Wisconsin politicians get daily expense payments even if they dont spend a dime on meals, or lodging or travel, and no receipts are required for them to get paid.
TheWisconsin Freedom Alliance, a conservative political group, splashed into the news briefly in 2016 when itfunded ads criticizing various Republican state Senate candidatesduring primary campaigns. Now the group is back with acampaigncharging that taxpayers are on the hook for bloated pensions, salaries and other benefits for state lawmakers of all political stripes. In an April 2017radio ad, the alliance ripped a practice that pays Wisconsin state lawmakers a per-diem amount when they travel to the Capitol for business. Did you know state politicians can collect their per diems even if they dont spend a dime on meals, or lodging or travel? No receipts are required for them to get paid. No receipts! Its the honor system for politicians paying themselves. Does that sound like a good idea? Is that the way the system works? The benefit Legislators in most states qualify for per-diems. In many cases they receive more than Wisconsin lawmakers can get. That hasnt prevented the per-diems from coming under occasional attack in Wisconsin. They top out at $115 a day for state senators, and $78.50 a day (and $157 for an overnight) for Assembly members. In2016, overall payments to Assembly members ranged from a low of $916 to state Rep. Nancy VanderMeer (R-Tomah) to a high of $9,591 to state Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), the Assembly minority leader. In total, the 99 Assembly members received $484,504. The 33 senators received $200,860 in 2016. The payments ranged from $2,024.00 to state Sen. Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls) to $14,256 to state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), the majority leader. Lawmakers living close to Madison qualify for lower per-diem rates. Lawmakers base salary is $50,950. The Wisconsin law governing the benefit says legislators shall be entitled to an allowance for expenses incurred for food and lodging for each day that he or she is in Madison on legislative business. (italics ours). So, if the allowance is tied to spending on food and lodging, is it possible, as the alliance contended, that it is paid even if they dont spend a dime on meals, or lodging or travel? Michael Flaherty, executive director of the Freedom Alliance, cited a Dec. 30, 2016 story by the USA Today Network-Wisconsin, headlinedMadison lawmakers max out hometown perk. The story said Lawmakers can collect the money as income without spending a dime on meals, lodging or gas. No receipts of expenses are required to get paid. The no-receipts claim is on target, according to the clerks for the Senate and Assembly. Lawmakers are not asked to itemize. As for whether a lawmaker who skips meals and drives home to sleep can still get a per diem, the answer is, yes, thats possible. But its impossible to say how often that happens, given the loose accounting system. Its a benefit, an allowance, said Senate Chief ClerkJeff Renk. In Renks opinion, despite the statutes talk of expenses incurred, lawmakers who incur no expense while collecting a per diem are not violating the law. The perk is so automatic that lawmakers, at the beginning of a two-year legislative session, choose whether to receive the maximum daily reimbursement for days they travel to Madison within that period. Thats how the law was written. All they have to do to collect is confirm their appearances by entering a mark in a computer program. One piece of the groups claim requires a minor clarification. Travel costs in the form of mileage are reimbursed separately from the per-diem payments. Our rating The Wisconsin Freedom Alliance claimed that state lawmakers get daily expense payments even if they dont spend a dime on meals, or lodging or travel, and no receipts are required for them to get paid. Per diems are built on an honor system that requires no documentation that any travel or lodging expense has been incurred. Travel costs, though, have nothing to do with per diems, and some clarification is necessary here because no one can say how often lawmakers get the per diem without spending anything. We rate the claim Mostly True.
My son Devon Ward never came home from school today. He skipped his last class after lunch, and nobody's heard from him since. Cell phone is going right to voice mail. He is 14, about 5 foot 7, and probably wearing a black jacket. If everyone shares this on their pages, i am sure we will find someone who saw him this afternoon /evening or know his current whereabouts... call 607-358-5055.  According to Binghamton, New York, radio station WHWK: Lisa Davis of Horseheads is searching for her 14 year old son Devon Ward who she says may be on his way to Pennsylvania. According to Lisa, Devon skipped his last class after lunch at  Horseheads High School [on April 17] and hasn't been heard from since. Lisa says her husband checked the local hospital and notified both village police and New York State Troopers of their son's disappearance.  Devon is said to be about 5 foot 7 and most likely wearing a black jacket. When I asked Lisa whether she believed there were a chance that her son had decided to simply run away, she said her son isn't the type of kid to just run away, but that she was told he might be headed to Pennsylvania. I spoke the the Chemung County Sheriff's Office who confirmed that this is an active case. They referred me to Horseheads Police Department where I was told Devon's case is a State Police case.  I spoke with Trooper Lewis at the State Police office who didn't divulge any information but confirmed that Devon has been reported missing and that State Troopers are on the case. If you've seen Devon Ward or know where he is, please contact the New York State Troopers at 607-739-8797. On the evening of 18 April 2013, Devon's mother indicated on her Facebook page  that Devon had been located safe: Facebook We found Devon. He is safe and sound at the police barracks in Horseheads. Thank you to everyone who helped spread the word. We greatly appreciate all the help and support. We have such a wonderful community!! Please share the status, so that people know he's been found. Taylor, Traci.  "14 Year Old Missing from Horseheads, May Be Headed to Pennsylvania."
