Did Ari Fleischer Compare Showing ID to Get Vaccinated to Voter ID Laws?
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 In early March 2021, Ari Fleischer, a media commentator who served as White House press secretary for former U.S. President George W. Bush, said on Twitter that New York's requirement that residents show ID before getting a COVID-19 vaccine was just as "sensible" as requiring people to show identification to vote . said a COVID-19 vaccine  hurdles require We can verify that Fleischer's tweet is real, while also pointing out that Fleischer is attempting to create an equivalency between two different issues when none exists. The state of New York is vaccinating residents in a phased rollout because of limited vaccine supply. Therefore, residents must make appointments to receive their shots and provide documentation showing that they are the person with the appointment, and that they are eligible for the vaccine during a given phase, based on factors like age and and type of employment. The elderly, along with essential workers and health care employees, have been prioritized. phased Voting, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Voting is a constitutional right that forms the basis of the U.S. system of government. Unlike COVID-19 vaccines, access to voting isn't limited on the supply side so much as it is controlled by legislators who have the power to either make the process easier or more difficult. Access to voting, especially for demographic groups that have been historically excluded from it, has been an ongoing flashpoint in American politics. The issue gained new urgency in the wake of the November 2020 election, when a disinformation campaign pushed by former President Donald Trump falsely alleging widespread voter fraud incited a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Since then, Trump's fellow Republican legislators in many states have rushed to create new requirements for voters. Although they argue such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud, critics point out such fraud is rare. rushed rare Advocates for expanded voter access argue that voter ID laws are a voter suppression tactic because, as the American Civil Liberties Union states: states Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states [deem] acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.
The newly installed House speaker, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently took toMediumto set the stage for a forum in Columbia, S.C., on Republican efforts to fight poverty. The forum, hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation,drew six 2016 Republican presidential candidates former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired physician Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. In his Medium column, Ryan wrote that a new direction was needed on government anti-poverty efforts. Weve been fighting the War on Poverty for 50 years now, he wrote. And I dont think you can call it anything but a stalemate. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars. And yet today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. Im not saying we havent made progress. We have. But today we have a safety net that catches people falling into poverty. What we need is a safety net that lifts people out of poverty that helps them earn a good paycheck so they can support themselves. Here, well check Ryans statement that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. When we asked Ryans staff for their evidence, they pointed us to an academic paper by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez and Nicholas Turner, Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility from January 2014. Chetty and Hendren are at Harvard, Kline and Saez are at the University of California-Berkeley, and Turner was with the U.S. Treasury Department. The paper, based on extensive analysis of income and educational-attainment data, found that intergenerational mobility has remained extremely stable since the generation of Americans born in 1971. We find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s, the authors wrote. When we asked one of the co-authors, Saez, whether Ryans summary left out anything important, he said no. Yes, this is broadly correct, Saez told PolitiFact. Saez said the paper shows the odds of staying in the bottom one-fifth of the income distribution when your parents were in the bottom one-fifth have stayed stable for the past four to five decades. The paper and Saez in the interview both noted one caveat  that the consequences of the pattern Ryan is citing have worse effects today because inequality has grown over the same period. Because inequality has risen, the paper notes, the consequences of the birth lottery  the parents to whom a child is born  are larger today than in the past. However, this caveat doesnt undermine Ryans point. If anything, it accentuates it. (We're also not penalizing Ryan for rounding up the study's length to 50 years.) Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist and chief economist at the jobs site Indeed, said the paper Ryan chose is a credible one within the profession. These are the authors I would turn to when looking at intergenerational mobility. Our ruling Ryan wrote that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. His support for this claim  a respected academic paper published in 2014  found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True. On 3 May 2016, web site the Washington Free Beacon published an article provocativelytitled "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive and Document Destruction Company" (and subtitled "Payments could have purchased destruction of 14 hard drives"). The article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign made payments totaling $187 to a document destruction company (American Document Destruction, Inc.) in February and March of 2016. The article implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business she conducted while serving as U.S. secretary of state: controversy The Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company that specializes in hard drive and document destruction, campaign finance records show. The payments, which were recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives or anything else that a hard drive can come from. Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV, the companys website states. This decision is yours to decide based on cost and convenience to you. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by a shredding. Nowhere did the Washington Free Beacon article offer any evidence that the services provided by American Document Destruction, Inc. to the Clinton campaign involved the destruction of hard drives or data from the private server she used while serving as secretary as state. In fact, the article didn't even offer any evidence that the provided services involved the destruction of hard drives at all (rather than paper documents). It simply noted that the Clinton campaign paid American Document Destruction, Inc. an amount of money that would have covered the costs of destroying 14 hard drives or shredding 37.4 cubic feet of paper (or, presumably, some combination of the two). A follow-up article from another news outletreported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents. outlet It's extremely unlikely either of these companies were involved in destroying material related to Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, for a number of reasons. First of all, the expenditures were openly reported to the Federal Election Commission, an unlikely move for a campaign furtively involved in destroying evidence relating to a federal investigation:     Second, anyone seeking to destroy sensitive information related to a high-level federal investigation probably wouldn't trust the task to businesses who charged only a few hundred dollars for the service, rather than to much more expensive (and presumably more private and secure) outfits. Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an e-mail controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services: paid    Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe: timeframe    Paying for data destruction services is hardly suspect for an organization that processes thousands of donations each month, as the Hillary Clinton campaign does. Personal information from donors (such as credit card numbers) would, if printed or stored on hard drives, need to be securely destroyed to protect those donors. And given Bernie Sanders' repeated insistence that the average donation made to his campaign is $27, it seems reasonablethat his organization would also be contracting for similar services and paying for a higher volume of shreddable transactions than the Clinton campaign.  Bier, Jeryl.  "Hillary Clinton Campaign Paid Second Document Destruction Company."
The Weekly Standard.  5 May 2016. Schmidt, Michael S.  "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules."
The New York Times.  2 March 2015. Schoffstall, Joe.  "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive Aand Document Destruction Company."
The Washington Free Beacon.  3 May 2016. Federal Election Commission.  "Selected Presidential Reports for the 2016 March Monthly."
March 2016. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 Claim:  Editorial identifies anachronisms in Barack Obama's 2007 Selma speech.  Example:  [Hollrah, 2007] Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new Schlickmeister of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty accomplished public speaker. However, as he spoke, I found my bull alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said: "... something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.  "When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance."So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me Im not coming home to Selma, Alabama." Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good  but is it? Okay, so  what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it? Obama told his  audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a  bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barrack  Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches  across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least  five years after Obama's parents met. Obama went  on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do  an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could  be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barack  Obama, Sr., to America. The problem with  that scenario is that, having been born in August  1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November  1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout  across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it  was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican  President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's  claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary  Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb  Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John  Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.  