Trade deals threaten Indias role as the pharmacy of the developing world for new HIV medicines.
If there was one success story to emerge from the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, it was that more people are getting treated for HIV/AIDS than ever before -- about 17 million by the latest United Nations estimate. Falling drug prices played a key role in helping providers reach this point. But the international health group Doctors Without Borders (Mdecins Sans Frontires) warned at a press conference that trade negotiations around the world put future gains at risk. The group saidits latest reportexamines multiple global threats to access to affordable treatment, including trade deals which threaten Indias role as the pharmacy of the developing world. Trade is at the center of the U.S. presidential election for its effect on the American work force. But is there more at play? We wondered if its true that the next round of agreements, both those that involve the United States and those that dont, would undermine some large drug makers in India. Why India India matters because thanks to the countrys patent laws, India and generics go together like toast and jam. The rules there make it easier than other places for companies to churn out generic drugs once the patent on the original version runs out. Generics are cheaper than their brand name cousins and if you want to stretch a dollar, you take the generic option. Doctors Without Borders said97 percent of the drugs it uses to treat people with HIV are generics made in India. That includes medicines for HIV itself, as well as for diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis that hit people with suppressed immune systems. Doctors Without Borders is worried less about the drugs it uses today and more about the ones its counting on in the future. As the number of people coming in for treatment rises, doctors are finding more who dont respond to the most common, or first-line, medications. Doctors Without Borders is focused on making second-and-third-line drugs more affordable to keep pace with a growing need, and they see India as the place to make that happen. Impact of trade deals Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership gets a lot of attention in the United States, India is not part of it. But it is part of discussions involving the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a mega-regional pact that aims to tie together 16 countries including China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other Asian nations. The European Union is also seeking a regional trade agreement with India and other Asian countries. Both of those trade negotiations have sought to get India to tighten its patent laws. The United States has too, through a one-on-one process overseen by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The issues that office has raised mirror ones in the big trade deals. The USTRslatest reportcriticizes Indias patent laws, saying the pharmaceutical industry in particular faces a host of challenges related to intellectual property rights. What do U.S. trade negotiators not like in particular? For one, India is reluctant to grant new patents for a drug or blend of drugs built around medications that already enjoy patent protection. These so-called secondary patents extend the time for the drug maker to enjoy exclusive production rights. That translates into a chance to charge higher prices. American officials also dont care for Indias rules on clinical trial information. When someone invents a drug, they have to prove its safe and effective. That proof is in the trial reports. India lets generic drug makers rely on the original clinical trials. One way to extend the exclusive right to make a drug is to bar generic drug makers from using that data for a number of years. Would these sorts of changes make life easier for the makers of new drugs and harder for the generic manufacturers? We found no dispute that they would. We talked with independent experts who think India should stand its ground and those who thought it ought to bend, but either way, they agreed on who wins and who loses. There are good arguments on both sides for protecting the profits of companies that invent new drugs, versus making drugs more affordable. We take no position on the larger question of where the right balance point falls. We're focused only on the claim that large trading partners want to move Indian law in favor of the inventors of new drugs. Lee Branstetter is a professor and trade specialist at Carnegie Mellon University. He thinks Indian law ought to change at the expense of the generic companies. In the short run, this will constrain the profit opportunities for the generic producers, he told us. Srividhya  Ragavan, a professor of law at Texas A&M, thinks Indias laws strike the right balance as they are. She told us she sees the U.S. position as an effort to weaken Indias generic drug industry. We found anynumberofarticlesthat reached the same conclusion. But just because Branstetter and Ragavan see eye to eye on how these policy shifts would undermine generic drug makers, that doesn't mean they agree on what this means for the availability of low-cost drugs. Ragavan told us the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and EUs trade negotiations, are all targeting Indias generic drug industry much to the detriment of access to medication to the poor people. Branstetter said thats unlikely and highlights an important feature in the overarching trade rules of the World Trade Organization. The escape hatch Branstetter said based on what hes seen in other countries (he cited Peru as an example) he doubts that would happen. But even if it did, he said, a part of the WTO code -- theDoha Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement-- gives countries the chance to override a patent that limits a drugs availability. Branstetter calls it an escape hatch. Any member state could declare we have a public health emergency, Branstetter said. Then, they can force the company that holds the patent to licence the manufacture of that drug to a domestic or foreign drug producer, who would provide it at an agreed price. Branstetter notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnershipspecifically requiresany country that signs it to accept that Doha declaration. Countries have taken thisstep before. At the height of the AIDS crisis in the mid 2000s, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Mozambique and many others issued what are called compulsory licenses to get affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens. Still, Rohit Malpani, director of policy of the Doctors Without Borders- Access Campaign, told us that in recent years, the number of compulsory licenses has fallen off. Even if countries have the right to use the safeguard and can use them they do not, Malpani said. He suggested several reasons, including a lack of political will and pressure from the United States, the EU and the drug companies. Our ruling Doctors Without Borders said that trade deals threaten the capacity of Indian generic drug makers to produce the next round of HIV drugs. We found that trade negotiations, whether part of large regional trade agreements or unilateral discussions between the United States and India, have language that work against India generic drug makers. They push India to be more ready to grant patents for drugs that are extensions of  drugs that already enjoy patent protection. And they want India to bar generic drug makers from relying on the clinical trial data produced by the inventor of the drug. Both measures would make patents last longer and give the drug companies more time to charge higher prices. None of the articles we read or experts we reached doubted this result or that this would undermine the generic drug makers. Our experts disagreed on whether this would reduce access to critical drugs. The trade deals do no favors for Indias generic drug makers. With a caveat about future access to drugs, we rate this claim Mostly True.
Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level,  Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward,  the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True. The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., known for his eloquence and ability to mobilize the masses throughout the Civil Rights era, is often incorrectly credited for quotes that he never said. One of the most famous lines attributed to King is typically quoted as "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In January 2024, this quote was even posted on the official X (formerly Twitter) page of the State of Israel. "???????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ?? ????." - ?????? ?????? ???? ??. Today we mark Martin Luther King pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r  Israel  ?? (@Israel) January 15, 2024 January 15, 2024 These words were indeed written by King. However, for more than a decade now, there has been confusion as to the precise wording of the quote. In 2011, following the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, a version of the quote went viral on the internet. It stated: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Given that if followed the controversial killing of bin Laden, the quote spread across the internet at an impressive reach, especially for the time. Penn Jillette, a famous magician and outspoken libertarian, tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers, and it only continued to go viral from there. tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers Questions about whether the quote was presented accurately were picked up by The Atlantic, NPR, and other news outlets. They found the wording was correct except for the very first sentence, which was not found in King's speeches or writings: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." The Atlantic NPR As it turns out, however, Jillette was only a perpetuator  not the originator  of the erroneous version of the quote. Before Jillette shared it, Facebook user Jessica Dovey quoted the King passage correctly on her status, but prefaced it with a sentence expressing her own personal thoughts: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." She distinguished her own thoughts from King's via an opening quotation mark, which was dropped somewhere along the line as it picked up internet traction. on her status  (Image via The Atlantic) The complete quote by King, which can be found in his 1963 book "Strength to Love," read as follows: "Strength to Love," Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says Love your enemies, he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemiesor else? The chain reaction of evilhate begetting hate, wars producing more warsmust be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. Commenters on Israel's X post quoting King were quick to point to a clarification provided by Bernice King, MLK's youngest daughter, on Oct. 31, 2023, in regard to her father's stance on Israel. ? Amy: Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released https://t.co/haahcqcuAf https://t.co/haahcqcuAf  Be A King (@BerniceKing) November 1, 2023 November 1, 2023 We've previously written on other rumors related to King, including whether the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself and whether King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth. rumors related to King the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth.  Grant, Drew. Penn Jillette Explains the Fake Martin Luther King Jr.: I Made a Mistake.Salon, 3 May 2011, https://www.salon.com/2011/05/03/fake_mlj_quote_osama_death/. Https://Twitter.Com/BerniceKing/Status/1719524029600612666.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1719524029600612666. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Https://Twitter.Com/Israel/Status/1746912379667890196.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1746912379667890196. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Jr, Martin Luther King.Strength to Love. Beacon Press, 2019. Loving Your Enemies, Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. McArdle, Megan. Anatomy of a Fake Quotation.The Atlantic, 3 May 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/. Peralta, Eyder. As The Bin Laden Story Raced Online, A Tale Of Two Misattributed Quotes.NPR, 3 May 2011.NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135965263/as-the-bin-laden-story-raced-online-a-tale-of-two-misattributed-quotes. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes People Think He Said but Actually Didnt.Yahoo News, 17 Jan. 2016, http://news.yahoo.com/5-martin-luther-king-jr-121303266.html. Republicans who control the state Legislature are touting their just-completed work on the 2011-2013 state budget.State Sen. Alberta Darling, a co-chairwoman of the legislatures Joint Finance Committee, has been especially vocal about the virtues of the $66 billion spending plan. As one of nine senators facing recall elections over their actions on the separate collective bargaining bill, shes also been the target of criticism for her votes.I think this budget really does put us in the right direction -- phenomenally, Darling said in a June 20, 2011, meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and reporters. Its phenomenal whats been accomplished in terms of debt and deficit reform and restructuring.Darling added: Were in the black for the first time in decades.To be clear, the budget has to be in the black every year when it is passed. The state constitution says it must be balanced. Darling was talking about the structural deficit, which is a relatively new way of measuring the states future fiscal health.The