Economic Development Commission Executive Director Keith Stokes sent me a letter and he said the taxpayers will never be on the hook for these bonds for 38 Studios.
One of the hot-button issues of the 2013 General Assembly session was whether the state should repay the bonds sold to help finance 38 Studios, the now-bankrupt video-game company founded by former Boston Red Sox player Curt Schilling. One state representative who has argued against repayment is Charlene Lima, a Democrat from Cranston. She told the House on June 26 that, before the bonds were sold in November 2010, she had been promised by the executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Commission (RIEDC) that taxpayers would not have to foot the bill if the deal with 38 Studios didn't live up to its promise. When I was complaining to the former director, Keith Stokes, he sent me a letter and he said the taxpayers will never be on the hook for these bonds, for this money, Lima said. How was this properly vetted by these people if they were saying the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook? And guess what. Today they ARE on the hook. We're not going to get into the merits of the states controversial decision to start paying the cost of the moral obligation bonds, but we wondered whether Stokes, who resigned after 38 Studios collapsed, really had made a specific pledge in writing. We called Lima and she quickly forwarded a copy of anOct. 4, 2010 letterfrom Stokes in which he complained that Lima had offered an inaccurate characterization of this investment and the RIEDC's degree of concern for Rhode Island taxpayers ina news releaseshe had authored. At the time, the bond sale had been approved and the bonds themselves were about to be sold. Stokes wrote, In the unlikely event that the company is not able to meet its debt obligations, the state would have first crack at 38 Studio's assets. These collateral assets, in addition to the debt repayment reserves, would be used to pay back the loan before the application of any public funds would be considered. This ensures that under no circumstances would taxpayers be asked to repay $75 million. As Lima now notes, taxpayers are being asked to pay the money. (The $8.2-billion state budget, which the General Assembly passed and Governor Chafee signed, included $2.5 million for the first required taxpayer payment on the bonds. The total owed, with interest, is about $112.6 million.) To sum up, Lima said she received a letter in 2010 from then-RIEDC official Keith Stokes in which he insisted that Rhode Islanders would not be on the hook for the 38 Studios bonds. Lima earned a Pants on Fire last month for a comment she made about Rhode Island's failure to pass the Constitutional amendment authorizing the federal income tax. If my pants were on fire, she said, what is he? A towering inferno? We don't have varying levels of conflagration. And in this case, we're simply judging the claim Lima made on the House floor. She has the evidence and we rate her statementTrue. (If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)
Claim:  E-mail compares proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 presidential election. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Origins:   Every  recent presidential election cycle has brought e-mailed forwards that paint the Democratic candidate as a proponent of a "tax and spend" philosophy (who will inevitably implement significant tax increases on taxpayers across all income levels) and present the Republican candidate as a model of fiscal conservatism, and the example quoted above fits this pattern.    However, this example is off the mark both in its broad strokes and in its particulars.  According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama's proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain's favoring higher-income taxpayers: analysis McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.  Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most  in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income  are in the lowest income groups. The statements made about the candidates' proposals for changes in specific taxes (or implementation of new taxes) are also all erroneous or grossly misleading. as we note below: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales The statement that Senator Obama proposes instituting a 28% tax "on profit from ALL home sales" is false.  Both candidates' proposals would leave intact an existing capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 per household of profit from the sale of a primary residence.  Homeowners who realize a profit higher than the current exemption amount from the sale of their primary residences might pay more capital gains tax under an Obama presidency than they would now, but those instances currently constitute a very small minority of all home sales.  (For the purposes of this article, the term "per household" refers to married couples who file taxes jointly.) The mention of Obama's imposing a 28% capital gains tax as president is also misleading.   Senator Obama has indicated he would likely raise the capital gains tax rate, but he has not specified by how much  the 28% figure is a previous (i.e., pre-Bush) capital gains tax rate which Obama stated he would certainly not exceed while noting that his capital gains tax rate would likely be "significantly lower": Q: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go? A: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would  and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. The  Tax Plan Fact Sheet posted on Obama's web site says that he will "create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent."  