  WHWK Radio  18 April 2013. Talk-radio host and former Providence Mayor Vincent A. Buddy Cianci Jr. recently referred to a member of Governor Chafees staff as the guy who still owes $250,000 to the state.Ciancis jab at Michael F. Trainor,  aired on Sept. 1, 2011 on WPROs The Buddy Cianci Show.Because it wasnt the first time that Cianci had made the comment -- and because a bankruptcy judge had discharged most of Trainors debt nearly a year ago -- we thought it was worth looking into.Trainor has built a career in public relations representing some of the states high-profile politicians and corporate players. He was an advisor and spokesman for Lincoln Chafee during Chafees successful 2010 run for governor.But Trainor has had his own public relations problems ever since it became known late last year that he and a business partner from Connecticut defaulted on a $250,000 federal small business loan granted through the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation.According to the EDC and bankruptcy court documents,  heres what happened:The duo and two of their partners started a Rhode Island company, called Genesis Distribution & Marketing, in 2006 to distribute and market retractable window screens and hurricane shutters.Trainor and his partners had already bought a company in Connecticut that distributed and installed hurricane shutters. And they planned to buy three more in the South that made the shutters. In January 2007, the EDC loaned  the business $250,000 through the federally funded Small Business Loan Fund to buy inventory, furniture, fixtures and equipment and hire three employees.But the business was short-lived.Just two months after receiving the EDC loan, the partners fell behind on their payments. In 2008, the company folded.Trainor and his partner from Connecticut, who had pledged their homes as collateral for the loan, talked with representatives from the EDC about a settlement. But the talks broke off in August 2009, when Trainor notified the agency that he was filing for bankruptcy.By then, the housing market had tanked along with the value of Trainors house.The partners had repaid $36,326 of the loan; with interest and late fees, the debt on the loan at the time totaled $250,723.In September 2010, a bankruptcy judge granted Trainors petition for Chapter 7bankruptcy.An explanation of the ruling in the bankruptcy court documents states: The chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay a debt that is discharged.The EDC loan was written off on Nov. 30, 2010. The agency concluded that it couldnt recover any money from its lien on Trainors home because the mortgage balance exceeded the propertys value.In December, 2010, Trainor, who was being considered for a job in the Chafee administration, toldThe Providence Journalthat he had not walked away from his obligations, saying hed like to negotiate a settlement with the EDC.Governor Chafee discussed Trainors situation on Channel 12 Newsmakers in December 2010, saying that there would be an effort made to repay the EDC. [Well] make sure Mike does that, he said.So it certainly sounded then as though Chafee and even Trainor himself believed that Trainor still owed the EDC the money.Chafee hired Trainor as spokesman when he took office in January, a job that paid $129,235.That month, Trainor also repaid the state $20,788.75 in taxes -- which were not  dischargeable in the bankruptcy -- owed on his failed business. In return, the state Division of Taxation removed the lien on his property. Six months later, in July, the bank sold his house at a foreclosure auction. Trainor served seven months as Chafees spokesman before he was transferred, in August, to the Department of Higher Education. His salary has dropped to $88,177. So, does he still owe the $250,000, as Cianci claims?That debt was discharged, Andrew S. Richardson, a lawyer and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Trustee in the Trainor case, said. (He) can no longer be forced to pay the obligation -- nor can the creditor take any steps to try and collect it.In other words, Richardson said, theres no legal obligation that Trainor repay the loan.But other lawyers who specialize in bankruptcy see it differently.Most people understand (bankruptcy) as destroying the debt  but technically the discharge in bankruptcy doesnt destroy the debt at all, Jason Kilborn, a lawyer, law professor and resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute in Virginia said. It does not destroy the obligation from a moral or even a legal obligation. It just prevents the creditors from collecting on that debt.The American Bankruptcy Institutewas founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues.In other words, the debt remains, even though the creditors are forced to write it off as uncollectable.So if the debt remains but Trainor isnt obligated to repay it, does he really owe the state money?We called Cianci and challenged him on his use of the term owes. Trainors bankruptcy discharge, he maintained, doesnt change the fact that Trainor still owes the EDC the $250,000.Maybe it was discharged, he said, but in the mind of the taxpayer who fronted the 250 grand? Yeah, he still owes it.Said Richardson, the trustee: I think it depends on whose point of view youre looking at, the creditor or the debtor.We agree.Practically speaking, the bankruptcy ruling and the fact that the mortgage on the Trainors home exceeded its value made it impossible for the EDC to recoup its money.But even after the debt was discharged in bankruptcy Trainor and Chafee both said theyd make an effort made to repay the EDC.After all, a debt can be owed even if its never collected.For that reason, we rule Ciancis statementMostly True. The communications office of theNational Republican Congressional Committeeisnt letting up on Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. Its recently peppered him with criticism over the sequester and President Barack Obamas health care overhaul. This time, the issue is construction of a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refinement. A May 23, 2013, press release targeted Schrader for voting againstH.R. 3, a bill that would allow TransCanada tostart building the Keystone XL Pipelinewithout approval from President Barack Obama. Specifically, the legislation skips further environmental review and removes barriers to construction. With nearly 75 percent of Americans supportive of the construction of the pipeline, Schrader needs to explain to Oregon families why he voted against this needed project, the release states. Three-quarters of Americans want this project to happen? We know surveys can sometimes use scurrilous, squirrelly