structural deficit measures the future imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law. So you can have a balanced budget, but one built upon assumptions that are projected to result in a deficit later on.Weve been hearing about that problem for years.Darling, Walker and others argue their predecessors made the state budgets balance by using one-time maneuvers -- such including the states share of federal tobacco settlement money, and diversions of funds for transportation and medical malpractice insurance.All these approaches only delayed the day of fiscal reckoning to make the budget balance, leading to the structural deficit, said Walker, in themessageaccompanying his budget introduction.So, is Darling right?Did Walker and the Legislature resolve -- for the first time in decades -- the underlying problems, as well as balance spending for the two-year period that begins July 1?The size of the structural deficit is determined by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, considered by both parties to be a neutral scorekeeper on budget matters. The agency started doing the projections with the 1997-99 budget.The agency takes a look at the budget as proposed, amended and passed, said agency director Robert Lang. He begins his estimates with a baseline -- the second year of the current budget, which is adjusted based on previously approved law changes or legal commitments. The new budget is then factored in.It takes out speculation, Lang said of the structural deficit estimates. It puts out a marker based on current revenues and projections.Agency reports show for the past 14 years show the highest structural deficit was $2.8 billion for the 2003-05 budget, and the lowest was $1.49 billion for the 2007-09 budget.Areportissued June 13, 2011, said the 2011-13 budget as approved by the Joint Finance Committee would result in a $306 million surplus. The Legislature changed very little of the committees work. Langs office will evaluate the budget again now that Walkers vetoes are completed and the budget signed.Here was Langs assessment based on the earlier action: Weve had structural deficits since I started doing this, and now theres a structural surplus.So Darlings right on that account: the budget has a structural surplus and not a deficit.The budget does include the changes in pension and insurance payments state workers -- a law enacted before the budget was considered that did not take effect until after it passed -- that helped reduce the budget gap. Those changes are viewed as permanent, not one-time fixes, Lang said.Langs office has only 14 years of records covering a total of nine budgets, including the most recent one. No budget in this time frame showed a surplus, until the current one.In making her statement, Darling said the structural deficit was fixed for the first time in decades. When we talked to her, she said she misspoke when she said decades.As aide Bob Delaporte said: The point was that its in the black for the first time in a long time.Fair enough.Since the structural deficit was not measured before 1997-99, we cant say just when the structural deficits began.Whats the bottom line?In talking about the structural deficit, Darling claimed lawmakers delivered a budget in the black for the first time in decades. The budget lawmakers sent to Walker is projected to have a $306 million surplus. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau report on structural deficits says theres not been a budget with a structural surplus dating back to when it started recording such things 14 years ago. Darling may have overstated how far back the problem goes, but no one knows for certain and that does not change the underlying point of her statement.We rate her statement Mostly True. Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. Claim:  Las Vegas casino owners and the Nevada Gaming Commission are lobbying to legalize dog fighting.  Example:  [Collected via email, October 2014] There is an article on a website known as "Empire News"  which states that casino owners in Las Vegas are attempting to legalize dog fighting as a new gambling incentive !Is this true ????   Origins:  On 12 October 2014, Empire News published an article positing that a steep drop in gambling revenues was inspiring Vegas casino owners and the Nevada gaming commission to push for the legalization of dog fighting in order to reverse that financial decline: article The steady decline in revenue affecting many casinos across the country has forced many gaming houses to seek other sources of income.  As a result, the gambling industry has been quietly seeking a controversial betting offshoot  legalized and industry regulated dog fighting Social media users erupted in anger and disgust at the claim as it wended its way through Facebook and similar sites: "Think of the images of Michael Vick and everything else that comes to mind when you mention dog fighting," said Roger Kenny, administrator with the Nevada Gaming Commission. In a press release he stated, "If we regulate dog fighting, promote it as a sport, eventually people will come to accept it, and it will be as common as blackjack or prostitution.  We'd like to change the negative perception that certain groups have put out there about the activity," he said. If the "as common as blackjack or prostitution" line didn't tip off readers to the article's true nature, the following should have: Dog trainer and television host Cesar Millan said, "This is the most inhumane act that I can think of.  Dogs are our companions and are among the most intelligent creatures on Earth.  