In Wisconsin, a woman only earns 80 cents for every $1 a man earns.
Marking what President Barack Obamaproclaimedas National Equal Pay Day, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke uttered a claim that many politicians have made in one form another at the state or national level. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. It's just that simple, Burke, a Madison School Board member, said in an April 8, 2014news release. In Wisconsin, a woman only earns 80 cents for every dollar a man earns -- and pay discrimination doesn't just hurt our families, it hurts our economies, too. Let's take a look. Similar claims In rating a number of pay-gap claims, we and our PolitiFact colleagues have found that wording is crucial. Two of those fact-checks help put Burke's claim into perspective. Former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, while campaigning for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination to challenge Walker in the 2012 recall election, said Wisconsin women are paid 81 cents to the dollar of a man doing the same job. The key phrase was same job. We rated the statementFalse, finding that Falk misquoted the very report she relied on. The report said that -- among all men and women in Wisconsin working all sorts of jobs -- women earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. Burke's claim, in contrast, is more similar to one made by Obama. You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, Obama said in his January 2014 State of the Union speech. That is wrong, and in 2014, it's an embarrassment. Women deserve equal pay for equal work. PolitiFact National rated Obama's statementMostly True. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our colleagues found, women who worked full-time, year-round in 2012 made 77 cents for every $1 men earned across the country. The comparison includes all male and female workers regardless of occupation. Our colleagues noted, however, the existence of a pay gap doesnt necessarily mean the gap is caused by discrimination. Work by the Institute for Womens Policy Research, for example, found that one factor is that women more often choose lower-paying jobs such as receptionists, nurses and teachers, while men more often pursue paths as truck drivers, managers and computer software engineers. Wisconsin figures So what's the situation in Wisconsin? Three organizations -- the Institute for Women's Policy Research, the National Partnership for Women & Families and the American Association of University Women -- also cited 2012 census data as the latest available. Those figures show Wisconsin women earned 78 cents per $1 earned by men. The American Association of University Women said in a March 2014reportthat the median annualearningsfor Wisconsin women working full time year round was $36,535 -- 78 percent of the $46,898 earned by men. (The median is the middle number -- in other words, half of the workers earned more than that amount and half earned less.) Commenting on the pay gap at the national level, the association said career choices explain some of the pay gap. But even after accounting for college major, occupation, hours worked and other factors, the association said, 7 percent of the gap nationally between men and women college graduates remained unexplained one year after graduation. So, there is evidence that Wisconsin women earn 78 cents per $1 of what men earn, although the role discrimination might play is not clear. Our rating Burke said: In Wisconsin, a woman only earns 80 cents for every $1 a man earns. Her claim is slightly conservative, in that census data put the figure at 78 cents. It's worth noting that the gap is not necessarily due to discrimination -- a conclusion some might have drawn because Burke's statement made reference to pay discrimination. We rate the claim Mostly True.
A state senator opposed to a proposal intended to enable some children to attend private schools with government aid asserted that Texas already has a hard time keeping pace with other states. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, during an April 9, 2013, committee meeting that we in the state of Texas are 49th in the country in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. She added that she prefers to prioritize putting dollars into the public schools. A reader asked us to check that ranking. Senator cites newspaper report By email, Davis spokesman, Rick Svatora, told us she was referring to a report described in a Feb. 22, 2013,Dallas Morning Newsarticlestating that preliminary figures released by the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union, indicate Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year. The national average is $11,455, the report said, putting Texas per-student expenditures below every state save Arizona and Nevada. So, compared to other states, Texas reportedly ranks 48th in per-student spending. Then again, theNews story notes that the associations analysis also considered spending in District of Columbia schools, a consideration leaving Texas 49th in per-student spending among 51 jurisdictions. TheNews story said the associations comparisons, based on data furnished by state education agencies, are among the most reliable in the nation and are frequently cited by officials in Texas and other states. The NEA has been issuing its annual reports on public school spending since the early 1960s. Education association report We turned to the associations report, downloadablehere, finding the figures cited by the newspaper in Summary Table K, Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13, which indicates that Texas this year is spending less per student in average daily attendance (the aggregate attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of days school is in session that period) than all states but Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the report says these expenses include salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials and energy costs. A wrinkle: Part of the report says that in making useful comparisons among states, a different way of counting students, fall enrollment, is preferred to average daily attendance because of its standardized definition. Based on fall enrollment, the report says, Texas is spending an estimated $7,886 per pupil, less than every state except Utah and Arizona, according to Table K. So, it looks like two states trail Texas in per-pupil spending, either way you count students. For each state, Table K also lists current estimated expenditures for other programs, meaning such expenses as summer school and adult education, which are not part of regular public elementary and secondary day-school programs, the report says. The table also shows spending by each states schools on interest on debt and capital outlays, which conservative observers such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation have said should always be taken into account when making state-by-state comparisons. Considering all education-related expenditures When we checked asimilar Davis claimabout Texas spending on education in 2011, a foundation spokesman pointed out a March 2010 report by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute that reviewed 2008-09 budgets for districts in the nations five largest cities, including Houston, concluding that average per-pupil spending was 44 percent higher than was otherwise reported by public schools. Separately at the time, Frank Johnson, a statistician with the National Center for Education Statistics, told us the center doesnt take into account capital outlays in estimating per-pupil spending because such costs can create false assumptions about whats spent on instructional programs, school supplies and teachers. In the latest education association report, Table Ks last column presents each states total school spending, rolling in all subcategories. We wondered, then, how Texas stacks up by all expenditures per pupil. The report does not present such a calculation, so wemade our own run, dividing the total spending for each state by the states average daily attendance, as shown in the reports Summary Table D. And by this approach, it appears that more than $50 billion in total Texas school spending breaks out to nearly $11,090 per pupil, placing Texas 38th nationally, ahead of states including California, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona. By phone, a spokesman for the education associations Texas affiliate, the Texas State Teachers Association, suggested it doesnt make sense to roll in all expenditures because school districts have varied commitments to capital outlays and debt, while spending reflected in the presented per-pupil tallies are driven by legislative decisions about spending and finance formulas. Clay Robison followed up by email, saying that in many cases those expenditures pay to build football stadiums and other facilities, such as fine arts centers. I am not going to engage in the argument about football stadiums, but I dont think it gives a fair comparison of how much states are spending on students. In other words, capital costs lump new classroom construction, which benefits all students, with expenditures that dont apply to all students. Robison pointed out that according to the reports Table H-14, Texas spent $9,462 per pupil in 2010-11, which was before legislators cut education aid in the 2011 legislative session. This year, the associations report suggests, such spending is down by more than $1,000 per pupil from 2010-11. Our ruling Davis said Texas ranks 49th in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. A report drawing on states figures estimates Texas is spending $7,886 or $8,400 per student this year, depending on how students are counted. Both ways, Texas ranks third to last among the states. Then again, folding in capital outlays, other education expenditures and interest on debt, total estimated spending in Texas of nearly $11,090 per pupil lands the state 38th among the states. But the senator focused on state investment which, unlike locally determined debt and capital outlays, are driven by legislative actions. Our sense is that this is the appropriate comparison, though Davis failed to clarify that Texas is 49th by this yardstick in comparison to other states plus Washington, D.C., which is not a state. Absent this clarification, her claim rates as Mostly True. On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here During his 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump on multiple occasions claimed his Democratic opponent Joe Biden would impose the "biggest tax increase in history" if voters elected him. In an August interview on Fox News, for instance, Trump said of Democrats: said They want to tax $4 trillion, going to be the biggest tax increase in history by far. It will triple up records, and they're big taxers. It's just something that won't work. We'll have  you will see a depression, the likes of which you have never seen. In the following weeks, he reiterated the claim  that "you are going to have the tax increase of your life" if Biden wins the 2020 election  in social media posts and during campaign events, without explaining who would bear the brunt of the alleged hike. Trump tweeted on Oct. 5: tweeted   Below is an analysis of Biden's tax proposal assessing whether it would indeed raise taxes by an amount never seen before in modern U.S. history, and who would most feel its impact. According to his campaign website, Biden ran for president on the promise that he would change multiple aspects of the country's tax system  specifically in regards to individual income and payroll taxes, business taxes, and tax expenditures. campaign website promise The proposed changes would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the Trump administration and Republicans framed as a solution to fuel economic growth ,and Democrats saw as a gift to the country's richest individuals and large corporations at the expense of low-to-middle-class Americans. 