The average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices.
A reader noted Republican Glenn Hegars upbeat comments about plummeting oil prices and requested a fact check. Hegar, the former state senator elected Texas state comptroller in 2014, told reporters early this year there are benefits to falling oil prices. Lower fuel costs should reduce the price of importing goods, which is great for consumers and, ultimately, our economy, Hegar said, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews story. In fact, the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. The same story noted the price of oil had fallen about 50 percent since June 2014 to just more than $50 a barrel. And are lower fuel prices equivalent to a 2 percent pay raise for taxpayers? By email, Hegar spokesman Chris Bryan said Hegar drew that percentage from a December 2014news storyin the Economist magazine. The story said, in part: Cheaper oil should act like a shot of adrenalin to global growth. A $40 price cut shifts some $1.3 trillion from producers to consumers. The typical American motorist, who spent $3,000 in 2013 at the pumps, might be $800 a year better offequivalent to a 2% pay rise. The magazine didnt engage with our inquiry about how its figures were worked up. We went on to query James Hamilton, a University of California, San Diego, economistquoted by theWall Street Journalin November 2014saying lower gas prices relative to the average of the past three years will in effect put an extra $108 billion into U.S. consumers pockets, generating a nearly 0.8 percent increase in disposable personal income. By email, Hamilton pointed us to his Dec. 21, 2014, blog post stating: The average U.S. retail price of gasoline right now is about $2.40 a gallon. Last year, in 2013, American consumers and businesses bought135 billion gallonsof gasoline, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, at an average price of$3.60 a gallon, he wrote. Hamilton wrote: If gasoline prices stay where they are and if we buy the same number of gallons of gasoline this year as last, that leaves us with an additional $160 billion to spend over the course of the year on other items. If we restate the total savings for U.S. consumers and businesses in terms of the116 million U.S. households, that works out to almost $1,400 per household. We checked his bottom-line figure$1,400 per householdand compared it to what the U.S. Census Bureau estimates to have been the median household income for the U.S. and Texas, respectively, from 2009 through 2013. In Texas, the estimated $1,400 in unspent money shakes out to a 2.7 percent increase on the median income of $51,900. Nationally, it would amount to a 2.6 percent increase from the median household income of $53,046. Also, EIA spokesman Jonathan Cogan noted by email that in December 2014, the agencypredictedthe average U.S. household would spend about $550 less on gasoline in 2015 than in 2014 due to falling gas prices and more fuel-efficient cars and truckswhich would be 1 percent of the median household income in Texas. Our ruling Hegar said the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. Provided gas prices dont go back up, that percentage seems in the ballpark for how much Texans could save on gas compared to what they spent, though it's also possible to get to higher and lower projections. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
How would you feel if you had qualified for a performance bonus at your job, but nobody recognized you'd met your goal until half a century later? Just ask former baseball pro Jim Gentile. Jim Gentile was a slugging first baseman of the 1950s who had the misfortune of being signed to the Dodgers organization at a time when perennial all-star Gil Hodges had a lock on the first base position. Gentile spent several years in the Dodgers' minor league system with little opportunity to play for the big club until he was finally traded to the Baltimore Orioles after the 1959 season. Jim Gentile Gil Hodges Gentile had a few solid seasons as a full-time player in Baltimore, including a monster year in 1961 when he hit .302 with 46 home runs and 141 RBI. Unfortunately for Gentile, a few other players had monster years in 1961 as well, so he didn't lead the league in any offensive category: He was fifth in batting average (far behind Norm Cash's impressive .361), finished third in the home run race behind the Yankees' Roger Maris and Mickey Mantle (the former of whom broke Babe Ruth's single-season home run record that year with 61), and was one RBI shy of Maris' league-leading total of 142.  Brooklyn Dodger Gil Hodges poses for a portrait after clubbing four home runs in a game in 1950.  