Obama's Fannie Mae Economic Advisors
Claim:  Three former Fannie Mae executives served on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign as chief economic advisors.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street. Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, 'Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that 'mistakes were made' and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.' Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. Raines left with a 'golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. The Government noted, 'The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.' These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits. Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard 'was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a 'stable pattern of earnings' at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, 'Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,' On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million! Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.' Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million. WHERE ARE THEY NOW? FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee  IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street? Origins:  When one of the hottest issues of a presidential campaign is the meltdown of the mortgage lending industry and the collapse of the economy, a candidate's having economic advisors on his staff who are strongly associated with the system and practices that helped create the current mess likely wouldn't sit well with the public.  That's the premise of the above-quoted e-mail, which claimed that three men formerly associated with the Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as "Fannie Mae") were serving as "chief economic advisors" with the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama.  However, although some of these men had at least tangential connections to the Obama campaign at one time or another, none of them had ongoing roles with that campaign as chief economic advisors. Franklin Raines, who formerly headed the budget office for the Clinton administration, became the first black CEO of a Fortune 500 company when he took over at Fannie Mae" in 1999.  Raines,  who had earned $20 million in salary and bonuses from Fannie Mae in 2003, resigned from his CEO position in 2004 after regulators determined that the company had violated accounting rules and created an illusory $9 billion in past profit.   Raines had some dealings with the Obama campaign, but he never held any actual position within the campaign (much less as its "chief economic advisor"), and his involvement with it was not nearly as substantial as implied above.  As the Washington Post reported when a McCain campaign commercial attempted to link Raines with the Democratic candidate, the whole substance of the connection between the two men was that Raines "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign" in which they talked about "general housing and economy issues."  reported commercial Franklin Raines' predecessor, James A. Johnson, (former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale), was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. After Johnson left the company, regulators later discovered that Fannie Mae had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in 1998 which manipulated its earnings so that executives could earn performance bonuses (up to $1.9 million in Johnson's case) they would not otherwise have been entitled to. discovered In May 2008, Senator Obama tapped James Johnson to be one member of a three-person panel tasked with vetting potential vice-presidential running mates.  Johnson (who was not serving as an economic advisor to the Obama campaign) resigned from that position shortly afterwards when news accounts reported that he had received more than $2 million in home loans at below average market rates from Countrywide Financial (a partner of Fannie Mae). Tim Howard, the former CFO (chief financial officer) of Fannie Mae, was caught up in the same accounting scandal that undid Franklin Raines, and (like Raines) resigned from the company in 2004.   We found no substantive connection between Tim Howard and the Obama campaign, however, much less any information supporting the claim that Howard was ever a "Chief Economic Advisor to Obama."   Last updated:  3 January 2012    Smith, Elliot Blair.  "Former Fannie Mae Execs May Face Investigation."   USA Today.  14 June 2006.    Superville, Darlene.  "Rise and Fall of Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines."   San Diego Union-Tribune.  30 December 2004.    Weisman, Jonathan and David S. Hilzenrath.  "Obama's Choice of Insider Draws Fire."   The Washington Post.  11 June 2008  (p. A1).    The Washington Post.  "Linking Obama to Ex-Fannie Mae Chief Is a Stretch."   20 September 2008.
Would raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour destroy up to 3.7 million jobs in the United States? Thats what GOP House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy claimed in the headline of apress releaseon Tuesday as Democrats in Congress began debating the move. On Twitter the same day,McCarthy wrotethe wage hike could put nearly 4 million Americans out of work. This is a screen shot of the headline from McCarthys press release. The Biden Administration last month proposed raising the federal minimum hourly pay from $7.25 to $15, with increases of about $1.50 every year for five years. To make that happen, Congressional Democrats introduced theRaise the Wage Act of 2021last month and began considering the legislation in the House Committee on Education and Labor this week. Heres what McCarthy said in the body of the press release: At this critical point, the Democrats big, creative response is to raise the federal national wage to $15 an hour  a move the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previouslyfoundcould cost nearly 4 million workers their jobs. President Joe Biden initially included the proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour in his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill. But he predicted last week it would be left out due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats. Given the debate over raising the wage and its impact on jobs, we decided to take a closer look at McCarthys claim in this fact check. Our Research In his press release and tweet, McCarthy linked to ananalysisof the wage proposal by the Congressional Budget Office published on Monday. The CBO, a nonpartisan research service, predicted the wage hike would eliminate jobs, but would also raise wages for an estimated 17 million people and lift 900,000 people out of poverty. It doesnt say anything about destroying an estimated 3.7 million positions as McCarthy claimed. Instead, the CBO said the average estimate is that employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers. The report goes on to say theres a one-third chance the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthys number. Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment, the report adds. A spokesperson for McCarthy did not respond to questions. Deborah Kilroe, a spokesperson for the CBO, said McCarthy likely got his figure from aJuly 2019 CBO reportthat also examined raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. That older analysis predicted the median estimate for job losses would be 1.3 million. Meanwhile, it said there is a two thirds chance that the change in employment would be between about zero and a decrease of 3.7 million workers. That last figure lines up with McCarthys statement of nearly 4 million workers, but it comes from the high-end of an old report and ignores what the CBO published this week. Last month,FactCheck.org found Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul also distorted the facts on this topic. The senator told Fox News that the government estimates are close to 4 million people will lose their jobs, if the minimum wage hike goes through. FactCheck.org examined the July 2019 CBO report [the current report had yet to be published] and found Paul cherry-picked the high-end of that report. Our Ruling Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed raising the national minimum wage to $15 per hour would destroy up to 3.7 million jobs. McCarthy appears to be citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis from 2019 that said, at the high-end, 3.7 million jobs could be lost from the wage hike. But in his statement, he linked to the CBOs new analysis published this week which found an average estimate of 1.4 million jobs would be lost, a figure he omitted. The new CBO report added theres a one-third chance the loss will be between 1 million and 2.7 million workers, still far less than McCarthys claim. In the end, we found McCarthy cherry-picked a figure from an old report while ignoring current data on the topic that tells a different story. We rated his claim False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. An activist expressed elation after Austin voters rejected a $1 billion rail-and-roads proposition, going on to say the rail part of the plan would have been a financial headache. Jim Skaggs, founder ofCitizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014,news story, that the rail costs would have been imposed on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation. Mark Nathan, a consultant to Lets Go Austin, which advocated for the proposition, asked us to check Skaggs claim. All aboard! To our inquiry, Skaggs said by email he believes he learned of Austins dubious status from anAustin Business Journalstory. I do not have time to research it at the moment, Skaggs wrote Nov. 5, 2014. City spokeswoman: Mild ratechanges We hunted unsuccessfully for such a story while to our nudge, a city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado,said by emailthe city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since:  Source:Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1,page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014) Alvarado continued: Please keep in mind the city is only one taxing jurisdiction. Theres also the county, school district, health district and then more, depending on where exactly someone lives. Also, she said, appraisals are a factor for taxes, not just the tax rate. (She noted the 2015 tax rate is the same as the 2014 rate.) Indeed, surging property values are a driver in local government revenues, theAustin American-Statesmanhas noted; of late, an April 2014 news story quoted Travis Countys chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, saying taxable residential values  a homes market value minus property-tax exemptions  were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans. Austin versus other big Texas cities Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austinsproposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a bigger burst in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or Houston. Specifically, Quintero said, the percentage of median family income spent on property tax bills for median-value homes in the Austin area represented a little less than 1.1 percent in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2014, that figure had increased to just under 1.5 percent, representing an increase of 0.4 percent. The other big Texas cities demonstrated smaller increases over the period. National comparisons Then again, Skaggs said Austins tax increases were No. 1 among major cities nationally. We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-basedLincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study. Kerr, drawing fromthe latest study, issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and also that by one gauge, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most-populous cities. One institute analysis looked at how much revenue per resident different cities have taken in. Our takeaways: From 2006 to 2011, per-person property tax revenue collected in Austin by all local government units (including school districts, the city and the county) decreased 4 percent, as measured in constant 2011 dollars. Then again, per-person revenue from city property taxes alone went up 6 percent; Austin ranked 35th among the 50 largest cities for that rate of increase. Higher rates of increase were recorded by cities including Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Chicago, which had a 60 percent spike in per-person property tax revenue. Over a longer span, 2001 to 2011, Austin ranked 27th nationally for its 26 percent increase in per-person revenue from city property taxes. The Texas capital was outpaced in percentage growth by cities including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, New York and Los Angeles. Austin experienced a 2 percent increase in per-person revenue from all taxes from 2006 to 2011, ranking 25th in this way. Its increase trailed hikes occurring in the more populous cities of San Jose, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Another institute breakdown highlighted by Kerr shows Austin ranking among cities with the greatest increases in taxes on a median-valued home. Our snapshots: From 2009 to 2013, Austins effective tax rate on a median-priced home increased from 1.93 percent to 2.22 percent; that bump amounted to the 11th-greatest increase (0.29 points) in the 50 biggest cities. As of that year, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Jacksonville and Chicago were the cities more populous than Austin that ranked higher by this indicator. In this instance, the effective rate is not the rate by which a government unit can generate the revenue it raised the year before. Rather, the study defines the effective