Hawker Beechcraft can be rephrased as Beechcraft aircraft manufacturer.
Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012.
In July 2022, during a heat wave across the U.S. and other countries, we reviewed an email that claimed Lowe's Home Improvement was giving away free air conditioners in a sweepstakes. In reality, there was no giveaway, and the email was a scam. Scammers were pretending to be Lowe's in an apparent phishing attempt to get people's personal information, such as credit and debit card numbers. the U.S. other countries scam phishing The scam email read, "CONGRATULATIONS! You are the lucky online winner of a brand new [Lowe's] Sweepstakes BTU Portable Air Conditioner entry!" Lowe's  We advise readers to never click links or call phone numbers that appear in these kinds of scam emails. The links will lead to phishing attempts, and the phone calls will connect you with scammers who likely will try to lure sensitive data from you. advise readers scam Scam emails often contain obvious grammatical errors. Also, the "from" email address in scam emails can look unofficial, another sign of something suspicious going on. For example, instead of an official email address ending with "@lowes.com," the sender may have something like, "help@lowes-security-winner.co.com.cc." This would not be a legitimate email address for Lowe's. The U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has published a number of articles about the dangers of phishing. In one of its advisories, the agency detailed how these kinds of scams work: one of its advisories Phishing scams tend to follow a pattern. The victim receives an email, phone call or text message (called smishing or SMS phishing). The message urges the target to click a link, share information, call a phone number, or download an attachment which likely contains malware. In the case of an email or text, the link frequently leads to a form, which prompts the target to enter personal information. Think twice before downloading anything from the internet, especially if its an attachment from an anonymous sender. Scammers will hide malware in an attachment and once downloaded, it can wreak havoc on your personal device or steal your personal information. If you're online at home, the scammer may also steal the IP address and then proceed to connect to any other device connected to your home wifi. The BBB also has tips on how to avoid falling victim to these kinds of scams: If something sounds suspicious, call the company directly or checking the company website directly. Dont click on links in an unexpected email  type the URL for the company into the browser or do a web search to find the right website. Dont click, download, or open anything that comes from an anonymous sender. This is likely an attempt to gain access to your personal information or install malware on your computer. Question generic emails. Scammers cast a wide net by including little or no specific information in their fake emails. Always be wary of unsolicited messages that don't contain your name, last digits of your account number or other personalizing information. BBB Tip: Phishing Scams Can Come in Text Messages, Prize Offers. 1 Mar. 2022, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/16758-bbb-tip-phishing-scams. Kirka, Danica, and Jill Lawless. UK Breaks Its Record for Highest Temperature As Heat Builds. Snopes.com via The Associated Press, 19 July 2022, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2022/07/19/uk-breaks-its-record-for-highest-temperature-as-heat-builds/. McLaughlin, Tim, and Brendan OBrien. Record-Breaking U.S. Heat Wave Bakes Americans. Reuters, 20 July 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/coast-coast-us-heat-wave-threatens-tighten-its-grip-2022-07-20/. Claim:  The federal government has banned public school students from bringing sack lunches to school. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] Naturalcuresnotmedicine.com  posted an article indicating that the "Feds" are prohibiting school lunches from home without doctor's orders. Is this true or false. When and where?  Is it true that the federal government won't allow parents to pack lunches for preschool kids without a doctor's note? It doesn't even sound slightly true to me,  but it's being tossed around the internet. Origins:  Intermittent rumors about imminent government control of school lunches (and specifically, a ban on lunches brought in from home) have popped up across the internet since 2011, and claims about the imposition of a government ban on brown bag lunches have continued to circulate since.  Mentions of home lunch bans began cropping up on the Internet as early as 2011, with the pattern with this cyclical rumor appearing to be consistent: A parent packs a lunch,  receives a note from a teacher or school official informing them of a district or program policy regarding lunches from home, and the note circulates as proof that the "feds" are sweeping in to seize control of the cafeteria. Back in 2001, one Chicago-area school called Little Village Academy banned home lunches. The Chicago Tribune covered the minor controversy, explaining that the school's principal (not the federal government) had instituted the rule at his school only after watching students bring lunches consisting of "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips. The rumor about federal lunch bans died down a bit after 2011 but picked up again in 2013 when a mom blog relayed the story of a friend in Virginia who had received a note from her child's school about packed lunches. The note, which was quickly reproduced on a number of prominent natural news and conspiracy sites, read: mom blog natural news I have received word from Federal Programs Preschool pertaining to lunches from home. Parents are to be informed that students can only bring lunches from home if there is a medical condition requiring a specific diet, along with a physicians note to that regard. I am sorry for any inconvenience. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Stephanie [redacted] the Health Coordinator for Federal Programs Preschool at [redacted]. Perhaps due to the start of the school year, the same story began to circulate in September 2014, with the same image and text attached. Given the timing and the return to classrooms for the majority of America's kids, it's no surprise the tale has once more gained traction and begun to spread virally on social media sites.  circulate When the story first began to travel across the social web, the Director of Communications and Public Relations for Henrico County Public Schools responded to an inquiry on this particular incident with a statement noting that schools receiving funds to participate in the federal Head Start Nutrition Assistance Programs must provide meals to schoolchildren at no cost to their parents, and allowing schoolkids to bring their own lunches from home would (barring special medical requirements) violate that requirement: Head Start Nutrition Assistance Programs It is Head Start policy, not Henrico County Public Schools policy, that there cannot be any costs to parents associated with the program, meals or otherwise. Parents packing a lunch is considered a "cost" by Head Start. As a result, every year parents are informed that students can only bring lunches from home if there is a medical condition that merits a specific diet, along with a physician's note to that regard. Meals served by the school conform to USDA nutritional requirements along with cultural, religious, and personal preferences on a case by case basis. Parents are always welcome to discuss their children's dietary needs with our health coordinator. While many disagree with this particular Head Start (HS) performance standard by which we are regulated and funded; as good stewards of federal dollars, it is protecting one of our most at risk populations and operating at the highest level of expectation with all of the funding strands we utilize for Pre-K. Additionally, parents are made aware of the policy as stated in the preschool parent handbook upon entrance to the program and are required to sign they have received and read it. The family advocates go over it with them on some of their initial meetings with parents. As indicated in this response, the issue was not one of the federal government's trying to control exactly what schoolkids may eat for lunch, but rather one of ensuring that all children covered under the Head Start program were provided with their allotted lunches at no cost to their parents. Last updated:  16 September 2014 In early July 2020, social media users shared a meme that continued to fuel long-standing culture war animosity directed at former NFL player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick, this time by noting that he had been "hired" by Disney to "teach your kids about American history." culture war   The meme both sensationalizes and exaggerates Kaepernick's role with Disney. While it's true that Kaepernick has made an agreement with Disney and ESPN Films to create a documentary series focusing on race, that doesn't mean he has been "hired" by Disney to "teach children" about American history.  On July 6, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback and Disney announced a first-look deal for a documentary series  to be produced by ESPN Films  about Kaepernick's experience, according to a press release from ESPN. press release "Colins experience gives him a unique perspective on the intersection of sports, culture and race, which will undoubtedly create compelling stories that will educate, enlighten and entertain, and we look forward to working with him on this important collaboration," Disney executive chairman Bob Iger said in the statement. Per the press release, the "first project in development as part of this deal is an exclusive docuseries chronicling Kaepernicks journey. Using extensive new interviews and a vast never-before-seen archive that documents his last five years, Kaepernick will tell his story from his perspective." Overall, the partnership "will focus on telling scripted and unscripted stories that explore race, social injustice and the quest for equity, and will provide a new platform to showcase the work of Black and Brown directors and producers." Kaepernick has been a lightning rod in popular culture since 2016, when he began protesting systematic racism and police violence against Black Americans by kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games. His protest was mimicked by other players, but it also became a recurring talking point among media pundits, some of whom accused him of disrespecting national symbols. This narrative has been echoed by the White House. accused echoed The issue Kaepernick raised with his protest has hardly gone away. In the spring of 2020, racial justice protests swept the country after a video went viral of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, for almost nine minutes. Floyd died in police custody. The public outcry coupled with massive protests prompted a national conversation about racism and compelled many businesses  including entertainment companies  to reckon with their own failures when it comes to racial equality. Lopez, Isabelle."The Walt Disney Company Announces Overall First-Look Del with Colin Kaepernick."
ESPN Press Room.6 July 2020. Steinberg, Brian."Colin Kaepernick Signs First-Look Deal With Walt Disney."
Variety.6 July 2020. Adler, Dan."Our Never-Ending Culture Wars: Colin Kaepernick and Nikes Betsy Ross Air Maxes Edition."
Vanity Fair.2 July 2019. BBC."Trump: NFL Kneelers 'Maybe Shouldn't Be in Country.'"