But ... thirty-four years later, in 1995, a researcher discovered that Maris had erroneously been credited with an extra RBI, which meant that Gentile had actually tied for the American League lead in that category in 1961: researcher discovered Ron Rakowski, a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, maintains that Maris mistakenly was credited with an extra RBI July 5 against the Cleveland Indians at Yankee Stadium. Therefore, Rakowski says, Gentile and Maris should be co-leaders at 141. In the third inning, with Tony Kubek on first, Maris singled to right. Third baseman Bubba Phillips took the throw from Willie Kirkland, then threw to first trying to catch Maris rounding the base. Phillips' throw went into the seats, allowing Kubek to score. Maris later hit a bases-empty homer, but the official scorer reported two RBIs for him, one on Phillips' error that enabled Kubek to score. Reached for comment, Gentile recognized that Major League Baseball doesn't necessarily adjust its record books when statistical discrepancies are found many years after the fact. And, he wryly noted, he might have received an extra $5,000 in pay if the correct RBI totals had been reported back in 1961: "After 34 years, no one is likely to change it," said Gentile, who lives in Edmond, Okla., and helps conduct the Orioles Fantasy Camp as well as baseball camps for youngsters in Oklahoma. "Well, maybe it's worth an asterisk." "I wish I'd known that then," said Gentile, whose 141 are an Orioles record. "The next winter, [general manager] Lee MacPhail said if I had led the league in RBIs, that alone would have been worth an extra $5,000." Laughing, Gentile added, "Maybe I should write the Orioles a letter." But ... another fifteen years later, in 2010, the corrected statistic was finally recognized, and Gentile became the official American League co-leader in RBI for 1961. corrected statistic was finally recognized Gentile received another boost in August 2010, when -- nearly fifty years late -- the Orioles came through and presented him with a check for $5,000 in recognition of his newfound status: presented him with a check for $5,000 It took almost 50 years, and there was no interest added. But a promise is a promise, and Jim Gentile finally got his $5,000 bonus from the Baltimore Orioles. The Orioles honored Gentile, now 76, for his achievement before their game at Camden Yards on [Aug. 6]. Andy MacPhail, the Orioles president of baseball operations whose father made that long-ago promise, presented him with a $5,000 check. It should be noted that no "promise" had actually been made to Gentile back in 1961, nor did his contract for that year include any clause calling for payment of a $5,000 bonus if he led the league in RBI. According to Gentile, the Orioles' general manager merely quipped to him during the next year's salary negotiations that Gentile's being the league leader in the RBI category might have prompted the club to offer him a somewhat higher salary for 1962. Nonetheless, Gentile didn't appear to have fared too badly in the pay department. According to a Feb. 14, 1962, report in The Sporting News, Gentile's 1962 salary of $30,000 was double his 1961 figure. Brown, Doug.  "Diamond Jim Hit $$ Jackpot with New Oriole Pact."
  The Sporting News.  14 February 1962.
 Brown, Doug.  '61 RBI Race Resumes: Researcher Says O's Gentile Tied Maris at 141."
  The Baltimore Sun.  26 July 1995.
 Kepner, Tyler.  "For Jim Gentile, A Long-Awaited Bonus."
  The New York Times.  6 August 2010. After the Starbucks coffee chain announced that they would be closing their stores on 29 May 2018 to conduct racial-bias education following the controversial arrest of two black men at one of their locations in Philadelphia, an image purportedly showing a Starbucks coupon offered exclusively to customers of African-American heritage began to circulate on social media: announced controversial   The "apology" coupon was fake that was not released by Starbucks and was not redeemable at any of the chain's locations -- it was a race-based hoax that was likely created (and certainly spread) by users of the 4chan internet forum.  A spokesperson for Starbucks told Business Insider that "This [coupon] is completely false and [is] in no way associated with Starbucks." Business Insider Although we have not yet pinpointed the exact origins of this fake flyer, we did find several threads on 4chan promoting the dissemination of this hoax in an attempt to spread racial discord: threads 4chan promoting   4chan users also implored each other to share this fake coupon with the hashtag #FreeBlackCoffee in threads filled with racial slurs. In fact, the QR code in the above-displayed coupon spells out the word "n**ger" when scanned. 4chan has a history of creating fake coupons with the intent of mocking Starbucks' "liberal" positions. When the company announced their support for Dreamers and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, trolls on the forum created mock-ups for a fake Starbucks "Dreamer Day" coupon.  announced Similar fake flyers for a "Welcome Refugees" promotion were posted to the r/The_Donald section of reddit after Starbucks announced in 2017 that they would be hiring over 10,000 displaced peoples over the following 5 years. Welcome Refugees announced Taylor, Kate.  "Free Starbucks Is a Hoax from 4Chan."
