Deceptive scheme involving complimentary goods to mark a business's milestone.
Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it.
Democratic presidential candidate Martin OMalley recently offered a striking comparison about American families and college tuition. Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks' wages, OMalley wrote in apost on Medium. Today, we are saddling our graduating kids and their families with more than $1.3 trillion in loan debt. Really? We decided to take a closer look. What tuition cost The easier part of this equation to nail down is the average cost of college tuition. According to theU.S. Education Department, average undergraduate tuition and fees -- excluding room and board -- in the 1965-66 school year was $607 per year for a four-year college (public and private) and $203 for a two-year college. (Adding room and board bumps up those figures to $1,375 and $884, respectively, but OMalley said tuition, so we wont consider room and board.) What the average GM worker made According to anarticlein the Aug. 25, 1964, edition of theChicago Tribune, the average hourly wage in the auto industry that year was $3.01. That grew a bit after anew union contractwas negotiated later that year, but a figure in that ballpark is about right for the time frame OMalley was talking about, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry and labor group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.Historical wage datafrom Ford, for instance, shows that the base wage for a major assembler was $2.91 an hour in 1965. Dziczek noted that workers in durable-goods manufacturing averaged 44 hours per week in 1965, with time-and-a-half for the final four hours. So a $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period OMalley cites. So if you ignore taxes -- a questionable policy, but one well grant OMalley for the sake of argument -- then two weeks of average GM pay would have been enough to pay for one year at the typical two-year college in 1965. But it would not be enough to pay for a year at typical four-year college. That would take a little more than four weeks work. What the OMalley campaign says The OMalley campaign said they took the wage number from a column by University of California-Berkeley economist Robert Reich, who also served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. In 2014, Reich wrote. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker got paid $35 an hour in todays dollars. But that works out to $4.66 an hourin 1965 dollars, and contemporary evidence suggests that wage is about 50 percent too high. Meanwhile, on the tuition side of the equation, the OMalley campaign said that one year of in-state, undergraduate tuition atUniversity of Iowain the 1964-65 school year cost $340, and that this was the case for other states, as well, such as New Hampshire. However, if you use the $3.10-an-hour wage -- rather than Reichs $4.66-an-hour wage -- then two weeks pay, even when untaxed, would not quite cover a years in-state tuition at the University of Iowa. And since many GM workers wouldnt have been residents of Iowa, and thus eligible for the in-state rate at the University of Iowa, we think its fairer to look at average tuition nationally. Comparing 1965 to today So OMalleys comparison doesnt quite hold up. However, its fair to note that he has a point about the larger question. Namely, it was a whole lot more realistic to be able to pay for a year of tuition with just a few weeks of blue-collar income in 1965 than it is now. During the 2012-13 school year, a years tuition at the average four-year college was $14,101, and the base wage at Ford for a major assembler was $28.13 an hour. If you include overtime pay, then two 44-hour weeks at that wage (without setting aside anything for taxes) works out to about $2,700, or less than 20 percent of the one-year average tuition cost. At that rate, it would take more than 10 weeks work, including some overtime, to pay for a years worth of tuition. We should note that the rise of college tuition costs is the bigger culprit here. In nominal dollars, auto worker wages have grown ninefold since 1965. But average four-year-college tuition is up 23 times from what it was in 1965. Our ruling OMalley said, Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks wages. Thats not quite right -- it would have taken about four weeks of work at GM, not two, to pay for a year at the average four-year college in 1965, and more than that if you take account of taxes. Still, OMalley has a point that the situation in 1965 was quite a deal compared to today, when a typical auto worker would have to work for 10 weeks in order to pay for a year of tuition at the average four-year college. We rate the statement Mostly True. CORRECTION, Feb. 2, 2016: The calculations in our original version slightly overstated the typical weekly and biweekly wages for UAW workers. A $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period Martin OMalley cited. The difference does not affect the final rating. In his bid to take the seat of Texas retiring U.S. senator, businessman Tom Leppert draws on his private-sector background plus nearly four years as mayor of Dallas that ended in February 2011.When I came in, the biggest challenge was in public safety -- the crime rate, Leppert said in a Jan. 12, 2012, debate held in Austin for the Republican candidates vying to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the space of the three years, 08, 09 and 10, we brought the crime rate down by 30 percent -- numbers any city would love to have. And the way we did it is we increased the police department by 20 percent.We wondered if the rate fell that much -- and if Leppert is justified in taking credit.Leppert spokesman Daniel Keylin told us by email that Dallas crime rate dropped from 78.45 crimes per 1,000 residents in 2007 to 55.67 crimes per 1,000 in 2010, a decrease of 29 percent.Keylin sent us a 2010Dallas police reportwith those