As  one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois.  It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's  not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be  how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a  frog into a prince." [Click here to expand text]. [Click here to expand text] Origins:  On 4 March 2007, former president Bill Clinton, along with then-senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made an appearance in Selma, Alabama, to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of   "Bloody Sunday": the 7 March 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights that ended with several hundred civil rights marchers' being assaulted with billy clubs and tear gas wielded by state troopers and deputies at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on the outskirts of Selma. Bloody Sunday Edmund Pettus Bridge As part of that day's ceremonies, Senator Obama delivered a speech from the pulpit of the Brown Chapel A.M.E. church (the starting point for the "Bloody Sunday" march) praising civil rights achievements (such as the Selma marches) as having helped pave the way for his campaign to become the first black president. speech An editorial by Paul R. Hollrah published a week later attempted to take Senator Obama to task for fudging chronology in order to make a personal connection between key civil rights events and his forebears.  Senator Obama's speech was misleadingly ambiguous in some places, but it wasn't quite as anachronistic as made out in the editorial quoted above. editorial One of the editorial's criticisms is that: Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America. The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. One might reasonably infer from the wording of Barack Obama's speech that he was speaking of  President John F. Kennedy, since he invoked the name Kennedy immediately after mentioning the White House: What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. It worried folks in the White House who said, "You know, we're battling Communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world? If right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set forth in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites." So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is. This would indeed be an anachronism, since JFK did not assume that office until 1961 and therefore could not have been, as President, instrumental in funding a program that brought students such as Barack Obama's father from Kenya to the University of Hawaii in 1959.  However,  it is true that  Senator John F. Kennedy, shortly before being elected president, arranged a grant for a scholarship program to bring Kenyan students to American colleges: In his command of the US political stage over the past year, Barack Obama has inspired many a comparison to John F Kennedy. Both young senators brought a lofty message, an appealing young family and a movie-star aura to the presidential race. But the two men forged a less known link  before Obama was even born. The bond began with Kenyan labour leader Tom Mboya, an advocate for African nationalism who helped his country gain independence in 1963. In the late 1950s, Mboya was seeking support for a scholarship program that would send Kenyan students to US colleges  similar to other exchanges the US backed in developing nations during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Mboya appealed to the state department. When that trail went cold, he turned to then-senator Kennedy. Kennedy, who chaired the senate subcommittee on Africa, arranged a $100,000 grant through his family's foundation to help Mboya keep the program running. "It was not a matter in which we sought to be involved," Kennedy said in an August 1960 senate speech. "Nevertheless, Mr Mboya came to see us and asked for help, when none of the other foundations could give it, when the federal government had turned it down quite precisely. We felt something ought to be done." Although Mboya did raise money (from a variety of contributors) for scholarships for Kenyan students during a trip he made to the United States in 1959, it was not until July 1960 that he met John F. Kennedy and persuaded the senator to contribute $100,000 to his cause through the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation.  Technically, therefore, Barack Obama's father did not come to the United States with money directly provided by the Kennedy family (as Barack Sr. had arrived in the U.S. the year before, benefiting from funds previously raised by Tom Mboya), but he did come to the U.S. as part of an ongoing program that the Kennedy family helped fund. Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barack Obama, Jr. was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met. Senator Obama might be considered guilty of engaging in little pandering here by trying to imply a direct line between the 1965 Selma, Alabama, marches and his personal background (since he was speaking in Selma at the time).  However, the tenor of his speech was how the overall growth and progress of the Civil Rights movement affected the outlook of blacks (including his family), both in the U.S. and abroad.  