language, so we thought wed take a look-see. Plus, while Schrader is a veterinarian who loves animals, the man is no tree-hugging environmentalist. Does he oppose construction? Lets tackle the 75 percent statistic first. The NRCC relies on a survey conducted byNanos Researchthat was the subject of an April 2013 news report in the Wall Street Journal. Heres the survey question: Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline between Canada and the U.S., do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the US/Canadian government approving the project? Of Americans, 52 percent said they support the project and 22 percent said they somewhat support it. Nanos, a respected independent polling firm, isnt the only one to find that a majority of respondents in the United States support construction. An April 2013Pew Research poll found 66 percent in favorwith 23 percent opposed. The poll found broader support among Republicans and independents; Democrats are more divided. We checked with Daniel Kessler, amedia campaigner with 350.org, which opposes Keystone. The Nanos polling question looked sound to him, although he wanted to remind readers thatother surveys show high support for clean energy alternativesand efforts to combat global warming. Now, lets address the second part of the statement. As we stated earlier, H.R. 3 eliminates the need for White House approval to start the project. Its undisputed that Schrader voted against the bill. Nineteen House Democrats joined majority Republicans to send the bill to the Senate, where it sits. No House Democrat from Oregon voted for the legislation. In fact, theNRCC targeted a number of Democrats with the same press release, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.  A spokesman for Schrader said the congressman supports construction in principle, just not the way Republicans are going about it. To say that he does not support the construction on the pipeline is false, wrote spokesman Cody Tucker in an email to PolitiFact Oregon. Annie Clark with the NRCC disagrees. She cited four other times where Schrader voted against construction. Schrader voted against constructing or expediting construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline every chance he had, she wrote to PolitiFact Oregon. We checked his other votes. The legislation sought to force Obama to act or bypassed him altogether in approving Keystone. Loads of House Democrats voted against the bills. Schrader did voteagainst H.R. 3,which eliminates further regulatory hurdles, eliminates presidential input and essentially gives congressional go-ahead for construction. This statement by itself we would rate Half True. It is partially accurate in that Schrader did vote against the legislation, which authorizes the project. But it is missing significant details in that Schrader supports construction in principle, just not this particular way to get there. Had the NRCC said that Schrader voted against the bill -- as opposed to the project -- the statement would be True. The NRCC is accurate in citing that nearly 75 percent of Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Nanos survey is solid, as is a Pew Research poll that showed two-thirds support. With the polling part True and the project part Half True, that brings our ruling to Mostly True for this two-part statement. (If you want to leave a comment, go to http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/did_kurt_schrader_vote_against.html#incart_m-rpt-2) Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 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 As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: strongly against Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four  American, United, Delta and Southwest  instead grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases. That number, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what theyre asking for now from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest Cruise companies -- Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean -- have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to bid up their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable. This allowed top airlines executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period. The top cruise executives managed to haul in $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their profligate behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts -- because although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships were foreign-flagged in order to put them out of reach of U.S. law:  That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: news report [O]nly one major cruise ship -- NCL America's Pride of America -- is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com. Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands. In fact, according to Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that: Bahamas Malta Panama reasons CLIA [Cruise Lines International Association] maintains there are reasons for such policies: "There are many factors that determine where a cruise ship -- or for that matter, any maritime vessel -- is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on varying factors including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the services needed; representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community; the performance of the flag state, which dictates how a ship is prioritized by port states; the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag; and the flag's fees/charges and taxes," the association said by e-mail. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others say these corporations are seeking to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations: paper Aside from the majority revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered ... (Tomlinson, 2007) Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries [such as] Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessels country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered to Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to pay close attention as many vessels within the same fleet are often registered to different countries. Carnival Corporation, for example, has flagged their cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC of by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." It is important to understand that while the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not: critics Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. Its not time for another drink. McGee, Bill.  "What Every Cruiser Should Know Before They Book."