  Business Insider.  18 April 2018. On 2 October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared during a visit to Saudi Arabia's consulate in Instanbul, Turkey. Although foul play was suspected, the Saudi government at first denied that any harm had been done to the journalist. Then they began releasing conflicting accounts, beginning with the claim that Khashoggi died accidentally in a "fistfight." Ultimately, the Saudis acknowledged that evidence provided by Turkish investigators pointed to his being slain in a "premeditated" attack, which they said was undertaken in a "rogue operation" not authorized by the Saudi royal family. Two senior government officials were dismissed, and 18 Saudi nationals allegedly involved in the murder were arrested. President Trump was criticized in the immediate aftermath of Khashoggi's disappearance for his apparent reluctance to hold the Saudis responsible for the incident. "We want to find out what happened," he said. But he also maintained that the United States' relations with the kingdom were "excellent" and he would not consider stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite calls from members of Congress to do so. Various commentators, including Washington Post contributor Brian Klaas, suggested that Trump's official dealings with Saudi Arabia are "compromised by deep financial conflicts of interest": suggested His business interests -- past, present, and future -- make it impossible for him to contemplate the kind of consequences that the Saudis deserve. In 1991, when Trump was $900 million in debt, he was bailed out by a member of the Saudi royal family, who purchased his 281-foot yacht, Trump Princess. Trumps other princess, Ivanka, is married to Jared Kushner, who has deep ties to the crown prince. In 2015, when asked about his relationship with the Saudis, Trump said: I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much. As recently as December 2016, Trump owned companies in Saudi Arabia, as he sought to build a hotel there. Three days after Trumps inauguration, lobbyists working for the Saudi government funneled $270,000 directly to the Trump Organization by booking rooms at his Washington hotel. More recently, Trumps flagging Manhattan hotel got bailed out thanks to a lucrative visit from none other than the Saudi crown prince. It raises the disturbing possibility that Saudi Arabia will get away with abduction or murder because the president is beholden to Saudi money. Trump responded by tweeting that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia: tweeting For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter). Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  That same day, Fox News Research (a Fox News Twitter account that regularly posts newsworthy data) tweeted a list highlighting some of Trump's business relationships with the Saudis: tweeted Trump & Saudi Business:1991: Sold yacht to Saudi Prince2001: Sold 45th floor of Trump World Tower to SaudisJun 2015: I love the Saudis...many in Trump TowerAug 2015: "They buy apartments from me...Spend $40M-$50M"2017: Saudi lobbyists spent $270K at Trump DC hotel  Fox News Research (@FoxNewsResearch) October 16, 2018 October 16, 2018  Shortly afterward, Trump's tweet and the Fox News tweet were combined into a meme and unleashed on Facebook:   The meme presented the Fox News tweet as a refutation of Trump's, but although each of the former's statements can be confirmed via reliable sources, they don't necessarily disprove President Trump's claim that he has no financial interests in Saudi Arabia. The sticking point (and the reason we're rating the claim a mixture of true and false) is that the term "financial interests" usually denotes the ownership of property or investments in a given place, company, or industry. We have found no evidence that either Trump or Trump Organization (the umbrella company operated by Trump's sons, Donald Jr. and Eric), currently owns property or investments in Saudi Arabia. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the Trump Organization was pursuing plans to open businesses in Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016, but the Associated Press reported in October 2018 that the companies had been shut down by the time Trump took office: reported Shortly after he announced his run for president, Trump began laying the groundwork for possible new business in the kingdom. He registered eight companies with names tied to the country, such as "THC Jeddah Hotel Advisor LLC" and "DT Jeddah Technical Services," according to a 2016 financial disclosure report to the federal government. Jeddah is a major city in the country. "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million," Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally on Aug. 21, 2015, the same day he created four of the entities. "Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." The president's company, the Trump Organization, said shortly after his 2016 election that it had shut down those Saudi companies. The president later pledged to pursue no new foreign deals while in office. In a statement this week, the company said it has explored business opportunities in many countries but that it does "not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia." There is no question that Trump has profited from business dealings with the Saudis, however. Let's take the items in the Fox News Research list one by one: Fortune reported in 2017 that Trump, facing financial difficulties in 1991, sold a yacht he purchased from the Sultan of Brunei in the 1980s to Saudi Arabia's Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. reported The Associated Press reported that the Kingdom of Saudi purchased the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower in New York City in 2001, "the biggest purchase in that building to that point." reported During a 16 June 2015 speech at Trump Tower announcing his presidential candidacy, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day. $1 billion a day. I love the Saudis. Many are in this building." At a campaign rally one month later, he said: "I like the Saudis; they are very nice. I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff -- all kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions." speech said At a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama in August 2015, Trump said: "Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much." said The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2017 that Trump International Hotel Washington, D.C., received payments amounting to roughly $270,000 for services provided to lobbyists working for the Saudi government. Although Trump had announced earlier in the year that any Trump Organization profits from foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury, the company did not respond to the Journal's questions about what would be done with the Saudi payments, which were made through a third party. reported Despite his not owning businesses, properties, or investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Trump has clearly, and by his own admission, profited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars from business dealings with the Saudis, and over a long period of time. We reached out to the Trump Organization for comment but received no reply. Beavers, Olivia.  "Saudis Spent $270K at Trump Hotel Amid Lobbying Efforts: Report."
  The Hill.  5 August 2017. Condon, Bernard et al.  "'I Love the Saudis': Trump Business Ties to Kingdom Run Deep."
  Associated Press.  16 October 2018. Fahrenthold, David A. and Jonathan O'Connell.  "'I Like Them Very Much:' Trump Has Longstanding Business Ties with Saudis, Who Have Boosted His Hotels Since He Took Office."
 The Washington Post.  11 October 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D.  "Trump's Business Ties in the Gulf Raise Questions About His Allegiances."
  The New York Times.  17 June 2017. Klaas, Brian.  "Jamal Khashoggi's Fate Casts a Harsh Light on Trump's Friendship with Saudi Arabia."
 The Washington Post.  10 October 2018. Mangan, Dan.  "Trump Claims He Has 'No Financial Interests in Saudi Arabia' --- But He Makes Lots of Money from It."