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Specifically, Biden's tax plan would roll back the act's income tax reductions for the country's top bracket of taxpayers, as well as expand that category to include Americans with incomes over $400,000 annually, rather than just those who earn more than $518,400. $518,400 His proposal would also require that group of top earners to limit deductions and pay an additional Social Security payroll tax, per an analysis by Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Millionaires and billionaires would be subject to taxes on long-term capital gains at ordinary  not preferential  income tax rates. analysis long-term capital gains Additionally, Biden's plan would increase the top tax rate for corporations from 21% to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on companies' book income, according to his campaign website. It would also reduce tax subsidies for commercial real estate and fossil fuels and incentivize renewable energy investments, among other changes. All of that said, the country's richest taxpayers and corporations would cover the majority of Biden's proposed tax increases  not average Americans  both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes. But let's look at the anticipated impact at a granular level. All income levels would face some sort of tax burden in 2021 under Biden's plan (we explain more below), though the highest-income households would pay higher income taxes directly and see substantially larger increases than anyone else. Gleckman made the following estimations: His plan would raise taxes on households in the top 1% of the income distribution (those with income more than $837,000) by an average of about $299,000. [...] By contrast, taxpayers in the middle-income quintile (those with income between $52,000 and $93,000) would experience an average tax increase of just $260. [...] Taxpayers in the bottom quintile (those with income less than $26,000) would see an average tax increase of only $30. That added burden on low- and middle-income households representing about 2% of the proposed change  would be an indirect result of employers shifting the cost of the higher corporate tax rate to some workers. Corporations on a grand scale would slightly lower wages and investment income, which would, on average, more than offset the effects of Biden's new tax credits, the center concluded. Alicyn McLeod, a tax adviser and writer for Accounting Today, said in October 2020: Accounting Today Bidens proposal is primarily motivated by fairness. Many U.S. taxpayers are concerned that large corporations arent paying their fair share. While understandable, this position ignores the belief among many tax and economic policy experts that a significant portion of corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers, shareholders, and consumers as opposed to companies themselves.  In sum, the overwhelming majority of Americans  those who earn $400,000 or less annually  would not see their taxes increase as a direct result of Biden's tax proposal, and the top 1% earners would shoulder the brunt of his proposed hike. But low-to-middle-class workers would see slightly lower investment returns and wages as a result of corporate tax increases, according to economists' analysis including a a budgetary model by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. budgetary model Biden's plan would raise about $3.38 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, according to the university's model. Concurrently, per Gleckman's analysis, that would amount to an increase in federal revenue by about 1.5% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the economy's total output of goods and services, and economists rely on it greatly to measure the economy's health and how fiscal or regulatory policies could impact it  not raw dollar amounts that don't consider inflation and population changes. To determine the legitimacy of Trump's claim, we considered federal tax proposals and their impact on GDP over decades. Of almost two dozen congressional tax bills that increased federal tax revenues between 1940 and 2012, for example, the five largest tax increases raised annual revenue between 1.33% and 5.04% of GDP, according to a 2013 compilation of such records by the U.S. Department of Treasury. the U.S. Department of Treasury The following table compiled by the Tax Foundation, another independent public policy think tank, showed where Biden's plan would stand in comparison to those other proposals: Tax Foundation   According to those findings, Biden's tax proposal, if enacted by Congress, would amount to the fifth-largest tax increase since the 1940s  not the biggest hike in modern U.S. history.  Biden-Harris.  "Tale Of Two Tax Policies: Trump Rewards Wealth, Biden Rewards Work."
  Accessed 15 October 2020. Adamczyk, Alicia.  "Here's Who Would Pay More Under Joe Biden's Tax Plan."
 CNBC. 7 October 2020. Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania.  "PWBM Analysis of The Biden Platform."
  14 September 2020. DePietro, Andrew.  "Here's How Much The Top 5% Earns In America's Largest Cities."
 Forbes.  30 June 2019. McLeod, Alicyn.  "Trump vs. Biden: Whose Tax Plan Makes For Good Tax Law?"
 AccountingToday.  14 October 2020. Frank, Robert. "Biden Defines $400,000 a Year as 'Wealthy': Here's What That Buys In A Big City."
 CNBC. 6 October 2020. Wilson, Garrett, and Erica York.  "Reviewing Joe Biden's Tax Vision."
 Tax Foundation. 20 August 2020. Fordham, Evie. "Trump Tells 'Mornings with Maria' Biden Presidency Would Bring 'Biggest Tax Increase In History'."
 FoxBusiness.  13 August 2020. Wilson, Garrett and Erica York.  "Placing Joe Biden's Tax Increases In Historical Context."
 Tax Foundation.  3 September 2020. Mermin, Gordon, et. al.  "An Analysis of Former Vice President Biden's Tax Proposals."