Something like this with cats, now that I could understand," continued Millan. "Put a couple of cats in a boxing ring, maybe with little gloves and helmets  nobody's going to give a crap, it's just cats. But with dogs, it's different  they're man's best friend. When I heard this news I wanted to rabidly tear the Commission's collective throat out. Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a beast more beloved by the internet at large than cats; and the Vegas dog fighting yarn is just one of many "satirical" stories from Empire News, a web site whose stock in trade is posting outrage-provoking fake news articles. Other leg-pulls from the site include "Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon (Bread and Milk Prices Expected to Soar)," "MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant'," and "Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth." Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant' Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth A disclaimer page on Empire News admits the publication "is a satirical and entertainment website." disclaimer page   Last updated:  20 October 2014 In August 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, a Reddit user programmed a robot to respond to any mention of the words "tax return" with a comment insinuating that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns because he has donated millions of dollars to an organization that promotes pederasty. The bot called AutoModerator responds to every comment in the sub-reddit EnoughTrumpSpam with the phrase: EnoughTrumpSpam Speaking of tax returns, did you hear Donald Trump is refusing to release them because Donald Trump has donated to NAMBLA? That's what all the best sources, the most tremendous sources are saying, and if they're all saying that Donald Trump donated to NAMBLA, well, I can see why Donald Trump would want to cover up his donations to NAMBLA. I'm not claiming that Donald Trump donates to NAMBLA, but that's what these excellent sources are alleging, that Donald Trump does indeed donate to NAMBLA. The phrase is accompanied by a disclaimer that it was generated by a bot. But that hasn't stopped the oblique accusation that Trump may be a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association from making its way around the Internet: Also, @seanhannity? Look into this disgusting Trump/NAMBLA nonsense. So gross how the left lies.Trump.NAMBLA.Say that every night. @seanhannity  Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) August 9, 2016 August 9, 2016  A Reddit user who calls himself J. Peterman  possibly a reference to a character on the television sitcom Seinfeld  said he created the bot to mock Trump for his habit of making claims that he attributes to nameless "people:" character claims I created it by taking advantage of an existing bot, /u/automoderator, made available for all moderators to use to automate certain tasks, and you can make custom code for the subreddit's configuration of auto moderator. I did that and I made it reply to the trigger word "tax returns" with the copy/paste you see. /u/automoderator For example, in June 2016, Trump hinted that President Barack Obama may have had a connection to the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, saying: saying People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on... He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands  it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable. A Reddit moderator who goes by "Faiz" and claims to have helped launch the bot told us that he believes it turns Trump's own manner of generating suspicions against his opponents against him: We didn't expect it to take off like this, but the community effort on EnoughTrumpSpam really helped it go viral. The joke spread off Reddit and began confusing people so much so that some news outlets even began picking the story up. I think it's success is, in a way, emblematic of the way Trump spreads lies and gets people to believe them by constantly repeating them. A random user originally posted the block of text and it became instantly popular on Reddit. We all loved it because of how much it imitated Trump's style of making unsubstantiated accusations. You really can't tell the difference between some of the text in the meme and some things Trump wrote during Obama's birther conspiracy. As for why Trump, we picked it up mostly because, as suggested by the name (EnoughTrumpSpam), we are an anti-Trump community and we found this to be a perfect foil to highlight the way Trump spreads conspiracy theories. J. Peterman said he was taken aback by how much attention the bot generated. The prank seems to have caught fire, with someone jumping in to create a fake Fox News page with the title: "NAMBLA neither confirms nor denies Trump's donation allegations."  page Now that it's taken off, I'm quite surprised. I'm surprised by how much press attention the bot's coding has garnered as well as the meme in general. I cannot take credit for creating the meme, that was around for a week or so before I did the bot, and it was everyone else who kept the meme going. Faiz, the moderator, said he hopes that the prank goes far enough that Trump's campaign is forced to respond to it. The ultimate coup de grce, he told the Daily Beast, would be if it forces Trump to do something he has adamantly refused to do: release his tax returns. Daily Beast The only logical conclusion would really be Trump releasing his tax returns but he would never do that because hes hiding donations to NAMBLA, Faiz told the Daily Beast. Thats what Ive heard from some very smart people anyway. You can see the bot in action in the screenshot taken from Reddit here: Reddit    It's worth noting that even if the story were true, NAMBLA is not a nonprofit organization, and so donations to the group would not show up on Trump's tax returns. NAMBLA returns In September 2019, we received inquiries from readers about the accuracy of a widely-shared tweet claming that the United States had been ranked the "118th safest country in the world" in 2019, a decline of 53 places in just one year. The claims originated with a September 3 tweet by @ResisterSiano, a left-leaning, anti-Trump Twitter account, which said: "The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. [I don't know] how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole." The United States is the 118th safest country in the world. 