numbers and others, including a chart that shows the crime rate per 1,000 residents from 1970 through 2010. The crimes counted are the FBIs index crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft and motor vehicle theft.But the rate started dropping several years before Leppert became mayor in June 2007.After hovering for several years at around 93 crimes per 1,000 residents, the rate declined in 2004 and each subsequent year through 2010 -- with the rates falling more steeply each year after 2007, according to the department. The 2010 rate of 55.67 crimes per 1,000 was a 30-year low. (Clickhereto view the chart.) A caveat: Comparing the rates before 2007 to those after 2007 is complicated because Dallas police changed how some crimes were reported.The post-2007 declines track with crime tallies that the Dallas Police Department reports to the FBI.Next, we asked Leppert what steps he took or contributed to toward the rate reductions.Keylin told us that increasing the number of Dallas police officers was a main goal in Lepperts 2007 mayoral campaign. Soon after his election, Leppert held a City Council retreat during which he advocated expanding the force, Keylin said, and during Lepperts tenure, the council allocated money in each of four budgets to hire a total 679 additional officers. Keylin also cited the addition of 176 squad cars.Dallas Morning News stories fromJanuaryandMarch2011 indicate the force had around 2,860 officers in 2000, 2,900 police in 2006, and 3,684 officers at the end of 2010.The Dallas police sent us figures for net job gains and losses that reflect a considerable increase in hiring during Lepperts tenure. In 2003-2004, the force saw small losses; then, small gains in net jobs came in 2005-2006. Large gains came in 2007-2010: 168, 203, 208 and 93 net jobs, respectively (after retirement and other departures are subtracted from the number of hires). In 2011  after Lepperts exit  the Dallas police lost 179 positions.We consulted other sources before circling back to Leppert.According to a July 25, 2007, Morning News article, public safety was a big part of Lepperts 2007 mayoral bid and of the post-election council retreat he called. However, the article says lowering the crime rate and adding police were already established city priorities.Shortly before Leppert took office, the News reported that city manager Mary Suhm had drawn up a preliminary budget proposal to hire 200 police officers in each of the next four years. In thatJune 18, 2007, news story, Mayor-elect Leppert calls the plan a good start.In a telephone interview, Dallasmayor pro tem for 2007-09, Elba Garcia, told us that from at least 2004 on, there was unanimous consensus among council members that reducing crime was a priority. Garcia, initially elected to the council in 2001, chaired the councils public safety committee. A Democrat, she isnowa Dallas County commissioner.Garcia said of the crime rate reductions: It took the leadership of many people, and the mayor (Leppert) wasnt there when we started that crime decrease.The News reported July 30, 2003 that the city was headed towards its sixth year with the highest crime rate for cities of over 1 million residents as gauged by a national report. Amid public dismay, Mayor Laura Miller met with federal and county officials, and began meeting weekly with police Chief Terrell Bolton, according to the paper, as one council member called for an outside review of the department.Bolton was fired less than a month later -- partly because of the crime ranking, the paper reported. Under the new chief, David Kunkle, who took the post in 2004, crime rates went down and public trust in the police went up, the News wrote in aJan. 26, 2011, story.In 2005, two local leaders cited concern over the citys crime ranking when they founded Safer Dallas, Better Dallas, a nonprofit group that sought private donations to support Dallas police. That year, they garnered a$15 million giftfrom the W.W. Caruth, Jr. Foundation Fund, used to start apolice leadership academyandpurchasepolice equipment,accordingto the Dallas Morning News.Garcia told us that at the July 2007 council retreat, the council vowed to get Dallas out of the No. 1 spot on the big-city-crime list -- a goalachievedin 2009 (and Dallas dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 the next year).The Morning Newssaid in a blog post Oct. 19, 2010: To get out of the top spots, the city has substantially increased the size of its police force.In aJan. 8, 2011, Morning News storyabout the Dallas crime rates steady march downward that started seven years ago, the paper said police credit factors from public surveillance cameras to specialized crime reduction operations to the addition of 750 officers since 2004.We wondered how to isolate Lepperts contributions to the rate decrease on his watch.In a telephone interview, Leppert acknowledged that Dallas leaders had been talking for years about adding police. But, he said, It wasnt until I came in that we said, We are going to do it. This is going to be absolutely a commitment to it. There was never a commitment to a long-term effort to do it, and they never looked at the way that you finance it, and we did all of those things, he said. For those police hires, Leppert said, the city made a fundamental shifting of resources to public safety, a claim we couldnt immediately confirm.There were a lot of people involved in this. I clearly led the effort, he said. We worked together, and we made it happen. And I understood where we had to go.Still, its not clear how much Leppert directly influenced the police force increase that occurred on his watch.One criminologist told us it takes sustained effort to turn around a citys crime rate. Speaking to the Dallas turnaround, Melinda Schlager at Texas A&M University-Commerce said in a telephone interview: Many of the seeds for change were planted under Kunkle, the chief who served from June 2004 through May 2010, and if you look at when the decreases