  CNBC.  16 October 2018. Myre, Greg.  "The Big Overlap Between Trump's Global Holdings and U.S. Foreign Policy."
  NPR.  22 November 2016. Orden, Erica.  "Saudi Disappearance Puts Spotlight on Trump's Business Ties."
  CNN.  12 October 2018. Smith, Geoffrey.  "This Is the 420-Foot Yacht Donald Trump Wanted -- Before He Filed for Bankruptcy."
  Fortune.  13 February 2017. Tau, Byron and Rebecca Ballhaus.  "Trump Hotel Received $270,000 from Lobbying Campaign Tied to Saudis."
  The Wall Street Journal.  6 June 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "What's at Stake in the Trump Administration's Ties to the Saudis."
  CBS News.  12 October 2018. Wong, Edward et al.  "Trump Calls Relations with Saudi Arabia 'Excellent,' While Congress Is Incensed."
  The New York Times.  11 October 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Events in the Khashoggi Case."
  25 October 2018. CBS News.  "Transcript: Donald Trump Announces His Presidential Candidacy."
  16 June 2015. A purported quote from Jimmy Carter admonishing that "If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't!" sounds to many like something that former U.S. president would have said, as he has long exhibited a deep commitment to Christianity, has established himself as an international humanitarian (including founding the Carter Center, an organization dedicated to advancing human rights) and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development":  However, as much as this sentiment might sound like something Jimmy Carter could have or would have said, he didn't originate the wording used here. The quote in the version presented in the above graphic appears to have originated with comedian John Fugelsang, who at one time presented a segment on Current TV's Viewpoint program entitled "Viewpoint's Revoltingly Fake Christian of the Week." The segment for the week of 29 May 2013 targeted Tennessee congressman Stephen Fincher, of whom Fugelsang said: John Fugelsang Congressman Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Tennessee, just took the Bible so far out of context he had to apply for a visa.Fincher is a fierce opponent of food aid for poor Americans. You know, like Jesus. He recently fought to cut $4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If you only watch Fox, that means 'food stamps.' And thanks to the fine work of Fincher and his colleagues, 2 million working American families, children and seniors have already been cut off from food assistance. So during a recent House agricultural committee debate, he decided to show how Christian it is to turn your back on unemployed suffering Americans by quoting one of the favorite Bible passages of revoltingly fake right-wing Christians  2 Thessalonians 3:10  "anyone unwilling to work should not eat." Fincher and the GOP ... cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich. And its a free country. They're allowed. But if you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't. And that's why representative Fincher is our 'revoltingly fake Christian of the week'! During the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took aim at the nations economic record under President Barack Obama. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama, Cruz said. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country. We decided to fact-check Cruzs statement that we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today since 1977. Cruz is on to something. One key employment statistic known as the civilian labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since the 1970s. This statistic takes the number of Americans in the labor force -- basically, those who are either employed or who are seeking employment and divides it by the total civilian population. Heres a chart going back to the mid 1970s. When the civilian labor force participation rate is low, its a concern, because it means there are fewer working Americans to support non-working Americans. But well offer two asterisks for Cruzs statement. First, as wevenoted before, a notable factor in the decline of the labor-force participation rate is the aging of the Baby Boom generation. As more adults begin moving into retirement age, the percentage of Americans who work is bound to decline. When we last looked at this question in 2013, Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, told us he had estimated that the labor-force participation rate would have fallen in recent years on the basis of aging alone. That said, Cruz has a point that the recession exacerbated that decline. In a weak job market, some people who might otherwise want a job may return to school, become full-time parents or retire early. Second, theres another way to read Cruzs words. He said the lowest percentage of Americans working since 1977, which could also refer to a different statistic, the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of people who are employed and divides it by the civilian population age 16 and above. The difference in this case is that using the employment-population ratio, Cruzs statement is incorrect. Unlike the labor-force participation rate, the employment-population ratio has actually been improving in recent years, although its below its pre-recession highs. Heres a chart showing this statistic over the same time frame:  If you exclude the Great Recession, the employment-population ratio was last at its current rate in 1984, not 1977. So by that measurement, hes close. Our ruling Cruz said, We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Hes put his finger on a trend that worries economists of all stripes, but his wording was sloppy. In addition, its worth remembering that this particular trend is being driven at least to a degree by demographic trends beyond the control of any president. We rate the claim Mostly True. Critics of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obamas health care law, have assembled a long list of complaints about the law. One provision thats getting increasing scrutiny these days is the penalty on employers who dont provide their workers with health insurance. For workers who are on the job at least 30 hours per week, companies must offer health coverage or be hit with a financial penalty. The Obama administration twice delayed enforcement of this requirement, but it finally took effect this month for companies with at least 100 workers, and it is set to start next year for companies with between 50 and 99 workers. (The rule will not apply to small businesses with fewer than 50 workers.) Some Republicans have urged changing the rule so the cutoff is 40 hours a week, rather than 30. The House has passed a bill to do that; its now heading to the Senate, though the White House has pledged to veto it. A reader asked us to check out a Jan. 