Tax Plan DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% The notion that Senator Obama is proposing raising the tax rate on dividend income from its current 15% level to a 39.6% is unfounded.  Obama has proposed taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains, and although he hasn't yet specified a figure for the latter, he has already stated (as noted above) that he "certainly would not go above" 28%.  Also, the proposed increase would only affect households with income of more than $250,000 per year (a figure that encompasses about 2% of U.S. households.)  INCOME TAX MCCAIN: (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! This is an erroneous interpretation of federal income tax rates based on the premise that Senator McCain favors extending the temporary tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, while Senator Obama does not.  However, both senators said they would favor extending those tax cuts; the difference is that Senator Obama said he would not favor extending the tax cuts for households with incomes of $250,000 or more per year.  Since none of the tax tables listed above applies to that income level, their inclusion is irrelevant and misleading.  As noted at the head of this article, taxpayers in the brackets covered by these tables would likely see a greater reduction in taxes under Senator Obama's proposals than under Senator McCain's, an outcome reflected in the Tax Policy Center'sestimate of how the average tax bill could change in 2009 under each candidate's proposals: estimate         INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax Pretty much everything asserted about the inheritance tax (also referred to as "death tax" or "estate tax")  in these few short statements  that President Bush repealed it, that Senator McCain would maintain it at 0%, and that Senator Obama would "restore" it  is wrong. In general, estate tax currently applies only to estates valued at more than $2 million and tops out at a 45% rate.  The exclusion amount is already set to rise to $3.5 million in 2009, followed by a repeal of the estate tax in 2010, and then a reinstatement of the estate tax in 2011 with the exclusion amount reverting back to $1 million and the tax rate topping out at 55%.  repeal Senator McCain has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $5 million and setting a maximum estate tax rate of 15%, while Senator Obama has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $3.5 million and maintaining the maximum estate tax rate at its current 45% level. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Three of these five statements are completely erroneous: Senator Obama has not proposed a tax on "homes that are more than 2,400 square feet," any "new gasoline taxes," or "new taxes on retirement accounts." The phrase "taxes on natural resources consumption" presumably refers to Senator Obama's "cap and trade" proposal for reducing carbon emissions, a proposal which would likely impose additional costs on polluters but isn't technically a "tax": cap and trade Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. As for "new taxes to pay for socialized medicine," Senator Obama has proposed funding his health care plan through additional revenues generated by not extending the Bush administration's temporary tax cuts for persons making more than $250,000 per year.  Whether allowing a portion of already-scheduled expiration of temporary tax cuts to take place really constitutes "new taxes" is a matter of semantics. health care Last updated:  16 July 2008    Sources:   Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What They'll Do to Your Tax Bill."   CNNMoney.com.  11 June 2008.    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What Obama Means by Tax the Wealthy."   CNNMoney.com.  28 June 2008.    Closing Bell.  "Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama."   CNBC.  27 March 2008. A photograph supposedly showing the mouth of an adult suffering from hyperdontia (i.e., an excessive number of teeth) has been circulating online for several years. In February 2019, the Facebook page "Pictures From History" renewed interest in this image when they shared it on social media with the caption "Inside the mouth of an adult suffering from Hyperdontia": Facebook Pictures From History   Hyperdontia is a genuine medical condition involving the growth of more teeth than is usual (also known as "supernumerary teeth"), as described by the Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago: medical condition described Extra teeth, also called supernumerary teeth or hyperdontia, is a condition in which the jaws contain more teeth  usually permanent teeth  than the usual number. These extra teeth are usually categorized in two ways, by their shape and by their position. They can be of normal shape but simply be extra (called supplemental). They can be barrel-shaped (tuberculate), peg-shaped or conical, multiple shapes (compound odontoma), or an undefined shape (complex odontoma). They can form in several places. They may be mesiodens (midline), paramolar (on either side of the molars), or distomolar (behind the molars). Most often occuring is the mesiodens, which is peg-shaped and grows between the top two center teeth. However, the viral photograph seen here does not offer a genuine look at the mouth of a person experiencing that condition. This image has been online since at least December 2010, when it was shared on the Blogspot blog Holyloly. The image reached a larger audience a few months later when it was included in a post from the SCP Foundation -- a fictional organization that purports to cover a wide range of highly classified materials -- in a blog post about SCP-478, an imaginary disease that causes a body to generate extra teeth: Holyloly SCP