24 May 2018. Johnson, Martenzie."Colin Kaepernick Tried to Tell White America."
The Undefeated.30 May 2020. Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010,  fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested  by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation and in hislatest blast, posted online Feb. 27, he pokes at the states reputedly low taxes.Texas taxes are low, at least if youre in the upper part of the income distribution, Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average.Its undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes--sales and property--impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptrollers lateststudyof tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income in general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report says households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend on average no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes.The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009: Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue  a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income then it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax.Yet do the states poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average?By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released Nov. 18, 2009 by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which says it advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families.The study says the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of income on the taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of income, respectively, on state and local taxes, the study says.Conversely, the study says, the 60 percent of Texas families that earned $31,000 or more put less of their income into state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less.Texas is among 10 states with particularly regressive tax systems, the study says. One result is that low-income families pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy and middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families.We reached Matt Gardner, the institutes director. He said the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. He said it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner aired with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the states past studies of tax incidence, said: It sounds like what they did is very logical. Gardner said Krugmans comparison accurately tracks the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pays and the national average looks small; the Texans paid only .2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, thats $60 more. Though measurable, its not a huge difference, Gardner said.Footnote: Krugmans statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institutes previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than counterparts nationally. But the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid less of their incomes to state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner said.We rate Krugmans statement True. When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. Pity the poor children of the United States  they, along with their parents, are already in hock to the federal government for thousands of dollars.Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) made that claim Oct. 26 during an interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record.Every American now is $51,000 in debt, Casagrande told Aron. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.Casagrandes number is solid, but she doesnt have to worry about whipping out her checkbook or debit card any time soon, some federal budget experts say.Lets start by reviewing the two commonly cited forms of national debt -- debt held by the public and total debt.Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside of the federal government. The total debt represents debt held by the public as well as money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.Now lets look at the numbers in Casagrandes claim.The U.S. Government Debt website on Nov. 6  the date we started looking into Casagrandes clam -- listed the national debt at $16,295,297,196,000. If thats divided by 314,719,484 -- the total U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, each American owes the federal government $51,777.21.So, Casagrandes number is accurate. But should Americans actually expect to pay that bill? Not necessarily.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution who has worked as a government economist and served on federal advisory panels under presidents of both parties, explained that what the nation owes each year on the national debt is annual interest and principal payments.Do grandma and the grandkids have to pay off the national debt, as Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande seems to suggest? No, they do not, Burtless wrote. Our grandkids great grandparents did not pay off the federal debt; neither did their parents or grandparents. There is no rule that the national debt has to be paid off in one generation, three generations, or even ten generations. Taxpayers do not face the possibility that they will receive a $51,000 bill in the mail anytime soon.An invoice might not be in the mail but Casagrandes statement is fair, according to spokespeople for the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.Were not even going to pay off the debt, were going to pay down the interest, said Matt Jensen, a research associate in Economic Policy Studies at the AEI. Under no proposal that Ive seen is someone paying down the debt in real dollars. What were really talking about is paying the interest on the debt, forever. Youll pay the interest, your children will pay the interest.Our PolitiFact colleagues in Virginia and New Hampshire also looked into similar claims in their states and found that the amount of debt cited by their lawmakers was largely accurate.Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes in January said the national debt amounted to $48,700 for every American or $128,300 for every U.S. Household. Our colleagues rated the claim True.In August, PolitiFact New Hampshire rated Mostly True a claim by Rep. Frank Guinta that every child in the United States has a $50,000 share in the national debt. Guinta  received a Mostly True because that would mean each of the nations nearly 74 million children would owe $216,102. Guintas figure was accurate, however, when the debt was spread across the entire population.Our rulingCasagrande said in a television interview, Every American now is $51,000 in debt. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.A simple mathematical calculation confirms that every American technically owes the government $51,777.21 toward the national debt. But will youngsters have to suddenly start handing over their allowances to pay down the federal deficit? Not likely. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. As U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryandiscussed the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, a top priority of President-electDonald Trump, he made a claim about the financial health ofMedicare. What people dont realize is, because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke, the Wisconsin RepublicantoldFox News hostBret Baieron Nov. 10, 2016. The Affordable Care Act certainly has its detractors. When Ryan claimed the same month that Obamacare is not a popular law, our rating wasMostly True. The polls generally showed most Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it. But surprisingly for Ryan, who is regarded as a federal budget expert, his claim about the law flies in the face of evidence that it actually helps shore up Medicare. What the ACA did on Medicare https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7de6b429-1d9a-42de-ad08-c7998eaa6ca5 Heres howMarc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, lays it out: On one side of the ledger, Obamacare slowed the growth of Medicare spending by, among other things, reducing increases in payments made to nearly all health care providers. On the other side of the ledger, the law included a surtax on high-income earners that brings more money into Medicare. Two health care policy experts further told us that the combination of spending curbs and revenue increases forMedicare Part A-- which covers hospital, nursing home and home care services, and is financed mainly through payroll taxes -- has extended the solvency of Medicare. (Medicare Part B, which is voluntary, covers doctor visits and some medical care.) Paul Ginsburg, a professor of the practice of health policy and management at the University of Southern California, pointed us to anOctober 2016 reportfrom the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The report noted that in 2010, the Medicare trustees projected that Obamacares spending curbs and revenue increases would mean MedicaresHospital Insurance Trust Fund, which finances Part A, would remain solvent until 2029. Thats 12 years later than had been projected a year before the Affordable Care Act became law. (The projection has since been revisedto 2028.) Michael Sparer, a professor health policy and management at Columbia University in New York, put it this way, financially speaking: If Obamacare were repealed completely, it would put Medicare in worse shape, not better shape. Finally, its worth noting that bothFactcheck.organd the Washington PostFact Checkeralso concluded that Ryans claim is wrong. They both also noted that, even if the Part A trust fund did become depleted in 2028, the program wouldnt be broke, in that it is still set up to cover an estimated 87 percent of expenses. FactCheck.orgs rating was false and the Fact Checker gave Ryan its worst rating, four Pinnocchios, which is for statements deemed to be whoppers. Ryans office opted not to provide us any information to support his claim. Our rating Ryan said: Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke. Financially, Medicare isnt entirely in the clear, given that actuaries project that a key reserve fund will run out of money in 2028. But the Medicare trustees themselves, along with a host of experts, say the Affordable Care Acts changes to Medicare -- including holding the line on spending and raising taxes -- actually puts Medicare in better shape than before the law was adopted. Thats a long way from making Medicare go broke. We rate Ryans statement Pants on Fire. 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 Claim:  Hooters has banned motorcyclists from wearing club patches and colors in all of their locations.  Example:  [Collected via e-internet, May 2015] I was wondering if there is any truth that Hooters as a National chain was completely banning Motorcycle club colors from every Hooters around or only certain ones like in Atlanta.   Origins:   Shortly after a deadly motorcycle gang shootout took place in in Waco, Texas, in May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a "no motorcycle colors or patches" sign outside of a Hooters restaurant began circulating online:  Several motorcyclist took to the company's Facebook page to voice their complaints about the new rule, with most posters taking issue with the fact that the preponderance of motorcycle clubs have no gang affiliations.  Although many viewers assumed the sign was an expression of a new corporate policy, that was not the case: Hooters has not made any official announcements regarding a newly-imposed ban on motorcycle clubs. The above-displayed photograph is the only image documenting the purported policy; there is no information about where it was taken, nor do any other photographs document that this type of sign has been put on display at other Hooters restaurants across the country.  In fact, at least one Hooters location has taken to Facebook to say specifically that they have not been instructed to ban people wearing motorcycle club patches. After hearing about the sign, Hooters McKinney changed their Facebook profile to a Hooters girl washing a motorcycle and posted a message to their customers: Facebook The sign being referred to, that has been passed around the Internet, is not and has not ever been at our location. As far as management knows there is not any in the area of us either. We do not know where the sign was seen but can guarantee it was not with our location. We welcome everyone and will continue to welcome everyone.   On 28 May 2015, Hooters confirmed that while the sign is real, it  was displayed only at a single location (in Waco, Texas), and the company does not have a chain-wide ban on the display of motorcycle patches and colors: confirmed In light of the tragic events of May 17, the Hooters restaurant in Waco, Texas, has posted a sign requesting that patrons refrain from displaying their motorcycle club affiliation while dining with us. Even though none of our restaurants were involved in the incident, the safety and wellbeing of our guests and employees are always our top priorities and we believe special precautions are warranted in this situation, at least for now. This is not a system-wide policy. Although a similar request was made of guests last year in one East Coast location, we have no plans of implementing it elsewhere at this time. We fully understand that the majority of motorcycle enthusiast organizations are comprised of upstanding folks that share a passion for riding and a common interest in our community. It has been and will continue to be our privilege to welcome and serve them, along with all of our other guests, in our restaurants. Hooters will continue to work with local authorities to preserve a safe environment for our guests and employees.    Last updated:  28 May 2015