on 25 October 2014, local news stations covered and explained the event on their pages. The purpose of the convoy was not immediately obvious to bystanders, but an explanation was not difficult to find after the fact.  Last updated:  16 July 2015 On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services. In August 2015, a survey scam promising customers $100 off "Back to School" coupons for the Meijer hypermarket chain began circulating online:  The $100 Meijer coupon scam was very similar to other schemes aimed at defrauding the customers of Target, Publix, Kroger, and Home Depot, all of which redirect users to a web site where they are asked to like, share, and/or comment on the coupons, ensuring that the scams get passed around social media: Target Publix Kroger Home Depot While each of these scams feature slight variations, they typically redirect users to survey sites where they are asked to provide personal information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and credit card numbers. The Better Business Bureau offers these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: tips Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. On 24 August 2015, Meijer confirmed that this $100 coupon was a scam: confirmed U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-11th, recently invoked the name of Ronald Reagan to drum up support for raising taxes for a new stimulus program.During a June 5floor speech, Connolly lamented the refusal of House Republican leaders to allow the American Jobs Act to come up for a vote. The bill, proposed by President Barack Obama, calls for $447 billion over 10 years to pay for infrastructure and school improvements, new job training programs, unemployment insurance, and temporary tax cuts for working families and small businesses.The stimulus would be funded by levying taxes on corporations and people earning more than $1 million a year.Connolly said the House, in considering the legislation, should ask, What would Ronald Reagan do?Many Republicans decried the use of additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt, Connolly said. Apparently, they forgot that when faced with rising deficits, Ronald Reagan looked to revenue increases, broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and raising taxes. Yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.Did the Gipper really raise taxes during five years of his presidency? We checked.Lets start by noting that if you recall Reagan as tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.So its accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but theres a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.We examined data from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that computes the nations tax revenues as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product -- the total of all goods and services produced.When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP.Reagans efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. As a result, Reagan was willing to accept and sometimes promote proposals that would close loopholes and create a broader tax base, according to C. Eugene Steuerle, who organized the Treasury Department's 1984-86 tax reform effort and is now a fellow at the Urban Institute and Tax Policy Center.This April, President Barack Obama said Reagan understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal, he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. PolitiFact National rated the claimMostly True, noting that Reagan did not repeatedly propose increases but agreed to tax hikes put forth by Congress.Our rulingConnolly said Reagan, as president raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan did, in fact, sign off on at least one tax increase during each of those years.Some of the increases were modest in scope. And its important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nations GDP, went down during Reagans presidency.But theres no doubt that Reagan was willing to cut budget deals that included raising revenues. We rate Connollys statement True. Making an economicspeechat the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse on July 2, 2015, Barack Obama ticked off a list of his accomplishments as president -- and made a bolder version of a claim we have heard before about slashing the federal budget deficit. So, weve got a record streak of private-sector job growth, Obama said in his remarks, which includedveiled criticismsof Gov. Scott Walker on the day Walker filed federal papers as a precursor to announcing his run for president. Weve cut the deficit by two-thirds. Our stock market has more than doubled, restoring 401(k)s for millions of families. This is progress. Step by step, America is moving forward. Middle-class economics works. It works. Yes!Here's why the deficit claim caught our attention: In September 2014 in Milwaukee, Obama said he had cut the deficit in half. Werated that statement True, and it has become one of our most-clicked fact checks. Could it be that, less than a year later, the deficit is down by two-thirds? Deficit vs debt Lets be clear at the top that Obama is talking about the deficit, which has been getting smaller -- not the debt, which is getting bigger. The deficit is an annual number. Its the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The United States