It costs nearly five times as much in California to build and maintain a mile of road as it does in the rest of the nation.
Its not cheap to build anything in California. Land and labor is expensive and the state has some of the strictest environmental permitting rules anywhere. Those factors all drive up the cost of building homes, stores and even roads. Republican candidate for governor John Cox has pledged that, if elected, hell hack through Californias thicket of regulations, in an effort to reduce expenses. Specifically, Cox wants to reform the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, an agency he has described as overstaffed and wasteful. Recently, he claimed Caltrans spends an exorbitant amount to build and maintain each mile of roadway compared with other states. It costs nearly five times as much in California to build and maintain a mile of road as it does in the rest of the nation, Cox said in an interview published on thePolitical Vanguard websiteon Oct. 19, 2017. Cox made a similar claim in aSan Francisco Chronicleop-edon Oct. 18, 2017: California spends 4.7 times the national average for every mile of roadway we build and maintain, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. CEI is a libertarian think tank which sourced the statistic to the Reason Foundation, another free market think tank. Following both statements, Cox went on to advocate for greater reliance on private construction to reduce expenses. Theres a debate about why its so expensive to build roads in California. But were not fact-checking that debate. Instead, were zeroing in on Coxs specific claims that California's road spending is nearly five times per mile compared with other states. Background on John Cox On his campaignwebsite, Cox describes himself as a Jack Kemp-style Republican who grew up on Chicagos south-side. Today, hes a San Diego businessman who founded an organization that repairs the homes of low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities. His priorities, as listed on his website, include lowering Californias taxes and fighting the influence of special interests. Cox is the chairman of Give Voters a Voice, an effort to repeal Californias recent gas tax increase, which was signed into law this year to raise money for road repairs. The increase includes a 12-cent per gallon gasoline tax increase, which went into effect this week. Our research We asked Coxs campaign for evidence supporting his claims. It pointed to recent reports by the Reason Foundation, which studies transportation spending. In 2013, the foundation published its20th Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems. That report shows California spent nearly $680,000 per mile in 2009 on roadways. That was 4.7 times as much as the national average of approximately $144,000 per mile spent in other states. That matches Coxs claim of nearly five times as much. But our research shows, and Coxs campaign has acknowledged, the information from 2009 is outdated. Anupdated 2016 Reason Foundation studyshows California spent about $420,000 per mile in 2013 compared with the national average spending of about $160,000 per mile in the same year. That data places Californias spending at about 2.5 times the national average, far less than Coxs claims. We asked Coxs staff about the discrepancy. David Kersten, a policy analyst with the campaign, said the candidate didnt have the most up-to-date figures. When he wrote that (San Francisco Chronicle) op-ed, he didnt have that new number, Kersten told us in an interview. Everybody was using the older report. Matt Shupe, Coxs campaign spokesman, said he and Kersten would update Cox on the new figure and use it in future statements. High admin costs Coxs staff noted that one category of Californias road spending, administrative costs, totals nearly five times as much the national average, even in the 2016 report. We checked and the report does show that, though Coxs staffers acknowledged thats not the same statement the candidate made in the op-ed or in his Political Vanguard interview and at the center of this fact check. Caltrans, the agency targeted by Cox, disagrees with the methodology of the Reason Foundation studies. A Caltrans spokesman said much of the studies roadway data is from local streets and roads not built or maintained by the state. The spokesman also noted that Californias state roadways are larger and more congested than in other states, making them more expensive to build and maintain. Representatives for the Reason Foundation did not respond to our interview requests. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor John Cox recently claimed it costs nearly five times as much in California to build and maintain a mile of road as it does in the rest of the nation. A study using 2009 data shows California spent 4.7 times as much per mile as the national average on roads. Updated data from 2013 shows the states spending still far above the national average at about 2.5 times the cost per mile, but far lower than Coxs figure. Coxs campaign staff told us the candidate relied on outdated information and would be updating this figure in future statements. While the candidates larger point about higher road spending in California appears to be correct, his specific claim about it being nearly five times as much per mile is outdated and wrong. We rate it False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Governors race John Cox is among several candidates competing to succeed Jerry Brown in the 2018 California governor's race. Others include Republican state AssemblymanTravis Allen, Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa; California TreasurerJohn Chiang;Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See ourTracking The Truthgovernors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. On Dec. 10, 2023, Instagram account @hamidreza.edalatnia posted a series of eight images. Each image contained a spiral pattern, taking shape in either the architecture, greenery, or surrounding landscapes. The images, particularly the first one, went viral with multiple accounts across Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook picking up the images, with or without credit to the original account. @hamidreza.edalatnia Instagram Twitter Facebook One such viral post (with 110,836 likes, as of this writing) published by Instagram account @national_archeology, was flooded with comments from users who claimed the images were AI-generated. "Please stop posting AI images, we want to learn about history here," one wrote. One such viral post @national_archeology  View this post on Instagram A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology) A post shared by national archaeology (@national_archaeology)  The images were, in fact, AI-generated. The original account that posted the images captioned them: "'Re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern' | AI, Stable diffusion, Controlnet." When we reached out to the account for comment, the owner of the account responded: "Yes the series of the images called: re-envisioning Iranian urban landscape through spiral pattern originally generated by me using AI stable diffusion."  