In the 2014 election, 80 percentofpoor people did not vote.
Income inequality is the core issue of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, and he said it may also be why hes behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd asked Sanders why he thought 16 of 17 states with large wealth gaps were won by Clinton. Well, because poor people dont vote. I mean, thats just a fact,Sanders said. Thats a sad reality of American society. And thats why we have to transform one, as you know, one of thelowest voter turnouts of any major society of Earth. We have done a good job of bringing young people. But in America today, the last election in 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. Is turnout among the poor really that low? The data shows that weve done slightly better at getting out the vote among low-income people than what Sanders suggests, but not by much. Sanders policy director Warren Gunnels pointed us to areportby the left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos, which useddatafrom the Census Bureau. According to Demos, only one in four of those earning less than $10,000 voted in 2014, Gunnels said. Even worse, the turnout was just 12 percent among 18- to 24-year-olds earning less than $30,000. In other words, roughly 75 percent of people in the lowest income bracket didnt vote in the last midterm elections. However, theres one catch to this figure. While an annual income of less than $10,000 is undoubtedly poor, thepoverty threshold in 2014also includes family incomes above $10,000. Sean McElwee, a policy analyst with Demos who authored the report, told us to look at annual incomes under $30,000 instead. The turnout rate for that group was31.5 percent, which means 68.5 percent of poor people didnt vote in 2014, about 10 percentage points less than what Sanders said. Sanders is indeed correct to highlight low turnout among the poor as an important factor that biases policy in favor of the wealthy, McElwee said. As PolitiFact hasreported, census data may overstate the turnout rates, as its based on self-reporting. So its possible that Sanders 80 percent figure is closer to actual rates than what the survey shows, but this is speculative. Sanders is more on target if we look at a definition of poor that is not based on income. A 2015 Pew Centersurveylooked at the politics of financial security, which analysts defined as having a credit card, a savings or checking account, and a retirement or investment plan; not needing to borrow money; not falling behind on bills, rent or mortgage payments; and not receiving food assistance or Medicaid benefits. The survey found that just 20 percent of the least financially secure were likely voters in 2014 compared to 69 percent of the most financially secure. Turnout always drops in midterm elections, when the White House isnt at stake, and overall turnout in 2014 was the worst it had been in72 years. Nonetheless, census data shows turnout is consistently lower among the poor than other income groups:  So why are the poor less likely to vote? The reasons are interconnected, if not unsurprising. For one, the political process sets hurdles for the poor. Registration barriers are key, said McElwee of Demos, pointing to census data that shows that low-income people are far less likely to be registered voters. Voter ID laws, for example, impose costs that people struggling to make ends meet cant really afford. The Government Accountability Officereportedin 2014 that a drivers license can cost between $5 to $58.50 in states with voter ID laws. And nearly 500,000 eligible voters dont have convenient access to an ID-issuing office, according to a2012 studyby New York University. The poor also make up 55 percent of people who cant vote (which include felons and immigrants as well as residents of Washington D.C., and U.S. territories), according to a 2013 Harvard Universityworking paper. This means that they can't vote but also they won't be mobilized by parties, who base their mobilization off of voter files, McElwee said. Being poor also means you cannot afford to devote time to the political process. The Pew study found that just 26 percent of the least financially secure knew which party controlled Congress compared to 62 percent of the most affluent. Similarly, compared to affluent non-voters, low-income non-voters were more likely to list disinterest, forgetting to vote, health and issues of access as reasons why they didnt vote, according tocensus data. They often have inflexible jobs, have limited transportation options to get to the polls, and/or insufficient knowledge about democracy and the choices they face, said Zoltan Hajnal, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. The poor also often lack efficacy and dont feel like their votes count as much. Our ruling Sanders said, In 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. The figure is a bit high if we look at turnout by income. In 2014, about 75 percent of people who made under $10,000 and about 69 percent of those who made under $30,000 didnt vote. If we look at financial insecurity, however, Sanders is right on the money. We rate his claim Mostly True.