Foundation SPC-478 will enter a victims mouth while they sleep, and attach onto the soft palate in the upper nasal cavity, usually blocking one nostril. The bodys mucus production will increase, leading the victim, upon waking, to believe that they have developed a minor cold. From there, the victims palate will begin to generate teeth in addition to the gingiva's (gums) normal replacement of teeth. This growth process will begin at a rate several times faster than normal tooth growth, and quickly increases in speed and severity. It's clear that this image was created with the help of digital photo-editing software. It appears that someone took a genuine photograph of a mouth and then duplicated several of its teeth to make it appear as if the picture captured an extremely severe case of hyperdontia. Here we've circled a few of the teeth that were digitally repeated throughout this image:   Interestingly, this isn't the only fake photograph purporting to show an extreme case of hyperdontia. Again, we found that these images were created with the same technique of duplicating existing teeth:   While researching this article we came across one more example below of this sort of digitally doctored dentistry. This image on the left of the following graphic is often shared as if it showed a person suffering from hyperdontia, but again, this picture was created by digitally duplicated existing teeth. The image on the right of the graphic below, meanwhile, is unaltered and shows the mouth of a person who genuinely experienced a (less severe form of) this condition: person   Parolia, Abhishek.  "Management of Supernumerary Teeth."
  Journal of Conservative Dentistry.  July 2011. Lurie Children's Hospital.  "Extra Teeth (Supernumerary Teeth, Hyperdontia)."
  Retrieved 4 February 2019. On 18 July 2016 the web site Conservative Daily Post published an article reporting that an "illegal alien" had been fired after she declined to serve police officers at an Alabama McDonald's, declaring that we dont serve pigs. article The outrage-provoking article was set against the backdrop of a month of tensions between police officers and community members in July 2016. The shooting deaths of civilians Alton Sterling and Philando Castile led to national protests, and police officers were killed in ambush shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Alton Sterling Philando Castile Dallas Baton Rouge In that period, several rumors of police officers "shunned" or mistreated at restaurants circulated online. A group of policemen in Pennsylvania said they paid the bill of a couple who refused to sit near them, a sheriff in Washington reported that a Chinese restaurant's owners had said law enforcement was not welcome there, and officers in Baton Rouge maintained that a server at Las Palmas restaurant had put mucus in their drinks.  Pennsylvania reported Las Palmas After those claims became virally popular, Conservative Daily Post asserted: Its pretty sad to look around and see how police officers are being treated right now. They put their lives on the line every single day to defend our freedoms within the local community. We are more than thankful for our military, yet we fail to recognize the very people that keep us safe in our homes at night. Police officers dont get paid a lot either. They knowingly walk into possible gunfights almost every day. They do it because they heard the call to serve. They do it because they are true American patriots. Well, there was just another case of disrespect against cops. In Alabama, last week a cashier decided that she didnt want to serve the cops. Maria Englesia pictured above told the officers to get out of here because they didnt serve pigs. This was blatant. McDonalds stepped in as soon as they heard what happened. They immediately fired the woman and issued a formal apology to the police department of Alabama. Social media users accepted that report at face value: @McDonalds #Illegal Alien Denied Cops Service, We Dont Serve Pigs https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds @McDonalds #Illegal https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds  Jan Johnson (@JanJohnsonFL) July 18, 2016 July 18, 2016  Illegal Alien McDonald's clerk tells police: "We don't serve your kind" Get the fuck out of my country, you bitch!! https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow  obamasucksballs (@obamasucksballs) July 19, 2016 https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow July 19, 2016  Conservative Daily Post claimed McDonald's had fired the employee and apologized, but no mention of any such controversy (by the company or by commenters) was visible on the hamburger chain's Twitter account, nor on McDonald's Facebook page save for one cryptic comment: Twitter  Aside from the single comment, no one appeared to be asking about any incidents involving a Maria Englesia in Alabama.  Had the story been genuine, it would have generated news coverage from other outlets.  Conservative Daily Post's article also waved another very large red flag:  The image doesn't depict a "Maria Englesia" or anyone else recently fired from any McDonald's, anywhere, for any reason. It's a stock photograph dating to at least 2012:  Conservative Daily News doesn't carry any sort of warning or disclaimer advising readers about hosting fabricated content, but this story was clearly untrue. No public apology was tendered by McDonald's over an employee's purported refusal to serve Alabama cops, no news outlets or blogs reported on the incident, and the image of the woman "pictured above" was a stock photograph swiped from Getty. Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level,  Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward,  the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True. Calls to boycott the National Rifle Association intensified in the days following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left seventeen people dead on 14 February 2018. In response, a number of companies responded by ending partnership programs that provided discounts to NRA members: ending   Shortly after Delta announced that it would stop offering discounts to NRA members, some argued that Planned Parenthood should be the actual subject of nationwide boycotts, despite not being involved directly or indirectly with the Parkland, Florida shooting in any way. One meme summed up that argument by stating without attribution that Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of babies a day, while the NRA has never directly killed anyone: meme   This number appears to be derived from figures provided by the organization in 2015, which said that Planned Parenthood offices had performed 323,999 abortions in total the year before. However, that interpretation is dependent on subjective interpretations of when life supposedly begins; abortions are not counted as a "cause of death" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. performed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Georgia State Senator Michael Williams took issue with Delta's decision (the company is headquartered in Atlanta) and during an appearance on CNN said that the airline should also rescind its discounts for other organizations: If they're going to pull the discount for NRA members, why not pull it for Planned Parenthood or some of the left organizations out there? When CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Williams what evidence he had that Delta Air Lines offered discounted rates to Planned Parenthood members, adding that the network had examined these allegations and found no information to verify the claim, Williams explained that he "looked it up on Google" and did not know of the exact source  but that he would provide it at a later date:  We searched for any credible sources to back the claim that Delta Air Lines offers a discount to members of Planned Parenthood (along with the official definition of what a member of Planned Parenthood might be: Did he mean donors to the nonprofit? Patients who do not donate? Some combination of the above? Is there a membership card?) but all we found were unverified claims in the comment sections of various articles and in random social media messages: comment sections social media   Shortly after Williams appeared on CNN, Planned Parenthood denied his claims: Being a Planned Parenthood supporter doesn't come with corporate perks and discounts. People stand with Planned Parenthood because they support reproductive health and rights. https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As  Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) February 28, 2018 February 28, 2018    On 28 February 2018, Williams released a statement on Twitter: released   This statement offers no supporting evidence and, in fact, does nothing to address the original claim Williams made during his CNN appearance. Instead, it moves the goalposts completely by saying that while Delta does not contribute directly to Planned Parenthood, it indirectly supports the organization instead, by donating to groups such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, we found some holes in this argument too. For example, American Airlines, not Delta Air Lines, is the official partner of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Delta does host an annual fundraiser for breast cancer research, but the airline donates the proceeds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, not Susan G. Komen: Last month, Delta celebrated its 12th anniversary of the Breast Cancer One survivor flight, kicking off the airlines Breast Cancer Awareness month throughout October and continuing the tradition of building awareness and raising funds for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This years flight honored 140 breast cancer survivors who flew from New York to Los Angeles. Festivities began with an event at the gate in JFK before the pink plane made its way to LAX, where survivors and attendees enjoyed another gatehouse event and an overnight stay, including dinner, hotel accommodations and a meet-and-greet with one of BCRFs world-renowned researchers, Dr. Sofia Merajver from the University of Michigan. It is entirely possible that Delta has contributed to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but this group is not a "Delta partner," nor is it the main benefactor of their cancer research fundraiser.  Williams doubled down on his claim that Delta was partnered with the Susan G. Komen Foundation when he shared a photograph of a Delta plane painted with pink ribbons and linked to a set of images on the web site FlashPointAgency: shared FlashPointAgency   FlashPointAgency does say that this plane was designed as part of Delta's work with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, these images appear to be mislabeled. Another image in this set of photographs shows two women standing in front of a wall of logos for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. As we noted above, Delta does frequently host fundraisers to support BCRF:   Regardless of Delta Air Lines' relationships with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or anyone else, these groups have little to do with the senator's original claim, which is that Delta Air Lines provided discounts to Planned Parenthood members. Our examination of this rumor resulted in a chain of unfounded social media posts, but absolutely no supporting evidence. Aued, Blake.  "Georgia Prospers When Businesses Don't Discriminate."