118. Down from 65th last year. We fell 53 places in 1 year. The overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the US. Idk how else to say this. The United States is a dangerous shithole.  Sergio (@ResisterSiano) September 3, 2019 September 3, 2019  Those claims were further promulgated when a Facebook user posted a screenshot of the tweet, garnering thousands of shares within a week:  The claims constituted a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the findings of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual report produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, an Australia-based non-profit organization, in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research and analysis firm associated with the Economist magazine. The originator of the tweet confirmed they had based their claims on the 2019 GPI in another tweet in which they wrote that "the United States ranked 118th in safety in 2019" and included a link to a summary of the report on the website World Population Review. tweet summary The GPI tracks the overall "absence of violence or fear of violence" in more than 160 independent countries and territories around the world. The overall GPI score is based on 23 separate indicators which, taken together, describe the presence and impact of internal and external conflicts, the impacts of violent crime and instability (including homicide rates, terrorism, the proportion of refugees and internally displaced people within a given population, and so on), as well as the levels of militarization and the availability and prevalence of weapons within a country or territory, among several other factors. The full list of 23 indicators can be viewed below, and a more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the 2019 GPI (starting on page 84): page 84   The GPI is not simply a measure of "safety" within a country, and it cannot be claimed, in a straightforward or reliable way, that a country which ranks 100th, for example, in the GPI is therefore "the 100th safest country in the world." It is probably more apt (though still imprecise) to describe the index as a rough approximation of each country or territory's overall peacefulness, a term which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also factors such as militarization and the presence, impact, and intensity of national and international conflicts. Notwithstanding these important distinctions, safety and security do form an important component of the GPI, and "Societal Safety and Security" is one of the index's three main strands, along with "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict" and "Militarization." "Societal Safety and Security" does include some indicators which a reader might typically associate with "safety," such as the level of violent crime, the impact of terrorism, and the homicide rate, but it also takes into account several factors which a reader would not typically associate with "safety," such as political instability and the ratio of police to population. Conversely, "ease of access to small arms and light weapons" -- a factor which many observers in the U.S., in particular, might associate with public safety -- is included in the "Militarization" strand, and not "Societal Safety and Security." More broadly, the overall GPI score takes into account several other factors which a reader would not typically consider when making a straightforward assessment of the "safety" of a given country, such as: a country's financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions; the prevalence of refugees and internally displaced persons within the population; military spending as a percentage of GDP, and others. Bearing in mind the aforementioned nuances and complexities inherent in the GPI and its methodology, the following is a breakdown of the United States' rankings (both overall and for each of the three strands), from 2015 to 2019: U.S. Rankings in Global Peace Index, 2015-2019(Out of 163 countries/territories, unless otherwise stated.) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019  Even if we set aside for a moment the inherent nuances in the GPI and the indicators of which it consists, those rankings lay bare several factual inaccuracies contained within the tweet. First, the U.S. did not rank 118th in the 2019 GPI, by any measure, and it's not clear what the basis was for citing that number. The United States' overall ranking was 128th, and when it came to "Societal Safety and Security" -- the strand which arguably represents "safety" most closely -- the U.S. ranked considerably better, at 59th out of 163 countries. On "Societal Safety and Security," therefore, only around 36 percent of countries performed better than the United States, which somewhat undermines the claim that "the overwhelming majority of countries are now safer than the U.S." Furthermore, no justification exists for the claim that the U.S. "fell 53 places in one year," although the U.S. did rank lower by every measure in 2019 than the year before, and 2018 represented a decline