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 Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. As public outrage builds over bonuses issued by bailout recipient AIG, two senators are claiming they tried to outlaw such bonuses but were thwarted by the White House and fellow lawmakers. Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000. Wyden made the claim during an appearance onThe Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC, and in other interviews. Back in early February, you and Senator Snowe added an amendment to the stimulus bill that, I think, would have prevented AIG from giving out these millions of dollars worth of bonuses, Maddow said to Wyden. That amendment was taken out of the bill. Am I right that your amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now? You are right, Wyden said. And that's what's so sad about this situation. It simply didn't need to happen. Wyden went on to predict that a similar measure would pass now that the issue has gained so much public attention. I think finally, we'll get it done, he said. The tragedy is it should have been done a month ago when we had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate and then somehow mysteriously disappeared. In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Wyden blamed both the White House and fellow legislators, suggesting they caved to lobbyists for Wall Street who opposed the measure. Wyden and Snowe announced the amendment Feb. 4, proposing it be tacked onto another amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill. Last year's financial rescue package, commonly known as the bailout, had left open the escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the time. This amendment insists on strong taxpayer protections and guarantees that no tax dollars be used to prop up Wall Street executives. The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000. It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds. Wyden pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the amendment at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Feb. 11. Given the fact that the president, to his credit, called these bonuses shameful, and time is short, where do you stand on getting a solution to the problem of these just-paid excessive bonuses in the economic stimulus legislation? Wyden asked. We've talked about that privately, Geithner said, in part, in a lengthy response. Our staffs are working together. We'd like to work with you on how to achieve that objective. American Banker, a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry strongly opposes the provision, which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills. They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week. There is no documentation in the public record of exactly who removed the provision. Wyden overstated the case a bit when he responded in the affirmative to Maddow's suggestion that the amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now. It would not have eliminated the bonuses entirely  only that portion over $100,000 per person. And the tax that would have been imposed on companies that did not comply would have recovered just 35 percent of the excessive amount. But Wyden can legitimately claim to have taken on the issue with gusto  well before the current outrage over AIG's bonuses. We find his claim to be Mostly True. One common tactic to smear politicians is to claim they are related to George Soros, a billionaire philanthropist who serves as a sort of right-wing boogeyman due to his large investments in "liberal" causes.  right-wing boogeyman For example, Chelsea Clinton is not married to Soros' nephew, Adam Schiff's sister is not married to Soros' son, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is not Soros' niece. In April 2022, as Russia continued its assault on Ukraine, another version of this rumor was circulated on social media, this time falsely claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was Soros' cousin. Chelsea Clinton is not married to Soros' nephew, Adam Schiff's sister is not married to Soros' son, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is not Soros' niece.  This false rumor was shared on social media along with a claim that this information came directly from the Pentagon: false rumor was shared   The Pentagon has released no such statement.  We searched the Pentagon's website and social media accounts and found no remarks about Soros and Zelenskyy being cousins. A spokesperson for the Pentagon told Lead Stories that no such statement was released, and a spokesperson for Soros' Open Society Foundation told Politifact that the rumor was "entirely false." Pentagon's website spokesperson for the Pentagon told Lead Stories Politifact that the rumor was "entirely false." The Pentagon did not release a statement identifying Zelenskyy and Soros as cousins, Soros' foundation has denied these rumors, and this claim mirrors a common smear tactic among far-right circles. Furthermore, Zelenskyy was once asked about a similarly baseless rumor, the claim that the Ukraine government was "installed" by Soros. In 2020, Zelenskky laughed at the notion, saying: "I am not familiar with a person named Soros. I have never met him. I'm definitely not one of that 'followers of Soros'. There are probably people who studied at the expense of various donor funds and worked for companies that were founded by such funds. And one of these funds is Soros Foundation. I understand that in fact they received money from the fund of this person for which they studied abroad. The question of the influence of Mr. Soros on Ukraine  I do not feel it. I think this is all an exaggeration." Fact Check: No Evidence Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Is Cousin To George Soros | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/04/fact-check-no-evidence-ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelenskyy-is-cousin-to-george-soros.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. Fact Check-The Pentagon Did Not Say That Volodymyr Zelenskiy Is George Soros Cousin. Reuters, 7 Apr. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-zelenskiy-soros-idUSL2N2W51UM. Releases. U.S. Department of Defense, https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. PolitiFact - No, Zelenskyy and Soros Are Not Cousins. @politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/07/facebook-posts/no-zelenskyy-and-soros-are-not-cousins/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. Zelensky: Power Is an Opportunity. I Have the Chance to Help. Interfax-Ukraine, https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/interview/640646.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022. After a Senate deal brought the 16-day government shutdown to a close, President Barack Obama wanted to make sure the impact of narrowly avoiding a default wasnt lost on the nation. These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy, he said in apublic addressThursday. As proof, he offered up specific claims including, Half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months. PolitiFact wanted to know whether Obamas CEO statistic was accurate. The White Housepointed us to a recentBusiness Roundtable survey. Fifty percent of responding CEOs indicated that the ongoing disagreement in Washington over the 2014 budget and the debt ceiling is having a negative impact on their plans for hiring additional employees over the next six months, the report reads. On its face, thats in line with what Obama said, but we wanted to see how Business Roundtable acquired their results. They would not disclose their exact question wording to us. Their report notes, Responses were received from 134 member CEOs, 63 percent of the total Business Roundtable membership. Business Roundtables membership tends to be larger companies.Spokeswoman Amanda DeBard told us CEOs are invited based on revenue, industry and market capitalization, soits safe to say the poll responses dont reflect a random sample of U.S. businesses. Since Obama often speaks to the Business Roundtable, we wanted to see what his relationship with the group was like. University of Kansas political science professor Burdett Loomis, who specializes in lobbying, said theres not much of a connection. Many of them have long-term relationships with government (simply because of their size and the governments size), but probably only a handful have any kind of even semi-close relationship with Obama, he said. We ran the poll results by another business group,the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Senior policy analyst Holly Wade said she saw a similar sentiment among the smaller business owners that the federation represents. In September, there were more small business owners that were feeling pessimistic about business conditions six months out, she said. There wasnt much opinion voiced about delaying employment specifically, though. But Wade said that could be because small businesses were already hiring less during the economic recovery compared to bigger corporations. Why would CEOs want to delay hiring? With another possible debt ceiling default looming Feb. 7, University of Maryland finance professor David Kass said its likely that a budget dealwill lead to tighter fiscal policy, which would slow down the economy and cause CEOs to put off hiring decisions for a few months. Another factor that would contribute to CEO anxiety is consumer behavior. While day-to-day spending probably wont change post-shutdown, consumers will likely postpone higher ticket purchases, like homes and cars. On the demand side, theres uncertainty on the consumers part, which in turn will have an impact on CEOs, Kass said. Theyre trying to predict their future sales and what the environment will look like. Its a lose-lose situation for everyone. In any case, Obama is trying to communicate that the shutdown had a significantfinancial impacton the nation, and hes not wrong there. Independent forecasts agree that the shutdown was a setback for the U.S. economy, though they differ on exact figures. Our ruling Obama said 50 percent of CEOs are delaying hiring due to the shutdown, which accurately cites the results of a poll sponsored by the Business Roundtable. The surveys limited sampling, though,  means the responses arent necessarily representative of all U.S. businesses. But the idea that the shutdown affects how businesses think about hiring is more broadly applicable. Experts said its reasonable that CEOs would be hesitant to hire, given that uncertainty about government fiscal policy can affect consumer confidence. We rate Obama's claim Mostly True On 31 October 2018, the Facebook page Hunter Alerts was born, garnering just 40 followers in its first week of existence. So far, all that page has been used for is the distribution of two political advertisements asserting that If you vote in North Dakota, you may forfeit hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota": Hunter Alerts advertisements   Those ads were promoted by North Dakotas Democratic party (known as the Democratic-Nonpartisan League, or Democratic-NPL) and linked back to that partys website with a slightly more detailed explanation of the claim: explanation You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election. This statement, which was misleading for several reasons (enumerated below) and was provided with no additional information, citations, or exposition, was characterized by many critics as an attempt to suppress conservative votes in North Dakota because it targets a demographic (i.e., hunters) who traditionally lean conservative. (North Dakota also faces allegations of voter suppression efforts that target the more Democrat-friendly Native American population in that state.) characterized allegations Both the North Dakota Secretary of State and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NGFD) have told reporters they do not know what the ad was talking about. An NGFD representative told us via email that they cannot explain [the ad] and we have no desire to try to sort it out for [the Democratic-NPL]. We have had no involvement in the post. told The most generous interpretation of the Democratic-NPL statement would be that the act of voting in North Dakota, because it requires a state-issued North Dakota ID, means voters would necessarily be forfeiting claims to residency in any other states. Many states offer both resident and non-resident hunting licenses, with the former coming at a cheaper cost but with proof-of-residency requirements. If, as the Democratic-NPL seemed to be arguing, one somehow