That movement did not start with the 1965 marches in Selma; it was a process that began and grew across the years, including among its landmark events the 1955-56 bus boycott in Montgomery (which occurred several years before Barack Obama was born, and before his father left Africa for the U.S.) and the 1963 anti-segregation protests in Birmingham  all of which (along with the Selma marches) took place in Alabama, and all of which were referenced by Senator Obama in his speech that day: Montgomery Birmingham Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "Ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD's decided that's enough and we're going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance. What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation. As for accuracy, Mr. Hollrah erred himself at the end of his piece by invoking the myth of "Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet" (as well as consistently misspelling the Senator's first name as "Barrack").   myth Last updated:  9 March 2015    Radelat, Ana.  "Selma March Raises Political Stakes for Obama, Clinton."   USA Today.  2 March 2007.    Schor, Elana.  "The Other Obama-Kennedy Connection."   The Guardian.  10 January 2008.    Associated Press.  "Obama, the Clintons Turn Selma Marches into Campaign Event."   International Herald Tribune.  4 March 2007.    Time.  "The African Question."   29 August 1960. As if from a scene in a doomsday movie, real life Earth-bound space experts will take to their workstations in November 2021 to launch a small, golf-cart-sized spacecraft into space with the hopes that it will knock a looming asteroid off of its orbit. Except in this case, the asteroid in question poses no imminent harm. The target is the near-Earth asteroid Didymos and its moonlet, Dimorphos, neither of which pose a direct threat to Earth. And its all part of a test mission to be conducted by NASA to test the capabilities for redirecting potentially hazardous asteroids in the future. NASA announced the upcoming Double Asteroid Reduction Test (DART) mission on Oct. 1 and news outlets like CBS dubbed it an Armageddon-like mission. But rest easy, there is no "Dottie" in sight. DART Armageddon-like mission  At the time of this writing, there are more than 26,000 near-Earth asteroids, nearly 10,000 of which are known to be larger than 450 feet and another 891 that measure a half-mile long. In the last month, NASA says that 14 known asteroids passed closer to Earth than the moon  a number that reaches 127 when counting back 365 days. Thats where NASAs Planetary Defense Coordination Office comes in. This branch is responsible for finding, tracking, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and objects, and this marks its first attempt at what is called the kinetic impactor technique, which sends a spacecraft like DART to the path of an asteroid to change its motion. NASAs Planetary Defense Coordination Office DART is our first full-scale attempt to demonstrate that we can change the motion of an asteroid in space, potentially as a way of defending Earth against the hazard of asteroid impacts, said Tom Statler, a DART scientist, in a podcast interview. podcast interview Asteroids orbit the sun like our home planet does, and when they are in their solar orbit, they do not come near Earths orbit or pose a threat. Asteroids that are potentially hazardous are those whose orbits intersect with Earths. To find those potential threats, telescopes around the world consistently scan the skies and collect data ultimately compiled by the International Astronomical Unions (IAU) Minor Planet Center. IAU then determines whether a detected moving object is an asteroid, calibrates its orbit, and figures whether it has the potential to make contact with Earth.    The key is to be able to find the asteroids on those Earth-intersecting trajectories, find them well in advance of any collision, and to take steps years ahead of time, not to destroy the asteroid -- don't need to do that; in many cases, we wouldn't be able to -- but just to prevent that collision from happening. And that's what we're going to do with DART. We're going to demonstrate one technology to cause that deflection that, someday, if we need to, we might use this technology to prevent an asteroid from hitting the Earth, explained Statler. The half-ton spacecraft will spend the better part of a year transiting to the binary asteroid system, Didymos, which is made up of two asteroids that orbit around each other. Just as the sun holds Earth in its orbit, the half-mile wide asteroid Didymos holds its football stadium-sized moon Dimorphos in orbit. DART is expected to run into the side of this small moon at a high velocity of 4 miles per second to change the motion of the binary asteroid, eventually slowing down and tightening up its orbit around the larger asteroid. Orbits are like donkeys, you pull them one way and they go the other way. So that's an aspect of this. You hit the thing to slow it down and it ends up going around faster, explained Statler.  Four sequential radar images of Didymos and its moonlet taken in November 2003. NASA  NASA   Currently, no known asteroid has a chance of impacting Earth in a century, according to Statler, but there could be some we havent yet discovered, and science is finding new ones all the time. And because scientists have been observing Didymos for decades, this natural laboratory will help researchers to determine whether systems like DART can move an asteroid and if so, by how much.  