in rankings by every measure from the year before that. The actual decline in U.S. rankings between 2018 and 2019 was: seven places in the overall rankings; two places under "Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict"; 12 places under "Societal Safety and Security," and one place under "Militarization." Notwithstanding these factual inaccuracies, and the over-simplistic invocation of the concept of "safety," there is a justification for saying that based on the many and varied factors that go into the GPI, the United States was ranked the 128th most peaceful country in the world in 2019, an even lower ranking than 118th. That is to say, the United States could reasonably be described as being in the bottom 23 percent of the world's nations when it comes to overall peacefulness (which takes into account public safety and violent crime, but also international conflict and militarization). That ranking placed the U.S. below Central American nations such as Honduras (123rd), Nicaragua (120th), Guatemala (114th) and El Salvador (112th), as well as the African nations of Niger (126th), the Republic of the Congo (121st), and Kenya (120th), and historical rivals such as China (110th) and Cuba (91st). The U.S. ranked significantly below many of its European and NATO allies, such as the U.K. (joint 45th), Germany (22nd), and Canada (6th), but notably did outrank Russia, which was placed at 154th out of 163 countries and territories. Despite a somewhat confusing and misleading representation of the GPI, the index's actual findings would no doubt be just as worrying to many Americans. WorldPopulationReview.com.  "Safest Countries in the World 2019."
  28 August 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit.  "Global Peace Index 2019."
  12 June 2019. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2018."
  June 2018. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2017."
  1 June 2017. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2016."
  June 2016. The Institute for Economics and Peace/the Economist Intelligence Unit. "Global Peace Index 2015."
  June 2015. State Sen. Kirk Watson says he's going to fight budgetary gambits when lawmakers confront an expected shortfall in state budget revenue in the legislative session starting in January.In a Nov. 15 speech outlining his self-titled honesty agenda, the Austin Democrat names among his concerns a tendency by past legislatures to balance the budget by dipping into state income that's supposed to fund specific needs and functions.The result, Watson said, has diverted billions of dollars that had been promised to roads, parks, hospitals, clean air, utility bill relief, and other necessities  using it instead as a special piggy bank to make the books look balanced. In fact, over $3.5 billion of what people pay to support specific, basic needs and government functions is (currently) being diverted in this way. That's a lot of promises made and then broken. And this practice has grown -- more than doubled -- over the past decade.Watson mentioned the budget-balancing strategy again in aninterview excerptedin the Nov. 28 Austin American-Statesman and in a Nov. 30 talk at the University of Texas where he listed three of the affected funds, saying: Folks, I could go on (listing them) all day.The lege gets blamed for lots of things; has it really been taking funds dedicated to necessities to make the books look balanced?History: The Texas Constitution forbids the state from running in the red. Lawmakers who write each two-year budget must satisfy the state comptroller that budgeted expenditures won't exceed what the state gathers in revenue. That's what it means to balance the budget.Watson spokesman Steve Scheibal responded to our request for back-up evidence by sharing a spreadsheet prepared by the state comptroller's office. According to the spreadsheet, since the 1993 session, lawmakers have balanced budgets by tapping special accounts that collect money for specific purposes. Money taken from such accounts increased steadily through eight of the last nine budget periods, reaching more than $3.7 billion for fiscal 2010-11, which runs through August. All told, money spent in this fashion totals $18 billion.So, Watson's $3.5 billion-plus number sticks.According to the spreadsheet, more than 25 different accounts took hits from the 2009 Legislature. A category broadly termed All Other GR Dedicated Certification Accounts accounted for the largest single amount, $840 million. Next highest: nearly $671 million from the System Benefit Fund, which consists of proceeds from a tax on some utility bills intended to help low-income residents pay utility bills; $515 million from the Emissions Reduction Plan, which funds grants in targeted counties to address polluting heavy vehicles and equipment; and $331 million from an account called Designated Trauma Facility and EMS, which helps hospitals recover costs of uncompensated trauma care.An August 2009 news article in The Houston Chronicle quotes Dale Craymer, a veteran budget watcher who's president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, saying of such transfers: It's kind of like having your (household) budget laid out and spending part of your food money on entertainment, or vice versa.Finally, we turned to the tail of Watson's statement--that shifting money from such funds make the books look balanced as opposed to actually balancing the budget.For expert perspective, we contacted consultant Billy Hamilton of Austin. He was the deputy comptroller when then-State Comptroller John Sharp recommended that the 1991 Legislature -- then facing a $4 billion-plus revenue shortfall -- consolidate more than 300 state funds. That