in crime began, they began under Kunkles watch.Dallas three-year, 29-percent rate drop seems high, but plausible, criminologists told us, noting that national and state crime rates also dropped. From 2007 to 2010, basically Lepperts time as mayor, Texas saw an 8 percent drop instatewideFBI index crimes, andnationwidethe decline was 10.7 percent; Houston saw a 11.4 percent drop over the same years, Austin a 9.4 percent drop. San Antonios rate rose and fell, but the city ended with a net gain of 0.1 percent for the period.Garcia said of Lepperts 30-percent debate statement: Im glad he used the word we.... All that took a lot of people supporting these recommendations, supporting the chief ... It took a lot of people and a lot of leadership.We asked Leppert if its possible the crime rate would have fallen at a similar pace anyway, considering it was going down before he became mayor and continued to drop after his tenure. If they did the same things we did, he said. I needed the city council, I needed to work with the police department; not only the leaders in the police department but the people who were out on the street doing a great job every single day.Our rulingLepperts estimate of a 30-percent, three-year drop is on target, though crime was dropping years before his tenure and factors beyond his influence surely contributed to the drop he touts --  among them private donations before he was mayor and the earlier hiring of a new police chief. Yet the police force grew substantially on his watch. We rate his statement Mostly True. A 46-year-old wealthy investment manager in Kentucky is mounting a Republican primary challenge to the states senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Matt Bevin comes from the tea party wing of the GOP. Early polls suggest Bevin has a ways to go before he could unseat McConnell, but Kentucky voters sent libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul to Washington, and Bevin has the money to get his message to party activists. The two candidates have begun trading attack ads. The latest from Bevin ties McConnell to the financial rescue measures passed by Congress as the economy headed into a tailspin in 2008. Heres the key text fromBevins ad: Announcer: After pushing the Wall Street bailout through the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell bragged (video clip of McConnell) This has been the Senate at its finest. Announcer: And what are fact-checkers saying about Mudslinging Mitchs latest attacks on conservative Matt Bevin? Misleading (image from Washington Post) Doesnt add up (image from local Fox news) Like Obama campaign attacks (image from Washington Post) After 30 years in Washington, voting for one bailout after another, slinging mud is all Sen. McConnell has left. The ad plays to antigovernment sentiment among people who see Washingtons multibillion dollar intervention in 2008 as a gross overreach of public power and a favor to the financial elite. We will examine this specific claim the ad makes to link McConnell to specific actions. Did McConnell push the bailout, formally known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, through the Senate? To answer that, we have to go back to September and October 2008. As the housing market bubble burst, the web of investments that bound just about every financial player to each other threatened a global freeze on lending. On Sept. 29, 2008, three days before the Senate vote on TARP, two leading voices from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, described the situation. In The bailout package: Vital and acceptable, Edwin Meese, President Ronald Reagans attorney general, and Stuart Butler wrote: Some key parts of the credit market are on the verge of gridlock, resulting not just in the collapse of major financial institutions but also in credit disruption that is severely weakening the long-term prospects of non-financial companies. And while this is currently most visible in Wall Street and in the financial sector, it is only a matter of time before the fallout hits Main Street, with potentially devastating economic effects for typical American households. President George W. Bush was pressing for passage of a $700 billion bailout. So were GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. In late September, an effort to get a bill through the House of Representatives had just failed. The action shifted to the Senate where McConnell played a key role in negotiations. In afloor speechright before the Senate voted, McConnell took credit for the package and urged his fellow Republicans to approve the emergency intervention. After extensive consultation between the majority leader and myself and the leaders in both parties here in the Senate, we believe we have crafted a way to go forward and to get us back on track, McConnell said. This is the only way to get the right kind of solution for the American people. The Senatepassed the TARPon a vote of 74 to 25, with 40 Democrats, one independent and 33 Republicans including McConnell voting in favor. Nine Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against it. On the night the bill passed, McConnell joined Republicans and Democrats in a quickpress conferenceto mark the moment. This has been the Senate at its finest, McConnell said. In the years that Ive been here, I cant recall a single time, where in this close proximity to an election, both sides have risen above the temptation to engage in partisan game playing if you will, to address an issue of great magnitude. We should note that part of the compromise that produced TARP included a provision to release the money in two installments. When a vote came for the second infusion of cash, in January 2009,McConnell joined 32 Republicansand nine Democrats in a failed effort to oppose it. McConnell said he voted for the first installment on the condition that it be used to prevent a systemic economic collapse but didn't like that part of it was used to help the