hasnt seen budgetsurplusessince the days of President Bill Clinton. The debt, meanwhile, is a running tally -- its the total of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. The nation's debt currently exceeds$18 trillion, and it has risen by more than$7 trillionunder Obama. (Heres agood primerfrom PolitiFact National on the difference between the two.) Tracking the deficit numbers In reviewing the cut-the-deficit-in-half claim, our baseline was fiscal 2009. That period started on Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, and ended on Sept. 30, 2009, eight months after Obama took office. We found the deficit was $1.41 trillion in 2009 and $679.5 billion in 2013 -- a drop of more than half. Measured another way, the deficit made up 9.8 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2009 and dropped to less than half of that -- 4.1 percent -- by the end of fiscal 2013. But now we have figures for fiscal 2014. PolitiFact National examined those figures in January 2015, after Obama said in his State of the Union speech that we've seen our deficits cut by two-thirds. Our colleagues rated his statementMostly True. The 2014 deficit was $486 billion -- a drop of two-thirds from the $1.41 trillion in 2009. And it was 2.8 percent of GDP, a reduction of more than two-thirds from the 9.8 percent in 2009. (In June 2015, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2015 will end with a deficit that, as a percentage of GDP, will be the lowest since 2007.) So, math wise, Obamas two-thirds claim is solid. But there are a few caveats. Yes, we reduced the deficit two-thirds from its peak in 2009, but that was after deficits had just increased by nearly 800 percent to theirhighest leveloutside of World War II, Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us. Indeed, Obamahelped growthe 2009 deficit with his stimulus spending, although he can take some credit for the economy, which has improved since the Great Recessionendedin June 2009 and helped bring down the deficits. And although the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits relative to GDP will decline slightly over the next few years, they will then rise and add more to the debt. Largely as a result of the aging population and rising health care costs, CBOprojectsthe deficit to grow from less than 3 percent of GDP in 2015 to more than 6 percent in 2040. Our rating Obama said: We've cut the deficit by two-thirds. In raw dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy, the annual federal deficit in 2014 was two-thirds smaller than in 2009, the year Obama took office. But there are several caveats, including the fact that his stimulus spending helped raise the 2009 deficit and the economy, for which he can take some credit, has improved since the end of the Great Recession the same year. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. In June 2019, a variety of news outlets published reports detailing the horrid conditions at immigrant detention centers along the United States' southern border. The Associated Press, for instance, quoted a lawyer named Warren Binford, who visited a facility in Texas and spoke to some of the immigrant children detained within, saying that the kids were living in "inhumane conditions." ABC News obtained a medical declaration that likened these detention centers to torture facilities. Associated Press ABC News As outrage from these reports grew online, actress Nancy Lee Grahn posted a set of photographs that supposedly documented these conditions and accused the Trump administration of forcing children to "sleep on cement floor with an aluminum blanket & lights on all night":  Nancy Lee Grahn   While the text of Grahn's tweet accurately reflects recent news reports, the photographs she used to illustrate her point were not taken during U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.  These photographs are actually still images from a surveillance camera at a Border Patrol holding facility in Tucson, Ariz., in August 2015. The images were released as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union against U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the conditions at the agency's temporary holding facilities. lawsuit Here's an excerpt from an NPR report: NPR The holding cells were designed to be used for temporary holding  a period of hours. The American Immigration Council analyzed Border Patrol data and concluded that from September 2014 to August 2015, two-thirds of immigrants detained in Border Patrol facilities in the Southwest were held for more than 24 hours, and tens of thousands of people were held for more than three days. Photos of the cells show people crowded together in concrete cells. Several images show prisoners sitting or sleeping on bare floors with no mats available to them  even when there are unused mats in empty cells. While these photographs were taken during the Obama administration, the conditions described in Grahn's tweet still apply to the detention facilities operating under Trump. Physician Dolly Lucio Sevier was granted access to a detention center after a flu outbreak sent five infants to the neonatal intensive care unit. In a medical declaration obtained by ABC News, Sevier compared the conditions to a "torture facility" and wrote that minors were dealing with "extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food." ABC