 Tax Policy Center.  5 March 2020. To build or to renovate?That is the question Atlanta leaders are grappling with as the Atlanta Falcons have discussed plans with city and state officials to build a $1 billion retractable-roof stadium downtown and demolish the 20-year-old Georgia Dome.The key to any deal is the City Councils approval of a commitment by Atlanta to finance about 20 percent of the total cost using bonds backed by a hotel-motel tax. Thats a bargain when you compare it with other recent stadium deals across the country, some city officials say.Of the 18 stadiums built from 2004 to 2013, 47 percent of the total cost came from public sources, Atlanta Chief Operating Officer Duriya Farooqui said at the first public hearing on the proposed deal.Her boss, Mayor Kasim Reed, is a vocal proponent of a new stadium.The claim was included in a slide presentation Reeds staff prepared on stadium construction costs for the hearing in the City Councils chambers. The Feb. 13 meeting drew so much interest that additional spectators watched the proceedings on television from another room.PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know whether the claim was accurate, or is the public investment in professional sports facilities far less than the mayors staff is letting on?Reeds spokeswoman, Sonji Jacobs, referred us to a report on the sports news website Deadspin.com that had the information the mayors staff used in its presentation. Deadspin was the site that broke the Manti Teo girlfriend hoax story. [P]rivate funding (53 percent) has actually surpassed public funding for the first time in decades, Deadspin wrote.The percentage of public funding for sports facilities has decreased in recent decades, as taxpayers have become less tolerant of their money going to stadiums or arenas with teams owned by enormously wealthy owners.Lawmakers have tried to become more creative in public financing of the construction of sports facilities, using lodging taxes on out-of-towners, a ticket tax, public parking revenue, taxes from car rentals and other sources. There are also the more traditional methods of funding these multimillion-dollar projects, such as collecting the money from sales taxes.In the past decade, eight of the 18 facilities were built for Major League Baseball franchises, four for pro football, four for National Basketball Association teams and two for National Hockey League teams.The cost of the stadiums range from as low as the $250 million to build the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn., home of the NBAs Memphis Grizzlies, to $1.6 billion for MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. The NFLs New York Giants and Jets share use of MetLife Stadium, the site of next years Super Bowl.By our own count, these 18 sports facilities cost a combined $11.7 billion to build. The public contribution toward these projects totaled about $5.6 billion, 48 percent of the total cost.We wanted to look at the public investment in sports facilities that cost $1 billion or more to build since that is the projected cost of the proposed stadium in Atlanta. There were four venues in that category: MetLife Stadium; Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas; the Barclays Center in New York City; and Yankee Stadium, also in New York City. The public investment in those facilities was about 18 percent. Again, the current discussion in Atlanta is a 20 percent public investment in a new football stadium downtown.Jacobs, the mayors spokeswoman, noted that most of the billion-dollar sports venues were built in the New York City area, where land and construction costs are typically higher. She also noted that MetLife Stadium is shared by two teams, and she believes that skews any comparison of the billion-dollar venues.Four of the five teams that play in the billion-dollar venues have a higher net worth than the Falcons, who ranked 28th among the NFLs 32 teams, according to Forbes. Heres the most recent Forbes breakdown:Dallas Cowboys:     $1.85 billion.New York Yankees:    $1.85 billion.New York Giants:    $1.3 billion.New York Jets:    $1.23 billion.Atlanta Falcons:    $814 million.Brooklyn Nets:        $530 million.The Falcons are owned by Arthur Blank (who has a reported net worth of $1.5 billion and whom Forbes lists at the 329th-richest American). Blank sits on the board of directors of Cox Enterprises, which owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.But the owners of the teams in the billion-dollar venues are super rich. For example, Nets majority owner Mikhail Prokhorov is reportedly worth $13.2 billion. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has a net worth of $2.7 billion, Forbes reports. Jets owner Woody Johnson is part of a family that is worth about $13 billion.On the other end of the cost spectrum, the least expensive projects had a higher percentage of public funding. For example, the FedEx Forum was built through an authority created by the city of Memphis and Shelby County. The authority included a $1.15-per-ticket surcharge to help pay construction costs, according to newspaper accounts.Since Farooquis claim included smaller and, typically less-costly arenas, we also decided to break down the public investment in facilities solely used by baseball and football teams, since Atlanta is considering a football stadium. Our examination shows the public investment in those 12 facilities was 44 percent. Thats pretty close to the claim.Jacobs said the best comparison is between the Falcons proposal and other multiuse stadiums. There were three retractable-roof stadiums built in the past decade. The public investment in them were 27 percent (Arlington), 68 percent (Phoenix) and 86 percent (Indianapolis).Our conclusion:Farooqui said in her presentation that 47 percent of the cost of 18 pro sports facilities built in the past decade came from public sources. Our examination of the claim showed the estimate is on target, even if you remove arenas.The public investment, though, in other billion-dollar stadiums is much less than 47 percent. We believe this context is necessary to fully understand Farooquis statement.We rate Farooquis claim as Mostly True. Former car czar Steven Rattner, who