obtained a resident hunting license in another state but actually lived and voted in North Dakota, that other state could revoke their license if they found out you had declared residency somewhere else. (The Democratic-NPL declined our request for comment). requires Many states Not only was this scenario far more specific than what was implied by the two-sentence statement promoted by the Democratic-NPL, but it also suggested an unrealistic level of inter-state bureaucratic communication whereby one states hunting licensure board actively communicated with the ID-granting offices in every other state to make sure no one was receiving unwarranted license discounts. In most (if not all) cases, it was also simply inaccurate. As an example, we will present a scenario under which a Wyoming resident legally obtains a resident hunting permit in that state and then moves and legally obtains residency (and therefore voting rights) in North Dakota. In Wyoming, you must have resided in that state for at least one year, and during that time period you must not have been claiming residency for any other purpose in any other state (emphasis ours): Wyoming To qualify for any resident game and fish license, preference point, permit or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, preference point, permit or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing or trapping licenses, etc.) during that one (1) year period. While several states stipulate you can no longer be considered a resident if you register to vote somewhere else, the requirements to receive a resident hunting license in Wyoming and most other states is retrospective and not prospective. If a hypothetical Wyoming resident switched jobs and moved to North Dakota to work, their Wyoming hunting license would already have been issued, and the State of Wyoming would likely have no idea that person had moved. All that would be required for that individual to become a valid North Dakota voter would be for that person to have maintained a residence in the state for 90 consecutive days and to have obtained an ID card or driver's license from North Dakota's Department of Transportation. no longer required An additionally misleading aspect of the ad is the suggestion that the act of voting could pose a threat to out-of-state hunting licenses. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, the Democratic-NPL states, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election (our emphasis added). The only population of people this ad could possibly be relevant to are people who live in North Dakota, have a resident hunting license in another state, and also do not have an up-to-date North Dakota ID or drivers license. By not providing those supporting details, the ad does nothing to correct the false notion an already legal North Dakota voter (i.e., one already in possession of a state-issued ID) could put the legality of their theoretical out-of-state hunting licenses in jeopardy by going to the polls. The fact that this ad was released less than a week before the election also speaks poorly of its legitimacy. The argument presented by the Democratic-NPL is based on a highly implausible scenario that has state hunting licensure boards actively and continually communicating with other states DOT or DMV offices and would relate only (if at all) to a population of people who have claimed to be residents in other states for the purpose of obtaining discounted resident hunting licenses. Even then, it would not be the act of voting that theoretically put out-of-state licenses at risk, but the act of obtaining the state-issued ID required for voting. North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.  "By Voting in North Dakota, You Could Forfeit Your Hunting Licenses."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Schallhorn, Kaitlyn.  "North Dakota Democratic Party Discourages Hunters from Voting, Claims They Could Lose Out-of-State Licenses."
  Fox News.  2 November 2018. Lopez, German.  "North Dakotas New Voting Restrictions Seem Aimed at Native Americans Who Vote Democrat."
  Vox.  31 October 2018.
 Crowe, Jack.  "North Dakota Dems Threaten Hunters with Loss of License for Voting."
  National Review.  1 November 2018. North Dakota Secretary of State.  "ID Required for Voting."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  "Hunting in Wyoming."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  North Dakota Dept. of Transportation.  "ID Card Requirements."
  Accessed 2 November 2018. In May 2012 the web site Breitbart published a copy of a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by the literary agency Acton & Dystel showcasing their roster of writers, among whom was a young man named Barack Obama.  This booklet was of particular interest because it included a brief biographical sketch which described the future President as having been born in Kenya: Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.  Is this booklet evidence that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya?  Not even the site that published it made that claim, noting in a disclaimer that: Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. ... [W]e discovered, and now present, the booklet described below  one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.  It is evidence  not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times. The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself: Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients. "You're undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me  an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more." A New York Times article about Barack Obama published in 1990, a year before the Acton & Dystel promotional booklet was issued, correctly identified his birthplace as Hawaii. article A variant of this item paired the image shown above with the statement "Big Oops! Harvard Law Review did not cleanse its 1991 yearbook which states he was born in Kenya."  As noted above, the biographical sketch pictured above was put out by a literacy agency; it was not part of any yearbook published by Harvard.    Butterfield, Fox.  "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review."
  The New York Times.  6 February 1990. Stableford, Dylan.  "'Obama's Literary Agent Misidentified His Birthplace in 1991."