Two views of the DART spacecraft. NASA  NASA   The images DRACO returns of the target asteroid Dimorphos, including the last-second glimpse of its own impact site on the asteroid, will be crucial toward analyzing the results of the DART test and understanding how the asteroid was affected, wrote NASA in a news statement. news statement DART is scheduled to launch at 10:20 p.m. PST on Nov. 23 aboard a SpaceX Falcon rocket and ill be live-streamed from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The spacecraft will intercept Didymos moonlet in late September 2022 when Didymos is within 6.8 million miles of Earth. And yes, it will be visible to ground-based telescopes. live-streamed  Schematic of the DART mission shows the impact on the moonlet of asteroid Didymos. Post-impact observations from Earth-based telescopes would, in turn, measure the change in the moonlets orbit about the parent body. NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab  NASA   Sources DART. https://dart.jhuapl.edu/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021. Margetta, Robert. NASA Invites Media to Launch of Double Asteroid Redirection Test. NASA, 4 Oct. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-media-to-launch-of-double-asteroid-redirection-test. Moran, Norah. Ep 215: Redirecting Asteroids. NASA, 30 Sept. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/redirecting-asteroids. NASA to Launch Armageddon-Style Mission to Deliberately Crash into an Asteroids Moon and Test Planetary Defense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-dart-mission-crash-asteroid-moon-planetary-defense/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021. Talbert, Tricia. DART Gets Its Wings with Innovative Solar Array Technology and Camera. NASA, 11 Aug. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/dart-gets-its-wings-spacecraft-integrated-with-innovative-solar-array-technology-and-camera. Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission. NASA, 30 June 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart. Planetary Defense. NASA, 21 Dec. 2015, https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense. Claim:  Subway is ending its long-running Sub Club promotion due to the prevalence of counterfeit stamps.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Today I went to my local SUBWAY franchise, and was horriied to discover that they will no longer be doing the SUBWAY CLUB stamp program. The cashier at the store told me it was because some kids in California had stolen a roll of stamps and tried to sell it on eBay. He showed me a small in store display that explained that they would no longer be issuing stamps and would honor existing stamps until June 30th, 2005.   Origins:  Regular customers of the Subway chain of sandwich shops, which operates more than 23,000 restaurants in 82 countries, are familiar with one of longest-running promotions in retail history: the Sub   Club.  Ever since the 1980s, Subway customers have received a stamp for every six-inch sandwich purchased (two stamps for a foot-long); filling up a Sub Club card with the requisite number of stamps entitles the customer to a free sandwich.  Alas, by the end of September 2005 the Sub Club will be no more, another victim of technology which makes counterfeiting coupons and proof-of-purchase stamps on home computer equipment all too easy. Coupon fraud has exploded in the last few years as counterfeiters using high-quality printers have not only created phony coupons for their own use, but have also sought to profit by offering millions of dollars' worth of false coupons for sale to others through on-line auction sites.  In some cases grocery stores and other retailers have even stopped accepting legitimate coupons distributed on-line and printed at home because manufacturers have refused to honor counterfeits.  Now, with thousands of Sub Club cards and stamps (real, stolen, and counterfeit) available for sale through auction sites, and Subway franchise owners increasingly discovering counterfeit stamps among their redemptions, the company has decided to pull the plug on the decades-old free sandwich promotion.  Although each Subway restaurant can set its own timeframe, the Sub Club will be phased out company-wide by 1 October 2005.  Subway is designing a replacement for the Sub Club, but details of the new promotion have not yet been announced (although some outlets are now using centrally-stored information retrieved via Subway cards with magnetic strips). Subway cards Last updated:  26 May 2011    Leamon, Scott.   "Police Accuse Pair of College Students with Forging Subway Sub Club Stamps."   WSLS-TV {Roanoke, VA].  22 October 2004. In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Its one of Madisons worst-kept secrets: Republicans at the Capitol want to cut state income taxes, and hope to take up the issue in the 2013 legislative session, which begins in January.The question is: Cut them for who?On that, its a good idea to listen to Rep. Robin Vos, the Republican from Rochester who was elected Nov. 13, 2012 as speaker of the state Assembly.Vos made clear in a recentWisPolitics interviewthat his top priority is a middle-class income tax cut.If youre poor in Wisconsin, it is one of the best places in the country to be poor. Were in the bottom 10 states as far as paying taxes if youre poor, Vos said in the interview. If youre successful, we are in the middle. I think were number 15 or 16 ...But if youre a person in the middle class, somebody who makes $20,000 to $200,000, youre in the top 4 or 5 worst places in the country to be a middle-class income taxpayer.Vos went on to tell WisPolitics that Republicans want an across-the-board income-tax cut, though the primary benefits would go to the middle class. When we asked him to clarify what he meant, he told us fiscal constraints might preclude -- for now -- reducing income tax rates on upper-income earners for whom legislative