rate as the total tax on a median-priced home divided by its total value, which takes into account variations in assessment rates and value exemptions across localities. While Austins effective tax rate in 2013 was ahead of its rate in 2009, it was less than the 2.44 percent rate of 2005. In 2013, property taxes on a median-value Austin home ran $1,049 ahead of those taxes on such a home in 2005, up nearly 26 percent. That percentage increase placed Austin 10th nationally in this way behind Portland, San Jose, Denver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Albuquerque, Columbus and Cleveland -- and only San Jose, Portland and Philadelphia had greater dollar increases than Austin. Among, say, the 15 largest cities as of that time, Austin ranked third behind San Jose and Philadelphia for the percent change in net tax 2005-2013. Over a shorter period, 2009-2013, Phoenix, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, New York and Jacksonville experienced greater increases in net property tax on a median-value home. (Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston and Indianapolis had smaller increases.) Our ruling Skaggs said Austin has the fastest-growing tax increases of any major U.S. city. Among the nations largest cities, Austin appears to have had the third-fastest growth in its property-tax bite on a median-valued home from 2005 to 2013. It seems reasonable to speculate local taxpayers feel the pinch. However, Skaggs didnt provide nor did we find a sign of Austin ranking first in tax growth among the countrys major cities. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In March 2016, photos showing a bottle of Coca-Cola with the words "share a Coke with the KKK" written on its label started circulating online:    This is not a real product sold by Coca-Cola. While the "Share a Coke" campaign allows Coca-Cola drinkers to personalize their cans, some words or phrases (such as "KKK") are not available:    The image showing the "KKK" bottle was created for an online petition on the web site Color Of Change, asking the company to pull its sponsorship of the Republican National Convention due to Donald Trump's failure to condemn the KKK in an interview: petition interview Even with Trump refusing to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan this weekend and declaring All Lives Matter at a rally, Coca-Cola and other companies still have not canceled their sponsorship of the RNC. How can Coca-Cola, a company that heavily markets to and profits from Black people, fund a platform for a presidential nominee that is being bolstered into office by former Grand Wizard David Duke, the KKK, and other white supremacists? The petition presupposes both that Coca-Cola will be sponsoring the 2016 Republican National Convention, and that Coca-Cola would be effectively endorsing the Ku Klux Klan by sponsoring the RNC. On 23 February 2016, representatives from the advocacy groups ColorofChange, Americas Voice, CREDO Action, Million Hoodies, MoveOn, and Presente.org admitted as much in an open letter to Coca-Cola and other alleged sponsors of the 2016 RNC: letter Based on your corporate sponsorship of the 2012 Republican National Convention we have reason to believe that your company is planning to again sponsor the RNC this year. We believe it is a sign of strong corporate leadership for you and your company to refrain from sponsoring Donald Trumps hateful and divisive rhetoric. While Coca-Cola did sponsor the Republican National Convention in 2012, the company also sponsored the Democratic National Convention that year: sponsored Many of the sponsors of the Democratic convention were also sponsors of the host committee in Tampa for last week's Republican National Convention. "The Coca-Cola Company believes we have a role to play in the political process and that includes helping to make the political conventions a success," said Coca-Cola spokeswoman Nancy Bailey. Claim:  A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd ... a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.  After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.  [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time.  Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours.  Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up).  Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done.  BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations:  The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:    Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other.   The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins:  The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set it Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor   sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160F to 180F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.  So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian AutomotiveTrade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied.  A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.  The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored  to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described.  In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us.  As gas prices  fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for 1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiousity was certainly aroused  why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s this particular light-bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea  after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs and this was the light bulb which had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins:  The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated:  26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale    Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959  (p. 253). American Folklore    Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays.  "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend."   FOAFTale News.  June 1994  (pp. 1-10).     Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 123-125).  Rumor!    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (pp. 9, 67).  The Book of Nasty Legends    Vance, Bill.  "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?"   The Toronto Star.  17 April 1993  (p. H2). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends    Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends During a May 10, 2021, airing of his Fox News show, host Tucker Carlson claimed that National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Anthony Fauci helped provide funding for "gain of function" research at a facility in Wuhan, China, that (supposedly) led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Tucker Carlson During that broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson cited an opinion piece regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic that was written by Nicolas Wade. In a nutshell, Wade argued without substantiated evidence that gain of function experiments (we'll explain what those are later) that were prohibited in the U.S. continued at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which ultimately led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. And because the Wuhan-based institute was not properly regulated, Wade argued, the novel coronavirus was likely to have infected a researcher who would ultimately become the source of the pandemic. cited opinion piece  The 13-minute segment began with Carlson criticizing Jeffrey Zeints, U.S. President Joe Bidens appointed official to oversee the COVID-19 response efforts. Carlson then suggested that Fauci said Americans can expect to wear masks indefinitely. (We fact-checked that, too. Fauci did not say that.) fact-checked that The question is why is he doing that? Maybe he likes it, thats possible. But you gotta think at least part of Tony Faucis authoritarian germ hysteria is a cover for something else, Carlson continued. Could it be that Tony Fauci is trying to divert attention from himself and his own personal role in the COVID-19 pandemic? Now, what do we mean by that? Thats when Carlson pivoted to The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandoras box at Wuhan?  Wade's opinion piece  not a scientific study as was suggested  published by the nonprofit science organization Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a reputable group that publishes free-access scientific information concerning science and global security issues. Wade is a controversial science writer whose recent theories on race have been generally disputed by researchers around the world. Wade was a former staff writer for the Science Times section of The New York Times up until 2012 and he authored the controversial book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. He has been described by researchers at Georgetown University as a sad saga of a former international reporter turned laughing stock. The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandoras box at Wuhan? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists disputed controversial book described By and large, Carlson hyperbolized and generalized Wades main points in his piece, stretching the key takeaways to suggest that the article explains where this virus almost certainly came from. Carlson furthered that Wade makes it clear that more than any other single American, Tony Fauci is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic by laying out a nearly insurmountably large amount of evidence that the virus originated in the WIV. This evidence included conducting experiments  funded by American tax dollars  to make bat viruses infectious to humans approved and directed by Tony Fauci, argued Carlson. We'll take a closer look at what Wade actually wrote below. As is usual with these sorts of allegations, there is a mixture of half-truths peppered in an alarmist claim meant to incite an emotional response. First, it is important to note that Wade wrote in his opinion piece that of the two theories he believed were plausible, so far neither has direct evidence proving its validity. Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction. And having inferred that direction, Im going to delineate some of the strands in this tangled skein of disaster, he wrote. After the Carlson video aired, questions surrounding gain of function research were brought to a Senate health committee hearing on May 11 when Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) clashed with Fauci over whether funding from the NIH was used at WIV, suggesting that this might have contributed to the lab leak hypothesis  a controversial theory that virus-related experiments accidentally spilled over into the public sphere. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4962333/senator-paul-dr-fauci-clash-research-funding-wuhan-lab We have not funded gain of function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didnt happen, said Fauci. Wade  and later Carlson  also argued that gain of function research funded by the NIH was the likely source of a laboratory leak  a hypothesis that has been contested by the broader scientific community time and again. Since SARS-CoV-2 was first named in January 2020 and subsequently declared a pandemic, conspiracy theorists have peddled notions that the virus was made in a lab and intentionally released as a biological weapon despite rigorous scientific research proving otherwise. conspiracy theorists peddled notions made in a lab biological weapon rigorous scientific research First and foremost, it is true that WIV was one of many research facilities around the world dedicated to the study of coronaviruses. Coronaviruses are one of the most common viruses and were at the center of the SARS 2001 and MERS 2012 epidemics, prompting efforts led by the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NIH to better understand their potential for a pandemic.  Research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of virology was partially funded by NIH. Public Domain  Public Domain One form of research conducted at these labs includes the gain of function research. These are experiments to increase the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens to make them more infectious to humans in order to help improve understanding of disease-causing agents and how they interact with humans, as well as their potential to cause a pandemic. In other words, scientists manipulate the genetic code of viruses to change certain elements, making them either more or less dangerous to better understand how they work. But in 2014, the Obama administration called for a pause on funding of such experiments, SARS and MERS viruses in particular, and launched a government-led investigation into the risks and benefits of such research.  An ethical analysis white paper written by Professor Michael Selgelid and produced by the NIH Office of Science Policy and published in the journal, Science and Engineering Ethics in 2016 argued that gain of function research poses risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. Using this guidance, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services developed a framework for guiding funding decisions about the gain of function research, and under the recommendation of experts, the NIH lifted its pause. ethical analysis white paper Science and Engineering Ethics developed lifted And it is true that WIV is located miles from where the first COVID-19 outbreak was detected and that the facility previously received funding from the NIH via the EcoHealth Alliance Inc., a research organization based in New York City, as was reported on the agencys website. But such international cooperation is not unusual, and funding to the lab was also provided through European, Asian, and African organizations as well as the World Health Organization and the European Virus Archive goes global.  