actuallyhates the nicknamehe earned overseeing the auto bailout, is pushing back againstproclamationsof a flourishing American manufacturing industry. Again. Rattner wrote an eye-catchingNew York Timesop-edin January calling the industrys post-recession jobs gains a trickle, arguing we need to get real about the so-called renaissance partly because wages for auto workers and manufacturers dropped far more than the average private-sector worker since the end of the recession in June 2009. He revisited some of those points in a March 30, 2014, appearance on ABCsThis Week, which took a break from coverage of Russia and the missing Malaysianplane to examine the state of Made in the USA. We certainly want these kinds of advanced manufacturing jobs. But remember this, manufacturing wages today in America on a per-hour basis are actually a bit lower than average wages in the economy as a whole, he said. And what I mean by that is there are lots of really good high-paying jobs in sectors like education, like IT, like health care, service sectors that are not just entry-level jobs, they are really high-paying jobs, and this is our competitive advantage. Manufacturing jobs are typically seen as a source of higher pay for people who dont earn college degrees, and President Barack Obama put an emphasis on them in his State of the Union address. So PunditFact wondered if Rattner is right: Are per-hour wages in manufacturing a little smaller than average wages for the rest of the American economy? Rattner pointed toU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics datafor average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector, which make up about four-fifths of total private-sector employment. The most recent data for February 2014 shows the average hourly private-sector wage was $20.50. The manufacturing industry average was, as Rattner said, a bit lower at $19.43. Hourly wages are almost $3 higher for employees who produce durable goods, such as cars, phones and computers, than those who make nondurable goods, or things like food, gas and clothes. Weekly wages tell a different story, with manufacturers earning almost $122 more a week than the total worker average in February. The reason for the discrepancy between hourly and weekly wages is simple: Manufacturers work more hours. Anyone can work more hours and make more money, Rattner said. But manufacturers also earn more money an hour when you factor in supervisors.BLS data for Februaryshow average hourly earnings are $24.31 for all private-sector employees and $24.72 for manufacturing employees -- the opposite of what Rattner said. Which dataset is better? The question can incite an economists quarrel. Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research, took issue with isolating a dataset that excludes supervisors, saying analysts see the distinction as arbitrary and are increasingly using the whole workforce for their research. The manufacturing industry has a lower percentage of production employees (70.1 percent) than the average for the private-sector workforce (82.7 percent), which accounts for the higher pay when using Rattner's measure, Baker said. Rattner argues viewing the data his way is more representative of the typical workers earnings without being influenced by the top of the pay scale. Another liberal economist and former Obama administration adviser, Jared Bernstein of the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities, faulted Rattner for excluding benefits on top of wages. Manufacturing workers often have benefits, he said. AnotherBLS source for wage data(yes, there are a lot of them) shows that when looking at total compensation (wages plus benefits), manufacturing workers earn $35.14 an hour, which is higher than the $28.44average for careers in the service-providing industry and $29.63 for all private-sector workers in December 2013. Since it's widely believed that workers trade off benefit pay for lower wages, it's a mistake to just consider wages in this sort of comparison when you're dealing with an industry that pays benefits (as opposed to say, fast food), Bernstein said. Matthew Lavoie, National Association of Manufacturers spokesman, said 97 percent of the groups 12,000 members provide health insurance. Rattner conceded manufacturers earn more than service-industry workers when benefits are included in hisNew York Timescolumn. In our interview with Rattner, he anticipated these objections to his claim. But my point remains the same: The perception that manufacturing jobs are better jobs is out of date, Rattner wrote. Note also that over the past year, per-hour wages for all industries rose by 50 cents per hour but in manufacturing, they rose by only 21 cents per hour. The trend is not manufacturing's friend, as myNYTpiecepointed out. Our ruling Rattner was careful onThis Weekto single out data for per-hour wages when he argued manufacturers are not paid as much as the rest of workforce. His claim relies on the most recent data for production workers in the manufacturing industry, who earn about $1 less than the average of their private-sector counterparts. However, factoring in supervisors shows manufacturers make 41 cents more per hour. Adding benefits gives manufacturers more of an edge. We wont take sides and say what dataset we think is best. What we can say is that Rattner makes an accurate point by one measure. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. Scam:  Callers pretend to be fraud investigation agents for Visa and MasterCard in order to obtain credit card security codes. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] We all receive emails all the time regarding one scam or another; but last week I REALLY DID get scammed! Both VISA and MasterCard told me that this scam is currently being worked throughout the Midwest, with some variance as to the product or amount, and if you are called, just hang up. My husband was called on Wednesday from "VISA" and I was called in Thursday from "MasterCard". It worked like this: Person calling says, "This is Carl Patterson (any name) and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud department at VISA. My Badge number is 12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card issued by 5/3 bank. Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No". The caller continues with, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?" You say, "Yes". The caller continues ... "I will be starting a fraud investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 800 number listed on your card 1-800-VISA and ask for Security. you will need to refer to this Control #". Then gives you a 6 digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?" Caller then says he "needs to verify you are in possession of your card. Turn the card over. There are 7 numbers; first 4 are 1234 (whatever) the next 3 are the security numbers that verify you are in possession of the card. These are the numbers you use to make internet purchases to prove you have the card. Read me the 3 numbers." Then he says "That is correct. I just needed toverify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions? Don't hesitate to call back if you do." You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security dept. told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497.99 WAS put on our card. Long story made short ... we made a real fraud report and closed the VISA card and they are reissuing as a new number. What the scam wants is the 3 digit number and that once the charge goes through, they keep charging every few days. By the time you get your statement, you think the credit is coming, and then its harder to actually file a fraud report. The real VISA reinforced that they will never ask for anything on the card (they already know). What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from "Jason Richardson of MasterCard" with a word for word repeat of the VISA Scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up. We filed a police report (as instructed by VISA), and they said they are taking several of these reports daily and to tell friends, relatives and coworkers.  Origins:  There are five points we generally try to apply in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities: 1)  Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described? 2)   Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible?  (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.) 3)  Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning? 4)  Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread? 5)  Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to? The scheme outlined in the message quoted above might be categorized as a "social engineering" scam  a technique which preys upon people's unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate   in order to extract from them sensitive information (such as computer passwords or credit card numbers). In this case the scammers' target data are the three-digit security codes found on the back of MasterCard and Visa cards.  Just as the Internet and other technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for making credit card purchases without the need to physically present a card to the seller, so have they created additional opportunities for identity thieves to make profitable use of purloined credit card numbers. After getting their hands on credit card numbers (often through such simple expedients as rummaging through trash to find discarded receipts or statements), crooks can then employ a variety of means (e.g., mail order, phone order, Internet purchases, posing as merchants) in order to obtain money and merchandise by charging against the cardholder's account  even though the credit card itself remains snugly inside the cardholder's wallet.  The victim may not even know anything is amiss until he receives his next statement in the mail several weeks later.   Although safeguards have been enacted to catch most of these types of fraud, they're often defeated by a combination of lax security and clever crooks who know how to work around them.    One of the those safeguards is the addition of three-digit security codes (known as CVC2 or CVV2 codes) to every MasterCard and Visa card, codes which are indent-printed in the signature panels on the backs of the cards  but are not encoded in the magnetic stripes and do not print on sales receipts.  Many vendors cannot process credit card transactions without obtaining these security codes from their customers, thereby ensuring that persons placing orders have physical possession of the cards being used (and haven't simply scammed the sixteen-digit account numbers imprinted on the front of cards somehow).  Thus the scheme described above might be used by identity thieves who have managed to collect credit card numbers but need to obtain the associated security codes in order to process charges against the accounts. So, back to our five points: 1) Is this possible?  Yes, it's possible that scammers might  get hold of credit card numbers and then use the technique described above to obtain security codes and process phony transactions against the accounts. 2) Is this plausible?  The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to pull off; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions.  It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of his victims, but that information might be obtained in a variety of ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant web sites).  Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of phony charges before complaints caused his merchant account to be shut down is problematic, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to anywhere other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP scams). CNP 3) Are there known instances of this occurring?  We talked with a representative of MasterCard, who told us that although she couldn't verify the specific details of the message reproduced above, this type of scam does occur and isn't new; it's been going on ever since MasterCard started putting CVC2 security codes on all its cards back in 1997.  (Visa did not add CVV2 codes on all their credit cards until 2001.)  She also reiterated that MasterCard would not ask a cardholder to disclose security codes or provide any information verifying physical possession of a card; any such inquiries regarding security matters would come from the financial institution that issued the credit card, not from MasterCard itself. 