  USA Today.  26 April 2011. McGee, Bill.  "Why Are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?"
  USA Today.  11 December 2012. van Doorn, Philip.  "Airlines and Boeing Want a Bailout  But Look How Much Theyve Spent on Stock Buybacks."
  MarketWatch.  22 March 2020. Griffin, John M. and James M. Griffin.  "Coronavirus Bailout for Airlines and Cruise lines Is Socialism for the Undeserving Rich."
  USA Today.  20 March 2020. Burke, Caitlin E.  "A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships."
  Accessed 23 March 2020. In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. Claim:  Yahoo! will begin charging for its previously-free POP e-mail service in April 2002. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have just read and signed the online petition: "Petition to request  that Yahoo Inc reconsider their decision to charge fees for pop mail, groups, and homepages" hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at: https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself as it looks that Yahoo is going to try charging money for email addresses, yahoo groups and other things they currently offer for free. If you are against it, please take the time like I did to sign the petition. Origins:  In mid-March 2002, those who had been availing themselves of Yahoo!'s free POP mail service received a shock in their inboxes, an announcement from the company that as of 24 April 2002 those previously-free services would continue to be available only to those willing to pay for them. Beginning April 24, Yahoo! will charge $29.99 a year for this feature.  Those who sign up before that date can secure continuation of this service for $19.99 per annum. Before anyone becomes overly confused on this point, remember that we're talking strictly about POP (Post Office Protocol) e-mail accounts (a protocol that allows desktop e-mail clients such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook to download mail messages from  host systems to users' PCs ).  Non-POP e-mail accounts  those accessed by reading e-mail from Yahoo! via a web browser  will still be  free. Advertising income on the Internet fell dramatically in 2001. Previously, Yahoo! could afford to offer its POP mail services free of charge because the revenue needed to support it was coming from the sale of ads displayed on its site.  Since that revenue has dropped due to the tech wreck of 2000-2001, Yahoo! has chosen to begin charging users for some of the more expensive-to-support features. The monies needed to pay for them have to come from somewhere, and if the ad revenue no longer supports them, then individual users must. Although signing an e-petition decrying this state of affairs might make someone momentarily feel a bit better, such action is highly unlikely to alter Yahoo!'s plans. All the e-signatures in the world won't pay the bills for Yahoo!, and that is the overriding factor. Customers always retain the option of "voting with their feet" by taking their business elsewhere, but you have to wonder at how "unfair" the decried treatment is when it amounts to someone's no longer providing something for free. As much as we like to have free stuff, we don't have an inherent right to it. Those who choose to rely upon free services should always keep firmly in mind the possibility that these services may someday go away. The incitement to sign the e-petition asserts that Yahoo! will be charging user fees for POP mail, groups, and homepages. That's only partially true. Although POP mail will be available only to those willing to pay a couple of bucks a month for it after April 24, there do not appear to be immediate plans in the works to institute across-the-board user charges for Yahoo!-based groups or homepages that will turn them into "pay for it or lose it" propositions. However, in the case of free GeoCities web sites that is a distinction without a difference, because Yahoo! has already gutted the free version of this service. Yahoo! has announced that by early April it will no longer support FTP (file transfer protocol) to its unpaid GeoCities subscribers. Without FTP capability, users cannot move HTML files to or from their web sites on their own; they have to maintain their web sites through Yahoo!'s advertising-laden forms. Those determined to host their personal web pages on GeoCities will have to become paid subscribers and cough up $4.95 a month to get that vital FTP capability back. (They'll also get extra storage and ad-free page display for their money, though.) Those who do not wish to pay the $4.95 a month fee can still keep their pages there, but they won't be able to use FTP to maintain them. As for Yahoo!'s discussion groups, if there are plans afoot to begin charging for them, no mention of this is showing up in any of Yahoo!'s statements or in news articles detailing changes to Yahoo!'s services. We suspect this claim might have been tossed in to incite a larger number of folks to support the petition. Last updated:  5 January 2008    Sources:   Mangalindan, Mylene.  "Yahoo Will Charge Users a Yearly Fee for E-Mail Feature."   The Wall Street Journal.  22 March 2002  (p. B5).     Bloomberg News.  "Yahoo to Charge E-Mail Forwarding Fee."   Ventura County Star.  26 March 2002  (p. D2). In November 2016, rumors began to swirl that the European Union had ordered the media not to report when terrorism suspects were Muslim, presumably because of pressure from Islamic groups.  