WIV website To support its work, EcoHealth made subawards to the WIV and other institutions based in East Asia where coronaviruses tend to emerge and are prevalent. A subaward is made when the primary grant recipient (in this case, EcoHealth Alliance Inc.) seeks another organization to carry out part of the grantees research project. In this case, NIH said that it did not establish the terms of the award and that EcoHealth was directly accountable for the performance of the project. In an email to Snopes, EcoHealth Alliance communications manager Robert Kessler said that the organization has neither contributed to nor participated in gain-of-function research. The research proposed in the grant application sought to understand how bat coronaviruses evolve naturally in the environment to become transmissible to the human population, Jennifer Routh, a spokesperson for the NIH, told Snopes. This included studying viral diversity in bat reservoirs, surveying people who work in live animal markets or other jobs with high exposure to wildlife for evidence of bat-coronavirus infection, and analyzing data to predict which newly discovered viruses pose the greatest threat to human health. The application did not propose research to enhance any coronavirus to be more transmissible or virulent, added Routh. The application was subjected to rigorous peer review and was judged to be a high priority, given how SARS-CoV had already emerged in this bat population. To support its work, EcoHealth made sub-awards to WIV and other institutions based in East Asia where coronaviruses tend to emerge and are prevalent. And according to NIH, funds that go to sub-awardees (EcoHealth Alliance) from the primary grantee (NIH) must support the research activities that were approved and funded in the grant, which did not include gain of function research. On May 19, Dr. Francis Collins with the NIH issued the below statement, which the agency forwarded to Snopes: statement Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as in Asia in 2003 that caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and in Saudi Arabia in 2012 that caused Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), NIH and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease. However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported gain-of-function research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. NIH strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. SARS MERS The 2014 funding pause pertained to a subset of gain-of-function research that could reasonably be anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. Following the initiation of the pause, this grant was reviewed again and determined by experts to fall outside the scope of the funding pause. funding pause But on Oct. 20, Republicans with the congressional group U.S. House Oversight Committee tweeted a letter written by Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), confirming that EcoHealth had conducted gain of function research at the WIV. The letter was directed to committee ranking member James Comer, R-Ky. Oct. 20  The letter was reported by several publications, including The New York Post, Fox News, and The New York Times. In it, Tabak said that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, INC. and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have become SARS-CoV-2, referencing an analysis attached to the letter that was not included in the tweet. (Snopes contacted the DHHS to receive a copy of the letter and the referenced analysis but did not receive a reply at the time of this update. We will include a copy of the report when and if we receive it.) The New York Post Fox News The New York Times The letter was also said to contain the fifth and final progress report for Grand R01AI1 10964, which was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and included data from a research project conducted during the 2018-19 grant period using bat coronavirus genome sequences already existing in nature. The progress report was submitted to the NIH in August 2021 as part of NIH compliance enforcement efforts, and it shows that EcoHealth Alliance violated terms of the grant by failing to report a bat experiment that made mice sicker: violated The limited experiment described in the final progress report provided by EcoHealth Alliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model. All other aspects of the mice, including the immune system, remained unchanged. In this limited experiment, laboratory mice were infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus. As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses, especially those found in bats, have been studied around the world due to their prevalence in the natural world and ability to infect across species. In fact, there are hundreds of coronaviruses, most of which circulate among animals and some of which can jump to humans in what is called a spillover event. Following the SARS and MERS outbreaks of 2002 and 2012 respectively, the NIAID identified coronaviruses as a priority for researchers to investigate, including how these viruses originate and cause disease, as well as to develop animal study models for new treatments and potential vaccines. studied SHC014 is a SARS-like coronavirus that infects horseshoe bats that has previously been studied by researchers in mouse models to determine the risk of a SARS-CoV reemergence of infection risk from viruses that naturally circulate in bat populations. During the pandemic, the human ACE2 receptor saw renewed interest by the research community for its role as the entry point for SARS-CoV-2 infection. SHC014 previously been studied interest In short, the letter by Tabak stated that mice genetically altered to contain the ACE2 receptor were used as testers to determine whether SHC014 would bind to the receptor. And because the laboratory mice became sicker, it is likely that the virus successfully bound. In July 2021, the NIH published a media kit that described its research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs), which are those that show potential in infecting human populations. Research involving PPPs is required to undergo additional scrutiny when it comes to funding, but at the time of the grant proposal, EcoHealth Alliances research did not meet the requirements for further review because it was not shown that these bat coronaviruses could infect humans. published However, grant language allowed for a second review out of an abundance of caution pending results to determine whether the research should be reevaluated or new biosafety measures be enacted EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant, wrote Tabak. EcoHealth is being notified that they have five days from today [Oct. 20] to submit to NIH any and all unpublished data from the experiments and work conducted under this review. A joint World Health Organization-China study on the origins of COVID-19 published in March 2019 said that transmission of the virus from bats to humans through another animal is the most likely scenario and that a lab leak is extremely unlikely. However, the NIH told Snopes that it strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. said Working with a cross-regional coalition of 13 countries, we urge the WHO to begin the second phase of their study without delay, wrote Collins.  