4) Is this a widespread phenomenon?  Unfortunately, neither MasterCard nor VISA would provide us with any statistics regarding the specific scam described here or confirm any actual instances of its occurrence (other than to note that using the telephone to trick cardholders into divulging their security codes is a type of fraud that has been occurring for several years and is ongoing).  However, numerous readers have informed us they've received calls from persons identifying themselves as fraud investigation agents and asking for sensitive personal data, so (even allowing for the possibility that some of those calls were actually legitimate) we'd have to say anecdotal evidence indicates this scam is still being perpetrated, if only infrequently. 5) Is this something that might affect the average person?  Yes, anyone who holds a credit card is a potential victim of this type of fraud. The best protection against these types of telephone schemes for obtaining sensitive credit card information is to always verify the identities of the people with whom you speak.  If you have security questions or concerns about your credit card, call the financial institution who issued your card directly.  If someone contacts you by phone about your credit card, ask the caller to provide his name, department, and extension, then hang up and call him back through the phone number listed on your credit card or billing statement.    Additional information:        Recognizing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  1 April 2015 Claim:  President Obama said women should not choose to be stay-at-home-moms.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Obama wants stay at home moms back in workforce  Obama does not like stay at home moms.  Many sites are reporting that Obama doesn't want women to be stay-at-home moms based on this speech.  Obama's speech on Stay at Home Moms Aren't worth a Hill of Beans....also, it's a choice we don't want Americans to make.  Video with comment by President Obama on Stay-at-Home Moms: 'That's Not a Choice We Want Americans to Make.' I'm just seeing this posted on Facebook and wondering if it's true or taken out of context. Origins:  On 31 October 2014, President Obama delivered a speech titled "Remarks by the President on Women and the Economy" at Rhode Island College in Providence. Plucked from the context of a broader speech about paid leave for parents and general household costs such as daycare, one snippet of the President's words grabbed the attention of political blogs and social media users. A short portion of the President's remarks became a story unto themselves following the speech, with a common claim attached to those words holding that President Obama had "slammed stay-at-home moms" in the cited portion of his speech. One widely-circulated extract from his remarks read that way to some who hadn't caught the entire speech: Sometimes, someone ... usually mom ... leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That's not a choice we want Americans to make. So let's make this happen. By the end of this decade, let's enroll 6 million children in high quality preschool ...  Taken out of context, it appeared to some President Obama  was advocating all stay-at-home moms should return to the workforce without question and place their children in government-run preschools (presumably ones of questionable quality, or, at the very least, schools chosen by the government and not by the families themselves). What President Obama actually said, however, did not pertain to the worth of stay-at-home moms versus that of working parents. Explaining his recent experiences in discussing the challenges that mothers in the workforce face, President Obama said: I kept on hearing about my mom struggling to put herself through school, or my grandmother hitting that glass ceiling. And I thought about Michelle, and I told some stories about when Michelle and I were younger and getting starting, and we were struggling to balance two careers while raising a family.  And my job forced me to travel a lot, which made it harder on Michelle, and we would feel some of the guilt that so many people feel  we're working, we're thinking about the kids, we're wondering whether we're bad parents, we're wondering whether we were doing what we need to do on the job.  And as the catch-22 of working parents, we wanted to spend time with our kids, but we also wanted to make sure that we gave them the opportunities that our hard work was providing.  And then, of course, I think about my daughters.  And the idea that my daughters wouldn't have the same opportunities as somebody's sons  well, that's unacceptable.  That's not acceptable. President Obama then addressed the advances women have made in education and in graduating college and continued by explaining females are disproportionately affected by a lack of protective policy pertaining to sick leave and paid family leave: But here's the challenge  that's all good news  the challenge is, our economy and some of the laws and rules governing our workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  A lot of workplaces haven't caught up with that reality.  So while many women are working hard to support themselves and their families, they're still facing unfair choices, outdated workplace policies.  That holds them back, but it also holds all of us back.  We have to do better, because women deserve better.  And, by the way, when women do well, everybody does well. So women deserve a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship.  And Rhode Island has got the right idea.  You're one of just three states where paid family leave is the law of the land.  (Applause.)  More states should choose to follow your lead. The quoted bit came soon thereafter. President Obama made a case for paid leave and for the economic gains to be had if daycare and preschool were affordable to all mothers. He said: THE PRESIDENT: Without paid leave, when a baby arrives or an aging parent needs help, workers have to make painful decisions about whether they can afford to be there when their families need them most.  