News Binford, a law professor, told NPR: "They are worse than actual prison conditions. It is inhumane. It's nothing that I ever imagined seeing in the United States of America." NPR The second part of Grahn's tweet mentions "Sarah Fabian" and claims that companies are making $750 day to detain immigrant children. Fabian is a Department of Justice lawyer who attempted to defend the conditions at detention centers during a June 2019 Court of Appeals hearing. According to the Washington Post:  defend The government went to federal court this week to argue that it shouldnt be required to give detained migrant children toothbrushes, soap, towels, showers or even half a nights sleep inside Border Patrol detention facilities. The position bewildered a panel of three judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, who questioned whether government lawyers sincerely believed they could describe the temporary detention facilities as safe and sanitary if children werent provided adequate toiletries and sleeping conditions. One circuit judge said it struck him as inconceivable." [...] The government was in court to appeal a 2017 ruling finding that child migrants and their parents were detained in dirty, crowded, bitingly cold conditions inside U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities along the southern border. Migrants are first taken to those facilities after they are apprehended at the border. [...] U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee had found that migrants in Rio Grande Valley facilities were hungry, with some eating only sandwiches of two pieces of dry bread and one slice of ham. They were thirsty, with up to 20 migrants sharing the same cup to drink from the water cooler. They were embarrassed to use a toilet in front of 50 other people and they couldnt take a shower or brush their teeth or even wash their hands with soap and dry them with a towel, the judge found. At night, they couldnt sleep. The lights were left on, as they shivered beneath an aluminum blanket on the concrete floor, the judge found. Gee ruled in June 2017 that these Obama-era conditions violated a 1997 settlement agreement requiring that immigrant children in the governments custody be housed in safe and sanitary conditions, and that the government maintain concern for the particular vulnerability of minors. But the Trump administration protested. The 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, didnt say anything about providing a toothbrush, towels, dry clothing, soap, or even sleep, the administration has argued. Grahn's claim that companies make $750 "a kid a day to torture them" relates to the fact that some immigration detention centers are owned and operated by private for-profit companies.  Reuters reported in February 2019 that while it costs about $250 per day to hold a child at a permanent detention center, the cost can triple at temporary, privately owned, for-profit facilities such as the "Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children":  Reuters As the government seeks to rapidly expand the sites capacity, it has waived a federal requirement at Homestead meant to ensure children receive sufficient health care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which cares for the children, previously required Homestead to maintain a clinician-to-child ratio of 1 to 12 to provide mental health services, according to a November 2018 report. But that requirement has been relaxed to 1 to 20, a Homestead program director said on Wednesday. The facility sits on federal property, and unlike established childrens shelters, such as smaller group or foster homes that hold migrant children across the country, is not governed by state child welfare regulations designed to protect youngsters from harm. [...] About 35 miles south of Miami, the facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year, the firms parent company, Caliburn International Corp., noted President Donald Trumps immigration policies were driving significant growth. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, said Mark Weber, an HHS spokesman. But at an influx facility like Homestead, the cost is triple that - around $750 per day. It is covered by American taxpayers. To sum up: Viral photographs supposedly documenting the conditions at immigration detention facilities under the Trump administration were actually taken in 2015 during Obama's tenure. The poor conditions at these Obama-era centers have continued or worsened under Trump.  Flynn, Meagan.  "Detained Migrant Children Got No Toothbrush, No Soap, No Sleep. Its No Problem, Government Argues."
  Washington Post.  21 June 2019. Torbati, Yeganeh; Cooke, Kristina.  "First Stop for Migrant Kids: For-Profit Detention Center."
  Reuters.  14 February 2019. Domonoske, Camila.  "Surveillance Stills From Border Patrol Facilities Show Crowded, Trash-Filled Cells."
  NPR.  19 August 2016. Gonzales, Richard.  "Obama Immigrant Detention Policies Under Fire."
  NPR.  12 June 2015. Marhsall, Serena; Zak, Lana; Metz, Jennifer.  "Doctor Compares Conditions for Unaccompanied Children at Immigrant Holding Centers to 'Torture Facilities.'"
  ABC News.  23 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. PBS News Hour.  "A Firsthand Report of 'Inhumane Conditions' at a Migrant Childrens Detention Facility."