cross-regional coalition of 13 countries In short, gain of function research is permitted under certain conditions, and some evidence suggests that such experimentation may have occurred in the past at WIV. At the time of this writing, it appears that experiments to manipulate a coronavirus resulted from research conducted by EcoHealth Alliance during the 2018-19 grant period, but there is not yet conclusive evidence to suggest outright that the virus mutated to SARS-CoV-2, or that it spilled over into the surrounding area. Snopes will update this article once further information into the investigation is provided by EcoHealth Alliance and NIH. Until then, we left this claim rating as "Unproven. Sources Andersen, Kristian G., et al. The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, vol. 26, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 45052. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9. Archive, View Author, and Get author RSS feed. NIH Admits US Funded Gain-of-Function in Wuhan  despite Faucis Denials. New York Post, 21 Oct. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/. Brief Introduction----Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://english.whiov.cas.cn/Research2016/Brief_Introduction2017/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.COVID-19 Is a Serious Threat ... But So Are Memes Claiming Its NOT. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/07/woman-who-called-pandemic-a-hoax/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Rand Paul Blasts Anthony Fauci after NIH Admits Gain-of-Function Funding. Fox News, 21 Oct. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-nih-gain-function-funding. Did Fauci Say Americans Can Expect to Wear Masks Indefinitely? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-wear-masks-indefinitely/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Geneticists Decry Book on Race and Evolution. https://www.science.org/content/article/geneticists-decry-book-race-and-evolution. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study. United States Department of State, https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-who-convened-covid-19-origins-study/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Misinformation on Coronavirus Is Proving Highly Contagious. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2020/07/30/misinformation-on-coronavirus-is-proving-highly-contagious/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Moving on from Nicholas Wade to Continuing Concerns about Scientific Racism | Bioethics Research Library. https://bioethics.georgetown.edu/2014/08/moving-on-from-nicholas-wade-to-continuing-concerns-about-scientific-racism/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 18 Dec. 2017, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research. NIH Says Grantee Failed to Report Experiment in Wuhan That Created a Bat Virus That Made Mice Sicker. https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-says-grantee-failed-report-experiment-wuhan-created-bat-virus-made-mice-sicker. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Partnerships----Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://english.whiov.cas.cn/International_Cooperation2016/Partnerships/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021.Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 8 July 2021, https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens. Samavati, Lobelia, and Bruce D. Uhal. ACE2, Much More Than Just a Receptor for SARS-COV-2. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 10, 2020, p. 317. Frontiers, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.00317. Selgelid, Michael J. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 22, no. 4, Aug. 2016, pp. 92364. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1. Statement on Funding Pause on Certain Types of Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 20 Jan. 2015, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-funding-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research. Statement on Misinformation about NIH Support of Specific Gain-of-Function Research. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 19 May 2021, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-misinformation-about-nih-support-specific-gain-function-research. Tang, X. C., et al. Prevalence and Genetic Diversity of Coronaviruses in Bats from China. Journal of Virology, vol. 80, no. 15, Aug. 2006, pp. 748190. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00697-06. The Origin of COVID: Did People or Nature Open Pandoras Box at Wuhan? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 5 May 2021, https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/. Tucker Carlson Fact Checks and News from Snopes.Com. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/tag/tucker-carlson/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. UCL. Problematical Theories. UCL Division of Biosciences, 13 Feb. 2019, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/biosciences/departments/genetics-evolution-and-environment/research/molecular-and-cultural-evolution-lab/debunking-genetic-astrology/problematical-theories. Was the COVID-19 Pandemic Planned in Rockefellers Operation Lockstep? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rockefeller-operation-lockstep/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. WHO Report: COVID Likely 1st Jumped Into Humans from Animals. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/ap/2021/03/29/who-report-covid-likely-1st-jumped-into-humans-from-animals/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Why You Shouldnt Fall for the COVID-19 Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/01/covid-19-bioweapon/. Accessed 22 Oct. 2021. Zimmer, Carl, and Benjamin Mueller. Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says. The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/science/bats-covid-lab-leak-nih.html. Update [May 20, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from the NIH. Update [May 25, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional comments from the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance.   