  Flagpole.  28 September 2016. Goldschmidt, Debra.  "Planned Parenthood: Fast Facts and Revealing Numbers."
  CNN.  1 August 2017. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. Wattles, Jackie.  "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down."
  CNN.  26 February 2018. On June 28, 2022, we received reader mail informing us that scammers were using food blogger, author, and Food Network TV host Ree Drummond's image and likeness to sell supposed weight loss products or "dementia solutions" called Condor CBD Gummies, Truly Keto, and TrimClinical Keto. Drummond, also known as "The Pioneer Woman," was featured in several Facebook ads that claimed she had experienced a "tragic end," a tragedy, sad news or unspecified "allegations." These ads were nothing more than misleading clickbait and part of a scam. She never endorsed any CBD or keto gummies products or a "dementia solution." Food Network A reader who emailed us included a screenshot of one of the misleading ads. One of the ads read, "Her entire future is now in jeopardy! Fans feel sad about today's news. A tragic end today for Ree Drummond."  Another reader sent in a different ad that read, "Fans are up in arms over the allegations pending against Ree Drummond. Here is all the information available to the public at this moment."  These false clickbait Facebook ads were familiar territory. We've reported before on misleading, scammy tactics just like these that were used in other CBD and keto gummies scams. In reality, there were no "allegations" against Drummond, nor was there any brand new sad or tragic news about her. Facebook CBD keto We received a screenshot of the article that showed a picture of Drummond and her name. The article was misleadingly designed to mimic the Fox News website. Fox News had nothing to do with the scam. Drummond Fox News  The headline of the fake Fox News article read, "Ree Drummond reverses dementia solution, sparks huge lawsuit pressure on Fox, she finally fights back on air." This was basically the same CBD gummies scam that previously featured "Jeopardy" host Mayim Bialik. the same CBD gummies scam Mayim Bialik Meanwhile, a second article that was designed to look like the Time magazine website claimed, "Weight Loss Industry In Outrage Over Ree Drummond's Keto Formula That's Helping Millions Of Women & Even Men Melt Body Fat And Get Healthy Again In Memory Of Her Brother!" Just as with the fake Fox News article, this one also did not genuinely come from Time. We found these articles being hosted on j40ev2.com/h4Fhjee/, lirknluck.uk.com/tiram/index.html, and sgn394.com/7bn3lo9u/. The web domains may have been registered in China. Time magazine A third false article was created by scammers to mimic the "Today" TV show website and showed the headline, "Ree Drummond Forced To Lose 30 Pounds by 'Food Network' Producers She Lost 50! (Her Diabetes Finally In Control)." In our research, we located a number of scammy Facebook pages that mentioned Drummond's name with the words CBD or keto gummies. According to when several of the pages were created or had their previous names changed, it looked like this scam began no earlier than mid-June 2022. a number of scammy Facebook pages  We reached out to Hearst Digital Media to inform them of the scam. The publisher hosts "The Pioneer Woman" blog. We also requested a statement, which we will add to this story if we receive a response. scam blog In sum, there was no sad or tragic news or any "allegations" to report about Drummond, nor did "The Pioneer Woman" ever endorsed Condor CBD Gummies, Truly Keto, and TrimClinical Keto, or any other similar products for Fox News, Time, or "Today." The Pioneer Woman Note: If readers spot any CBD or keto gummies scams for celebrities other than Ree Drummond, please contact us. It's likely that scammers will switch to a different celebrity for the scam in future weeks. If possible, please include a direct link to the Facebook ad or to the page that's hosting the ad. Unlike a screenshot, a link will allow us to fully look into the matter. contact us Ree Drummond. Food Network, https://www.foodnetwork.com/profiles/talent/ree-drummond. The Pioneer Woman. Hearst Digital Media, https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/. On July 5, 2022, this article was updated with new details after a helpful reader located ads that falsely claimed Drummond had experienced "allegations" against her. In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?":     No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. figure Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: summarized Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. In 1972 legislation The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost. affect largest Konish, Lorie.  "Your Social Security Check Will Get a 2.8% Boost in 2019."