  21 June 2019. In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users).  Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose daily press briefings on the states battle against the coronavirus have drawn wide coverage, has extended his rhetorical reach through social media. On April 12, Cuomo took to Twitter to spotlight what he saw as a disparity in federal funding between New York and states that had fewer coronavirus cases. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, Cuomotweeted. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case.New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case.We need a fair federal stimulus bill that is distributed by need. We found that the statement relies on a credible study of how one part of the federal funding is being divided among the states, though it glosses over the fact that its counting money going to health care providers directly, rather than to the states themselves. The number of coronavirus cases changes by day, and even by the hour. But at the time he made his claim, Cuomo was correct to say the difference between New York and the other two states was lopsided. New York has been hardest hit by the coronavirus.On April 12, the state reported a cumulative 195,031 known cases of the virus. Montana and Nebraska, which have far smaller populations, saw much smaller outbreaks of the virus at the time:Montana had 394reported cases, whileNebraska reported 792. The money Cuomo is referencing comes from the $2.2 trillion federal coronavirus aid package passed in March, known as the CARES Act. While that bill earmarked $150 billion directly for state, local and tribal governments, the breakdown Cuomo is referring to comes from a different provision that provides funds directly to hospitals and other health care providers. This portion of the CARES Act allocates up to $100 billion to health care providers. When Cuomo sent his tweet, $30 billion of that total had been distributed. According to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, providers have received money from the stimulus bill based on a formula that involves how much money they received from Medicare reimbursements in 2019 (excluding payments under Medicare Advantage, which works through private insurers). HHS estimated that these Medicare reimbursements amounted to $484 billion in 2019. Because HHS wanted to push the first $30 billion of coronavirus aid out the door quickly, it allocated the money based on providers share of these reimbursements from 2019. In other words, the formula for this first stage of funding had nothing to do with the number of coronavirus cases a state was facing. Using these guidelines, Kaiser Health News, a PolitiFact fact-checking partner,calculated how much money providers in each state had received from the $30 billion. The publication based these numbers on a House Ways and Means Committee funds breakdown andNew York Times daily coronavirus numbers. The analysis was originally published two days before Cuomos tweet. According to Kaiser Health News published analysis, hospitals and providers in New York state were due to receive stimulus money amounting to $12,000 per coronavirus case at the time. Providers in states with fewer cases, such as Montana and Nebraska, had received over $300,000 per case, according to the analysis. So Cuomos tweet tracks what the Kaiser Health News analysis found, though its worth noting that the total amount given to New York providers in this initial round, nearly $1.9 billion, was significantly more than what went to the other states: about $111 million for Montana and $225 million for Nebraska, according to the authors of the analysis. Jack Hoadley, an emeritus professor at Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute, told PolitiFact New York that the Kaiser studys methodology was sound. He added that later rounds should address this imbalance. HHS has said that the next wave of the $100 billion will take into account how many coronavirus cases each state has. This should respond at least in part to the concern raised by Gov. Cuomo, he said, though more information is needed before we can assess the dollars-per-patient metric down the road. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of the Budget, told PolitiFact that the tweet relied on information from a Kaiser Health News article and quoted it nearly word for word. Theres no question that the facts are accurate and there is a disparity in the federal funding structure among states in this regard. Cuomo tweeted, Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, In the first round of funding for health care providers, New York states providers received far less money per coronavirus case than other, less-affected states, according to a credible analysis. However, Cuomos tweet addressed only one part of the federal funding, and it glossed over the distinction between states and health care providers in those states. The funding source Cuomo tweeted about sends money to providers, not the state. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Con artists are circulating letters demanding the completion of fake IRS forms that would arm them with all the information necessary to steal the identities and empty the bank accounts of those who fall for this ruse.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] The IRS issued a warning of an identity theft scam that uses a phony form and an official looking letter from a bank. The letter states that the bank is updating its records in order to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest income or having tax withheld at 31 percent on the interest paid on the taxpayer's account. The letter askes that customers submit the enclosed phony Form W-9095. This is a scam. There is no IRS Form W-9095. This is only an attempt to gain personal information from unsuspecting taxpayers.  