  ABC News.  18 May 2012. Taranto, James.  "Counterfeit Kenyan."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 May 2012. For a while there, Gov.Scott Walkerwas coyabout whether he would run for a third four-year term in 2018. But now hisintentions are all but official, and he is repeatedly sounding themes that could show up as part of his campaign platform. On May 18, 2017, Walkerwas interviewedby Jeff Wagner, a conservative talk show host on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. Wagner opened by asking about one of the governors favorite topics: property tax reform. Walker responded by declaring that property taxes on a median-value home are lower right now than they were in December 2010, the month before he took office. Hes correct, though theres a caveat. Prior fact checks Theres no question property taxes, though they might increase for some individual property owners and decrease for others, have generally been on the decline since Walker took office and his fellow Republicans took control of the Legislature in 2011. In 2015,we rated Mostly Truea Walker claim that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. In January 2017, when Walker said that property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II,our rating was True. An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. And on ourWalk-O-Meter, which tracks Walkers campaign promises, weverated In the Workshis pledge to cut property taxes so that the levy on a typical home in 2018 is lower than it was in 2010. Current claim Walkers new claim refers to a specific measure -- an estimate of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued, or typical, Wisconsin home. The estimates are done by the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau. That tax was $2,963 for 2010-11, just before Walker took office; and its $2,832 for 2017-18. 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 $2,963 $2,953 $2,943 $2,926 $2,831 $2,849 $2,852 $2,832 $2,831 A caveat Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, told us its important to note that levies -- the total property taxes collected -- have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure, even though the the tax on a median-valued home is lower than before he took office. The reason is that compared to commercial and manufacturing properties, residential values have lagged. As a result, more of the property tax burden has shifted to commercial and manufacturing and away from residential, Berry said. Our rating Walker says property taxes are lower right now than they were in December 2010 on a median-valued home in Wisconsin. Estimates done regularly by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau show that the hypothetical property tax bill on a typical Wisconsin home is $2,832 for 2017-18 -- $131 lower than the year before Walker took office. But its worth noting that the total amount of property taxes collected have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure. And that the drop in residential property taxes is due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. In August 2017, as a devastating hurricane hit Texas, a photograph taken the previous year of a Texas home that survived flooding through the use of a dam was recirculated online, along with the claim that the pictured dam was "inflatable": recirculated   The timing of the posts caused some viewers to wonder whether the photograph showed flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, which made landfall in late August 2017: I don't know if this is from #harvey flood but wow: https://t.co/3f4gdpUlsp #harvey https://t.co/3f4gdpUlsp  Jaimy Jones (@Jaimyjones) August 29, 2017 August 29, 2017  This picture was actually taken in June 2016 (more than a year before Hurricane Harvey), after thousands of homes were evacuated in Brazoria County, Texas, due to a severe flood. In an attempt to protect his home, local resident Randy Wagner purchased an "Aqua Dam" and installed it around his property, as a local television station reported at the time: reported Of the thousands of homes evacuated and damaged by flooding in Brazoria County, one familys home is high and dry on West FM 1462 in Rosharon. Randy Wagner decided to take a chance on something called an Aqua Dam, a product he discovered online. The product in question is not "inflatable" in the sense that it is filled with air; rather, the AquaDam encloses water:   He filled up 400 feet of 30 inch high tubes made of plastic and fabric with water. I was the crazy guy. Everybody was kinda going by, laughing at me. But today they are really impressed with this AquaDam, said Wagner. He and his family stayed, waited and watched as the water rose to 27 inches, but never seeped through the barriers. The product cost him money, but he told KHOU 11 News it was well worth his sanity. $8,300 is to me a small investment on a house that could have two feet of water in it and cost me $150,000 in repairs. he said. Here's a video report from USA Today about Wagner and his house-saving AquaDam: AquaDam  Crea, Jacqueline.  "Rosharon Resident Uses AquaDam to Protect Home from Floodwaters."
  KHOU.  9 June 2016. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here A viral post shared across multiple platforms has been used as evidence that U.S. presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen, who ran in the 2020 election on the Libertarian ticket, lost an implausible number of votes in an implausible amount of time. The sole evidence for the assertion comes from a pair of smartphone screen captures allegedly showing a Google search panel for Pennsylvania returns separated by 12 minutes. multiple platforms   The images suggest that Jorgensen went from 89,025 when 56% of the vote had been counted to 46,987 when the count reached 59%. Snopes could not verify the origin or authenticity of the screenshot  but it remains the only evidence in support of the assertion. At no point that we are aware of did Jorgensen ever have a reported number over 80,000 votes in the state. The shift from 56% reporting to 59% reporting occurred early in election night when in-person votes were being tallied. If it were a data entry error, as has been documented in other instances in this election, it would have represented the addition of votes, not the subtraction of them. At the time of this reporting (Nov. 6), with an estimated 99% of vote counted, the same Google widget shows Jorgensen with 77,091 votes. early instances   Due to the lack of corroborating evidence, we rank this claim