Democrats and Gov. Jim Doyle raised the top rate in 2010.So, is Vos right about how the income tax burden affects low and middle-income earners?When asked for backup, Vos pointed us to research presented to the bipartisanSteering Committee on Income Tax, a study group chaired by Vos that was set up through the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council.Lower-income workers:Vos said their income tax burden is in the bottom 10, and its clear from the complete interview he meant among the 41 states that levy a personal income tax.In a November 2009 study, the nonpartisan, liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)ranked the burdenon the lowest one-fifth of Wisconsins earners as the 29th-lowest among those 41 states.Thats not quite bottom 10, but the groups executive Matthew Gardner told us the difference between Wisconsin and the lowest rung of the bottom 10 was so trivially small as to be meaningless.Another 50-state study, by theMinnesota Taxpayers Associationin 2011, ranked the low-income burden in Wisconsin as either 32nd- or 34th-lowest for married couples at $10,000 or $20,000. Both are bottom 10.In Wisconsin, as in several other states, the working poor often have a negative income tax bill -- they get tax credits that wipe out their tax liability and in some cases result in a payment to them from the state.Wisconsin would be lower in these rankings, but some states pay even larger credits.Middle-income earners:Vos said this group faces a top-five burden.Income taxes paid by Wisconsin married couples and single heads of household in the $75,000 to $100,000 income range are fifth-highest in the country, based on the Minnesota study. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue indirectly cited the Minnesota study in testimony before the Vos-chaired study group.A sub-group of all married couples -- senior couples making $100,000 -- have the fourth-highest.The Minnesota groups research director, Aaron Twait, said he considers the $100,000 mark for two earners a classic middle-class household, based on average incomes in Wisconsin and Minnesota.In addition, the ITEP study shows only four states collecting a higher average tax rate than Wisconsin in the $57,000-$88,000 range.So Vos has evidence to back up this part of his claim.But when you look at other levels within Voss middle-class range of $20,000 to $200,000, the burden is not quite as heavy as Vos said.For example, at the $150,000 level in the Minnesota study, the rankings are No. 10 for singles, No. 8 for married couples filing jointly and No. 9 for single heads of household. Again, thats among the 41 states with an income tax.At $50,000, we found a mix of rankings between No. 3 and No. 7.Finally, Vos mentioned one other income group, the successful, by which he meant upper-income. Its not part of the claim were testing, but Vos said that groups income-tax burden was in the middle of the 41 states.Thats basically on target. We found tax-burden rankings from No. 11 to No. 17 for top earners in categories such as $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million annual income. These rankings were from the Minnesota study. The ITEP study also shows the rankings falling as income rises.Our ratingVos said that when it comes to income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners.Hes mostly on target here, based on credible tax studies showing a very low burden on the working poor, compared to a very high burden on many middle-income earners.Not all the middle-income earners face a top-5 tax burden, though: Its top-10 for some in the middle-class as he defined it.We rate his claim Mostly True. In remarks from the Senate floor, newly elevated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that his partys takeover of Senate control appears to coincide with recent good economic news. After so many years of sluggish growth, were finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope, McConnell said. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administrations long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. McConnell stopped short of saying the Republican Senate takeover actuallycausedan economic improvement, though manymediaobserversassumedthat was what he was trying to imply. In the liberalNew Republic, Brian Beutlerjoked,It absolutelydoescoincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Relatedly, things that coincide are called coincidences. But is McConnell even right that the economic data and the political expectations coincided? We focused on two questions. First, when did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually solidify? And second, was there an uptick in economic data that actually coincided with that time frame? Well also briefly address the question of causation, even though McConnell didnt explicitly claim that. The data we found suggest McConnell is engaging in some wishful thinking. When did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually emerge? To answer this question, we checked with political analysts who handicapped the 2014 battle for the Senate and also looked at poll-based forecasting models. McConnell said expectation, a stronger word than possibility and one that requires a reasonable degree of consensus. Going into the 2014 Senate elections, most observers expected the GOP to gain seats, due primarily to a favorable map for the GOP (far more Democrats were up for re-election, especially in conservative states) combined with the longstanding history of six-year-itch midterm elections bedeviling second-term presidents, in this case Democrat Barack Obama. But whether the GOP would actually manage to win enough seats to seize control of the chamber -- six -- was less certain. Going into the election, the Democrats held a 55-45 edge (counting two Democratic-caucusing Independents as Democrats). With many individual races rated as highly competitive right through Election Day, winning a net six seats was no slam dunk. Jennifer Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said different political experts settled on a Republican takeover at different times but added that she felt pretty comfortable with a gain of six seats around Labor Day, which was on Sept. 1 last year. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, agreed that Labor Day was a turning point, though he added that there were slivers of doubt right up until the end. We formally called the Senate for the Republicans the week before the election, but we also suggested that a GOP Senate was likely in the months prior to the election. The forecasters atfivethirtyeight.comsuggested the toss-up lasted past Labor Day. They calculated the likelihood of a GOP takeover at just over 50 percent as late as mid September, before rising again, ultimately to 76 percent on the eve of the election. TheNew York Times in-house forecast saw much the same pattern, narrowing to essentially a coin flip in mid September before climbing to a 75 percent chance of a GOP takeover by Election Day. All told, this suggests that an expectation of a GOP takeover didnt emerge until the beginning of September at the earliest, and possibly as late as the second half of September. This leads to our next question. Has there been an economic uptick that appears to coincide with this timeline? McConnells office pointed us to the announcement that the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent rate in the third quarter of 2014, the biggestexpansionin more than a decade. So well start there. Thefigurewas indeed impressive. But there are two problems with citing this as evidence for McConnells point. First, the third quarter covers July, August and September. So the bulk of this growth occurred before the expectation of a GOP Senate began to jell. Second, GDP growth for thesecondquarter -- covering April, May and June of 2014 -- was almost as impressive, 4.6 percent. And that was well before the expectation of a GOP takeover seemed to take hold. (In fact, for much of that quarter, theNew York Timesmodel showed the Democrats likelier to win control than the Republicans.) Indeed, the longer-term trend for GDP growth shows that three of the past five quarters -- that is, since mid 2013 -- have exceeded 4 percent growth, and another quarter came close to that. Only one quarter, the first quarter of 2014, was a dud. So its not as if the impressive third-quarter growth of 2014 came totally out of the blue. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis We also looked at another major yardstick for the economy -- the monthly change in employment. During 2014,total monthly employment gainsaveraged 241,000. In October -- the month after the expectation of a GOP takeover would have taken hold -- the gain was almost exactly that, 243,000. The November total was 321,000 -- the highest of the year, but not far out of line when compared with the general trend for job creation since early 2011 (see chart below). Its too soon to tell whether Novembers figure kicks off a new, higher threshold or whether the number settles back again into the 240,000 range. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The strongest evidence for McConnells point is consumer confidence. TheUniversity of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentimentdid experience an uptick between November and December, but even with this measurement, confidence had been rising consistently since July. And other evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Data fornew orders of capital goods-- a good statistic for gauging how much confidence there is in future economic conditions -- actually fell every month between August and November. The question of causation Even if the statistical timeline fit perfectly, its worth remembering that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think that either party has that much power to affect short-run economic movements, except by royally screwing up, and I haven't seen any evidence that theexpectationof a regime change of this sort would affect economic outcomes, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. Its even possible to draw up a theory that runs the opposite direction as McConnells linkage. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, said one reason GDP and employment have increased a bit faster in recent months is that government investment, government consumption, and public employee payrolls have recently been rising instead of falling. Given this, McConnells comments linking the GOP and accelerated economic growth are ironic, Burtless said, since Republicans have been at the forefront of cutting government spending and payrolls. Our ruling McConnell said a recent economic uptick appears to coincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Even leaving aside the question of causation, key statistics show that the economic recovery was under way well before September, which is our best estimate for when the expectation of a GOP Senate solidified. We rate the statement False. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. 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 In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020.