The Internal Revenue Service is sounding the alarm about a fraudulent scheme that uses fictitious bank correspondence and IRS forms to try to trick taxpayers into disclosing personal and bank account information.  Con artists use the information to steal the taxpayer's identity and bank account deposits. Reports of the scam have surfaced from coast-to-coast. Dozens of victims have been identified. In the scam, a letter is sent out claiming to be from the taxpayer's bank. It states that the "bank" is updating its records in order to exempt the taxpayer from reporting interest or having tax withheld on interest paid on bank accounts or other financial dealings. Legally, banks must report interest to the IRS and taxpayers must include it as income. The scam "bank" correspondence encloses a phony IRS form for personal and financial data. The letter urges the recipient to fax the completed form to a specific number within seven days or lose the reporting and withholding exemption, resulting in withholding of 31 percent on the account's interest. The scheme promoters then use the faxed information to impersonate the taxpayer and gain access to the taxpayer's finances. One such phony form is labeled "W-9095, Application Form for Certificate Status/Ownership for Withholding Tax." It requests personal data frequently used to prove identity, such as a passport number and mother's maiden name. It also asks for sensitive financial data such as bank account numbers, passwords and PIN numbers. The fictitious W-9095 appears to be an attempt to mimic the genuine IRS Form W-9, "Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification." The only personal information a genuine W-9 requests is the name, address and Social Security number or employer identification number of the taxpayer. Variations:  In December 2008, the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's tax department, formerly Revenue Canada) issued a warning about a similar scheme being run on Canadian taxpayers.  warning Origins:  In April 2002, a new ruse designed to trick victims into giving out personal information that could lead to identity theft was unleashed on the unsuspecting throughout the USA. It arrived in the form of fake Internal Revenue Service forms which appeared to have been mailed by taxpayers'  banks. Here's how the scam worked: An account holder would receive a letter on bank stationery requesting information for the purpose of reporting earnings to the Internal Revenue Service. Attached to the letter would be a fake IRS form identified as W-9095. The phony document was based on a valid IRS form called a W-9 and thus would look passingly familiar to those accustomed to dealing with IRS forms. Those less familiar with tax forms would still be taken in by the ruse because the phony request for detailed information appeared genuine. The letter would say the recipient must return the completed by fax within seven days or the government would withhold 31% of the interest on his bank accounts. The happy prospect of keeping one-third of the taxpayer's earned interest out of the government's hands and the fear-inspiring impetus of having to act quickly (within seven days, remember) would imbue this combination of promise and threat with an untold power to persuade, one that would likely temporarily blind the victim to what was really going on. The real form (the W-9) doesn't ask for account numbers, but the bogus form (the W-9095) did. It also asked for marital status, place of birth, parents' names, bank account number, passport information, work history, and passwords;  in other words, just about everything a con artist would need to financially impersonate the victim.  Similar fake forms were labeled W-88BEN and W-8888. (Banks use a legitimate W-88BEN to confirm non-U.S. customers can remain exempt from tax reporting requirements, but the real W-88BEN does not ask for the depth of taxpayer information the fake one did.) There's no way of telling how many folks have fallen for this trick or what the provision of their private information cost them in cold hard currency, but it doesn't take great imagination to picture what use any halfway skilled swindler could put such information to. Armed with all the completed forms gave, it would be child's play to empty bank accounts and apply for charge cards and loans in the pigeon's name. This con contains the potential to be highly effective because little about it looks out of place or obviously wrong. Folks trust their banks (they leave their money there, after all), so letters from such bastions of trust asking recipients to complete yet another tax form won't be greeted with skepticism, especially when those letters also contain the news that doing so is eminently to the benefit of the account holders. Likewise, that an IRS form would ask for everything short of shoe size wouldn't strike many as in any way unusual. About the only part of the transaction that might cause an eyebrow or two to be lifted is the insistence that the completed forms be faxed to the IRS rather than returned by mail. Yet once again, in a world now accustomed to the notion that personal tax returns can be e-filed with taxpayers' signatures faxed in support of the electronically transferred returns, faxing doesn't seem terribly out of place. It always pays to be wary. Make the time to call your bank when asked for such information, even if it appears it's the IRS doing the asking. Better to waste five minutes on the phone convincing your bank that you're an idiot than keeping those five minutes to yourself and proving that you are. Those who have received questionable documents that purported to be from the IRS or who have completed such forms and faxed them off should call 1-800-829-0433, the IRS hotline. They should also contact the various credit bureaus to alert them that their identities might have been stolen and to be on the look out for newly acquired charge cards under their name. Barbara "credit carded" Mikkelson Additional information:        2002 Alerts   (Controller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks)   Last updated:  3 February 2010    Sources:   Caldwell, Bert.   "Fake IRS Forms Sent to Taxpayers."   The [Spokane] Spokesman-Review.  3 May 2002  (p. A12).     Hadley, Jane.   "New Mail Scam Aims to Steal Your Identity and Money."   The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  2 May 2002  (p. A1).     Stefanova, Kristina.  "Scam's Scope National: Form Targets Bank Account Holders."   The Washington Times.  12 April 2002.     Svaldi, Aldo.   "Identity-Theft Scam Uses Fake IRS Form, Feds Say."   The Denver Post.  30 April 2002  (p. C1).     The Associated Press.  "Fake IRS Form Part of Identity Scam."   13 April 2002.     [Greensboro] News & Record.  "Fake IRS Form Seeks Personal Information."   14 April 2002  (p. B2).     Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  "Your Money: Tax Fraud."   6 May 2002  (p. B3).     The Washington Post.  "After Getting Blasted By S . . . ."   5 May 2002  (p. H4). When we human folk exchange information about each other, age is one of the most important pieces of data we pass along.  Knowing someone's age immediately allows us to infer a great deal of information about that person with a reasonable degree of certainty: Age not only tells us whether someone is a child, an adult, or an elderly person, but it allows us to place people into much finer gradations of categories  infant, toddler, child, adolescent, young adult, adult, middle-aged, elderly  from which we can deduce a good deal about their physical, psychological, and social statuses.   We know a 4-year-old child should be walking, but a 6-month-old baby is unlikely to be capable of the feat.  We understand a couple of 16-year-olds might well have a baby together, but an 8-year-old boy is generally too young to father one and a 58-year-old woman is usually too old to conceive one.  We're aware most 9-year-olds haven't yet reached puberty, but a 39-year-old might well have started experiencing many of the infirmities of advanced age (e.g., lessened eyesight, loss of hearing, weight gain, persistent aches and pains).  We grasp that a 29-year-old is in what we would term "the prime of life," while an 89-year-old has well exceeded the average human lifespan.  We can make pretty good guesses from a person's age about whether he's old enough to have finished his schooling, live away from his parents, be married, or hold an important professional position, or whether he's too old to still be working or raising children of his own.  And even those of us who still have most of our lives ahead of us know all this. When it comes to our pets, however, many of us are mystified how to relate their ages to ours.  Sure, knowledgeable owners and breeders may be quite familiar with all the developmental stages of their chosen animals, but many of us casual pet owners can't do much more than distinguish between "puppy," "dog," and "old dog."  At what age are kittens weaned from their mothers?  What's the average lifespan of a dog?  When is a cat old enough to reproduce, and when is a dog too old to bear a litter?   Is an 8-year-old dog in the prime of life, or is he closer to middle age? Lacking a good deal of observational experience, many of us simply don't know. Since knowledge and experience take time and effort to acquire, we've developed simple shortcuts to help us answer these questions, such as the well-known formula for "dog years": multiply your dog's age by seven, and you'll have his equivalent age in human terms.  Although this formula might work roughly well for the middle years of a dog's life, it's too simplistic to accurately reflect a dog's developmental status closer to either end of its lifespan.  Using this calculation, for example, an 18-month-old dog would be at a developmental stage similar to a 10-year-old child's, but while many 18-month-old dogs are fully grown and capable of reproducing, few 10-year-old children are.  The "dog years" measurement tells us a 15-year-old dog is supposed to be the equivalent of a 105-year-old person, but (factoring out accidents and other unnatural causes of death) a much larger proportion of dogs live to the age of 15 than humans live to the age of 105.  As well, age is more than just a chronological measurement of years lived; it's also an expression of how our bodies have been affected by the passage of time.  Different types of animals age at different rates, so we can't employ a simple, direct, proportional relationship to correlate the ages of species as disparate as dogs and humans, especially since variable factors such as genetics, nutrition, and environment play an important role in the aging process. The bottom line is just as we wouldn't raise a litter of puppies or kittens the same way we'd raise a baby, neither should we care for our pets based on how old we think they'd be if they were people.  For those who would like a rough idea of how the ages of our canine and feline friends compare to ours (strictly for entertainment purposes), we present the following charts courtesy of ANTECH:   ANTECH Dog Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years4 years 32 years7 years 45 years10 years 56 years15 years 76 years20 years 98 years     Cat Human1 year 15 years2 years 24 years5 years 36 years7 years 45 years12 years 64 years15 years 76 years18 years 88 years21 years 100 years However, smaller dog breeds tend to live longer on average than larger breeds, so no single chart can adequately represent all dogs with much accuracy.  Therefore a better charting of equivalent ages is one based on the weight of the animal: