Legend: Drunk Groom Accidentally Returns Home Alone from His Honeymoon
This legend is another example of the "good samaritans gone wrong" motif: though the would-be good deed doers depicted here don't realize it, they've left a very confused young bride sitting alone in a hotel room back in Blackpool.  As a belief tale, however, this one is fraught with improbabilities. Would a freshly-minted groom really spend a whole day socializing in a bar yet never once mention that he'd just gotten married the day before? Indeed, what was he doing in the bar at all?  If he'd left his bride alone on the first day of their honeymoon to go an an all-day bender, perhaps they were both better off for his being returned to his mother. Sightings:  Something akin to this legend happens in the 1916 Douglas Fairbanks silent film His Picture in the Papers. Pete Prindle (Fairbanks) asks a club member for a dollar so he can visit the psychic Vera Carewes. The fellow member misunderstands the purpose of the loan and, duly impressed that Prindle can manage the trip on a dollar, gets him liquored up at the bar. Hours later an insensible Prindle is delivered to the docks and loaded onto a ship bound for Vera Cruz. His Picture in the Papers Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.  ISBN 0-393-31208-9  (pp. 229-230). Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nastier Legends.
  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.   ISBN 0-7102-0573-2  (p. 29). The Big Book of Urban Legends. 
  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 17).
Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. Elizabeth Warren pins a lot of hopes on her ultra-millionaire tax. The Democratic presidential candidate would like to put a 2% levy on assets over the $50 million mark, and 3% on those over $1 billion. The revenues would pay for her plans to pay for universal child care, student debt forgiveness and other programs she has in mind. In a Fox News op-ed, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation noted that a wealth tax isnt a new idea. Joel Griffith said many European nations have tried it. And scrapped it. Of the 14 wealthy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it, Griffith wroteApril 28. We found different numbers, but there has been a turn away from wealth taxes. And with Warrens plan on the table, the European experience is worth exploring. Griffith got his numbers from an article on the website of theTax Foundation, a group that is concerned about the ways that taxes distort business decisions. The foundations analysis drew on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based international body that has its roots in the post-war recovery of Europe. The OECD datashows 13 countries collected revenues from net wealth taxes in 1996, measured in local currency. But it shows 14 when measured as a percentage of GDP. We cant account for the difference. Theres another twist. One of those countries is Austria, but Austria ended its wealth tax in 1994. So the actual count that year was either 12 or 13. (Its only slightly off from what Griffith wrote, but we care about these details.) Tallying the countries that have a wealth tax today is even trickier, largely because definitions vary. We found room for debate over what constitutes a wealth tax. All wealth taxes tax things that are owned, not money earned, but they vary in a couple of key respects. They might target the wealthy (Norways tax, for example, affects net worth above 1.48 million Norwegian Kroner) or a broader swath of residents. And some tax all assets, while others  such as Belgium with stocks and bonds, or France with real estate  focus only on specific assets. A 2018 report from the respected German-based think tankIfo Institute for Economic Researchcounted just three countries with a wealth tax: Switzerland, Norway and Spain. But the authors noted that Italy and the Netherlands also tax wealth in limited ways, and France swapped a broad wealth tax for a narrow one on real estate wealth that kicks in on property worth at least 1.3 million Euros. The international accounting firmErnst and Youngaffirmed that Italy does have a wealth tax. Another accounting firmKPMG reported in 2018 that Belgiumadded a wealth tax when it imposed a tax on securities, such as stocks and bonds. To make things even more complicated, some OECD countries dropped, added, or changed their wealth taxes since 1996. The Tax Foundation article Griffith relied on said that today, six OECD countries had wealth taxes in one form or another. (One of its charts showed four, but that stopped counting in 2017.) How to sort this out? By the strictest definition, today only three wealthy OECD countries have a wealth tax. With a looser standard, as many as seven do. (Some tallies include Hungary, but it might not count as a wealthy country, as the claim says.) The general reason European countries dropped their wealth taxes was they were more trouble than they were worth. In Germany, the tax was found unconstitutional, but it wasnt raising that much money anyway. Areview of the wealth tax optionby the European Commission said that in the past, determining the value of assets was challenging and cheating was easier. Opportunities of avoidance and evasion reduce the capacity of wealth taxes to generate revenue, and they contribute to the perception that wealth taxes produce little net benefit, the report said. Decisions to repeal net wealth taxes have often been justified by efficiency and administrative concerns, OECD analystswrote in a 2018 report. The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low. Switzerland reaps far more than other nations, taking in revenues equal to 1% of GDP. But Norway brings in 0.4% and Spain 0.2%. Of the countries that did away with a wealth tax, Denmark was typical. In 1996, the tax brought in just 0.1% of GDP. The earlier taxes also tended to reach down into the middle class, not just the uber-rich. Getting rid of them was politically popular. For some, the European experience casts a deep shadow over Warrens proposal. Wojciech Kopczuk, an economist at Columbia University, warned that no matter what, valuing assets is tough. (Warrens) plan would apply only to the very rich, Kopczuk said. That does not at all resolve administrative problems. Those are as daunting in the United State as in Europe. On the other hand, Kopczuk added that a tax that starts at $50 million could hold popular support. Theres also a difference in overall tax regimes. The OECD analysts said that the arguments for and against a wealth tax depend on all the other tax laws in a given country. In that light, Reuven Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan Law School, said Europe is not at all like America. Income tax rates and sometime inheritance taxes are higher in Europe, Avi-Yonah said. This means there is less need to tax the rich through a wealth tax. Weve looked before at the debatewhether Warrens plan would raise as much as she hopes. Warrens campaign staff told us that they have learned the lessons from Europe. They argue that focusing on the 76,000 wealthiest people and taxing all assets with no complicating exceptions would lighten the administrative burden. Theres also a hint that Europe is taking a second look at wealth taxes. Both the OECD and the European Commission wrote of a renewed interest in wealth taxation. Griffith said that of the 14 wealthy OECD countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it. We found there are different ways to consider wealth taxes, and Griffith used the strictest one based on dated information. We found that either 12 or 13 countries had a wealth tax in 1996, and nine ended their taxes since then. Today, six or seven European nations have some form of a wealth taxes, either broad ones or narrow ones. The meaning of the European experience from two decades ago is debatable, but thats not the basis for our ruling. We looked only at the countries and their tax laws. The numbers in the statement are off. European countries did move away from the wealth taxes, but not quite to the extent stated in the op-ed. We rate this claim Mostly True. If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., recently took to the House floor to tout abillshes sponsoring that would change the structure of job training programs. She warned that the economy faces a paradox -- despite historically high unemployment rates, many jobs are going vacant.There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them, Foxx said in the March 12, 2013,speech.To check Foxxs claim, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments scorekeeper on employment data.We easily found the source of her 3.6 million figure. It comes from a monthly survey called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS. Themost recent seasonally adjusted dataat the time of Foxxs speech covered January 2013. It showed that there were just under 3.7 million job openings in January, which was up slightly from 3.6 million in December 2012.So Foxx essentially got the number right. However, her use of the term sitting vacant and her warning about a shortage of qualified applicants suggests that employers are having trouble filling these 3.6 million jobs. A close look at the survey reveals it doesnt actually support that thesis.The bureaus official definition of a job opening is a specific position of employment to be filled at an establishment that satisfy these conditions: there is work available for that position, the job could start within 30 days, and the employer is actively recruiting for the position.But there are always job openings -- even in a healthy economy. In a phenomenon known as churn, people change jobs. Just because their old job is unoccupied when the BLS takes its monthly data snapshot doesnt necessarily mean that the employer is having trouble filling the job. Rather, the employer could simply be going through the process of hiring, with the job filled a month later.The data from this survey  has important limitations, said Steven J. Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, because it provides little information about the distribution of vacancy durations and no direct information about the reason why some job openings take a long time to fill.In some ways, vacancies are actually a hallmark of a healthy economy. Job openings often arise either because someone leaves one job for a better one, or because a company is hiring new workers. Both are positive signs. If you look at the monthly December job opening totals going back a decade, the years just prior to the recession had the most job openings, while the years during and immediately after the recession hit had the least job vacancies:2012:3.6 million2011:3.5 million2010:2.9 million2009:2.5 million2008:3.2 million2007:4.0 million2006:4.4 million2005:3.9 million2004:3.5 million2003:2.9 millionBut while the number Foxx used doesnt provide much support for her claim, other evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, suggests that she has a point that theres a problem with unfilled jobs today.The most solid evidence for a lengthening of job vacancies comes from astudyby Davis,  R. Jason Faberman and John C. Haltiwanger. It found that the time before a vacancy is filled has expanded from 15 days in 2009 to 23 today. As a result, the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate, which historically have moved in tandem,began to divergeduring the most recent recession and have not yet returned to their historical pattern.Why is this happening? Foxxs office provided links to avarietyofnewsreportsthatsuggesta mismatch between applicants job skills and the ones employers are seeking. Economists agree that that is part of the issue, particularly with high-skill jobs. But its probably not the only reason.For instance, there appears to be a hiring paralysis among employers who are acting with unusual caution because they are uncertain whether the economy will remain strong rather than stagnating, according to economists and hiring professionals quoted in theNew York Timesearlier this year. This has sometimes led to employers piling on extra tests and rounds of interviews as a way of stalling, experts told theTimes.Our rulingFoxx said, There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them. Shes right that there are 3.6 million vacancies and she's right that there aren't enough qualified job applicants, but she wrong to link the two because that statistic doesnt take into account how long a job has been open. Still, there is strong evidence that the duration of job vacancies has grown since the onset of the most recent recession, and the skills mismatch Foxx cites is likely part of the reason. We rate her claim Mostly True. After the 14 June 2017 shooting of Republican congressman Steve Scalise, a purported Vox infographic circulated on social media contrasting deaths of Republican lawmakers against deaths related to healthcare legislation. Twitter account @DudeSlater (purporting to be Vox's editor-in-chief) was (presumably) the first to share the