Update [May 28, 2021]: This article was updated to include clarification on NIH grant-awarding processes. Update [Oct. 22, 2021]: Article was updated to include new findings established by the House Oversight Committee and a change in rating from Unproven to Research in Progress pending the results of a NIH-led investigation. On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly fielded reports about the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media along with criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z @washingtonpost #Albagdadi pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z  Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. here The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine.  archived links Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter saying that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly.  Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely served as the inspiration of a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users started to share an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three": For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN.   years-old image of Don Lemon Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019. Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019. In June 2016, a message reporting that GOP candidate Donald Trump was planning on shutting down the Library of Congress as a cost-saving measure if elected president began circulating via Facebook:  Such messages linked to a story that was originally posted on The Retroset web site: As reported early this morning by CNN and HuffPost, Donald Trump, in a phone interview with Fox News Steve Doocy, claimed as President of the United States, he would seek to cut-out all unnecessary spending. When pressed for specifics, the GOP frontrunner dismissively quipped, Well, I think we spend way too much on organizations and departments that just save stuff. For instance, Id make a move to get rid of the Library of Congress. Trump continued, Yknow what? Old books, decomposing newspapers, pansy artwork and a bunch of black and white movies about women and illegal immigrants have no business being protected with our hard-earned tax dollars. My first act as President would be to dissolve wasteful branches of government like the Library and that Kennedy Center for Peforming Arts stuff, and sell the material to China for huge profits. The publication date of the Retroset article wasn't obvious to those who encountered it via Facebook, but readers who clicked through to the original discovered that it appeared on 1 April 2016, otherwise known as April Fool's Day. original The Retroset didn't specifically state that the article was a springtime ruse, but the text incorporated several clues to its fictional nature. For instance, while The Retroset reported that CNN and the Huffington Post had both reported on Trump's plan to shutter the Library of Congress, the embedded links they provided led to irrelevant articles on those sites. Beto ORourke, the Democratic nominee challenging Republican U.S. Sen.Ted Cruzof Texas, said that vast U.S. wealth differences show the economy doesnt work for everyone. The El Paso congressmans half-page ad, in theHouston Defenders July 26, 2018,issue, shows ORourke shaking hands with an African-American man. Accompanying text says: Our economy isn't working for everyone when black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Let's level the playing field by ensuring access to good jobs, higher pay, skills training, and a fair shot at economic success. A reminder: Wealth is distinct from income. It measures how much we own, not how much we make. While the two are closely tied, economists talk about wealth in terms of net worth. A house, for example, adds to net worth if its value is higher than the amount of the mortgage. Assets minus debts gives you net worth. 2016 federal survey We asked ORourkes campaign about the basis of ORourkes 10 times less claim in the ad, which had come to our attention in a Texas Tribunenews storyon ORourkes advertising expenditures. By email, Chris Evans of ORourkes campaign pointed out an October 2017Washington PostWonkblogstoryand other reports rooted in 2016 consumer survey data summed up by the Federal Reserve in fall 2017. That data, Evans told us, pegged the median net worth of white families at 10 times the median net worth of black families. The Wonkblog story says that according to the survey results, the median net worth of white families  $171,000  is now 10 times that of black families and eight times that of Hispanic families. A factor, the story says, is that white families are five times more likely than black or Hispanic families to inherit money. That translates into opportunity  a down payment on a home, tuition to go to school, capital to build a small business, savings to retire on. Other factors, the story says, include distinct rates of home ownership and participation in job-related savings plans. Median and average wealth differences According to apairofSeptember 2017 Federal Reserve articles, the agencys 2016 Survey of Consumer Financesreached6,254 familieswith queries onhouseholds total pre-tax income, balance sheets, pensions, income and demographic characteristics. No other study for the country collects comparable information, the agency says. The 2016 survey found about a 10-to-1 difference in the median wealth/net worth of white and black Americans--the ratio between $171,000 and $17,600. Net worth is defined as the difference between families' gross assets and their liabilities. The survey results otherwise suggest the difference in the average wealth of white and black Americans is nearly 7-to-1--$933,700 for white residents and $138,200 for black residents. (An equal number of households earn more and less than each median. Averages are based on adding up reported incomes and dividing by the number of households.) The Fed offered one other comparison: Nearly 1 in 5 black households reported zero or negative net worth compared to a smaller share of white households, 9 percent, the study says. Factors behind white-black difference We spotted a Fed chart specifying disparities by race identified in the survey in household income and by whether people reported owning  homes and cars or having retirement accounts: SOURCE:Excerpted from chart in data analysis,Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Sept. 27, 2017 (accessed Aug. 17, 2018) As ORourkes spokesman also noted, the Pew Research Center took a longer view of the wealth disparity singled out by ORourke. Pews November 2017 Fact Tankstorysays that according to the Feds surveys over the years, the wealth gap between white and black and Hispanic households shrank by about half from 2007 to 2016. The month before, another non-partisan entity, the Urban Institute,updated its chartsdrawing on the Feds surveys. For more than 50 years, the institute says, white families have outpaced black and Hispanic