13 column on this topic in theWall Street Journal.It was written by Andy Puzder, the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which is the parent company of Carls Jr. and Hardees. In the column, Puzder explained his companys thought process about whether and how it should provide health coverage to its employees. Puzders column makes clear that hes no fan of the Affordable Care Act, particularly the employer mandate: So what does Obamacares 30-hour rule accomplish? Some would argue that it does a lot, pointing to the previously uninsured who now have employer-sponsored health insurance. In our company, that would be 2 percent of total employees and 6 percent of eligible employees. For results like that, Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time, imposed a tax on lower-income workers who cannot afford it, forced millions of people out of insurance they liked, restricted access to doctors for millions of others, and created an enormous bureaucracy that discourages our doctors and nurses while suppressing health-care system innovation. Here, well take a look at just one of these claims -- that Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time. The bottom line, we found, is that there isnt enough data to state a number with any specificity. Suggesting that its millions, as Puzder did, is speculative -- something he acknowledged to PolitiFact. At the same time, the number of people experiencing a cut in hours isnt trivial, with informed estimates putting it into the low hundreds of thousands of people. Puzder elaborates When we reached out to Puzder, he sent us a detailed response. (Weve posted the full text of ithere, but well excerpt it in this article.) Puzder acknowledged that there is no definitive data available on the question. That said, there is also nothing definitive to the contrary of which I am aware, he added. Puzder noted -- and other economists agree -- that employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is imperfect for answering this question. The BLS threshold in hours per week for full-time employment is different than it is for the Affordable Care Act. In addition, BLS counts someone who works two 20-hour-a-week part time jobs as one full-time worker. Both of these factors complicate any calculations using BLS data. The available evidence is also murky for another reason: Its impossible to tell whether any changes actually stem from the Affordable Care Act, as opposed to the labor-market dynamics of the recovery to the Great Recession. However, Puzder provided some anecdotal evidence from his own sector -- restaurant chains -- that suggests a plausible case for millions. Many restaurant chains, he noted, are operated as franchises. In his own companys case, 230 franchisees own 73 percent of the companys 2,920 restaurants in the United States; the company itself owns the rest. While the parent company employs about 20,000 people, its domestic franchisees employ many more -- about 55,000. And industry leaders like McDonalds and Burger King have more franchises and franchise employees. The disparate nature of franchise ownership makes it difficult to calculate the number of workers who may have had their hours cut. Based on his own experience at his company and the conversations hes had with other industry CEOs, Puzder thinks its reasonable (but, he acknowledges, unscientific) to assume that 20 percent to 25 percent of their operational employees have had their hours cut to under 30 per week due to the employer mandate. And if thats the case, the math adds up quickly. TheInternational Franchise Associationcounted nearly 8.1 million employees in 2012, working at 750,000 franchise establishments. If these franchise employers lowered the hours of 20 percent of these employees, that would equal 1.6 million employees. Adjusting the hours for 15 percent would impact 1.2 million. And this number doesnt include employees of the parent company; nor does it include the employees of retail companies that do not franchise. Puzder also referenced adata setbeing compiled by Jed Graham, a journalist withInvestors Business Daily. (Editorially, Grahams publication has argued firmly against the Affordable Care Act, but several of the economists we checked with said Grahams information is valuable.) When we accessed Grahams database in January 2015, he had documented just over 450 employers that had made cuts to work hours or staffing levels as a result of Obamacare. However, this list by itself doesnt get to millions, and because it has been compiled anecdotally rather than using scientific sampling, it cant simply be scaled up to estimate a national figure. (Well also note that a full 81 percent of the employers that made cuts documented by his list are government entities; the share of private companies, which were the the focus of Puzders op-ed, accounted for just 19 percent of his list.) What all this means is that its easy build a scenario in which millions of workerscouldsee their hours cut. But neither Puzder nor our own research has produced incontrovertible evidence that it has actually happened. What the data shows That said, its likely that the law is having some impact on part-time hours, albeit a smaller one than millions. Onestudy-- authored by Bowen Garrett of the Urban Institute and Robert Kaestner of the University of Illinois and published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- found a modest (0.6 percentage-point) increase in the share of employees working part-time during the first seven months of 2014 compared to what would typically be expected based on previous economic recoveries. However, the authors attributed this finding to the dynamics of the recovery from the Great Recession, rather than to the Affordable Care Act. Ultimately, they found little change during the run-up to the implementation of the employer mandate -- an indication that the provision wasnt having a big effect on pushing workers involuntarily into part-time work. Anotherstudy, by Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, did find a small rise in the share of employees working 25 to 29 hours a week during the first half of 2013 -- but this bump came at the expense of those working fewer than 25 hours a week, not at the expense of those working 30 or more hours a week. Thats not the dynamic one would expect if Obamacare was pushing employers to cut hours. Neither of the previous two studies offered hard estimates of how many workers saw their hours cut. But one analysis did -- one written by Ben Casselman, the chief economics writer at the website fivethirtyeight.com. When Casselman looked at the data, he found that the proportion of part-time workers working just below 30 hours a week had been rising for about two years, while the share working just over 30 hours was