graphic (which can be seen here in full): @DudeSlater first graphic here   However, the origin of the "Vox infographic" was unclear, and we were unable to locate a legitimate branded graphic on which it was based. We contacted Vox Media for more information about the image. A spokesperson confirmed to us that the claim is false and the image was not created by the outlet: This person's Twitter bio falsely claims he is the editor in chief of Vox. He is not an employee of Vox or Vox Media and does not in any way represent the Vox brand. The infographic he posted was not created or published by Vox. We have alerted Twitter executives to this issue, and are working with them to have this false information removed immediately. In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans this year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid: Express   The article was entitled "Asteroid terror: NASA spot mammoth space rock to hit Earth's orbit five days before X-mas." The subheading gave earthlings an even smaller chance of survival: "AN ASTEROID the size of the World Trade Centre is on a dangerous Earth-bound orbit that could see the rock smash the planet during Christmas festivities." When the article was regurgitated by even less-reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!" Digital Wise NASA has made no such announcement, and Earth is not in danger of being hit by an asteroid around Christmas.  These articles are all based on a real asteroid (known as 216258 2006 WH1) and its holiday approach toward Earth. However, these articles present the information as if this asteroid is particularly dangerous. But there's nothing unusually threatening about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles. lists Dr. Paul W. Chodas, the Director of the Center for Near Earth Object Studies, told us in an email that there is "nothing unusual or dangerous" about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1: No, there is nothing unusual or dangerous about this asteroid. It is simply making a close approach to the Earth. Astronomers have been observing this asteroids position for 13 years, we know its orbit very accurately, we can predict its close approaches accurately for the next 200 years, and we know with certainty that it cannot hit our planet. Lindley Johnson, NASAs Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), also told us that this asteroid "poses no hazard to impacting earth":  NASA and other US agencies are lead players in the international effort to develop plans to respond to a possible Near-Earth Object (NEO) impact. In 2018, the White House released the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, which identifies key steps that US agencies need to take to better prepare the United Statesand the worldfor detecting and responding to a possible impact. NASA has been directed by Congress to catalogue and characterize all NEOs bigger than 140 meters, the ones that could be catastrophic. NASA is approximately 35% complete for NEOs 140 meters and larger, and approximately 96% complete for those 1 km and larger. Strategic investments in our space-based programs will lead to the benefit of all of humanity as we continue to catalogue any NEOs that pose a potential threat. This particular asteroids trajectory has been well tracked by NASAs Center for Near-Earth Object Studies since its discovery 13 years and poses no hazard to impacting Earth. Here's a little more information about near-earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours):  writes On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earths surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earths surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earths surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earths surface and cause local disasters or produce the tidal waves that can inundate low lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earths atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earths surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions and structures and to keep an eye upon their future trajectories ... ... No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA Near-Earth Object Observations Program is constantly monitoring the skies for approaching asteroids and meteors. So far, the program has discovered more than 19,000 NEOs. When NASA discovers an NEO, it works to determine as much information as possible about the object, such as its size, speed, and orbit, so that the agency can calculate when it will approach Earth and how close it will come when it does.  But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered: discovered Asteroid impacts are a continuously occurring natural process. Every day, 80 to 100 tons of material falls upon Earth from space in the form of dust and small meteorites (fragments of asteroids that disintegrate in Earths atmosphere). Over the past 20 years, U.S. government sensors have detected nearly 600 very small asteroids a few meters in size that have entered Earths atmosphere and created spectacular bolides (fireballs). Experts estimate that an impact of an object the size of the one that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013  approximately 55 feet (17 meters) in size  takes place once or twice a century. Impacts of larger objects are expected to be far less frequent (on the scale of centuries to millennia). However, given the current incompleteness of the NEO catalogue, an unpredicted impact  such as the Chelyabinsk event  could occur at any time. Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting earth in the next 100 years is minimal: hitting The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in sizelarger than a small football stadiumand to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause, and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date. Asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 will pass by Earth a few days before Christmas. However, NASA has issued no warnings about a catastrophic impact, and CNEOS reports that this asteroid will get no closer than 3 million miles from Earth during its approach.  NASA.  "Near-Earth Object Observations Program."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. NASA.  "Planetary Defense Frequently Asked Questions."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. Day, Joel.  "Asteroid Terror: NASA Spot Mammoth Space Rock to Hit Earth's Orbit Five Days Before X-Mas."
  Express.  23 October 2019. In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.