Many women can't even get a paid day off to give birth to their child.  I mean, there are a lot of companies that still don't provide maternity leave.  Of course, dads should be there, too.  So let's make this happen for women and for men, and make our economy stronger.  (Applause.)  We've got to broaden our laws for family leave. Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn't cost them an arm and a leg.  We need better childcare, daycare, early childhood education policies.  (Applause.)  In many states, sending your child to daycare costs more than sending them to a public university.  AUDIENCE MEMBER:  True! THE PRESIDENT:  True.  (Laughter.)  And too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn't have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development.  And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away.  And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.  And that's not a choice we want Americans to make. It's clear from the context of President Obama's full remarks on 31 October 2014 his view wasn't one that "slammed" stay-at-home moms and stated "we" don't want anyone to choose to be a stay-at-home mom; rather, the choice to which he referred was for women to fairly have the option of deciding whether to remain in the workforce or to stay at home with their children, without (in the latter case) having to lose their place on the employment ladder and thus be relegated to earning lower wages for the rest of their working lives.  In short, President Obama did not "slam" stay-at-home moms; he instead argued current policies affecting mothers are unfair and should be changed to allow, among other things, expanded maternity leave and affordable daycare and preschool options to ensure women have more choice in deciding how to balance their economic and family lives. remarks Last updated:  3 November 2014 In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. Forbes Progressive Insurance When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion.   This success spawned chain emails and memes decrying Lewis' supposed political leanings and involvement:  This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. Theyre the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels "guilty" for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance Peter Lewis personally donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.") Case Western Reserve $7 million $8 million Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. America Coming Together MoveOn.org Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) letter Marijuana Policy Project charitable However, the "heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance" reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance's CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity's single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: regulations [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test  even if that "injury" resulted from being punched by a student.The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board's now defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs  and who have never been suspected of using drugs  have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. defend Clarke, Josie.  "Eccentric Billionaire Has High Profile at Home."
  The New Zealand Herald.  31 August 2000.

 Edsall, Thomas B.  "Soros-Backed Activist Group Disbands as Interest Fades."
  The Washington Post.  3 August 2005.
 Healy, Rita.  "Mellowing Out on Marijuana."
  Time.  8 November 2007.
 Kranish, Michael.  "Rich Activists, Hoping to Sway Voters, Give Vast Sums to 527s."
  Boston Globe.  21 September 2003  (p. A8).
 Leinwand, Donna.  "Super-Rich Trio Put Cash into Marijuana Initiatives."
  USA Today.  5 November 2002  (p. A8).
 ACLU.  "Individual Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation."
  18 July 2001.
 ACLU.  "$8 Million Gift Will Boost Campaign to Fight Bush Administration's Assault on Civil Liberties."
  15 January 2003.
 Forbes.  "The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009."
  30 September 2009.
 The Nation.  "The Beat-Bush Brigades."
  26 April 2004.
 USA Today.  "Partisan Groups' attack Ads Dodge Disclosure Rules."
  16 March 2004  (p. A12). On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity: reported   Although it's true that Maroon 5 partnered with their label Interscope Records and the National Football League (NFL) in making a $500,000 donation to the children's charity Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the money didn't come out of the band's performance fee. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy clarified in an email that Super Bowl halftime acts don't receive performance fees. McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country." People Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015. non-profit The large donations to charitable organizations were the result of the mounting pressure the NFL was facing over what critics called the "blacklisting" by the league of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired! stated Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him. grievance As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him. Associated Press Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here." ABC News Tracy, Brianne.  "Maroon 5 and the NFL Announce $500,000 Charity Donation Ahead of Super Bowl Halftime Show."
  People.  31 January 2019. Ruggieri, Melissa.  "Super Bowl 53: Travis Scotts Halftime Inclusion Comes Wwth Charitable Contribution from NFL."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 January 2019. Landrum, Jonathan Jr.  "Cardi B Declined Super Bowl Halftime with Mixed Feelings.'"
  Associated Press.  1 February 2019. Allen, Karma et al.  "Maroon 5's Adam Levine Addresses 'Controversy' Surrounding Super Bowl Halftime Show, Teases Performance."
  ABC News.  1 February 2019. Langone, Alix.  "Here's How Much Maroon 5 Is Getting Paid to Perform at the 2019 Super Bowl."
  Yahoo Finance.  3 February 2019. Bieler, Des. " Colin Kaepernick Thanks Rihanna for Her Super Bowl Boycott."
  The Washington Post.  5 February 2019. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false.