families in average wealth. We asked the institute to evaluate ORourkes claim. The statement had the right spirit, we heard back, thoughCaroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow, offered a caveat in that the 2016 Fed survey suggests that black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of whites, not 10 times less. Older survey A 2014PunditFact fact-checkled us to fetch what turned out to be older results from a different survey. In June 2017, the U.S. Census Bureaureleasedits estimates of household net incomes attributed to its 2013Survey of Income and Program Participation. Tables in the release suggest that white households at the time had median net worths of $103,796 and black households had net worths of $9,211--signaling an 11-to-1 ratio. White households had average net worths of $292,217, the bureau says, compared to $91,595 for black households--indicating a 3-to-1 ratio. Our ruling ORourke said that black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Survey results pinpoint two ways to gauge such disparities. According to the Feds 2016 consumer survey, black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of white Americans while black Americans had a little over one-seventh the average wealth of white Americans. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Since the 2020 elections, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has attackedU.S. President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, for allegedly engaging in business practices by means of which Hunter allegedly benefited from his father's position. But just a few years ago, according to an internet rumor, Carlson was asking for the younger Biden's help in getting his son into college. attacked A meme going around claims that an email shows Carlson thanking Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown University on behalf of his son, Buckley.  This claim is accurate. In 2014, when Joe Biden was serving as vice president, Carlson and his wife, Susie,reached out to Hunter Biden for help in getting their son into Georgetown University. Their email communication was revealed through forensic analysis of a laptop once owned by Biden that he had purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The laptop was obtained by Trump's then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and its contents pushed out to the New York Post in 2020. The correspondenceon Biden's hard drive, a copy of which was also in the possession of the FBI, was largely used to investigate his overseas business dealings during his father's time in the White House, but also have illuminated more about the Carlson-Biden relationship. reached out revealed laptop once owned by Biden correspondence The emails were given to The Washington Poston a hard drive by activist Jack Maxey, who received it from Giuliani. The Washington Post revealed the details of Carlson's and Biden's communication in May 2022, and was able to confirm with the help of forensic analysis and interviews with people familiar with the communications that this and other emails on the hard drive were real. The Washington Post So what did Carlson actually say? The Post shared an image of a few of the emails in which he thanks Biden for writing a letter to Georgetown "on Buckley's [his son's] behalf." He added, "So nice of you. I know it'll help." The Post Image via Washington Post Carlson's wife wrote to Biden in 2014: "I realize you don't really know Buckley. Maybe you could meet or speak to him and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached." She also wrote: "Tucker and I would be so grateful if you could write a letter or speak to someone in the Georgetown Admission's Office about Buckley." Biden wrote back that he would be honored to help. "I will do anything you would like me to do," he said. Carlson described his son's interest in squash and fly fishing and wrote, "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think, and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter for Buckley, Susie responded with, "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!" Carlson admitted that he was once close with Biden in a phone interview with the Post. He said: "Hunter Biden was my neighbor. Our wives were friends. I knew him well. I talked to him many times about addiction, something I know a lot about. And I've said that. I think that Hunter Biden is an addict and that's why his life is falling apart, and I feel bad for him. I've said that many times, and I mean it." admitted He refused to discuss the emails, however, pointing (with apparent irony) to claims that the timing of the laptop's emergence in 2020 had the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Previously, Carlson had dismissed and mocked claims of a Russian disinformation campaign as an effort by the establishment and tech giants to protect Joe Biden's 2020 election campaign. It is unclear if Biden ended up writing a letter, but Carlson's son did end up going to the University of Virginia. refused "I can't confirm these emails. The emails that you're referring to were described by our intel community as Russian disinformation," he said. He added that he could not verify the emails as he did not have access to the account. said Hunter Biden declined to comment to the Post. Since 2020, Carlson has regularly skewered the younger Biden on his show, accusing him of getting "lucrative jobs  because he had an important father." skewered He did say there were certain lines he would not cross, pertaining to the laptop. In October 2020, he said: "Much of the material on the laptop is of limited relevance to the public. [...] And by the way, if we're being honest, some of the exchanges between Hunter Biden and his father, and they are on there, too, reveal that whatever you say about them, Joe Biden really loves his son, and they're touching." But following the 2020 election, Carlson's anti-Hunter Biden rhetoric grew, and he even poked fun at his addictions in an October 2021 segment:"So again, let's say you were a crackhead through your 40s, made a lot of pornographic videos mostly of yourself, your genitals covered in M&Ms, and then once you got to your 50s, decide, 'Hey, I want to be Andy Warhol. You probably couldn't do it unless your dad happened to be the president, and that's how Hunter Biden pulled that off." grew "A Look at the Time Tucker Carlson Asked Hunter Biden for a Favor." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/look-time-tucker-carlson-asked-hunter-biden-favor/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Pengelly, Martin. "Tucker Carlson Tried to Use Hunter Biden to Get His Son into Georgetown." The Guardian, 20 May 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/19/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-georgetown-emails.Accessed 7 Dec. 2022. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014