The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute: post   The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state. reportedly The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016: the conservative Daily Mail   The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton's group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate. earlier ECRI Both the Mail and the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2016. As the latter group puts it: The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims. Criticism of the report centered around this passage: ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker's history of mental instability and not his religion. study, attack While the ECRI did call for an "independent press regulator," it also stated that it did not want government officials "encroaching on [media outlets'] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups." It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices. Inquiry, From the ECRI report: The Leveson Report, published in November 2012, pointed out that certain parts of the press ride roughshod over others, both individuals and the public at large, without any justifiable public interest, and that a significant number of news stories fail to meet standards of integrity and propriety and reflect a culture of recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm these may cause and the rights of those who would be affected. It also noted a significant and reckless disregard for accuracy. The report stated that the Press Complaints Commission was not independent and had failed its purpose, and recommended replacing it with a new, independent, self-regulatory body established by statute, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals, and with a range of sanctions available to it. Bolton's organization also failed to note that the ECRI's report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups. recommendations Mamou, Yves. "Council of Europe Recommends British Press NOT Report when Terrorists are Muslims." Gatestone Institute. 18 November 2016. Conway, Madeline. "Bolton calls regime change the 'only long-term solution' in Iran." Politico. 17 November 2016. Dathan, Matt. "European human rights chiefs order the British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims in crackdown on freedom of speech." The Daily Mail. 5 October 2016. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. "ECRI Report on the United Kingdom (Fifth Monitoring Cycle)." Coe.int. 4 October 2016. Teesside University. "New report reveals a rise in anti-Muslim hostility in Britain following acts of terrorism around the world." www.tees.ac.uk. 18 June 2015. On May 24, 2022, Facebook scammers seized on a real giveaway from Richard Rawlings' Gas Monkey Garage, which was once affiliated with the "Fast N' Loud" reality television series. The show aired its final episodes in 2020. Facebook Richard Rawlings Gas Monkey Garage Fast N' Loud It's true that the official and verified Facebook page for Rawlings' Gas Monkey Garage was promoting a giveaway for $200,000. In order to enter, users simply needed to purchase products on the company's website. page However, scammers reposted videos about the giveaway from the official Facebook page to their own accounts. The scammers' posts instructed potential victims to visit a potentially malicious website that asked them to send money through the Stash finance app in order to claim a supposed prize. One of the scammers' posts showed a video of Rawlings talking about the real Gas Monkey Garage giveaway. That video was downloaded and reposted by a scammer's account named Nyong Desi (facebook.com/uygdvuidfhvyfdgviushv):  It read as follows and included three steps, which we've seen in many scams before: Nyong Desi ????????????? ???????-??????? 2022 CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Coments "Done"Step 3 = Register here? (link removed) ? to receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck The edit history for the post above showed that it was originally created on Jan. 30, 2022 as a giveaway scam involving PlayStation 5 game consoles and $10,000. It was edited on the morning of May 24 in order to change it to the Gas Monkey Garage giveaway scam. PlayStation 5 We visited the website that was displayed in the scammers' posts. In addition to asking users to send the scammers money through the Stash finance app, it also claimed that they had already won $10,000. Of course, this was all misleading. asking Our best tip to avoid these kinds of scams is to always look for the verified badge next to Facebook page names. If it's a big brand name and there's no verified badge, it might be a scam. scams verified badge In sum, the official Gas Monkey Garage Facebook page truly was holding a real giveaway. However, scammers sought to capitalize on the giveaway by downloading and then reposting several videos that showed Rawlings talking in order to trick potential victims into losing money. For further reading, this story might remind some readers of a similar Facebook scam we reported on in the past for the "Diesel Brothers" reality television series. reported on A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995.