View this post on Instagram A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia) A post shared by Hamidreza Edalatnia (@hamidreza.edalatnia)  According to the biography section of this account, its owner graduated from Danish university Det Kongelige Akademi and is currently based in Hamburg, Germany. The account features many such AI-generated images, some depicting the geographic shape of Iran in different forms, as well as Iran's famous Azadi Tower in various renderings. Lastly, when the first image was run through AI-detection software Hive, the result was 99.6% likely to be AI-generated, as seen below.  (Image via Hive) We've previously reported on other AI-generated imagery, such as R. Kelly doing shows in prison and U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. R. Kelly doing shows in prison U.S. President Joe Biden wrapped in a bubble suit. ControlNet. https://huggingface.co/docs/diffusers/using-diffusers/controlnet. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Det Kongelige Akademi.Royal Danish Academy, 5 Aug. 2014, https://kglakademi.dk/det-kongelige-akademi. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/C2ZMXARrO7T/?img_index=1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fhamidreza.edalatnia%2F%3Fimg_index%3D1. Accessed 29 Jan. 2024. In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596 One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent  a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True. On 28 March 2016,Stephanie Cegielski, aone-time strategist for the "Make America Great Again" super PAC,published an open letter to Trump supporters on the web site xoJane: published Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%.His candidacy was a protest candidacy. The letter immediately wentviral, and while some ponderedCegielski's main talking point (that Donald Trump doesn't want to be president and didn't expect to be the GOP frontrunner) others questioned whether or not Cegielski was really Trump's top campaign strategist. Complicating things, the headline appeared to contradict the body of the article. xoJaneidentified Cegielski as Trump's "top strategist" in their title, but Cegielski identified herself as the "Communications Director of the 'Make America Great Again' Super PAC" in her open letter to Trump supporters: In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness. I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money. Cegielski was identified as a "spokeswoman" for the super PAC in an August 2015 article published inPolitico,and Cegielski called herself a "consultant" on her LinkedIn profile: published LinkedIn  While Cegielski's official title may be unclear, it's certain that labeling Cegielski "Trump's top campaign strategist" isincorrect. Cegielski worked for a super PAC(which, despite the name, is not legally recognized as apolitical action committeeand by law cannot contribute directly to or coordinate with a political campaign, although they can use raised funds to campaign independently)and notfor Donald Trump'spresidentialcampaign: recognized political action committee Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Hope Hicks, a spokesperson for theTrump campaign, told Yahoo NewsthatCegielski was never employed byDonald Trump's presidential campaign: Yahoo News Evidently she worked for a Super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. The "Make America Great Again" super PAC went dark as of October 2015 amid ongoing scrutiny of where the money was coming from and going to, and whether the committee had direct ties to the Trump campaign.  Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Cegielski, Stephanie.  "An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector."   March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. Stableford, Dylan.  "Former Trump Super-Pac Director: Donald Doesn't Even Want to Be President."   Yahoo! News.  28 March 2016. BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." BallotPedia.org.  "Super PAC." On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families. She cites statistics on the cost of housing, college, healthcare and how, if elected president, her policies would lessen the burden. Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. Weve seen similar versions of this claim before and wanted to know whether Harris statement was accurate. We set out on a fact check. Our research In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank. Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money. Those findings generally support Harris contention of almost half of American families facing hardship with a $400 cost. A Harris campaign spokeswoman said the senator relied on the Fed report. But we took a deeper look at the survey to examine her contention this would really lead to complete upheaval for almost half of American families. What did the survey ask? Heres the survey question that led to the finding that 40 percent of adults couldnt immediately pay for a $400 unforeseen cost. EF3. Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply. a. Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement b. Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time c. With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash d. Using money from a bank loan or line of credit e. By borrowing from a friend or family member f. Using a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft g. By selling something The findings show that 59 percent of adults in 2017 said they could easily cover (the $400 expense), using entirely cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Among those who couldnt easily pay it, 43 percent said they would put it on a credit card and pay it off over time; 26 percent reported they would borrow from a friend or family member; 19 percent said they would sell something; 9 percent responded that they would use a bank loan or line of credit; 5 percent said they would use a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft; and 4 percent said they would fined an undefined or other way to pay. And 29 percent said they would not be able to pay the expense right now. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018 Experts weigh in Daniel Schneider, a UC Berkeley sociology professor whose research specialties include economic instability, reviewed Harris statement, along with the survey and its findings. I think it is an open question about how those other options  map with complete upheaval. Is putting something on your credit card to pay off over time complete upheaval? Maybe, he wrote in an email. One could certainly imagine that facing an expense shock and having to resort to (those options) would be stressful. The overall idea behind Harris statement is accurate, Abdur Chowdhury, an economics professor emeritus at Marquette University told us in an email. Chowdhury added, however, that the percentage of people who face a hardship due to a $400 unanticipated cost may be lower today. The survey, from which the figure was quoted, was conducted a few years ago. With the low unemployment rate and increases in wage rate, fewer people are in that 'close to bankruptcy' category, the professor added. A spokeswoman for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: Millions of hard-working Americans can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. They are a medical bill, a car repair, or a rent increase away from having to make painful choices like turning to a neighbor hat in hand to ask for a loan, putting themselves in spiraling credit card debt, selling their car, or heading to a pawn shop with their wedding ring. To presume any of these things would not upend someone's daily life is out of touch. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. The portion of Harris statement about almost half of families is on the right track. A 2018 Federal Reserve report found 40 percent of adults surveyed could not easily pay for an unforeseen $400 cost. But the report doesnt describe complete upheaval for that group. Instead, it found many would place that expense on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow money from a friend or family or sell a possession. Those represent very real hardships for families. But to characterize them as leading to complete upheaval is not supported by the facts and takes the survey results out-of-context. We rated Harris claim Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. RELATED: Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it? Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debt Are paychecks failing to keep up with inflation? Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said? Evaluations of crime and fraud warnings always generate several related questions. Is this form of scam possible? Is it plausible? Is it common? Has it ever occurred at all? Those are the questions we applied to the following social media meme, which posits a "scam" involving the theft of wallets from purses sitting in grocery carts and related residential burglaries:  The meme contains no detail that would allow tracking its narrative to a particular crime, and we've turned up no verified reports of a similar occurrence. What we can say is that although the theft of purses effected while their owners' attention is focused elsewhere is not uncommon, the burglary aspect of this warning seems to be based on long-outmoded premises about how Americans live and work that would render it extremely unlikely today. purses For starters, you're a prospective burglar. You've lifted a woman's wallet from her purse. Now you need to call her to lure her out of her house, but ... what phone number do you call? This "scam" seemingly hearkens back to the days of landlines, when one could often tie information gleaned from a driver's license (i.e., full name and address) to a phone number through the use of a phone directory or directory assistance. But no similar mechanism exists for now-ubiquitous cellphones. (Possibly one could use the internet to quickly match up a name and address with a phone number, but the odds aren't good.) Moreover, this scheme relies on the out-of-date notion that if a woman is away from home in the middle of the day, her residence will then necessarily be unoccupied (because, of course, the man of the house will be out working somewhere, and the kids will be in school). But a variety of different domestic scenarios are common these days that would place other people at home in the middle of the day: a woman might be living with roommates or parents or adult children; some 40 per cent of Americans work mostly during nonstandard times and are therefore home during the daytime; working at home is becoming increasingly common, etc. 40 per cent at home As well, just because a residence is unoccupied by human beings doesn't preclude the possibility that a security system, barking dog, attentive neighbors, or some other impediment to a broad-daylight burglary isn't present. And in fact, as police routinely point out, most residential burglaries are crimes of opportunity and involve very little planning on the part of the thief (like the type posited here). police All in all, a crook who has successfully lifted a woman's wallet is much more likely going to be content with the bounty found within (e.g., cash, debit cards, credit cards) than with trying to parlay that score into a risky residential burglary. And your residence is far more likely to be the target of an opportunistic, spur-of-the-moment burglary than of one involving an elaborate scheme to lure you away from home. The best advice to be gleaned from this warning is to be sure not to leave purses (or other valuable items) unwatched  even for the briefest of moments  in shopping carts, in restrooms, and in automobiles. And engage in some simple security precautions to make your home less of an inviting target for theft. shopping carts restrooms automobiles precautions Consumer Reports.  "14 Ways to Make Your Home More Secure."