falling. Thats consistent with the trend Puzder pointed to. Heres a chart that accompanied his story:  Overall, Casselman concluded that the health law has likely led a few hundred thousand workers to see their hours cut or capped. Thats small in the context of an economy with 150 million workers. But it isnt a minor issue for those workers. Most of them are among the economys most vulnerable: low-wage, part-time workers who likely have few other options. Several economists we checked with said Casselmans estimate of a few hundred thousand was more plausible than Puzders millions. I think we can safely say that at this point it's clearly not millions, because that size shift would be noticeable in the aggregate data, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. A few hundred thousand seems a lot more plausible. Its worth noting that Casselmans a few hundred thousand and Puzders millions are not apples-to-apples figures. Casselman included employees who were already working part-time when their hours were cut, not just those who (as Puzder wrote) saw their full-time jobs shrink to part-time jobs. So Casselmans figure may actually overstate the number of employees who saw their jobs specifically shift from full-time to part-time. That makes it even harder to reach the millions threshold. Possible benefits Finally, several of the economists told us that focusing only on the negative aspects of Obamacare-inspired changes in working hours painted an incomplete picture. While its true that the law hurts employees who would like to work longer hours, the law also aids unemployed workers who are only too happy to work in newly created part-time jobs, as well as older workers who would like to retire but havent yet reached Medicare age and individuals who prefer part-time work and no longer have to take full-time jobs in order to secure health insurance. Indeed, the law makes it easier for Americans to start businesses on their own, since they are able to leave jobs where they work for someone else and still be able to secure affordable health care for themselves and their families. And it may be having that effect: Baker noticed that during the final quarter of 2014, the number of self-employed Americans rose by a whopping 400,000 compared to the previous years fourth quarter. Those 400,000 jobs are not counted in the widely reported BLS job-creation numbers, which only survey companies with payrolls. Our ruling Puzder said that Obamacare has caused millions of full-time jobs to become part-time. The statistics, in this case, are inadequate to either prove or disprove that millions of Americans have seen their job go from full-time to part-time due to the law. That number is possible, but unsupported. That said, theres evidence suggesting that hundreds of thousands of workers may have seen their hours cut as the laws impact began to be felt. Thats not millions, but its not insignificant either. On balance, we rate the claim Half True. Campaigning in the final stretch of the presidential election, Hillary Clinton took a brief break from knocking Donald Trumps character to hammer his tax plan. He's taking care of himself, he's taking care of his family, he's taking care of the super wealthy and corporations, Clinton said at a rally in Pittsburgh on Nov. 4, 2016, adding that under Trump, 51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up. Briefly, Trumpstax planwould collapse the seven federal income tax brackets into three (12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent). He would also raise the standard deduction (the amount everyone can deduct from taxable income) but repeal personal exemptions and head of household filing status. Tax analysts have found that Trumps plan would deliver, on average, tax cuts across all income brackets. So how is it possible that single parents would pay more? The Clinton campaign referred us toanalysisof Trumps tax plan from the Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the left-leaning Urban Institute. According to the report, authored by New York University professor Lily Batchelder, about 20 percent of households and more than half of single parents would wind up paying more in federal taxes. How? First, Trumps proposal to increase the standard deduction wouldnt be enough to offset the amount many single parents could have deducted with personal exemptions (which Trump would take away). For example, a single mother with one child can take a$9,350 standard deductionand two $4,050 exemptions, one for herself and one for her child in 2017 under the current system  or $17,450 in exemptions in total. Under Trumps plan, she would be able to take just a $15,000 standard deduction. The end result? That mother would have to pay income tax on an additional $2,450 under Trumps plan. Second, the head of household filing status currently applies to unmarried filers with dependents, and their standard deduction and tax rates are between those of married filers and single filers. Repealing this provision as Trump proposes would require single parents to file as individuals with higher tax rates. Third, Trumps three brackets would increase taxes for many head of household filers. For example, the current lowest bracket is 10 percent, but Trumps lowest bracket is 12 percent. For example, in 2017 a single parent with one child who claims the standard deduction would face a 25 percent tax rate on adjusted gross income between $53,050 and $68,550, compared with just a 15 percent rate under current law, Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center,wroteinForbes. Put it altogether, 51 percent of single parents or about 5.8 million households would see a tax increase under Trumps plan, Batchelder calculated. As our colleagues atFactCheck.org noted, single parents tend to do worse under Trumps plan than under current law. For example, a single parent with an income of $75,000 and two school-age children would see his or her taxes increase by $2,440 or by $1,640 if the family had child care costs that could be deducted under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder. Similarly, a single parent making $50,000 and who had three children would face an increase of $1,188. The Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank, has not released similar analysis. But its director of federal projects, Kyle Pomerleau, found no faults with Batchelders report. . @lilybatchWe were able to replicate many of the numbers in the report. The results seem reasonable to me. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Our ruling Clinton said, under Trump's tax plan, 51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up. Trumps proposal would simplify the federal tax code and provide tax cuts for many. But, analysts say, Trumps plan would make changes that would affect some people negatively. Trumps proposal to eliminate the head of household filing status and personal exemptions would raise federal income taxes for many single parents. We rate Clintons claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/45507710-0102-420f-8e0b-4b12522480ce 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 July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that a Missouri school district asked parents to sign COVID-19 death waivers in advance of the academic school year. news reports The waiver went viral after a Twitter user shared it. shared   The focus on the word death came from an article published by online tabloid Raw Story that extrapolated language from the waiver meant to release Hazelwood School District (HSD) in Missouri from legal liabilities in the event a child dies in any way related to COVID-19. Raw Story While it is true that HSD issued a waiver related to COVID-19, Anthony Kiekow, HSD director of communication and public relations, told Snopes that parents would only be required to sign if their child planned on participating in summer athletic programs. The waiver asked that a parent confirm their acknowledgment of the public health crisis related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and confirmed that they would not allow a child to participate in programs if they showed any symptoms of COVID-19 or had been exposed to anyone diagnosed with the disease or awaiting test results. It further notes: Anthony Kiekow waiver The undersigned agrees to release, discharge, hold harmless and indemnify the Hazelwood School District, its agents, employees, officers, Board of Education members, insurers and others acting on the Districts behalf (the Releasees), of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action and/or legal liabilities for injuries to or death of my child occurring during, or resulting from, or participation in the above-mentioned program or activity and related in any way to COVID-19, even if the cause, damages or injuries are alleged to be the fault of or alleged to be caused by the negligence or carelessness of the Releasees. Such verbiage is not uncommon in school athletic waivers and headlines referring to the document as a COVID-19 death waiver were sensationalizing and largely misleading, added Kiekow. The waiver was created by the Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC), a non-profit program that provides insurance coverage for Missouri public schools and community colleges. Snopes spoke with MUSIC Executive Director Mark Stockwell who said that the organization supplied all member school districts with two waiver templates recommended for summer athletic programs and not necessarily for those that take place during the academic school year. Kiekow confirmed that the waiver was sent in late June 2020 and was intended for parents whose students typically participate in summer athletics. He noted that required athletic waivers and documents from the previous school year were very different from this waiver, but that language related to COVID-19 is likely to be the new norm for sports. MUSIC Mark Stockwell two waiver templates For the 2020-21 school year, the district announced that it would be offering families the option of selecting 100% virtual school or a blended option that includes both virtual and in-person learning. A statement issued by HSD further reads that: statement Parents who want their child to participate in athletics are asked to sign a waiver. This years waiver includes language about COVID-19 to ensure that parents can make an informed decision Our district has implemented unprecedented safety precautions in all of our buildings; however, it is important for parents to understand that school districts can only mitigate the risk of COVID-19. No district, organization, or business can offer 100% protection against exposure to a global pandemic. Visit the Centers for Disease Control website for more information about COVID-19. Parents of HSD students who choose to allow their children to attend in-person class would not be required to sign a COVID-19 waiver. When asked why HSD adopted this policy, Keikow replied via text message that athletics are optional and that a waiver for in-person instruction is just not something that were requiring. EdCounsel, a Missouri-based law firm that represents over 200 public school districts, wrote in a blog post that state law is not clear on whether school districts can require that families sign a COVID-19 waiver for students attending in-person instruction, but liability waivers for extracurricular activities are largely exempt. EdCounsel blog post While liability waivers for normal classes may be suspect, extracurricular activities are a different matter, wrote EdCounsel attorney Tom Smith. (Snopes attempted to contact Smith for comment but did not hear back at the time of publication.) Extracurricular activities are a privilege, not a right; and districts have the legal authority to place certain restrictions on participation in these activities so long as the restrictions are uniformly applied and do not target a protected class. Tom Smith Under Missouri law, eligible students have a legal right to free public education and requiring that a parent or guardian sign a waiver as a condition of attendance would arguably interfere with that right. Even so, some schools and facilities around the United States have adopted similar waivers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly as many states have seen a spike in cases during the 2020 summer. Turlock Unified School District in California issued a similar waiver asking all persons participating in its activities during this pandemic sign an assumption of risk and waiver of liability. The YMCA of Minnesotas Greater Twin Cities also issued a waiver for adults and children who use its services and programs. spike in cases similar waiver waiver The HSD waiver was just one of many documents that come in a summer athletic packet and the school district said that it would continue to follow guidance from state and public health officials for the upcoming 2020-21 academic year. In mid-July 2020, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released guidelines for reopening schools across the state but did not issue statewide mandates. released guidelines I want to thank all of the medical experts across the state who contributed to this guidance. We are confident that if schools implement this guidance, they CAN safely reopen this fall, wrote Gov. Mike Parson in a Facebook post. Facebook post Ultimately, individual school districts and jurisdictions have the authority to implement their own preventative measures. Edwards, David.  "Missouri School District Asks Parents to Sign COVID-19 Death Waiver for Children."
  Raw Story.  14 July 2020. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. "Missouri School Reopening Guidance Frequently Asked Health-Related COVID-19 Questions."
  9 July 2020. Smith, Tom.  "Liability Waivers in the Wake of COVID-19."
  EdCounsel School Attorneys.  6 July 2020. Fresh off afive-day trade missionto Canada, Florida Gov. Rick Scott was eager to drop a few tidbits about the country's relationship with the Sunshine State. In a news conference with the Capitol press corps on June 16, 2011, Scott showed off his Florida-Canada knowledge, claiming that: Almost 10 percent of Canadians came to visit Florida last year. And, they buy 7.4 percent of our homes in the state. Interesting claims, eh? But true? The number of Canadians visiting Florida each year is collected by Visit Florida, the state's official tourism marketing corporation. Visit Florida bases its data on credit card information and statistics supplied the Canadian government. The agency found that about 3.05 million Canadians visited Florida in 2010. That's about 9 percent of thecountry's total population of about 34 million. The Toronto Starnoted in a recent story -- based on the Visit Florida data -- that the Canadian boost to Florida's tourism happened even as oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster threatened Gulf of Mexico beaches. So Scott is right about the tourists. But what about Canadian homeowners? Scott's press office directed us to a2010 studyon Florida's international home buyers. The study is researched by the National Association of Realtors, which creates an annual report on the country's housing market and additional reports for states with a high rate of sales to foreign buyers. The national group takes a survey of Florida members each year, and that includes a question about foreign clients. Florida has the strongest international home sales market in the country. In 2010, foreign clients were responsible for 22 percent of existing home purchases in the state, according to the study. Florida has consistently been the No. 1 destination among foreign buyers, said Lawrence Yun, a National Association of Realtors economist. And Canadians are a big part of that distinction. They out-bought all international buyers in 2010, accounting for 36 percent of Florida's foreign sales in 2010. United Kingdom residents are the next-best buyers at 15 percent. Sure, residents of the Great White North love the state's beaches and toasty climate. What's more, Yun said, is that these slices of paradise don't cost nearly as much as they used to, and the Canadian dollar is stronger than its weakened U.S. counterpart. There's greater consumer confidence among Canadians, which is not a bad thing for Florida. It's absolutely helpful, Yun said. Anytime the market is down, one way to help alleviate the pain or help the healing process is for buyers to come into the market and absorb the inventory. We wanted to find the percentage of Canadians who bought homes in Florida in 2010. So we multiplied 0.22 (portion of Florida home sales to foreign buyers in 2010) by 0.36 (Canada's share of international sales among foreign buyers) to get 0.0792. That's 7.92 percent. Scott's office did not specify how he arrived at 7.4 percent, but he's close enough. He's right that there's a clear Canadian infatuation with Florida. As one Canadian-turned-Floridian-real-estate-agent joked in aNational Public Radio reporton the housing phenomenon, If there ever was an 11th (Canadian) province, it probably would be Florida. Scott has his Canada trivia down cold, and we were unable to find any statistics that contradict him. We rate his claim True. In early September 2018, an image purportedly showing the Nike "swoosh" symbol on the tag of a "Make America Great Again" hat started spreading online:   The image was posted in the midst of a controversy over former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new advertising campaign for Nike, a sports apparel company. Kaepernick made headlines in 2016 by kneeling during pregame renditions of the national anthem to protest racial inequality and police brutality. controversy 2016 The "take a knee" protests, which caught on with other NFL players and spread to athletes in other sports, were viewed by some (including President Trump) as unpatriotic and disrespectful to veterans. So when Kaepernick showed up in Nike's 0th anniversary "Just Do It" ad campaign, some disgruntled consumers took to social media to share photographs and videos of themselves destroying various pieces of Nike apparel to demonstrate their displeasure. destroying It appears that this image of a Nike-branded "Make America Great Again" cap was posted in an attempt to "troll" pro-Trump conservatives who were upset over Kaepernick's endorsement deal ("Make America Great Again," or "MAGA," is a well-known Trump slogan). When the image was shared by Twitter user @Nicoxw1, for example, it included a message facetiously noting that "133,291,000 Americans will have a stroke today." message The image is a hoax, merely a manipulated version of an older viral image showing a "Made in China" tag on a "Make America Great Again" hat. Here's a look at the original photograph, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the Nike MAGA hat image (right) and the original "Made in China" image (left):   It should be noted that while some third-party companies do produce "Make America Great Again" hats in China, the website DonaldJTrump.com, from which customers can purchase official MAGA merchandise, states that all their products are proudly made in U.S.A. third-party companies Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018.