  AL.com.  16 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Historical Background and Development of Social Security."
  Accessed 17 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Social Security Benefits to Increase in 2019."
  11 October 2018. Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. A photograph supposedly showing a help-wanted bulletin featuring a starting wage of $16.50 for a position at a Chick-fil-A restaurant was widely circulated on Facebook in August 2019: Facebook This single photograph of this lone sign led some viewers to believe that a starting wage of $16.50 was available at all Chick-fil-A locations. But that isn't the case.  For starters, the sign notes that this wage is "based on position and availability." In other words, this wage isn't available to all new hires. Furthermore, Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, meaning wages vary depending on location. While some Chick-fil-A franchises may offer similar wages to those featured on this sign, the wage is not a company-wide policy.  This photograph was taken at a Chick-Fil-A in Pleasanton, California. In July 2019, this Chick-fil-A location posted a similar flyer to their Facebook page: This isn't the only Chick-fil-A restaurant that is offering close to $17 an hour. Another Chick-fil-A restaurant in Sacramento, California, raised its starting wage to $17 hour. raised its starting wage Eric Mason, owner of the Sacramento Chick-fil-A, told a television station in June 2019 that he was hoping to attract "hospitality professionals" with his new wage offer. television station According to a CBS News report: report The owner of a Chick-fil-A location in Sacramento, California, calls it a "living wage." In Eric Mason's view, that would be $17 or $18 an hour, which is what he vows he'll be paying his workers, starting Monday, June 4. The rate represents a sizable increase for employees now making $12 to $13 an hour. "As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term," Mason told a local news station. "What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture." While at least two Chick-fil-A restaurants are truly offering starting wages close to $17 an hour, this pay is not available at all Chick-fil-A locations. According to Payscale, a company that surveys employees and employers for information about wages, the average hourly rate for a Chick-fil-A employee is about $10 an hour.  Payscale A spokesperson for the company told us that because Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, franchise owners set their own wages: Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned and operated, so wage decisions are made at the local level. With that said, Chick-fil-A strives to create a compelling employment value proposition including competitive wages, leadership development opportunities and scholarships. In fact, since 1973, Chick-fil-A has helped 53,000 Team Members attend college through a total investment of $75 million in scholarships. While the wage mentioned on the above-displayed sign does not apply to all Chick-fil-A locations or positions, the company truly does offer "scholarship opportunities." The company writes on its website: website We offer college scholarship opportunities and tuition discounts Chick-fil-A, Inc. recognizes and appreciates the tremendous talent and capabilities of Team Members working at their local Chick-fil-A restaurants. To help invest in their futures, Chick-fil-A restaurant Team Members can apply for college scholarships, as well as receive tuition discounts at dozens of universities across the U.S. Wang, Frances.  "Sacramento Chick-Fil-A Hiring 'Hospitality Professionals' for $17 an Hour."
  ABC 10.  26 March 2018. Gibson, Kate.  "Chick-fil-A Store Owner Raises Minimum Wage to $17 an Hour 'Living Wage.'"
  CBS News.  7 June 2019. Updated [18 September 2019]: Added statement from Chick-fil-A and information about the origins of the photograph.