  21 June 2014. Population Reference Bureau.  "A Demographic Profile of U.S. Workers Around the Clock."
  18 September 2008. Kopf, Dan.  "Slowly But Surely, Working at Home Is Becoming More Common."
  Quartz.  17 September 2018. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. Claim:  A debtor can discharge his obligations by sending his creditor a check made out for a fraction of the amount owed with the words 'Paid in full' written on it.  Example:  [Los Angeles Times, 2002]  A friend of a friend has racked up credit card debt and student loans totaling $100,000. Not securely employed, she has been planning on continuing her dinners out, lavish shopping trips, a car purchase and vacations, figuring it all will get wiped out soon enough. She says she is working with a lawyer who advised her to write $10 checks to all her creditors, with a note saying "paid in full" on the check. Origins:  "Get rich quick" (or, in this case, "get poor more slowly") schemes never seem to lose their appeal, even though common sense should warn that if getting rich quickly were truly so easy, everyone would be  wealthy. Obviously, if getting out of a debt were as simple a matter as executing the method described above, no one would ever lend money or extend credit.  Nonetheless, these schemes maintain their hold on the public because people are willing to entertain the fiction that they're a form of "secret knowledge"  that such loopholes do exist because only a select few are smart enough to know about and take advantage of them. It's not uncommon for creditors to agree to settle debts for less than the full amount due.  After all, some payment is better than none, and if debtors can be encouraged to pay at least a portion of their debts back through promises that they will relieved of any further financial obligations towards their creditors, then both sides come out ahead.  Better to accept a fraction of what you're owed than to risk your debtor's declaring bankruptcy or choosing to pay off other debts instead, leaving you with nothing. For such arrangements to be valid, however, both sides must agree to them.  A debtor cannot unilaterally declare a partial payment to be "payment in full" simply by attaching a note with those words to his check or writing them in the memo field and assuming that if the creditor fails to notice the notation then the entire debt has been discharged: This "paid-in-full" nonsense has achieved the status of urban legend, says J. Scott Bovitz, a Los Angeles bankruptcy lawyer. A creditor sometimes will reduce a claim for a disputed payment, but this kind of settlement usually won't happen if the debtor acts in bad faith, Bovitz says. The act of writing "paid in full" on a $10 check pretty much defines the term "bad faith." Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code does state that a debt can be discharged with a check designated as payment in full "if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim."  However, it's up to the claimant to prove "that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim."  So if you receive a check marked "paid in full" made out for less than the amount you have agreed upon, you'd best not cross out the words "paid in full" or write "disputed" on it and cash it anyway, as you risk having the entire debt discharged.  However, this condition does not apply to "transactions conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual in the ordinary course [of business]," which means that this scheme will not work at all for most bill or credit card payments, as those payments are typically handled by automated systems and not humans. Uniform Commercial Code The best method for paying off debts with small payments remains not to run up large debts in the first place. Last updated:  18 April 2011 An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018.