change laid the groundwork for lawmakers to use accumulated cash balances to help balance future budgets.The comptroller's July 1991 Texas Performance Review report, Breaking the Mold, anticipated criticism of the funds' consolidation as an accounting trick. It says: The truth of the matter is that under the state's constitutionally mandated cash-basis budgeting system, there is no trickery involved. Bond rating agencies, for example, see funds consolidation as a component of prudent fiscal management; the one-time revenue gain from such consolidation is a valid and immediate benefit of improving the structure of fiscal management.As it turned out, the one-time revenue gain gave lawmakers a budget-balancing tool they have wielded ever since. In an interview, Hamilton said subsequent legislatures used it to balance budgets while avoiding major tax changes, save a 2006 overhaul of the state's largest business tax and a hike in cigarette taxes.Per Watson's statement, Hamilton said, As a matter of sound public policy, if you agree that the Legislature in the past has set up these dedicated accounts to accomplish certain public policy goals, they're certainly not being accomplished because the money is being effectively used for other purposes. Then again, Hamilton said, just because (lawmakers) set up a fund, that doesn't mean there's an inherent requirement that they spend the money (on that purpose); the Legislature has the power to appropriate most state funds as desired.Strolling into wonk territory, we also interviewed Craymer, who said the legislative practice of tapping special-purpose accounts doesn't mean the accounts won't someday recover money spent on other budget items. For instance, future legislatures could vote to replenish the funds from other sources and/or quit draining their dollars.Craymer continued: Lawmakers are not spending the dedicated revenue, they're spending cash balances the revenue creates. Say what? It's a distinction only an accountant could appreciate.Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the comptroller's office, agreed that dollars made available from the special-purpose accounts actually helped balance the 2010-11 budget, rather than just making the books look balanced.Maybe so, Watson acknowledged, but conversely, if lawmakers spent the dollars taken from a so-called dedicated account on its intended purpose, then they couldn't make the books look balanced because they wouldn't be -- meaning funding would fall short somewhere else in the budget. And Watson reminded that once money from such accounts is spent on other items, the dollars aren't available to pay for the needs they were originally intended to support.Watson also noted that on May 27, 2009, Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his Senate colleagues that the Legislature was unable to write an appropriations bill that would serve the needs of this state without relying to a fairly significant extent on surplus balances in our general-revenue dedicated funds.Ogden also said that a review of the practice would belong in a comprehensive assessment of the state's finances. At the end of the story, Ogden said, the obvious answer is a tax overhaul in the state of Texas. We really have a pretty rickety system right now.Bottom line: Watson accurately recaps the amount of money allocated from specific-purpose accounts for the 2010-11 state budget. But the shifting of funds doesn't just look like a book-balancing; it's for real.We rate Watson's statement Mostly True. In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes.  Joe Biden  This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny.  remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College  instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes."  repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign   This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech. Claim:  Dell Hospital will contribute money towards the medical care of a 5-year-old rape victim every time a message is shared.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, October 2010] This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please dont hesitate to fwd this. It could've been youre daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as you can.  Origins:  The account given in the above entreaty for funds to help pay the medical costs of a five-year-old rape victim named Maria is just another in a long line of hoaxes  playing on the idea that some entity will pay out money every time good-hearted souls use Facebook's "share" feature to pass along information to their social network friends. The notion that various business entities will pony up funds for a good cause whenever someone forwards, texts, likes, posts, shares, or otherwise disseminates a particular message is one of the longest-running hoaxes on the Internet.   hoaxes This item is similar in form to another widely circulated Facebook hoax about raising funds for the medical care of a child rape victim, but at least that other example was based on a real-life event (even if its appeal for money was spurious). In this case, however, the message is not based on any actual incidence of crime. child rape The Dell Childrens Medical Center of Central Texas has been bedeviled by this rumor since October 2010, at which time they posted an alert about it on their web site: alert ALERT: SPAM Text Message Makes  Claim A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. If you want to make a difference in the life of an injured or sick child, the best approach is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money and/or time, not a text message or Facebook wall post. Last updated:  11 May 2015