auto industry. The current (Bush) administration used these funds for the auto industry, a move that I opposed. Now Congressional Democrats are urging more of the same, McConnell said in astatement. The American people still don't have assurances that this money will not be wasted or misused to play favorites. According to arecent Treasury report, of the $420.61 billion dollars spent under TARP including the governments stake in the insurer American International Group, $420.49 billion has been returned to the government. Our ruling Bevin said that McConnell pushed the Wall Street bailout through the Senate. The record shows that McConnell actively supported emergency government intervention in the financial markets and spoke openly of playing a key role in crafting compromise legislation. However, to say that he pushed the bill through the Senate downplays that other political leaders, including the Republican president and the partys presidential nominee, also pressed to get the measure passed. The ad also ignores that in January 2009, there was a second bailout funding vote and on that one, McConnell voted no. Still, McConnell worked hard to get the initial bailout through the Senate. We rate the claim Mostly True. New Jersey has long held the title of most densely populated state in the country.But the Garden State has an even more prestigious ranking, according to a recent advertisement placed by Choose: New Jersey in the Wall Street Journal.The July 30 ad reads in part: New Jersey has a rich tradition of bringing the world some very big thinking. In fact, we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world, making ours one of the most highly skilled and educated workforces available.Thats quite a claim for any state to make so for this fact check, we are focusing only on the statistic about scientists and engineers. And it seems Choose: New Jerseys calculations add up.Lets look at how Choose: New Jersey, a nonprofit group that markets the state to attract businesses and jobs, came up with their statistic. Choose: New Jersey is part of the Partnership For Action, the Business Action Center and state Economic Development Authority.Melissa Hensley, chief marketing officer for the group, said the group compared geographic and employment data from four organizations: the Census Bureaus American Community Survey, the CIAs World Fact Book 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the National Science Board.All of it came down to an apples-to-apples comparison to the extent possible between a state and country, Hensley said.The Census Bureaus Population Reference Bureau listed New Jersey as having 260,655 scientists and engineers in 2010. That number divided by New Jerseys total land area of 8,722.58 square miles equals 29.88 scientists and engineers  the highest number among all states and a list of 37 countries.I read somewhere that New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S., so I guess you could extrapolate from that that there are more scientists per square mile than anywhere else, Brian Bell, a spokesman for the California Institute of Technology said in an e-mail. Although Massachusetts might give N.J. a run for its money. California has lots of smart people, but we have huge deserts and lots of empty space too.Bells guess is accurate.Massachusetts has the second highest number of scientists and engineers, at 23.47 per square mile, followed by Maryland, at 20.97. California is 10th on the list.A similar calculation was used for other countries by measuring the number of researchers  a more broad term that includes scientists and engineers  per 1,000 of employed people. Breaking that figure down and comparing it against country size, we determined that Israel tops the international list, with 5.10 scientists and engineers per square mile (Choose: New Jerseys calculations were adjusted to consider countries in square miles instead of kilometers). Rounding out the top three are Japan, at 4.46, and Belgium, at 3.16.If both lists are put together, New Jersey and 11 other U.S. states lead the world in number of engineers and scientists per square mile before Israel joins the rankings.The numbers reflect what we regularly hear from businesses considering locating or expanding in New Jersey  that if a company is looking to benefit from a high concentration of very skilled talent, New Jersey is a prime location, Hensley said in response to our findings.Our rulingChoose: New Jersey said in an advertisement that we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world, making the states workforce one of the most skilled and highly educated.Choose: New Jersey used a variety of data to reach its conclusion, from the U.S. Census Bureau to the CIA World Fact Book and more. PolitiFact New Jersey vetted the calculations and found that the Garden State does top the world in number of scientists and engineers per square mile: 29.8.We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Following the Oct. 25, 2023, election of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson, R-La., to the post of Speaker of the House, a meme attributing the statement "Every American woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker" to him went viral: meme  Snopes has not identified any instance of Johnson saying these words. They instead appear to stem from an inaccurate paraphrase of a statement Johnson made about Roe v. Wade. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, and others, posted the seed that spawned that meme on social media following Johnson's election: others posted During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Mike Johnson attacks Roe v. Wade, insisting that if only women were compelled to bring more "able-bodied workers" into the world, Republicans wouldnt need to slash Social Security and Medicare. pic.twitter.com/RGzg09TYEW pic.twitter.com/RGzg09TYEW  House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) October 25, 2023 October 25, 2023  "During a House Judiciary Committee hearing," the post read, "Rep. Mike Johnson attack[ed] Roe v. Wade, insisting that if only women were compelled to bring more 'able-bodied workers' into the world, Republicans wouldnt need to slash Social Security and Medicare." This is a fair characterization of arguments made by Johnson during a May 11, 2022, House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing that discussed, in part, Supreme Court ethics. post hearing Johnson shared this excerpt to his official YouTube channel in the form of a video titled "Congressman Johnson on Overturning Roe v. Wade: I will not yield" on the day of the hearing. Viral versions of the video circulating in October and November 2023 omitted the middle paragraph of Johnson's remarks, which are shown below: a video Roe v. Wade gave constitutional cover to the elective killing of unborn children in America. Period. Think about it. Let it settle on you. As a result, the lives of more than 63 million American children have been lost. Think about the staggering implications of that. I was born in January, 1972. I'm just a year older [...] than Roe. [...] 63 million represents somewhere between one half and one third of my entire generation. My high school class should have been almost twice as large as it was [...]. If you're under the age of 50, your class should have been twice as larger, maybe a third larger than it was. Your classmates were not allowed to be born. You think about the implications of that on the economy. We're all struggling here to cover the bases of social security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the rest. If we had all those able-bodied workers in the economy, we wouldn't be going upside down and toppling over like this. Listen, [...] Roe was a terrible corruption of America's constitutional jurisprudence. Viral posts on social media following the shorter Oct. 25 release of the video were quick to paraphrase the statement in ways similar to the meme form in circulation now. One representative post from Oct. 28 on X that had received over 500,000 views at the time of this reporting compared Johnson to Chinese President Xi: post Chinese President Xi: "Every ... woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker." Wait... That wasn't Xi. Or any communist. That was GOP Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. NPR affiliate Red River Radio KDAQ, which serves East Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and parts of Mississippi, quoted a local activist who repeated the above characterization of the quote as if it were fact in an Oct. 31, 2021, story: serves quoted Local LGBTQ activist Alana Oldham tells me the mood has changed lately, into a climate of fear for some. Im 53 years old and Ive been out as a lesbian since I was 18 and Ive never once been afraid for my safety until 2023 happened. Oldham cites one remark in particular by Johnson that left the greatest impression on her: Im looking at this quote from Mike Johnson where he says every American woman has a duty to birth at least one able-bodied worker. And that is just, thats Handmaids Tale level scary stuff. remark duty to birth The KDAQ story, which repeated a second-hand characterization, is the only media source attributing the quote  as it appears in memes  to Mike Johnson. Because the underlying source that serves as the basis for that statement does not use these words, the claim that he said them is False. About Us. Red River Radio, https://www.redriverradio.org/about-us. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Chinese President Xi: Every ... Woman Has a Duty to Birth at Least One Able-Bodied Worker. X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/iche_me/status/1718251006092324882. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Congressman Johnson on Overturning Roe v. Wade: I Will Not Yield. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyifVvEO-w. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. During a House Judiciary Committee Hearing, Rep. Mike Johnson Attacks Roe v. Wade, Insisting That If Only Women Were Compelled to Bring More Able-Bodied Workers into the World, Republicans Wouldnt Need to Slash Social Security and Medicare. X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1717183190463336780. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Markup: H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act of 2022" | Part 1. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Um3ZwhDKU. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Speaker Johnsons Shifting Sands of Public Opinion. Red River Radio, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.redriverradio.org/2023-10-31/speaker-johnsons-shifting-sands-of-public-opinion. Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes  undisputed by Hutchison  showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True. The House of Representatives passed a 2.6 percent pay raise for all civilian federal employees in response to a government shutdown that left hundreds of thousands of federal workers either furloughed or working without pay. Some Republican lawmakers decried the move. U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., sent out atweetsaying, Where I come from you dont get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to #SecureOurBorder. Where I come from you don't get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to#SecureOurBorder On Feb. 1, Smith repeated the claim in hisWeekly Capitol Report. The raise in question matches an increase in pay for military personnel that was passed in 2019. If passed by the Senate, the bill would undo a pay freeze instituted by President Donald Trump on Dec. 28. We decided to take a closer look to see if federal workers really do make that much more than southern Missourians and if so, why. Smiths claim focuses on two different metrics  the income of an individual federal civilian employee and the income of households in southern Missouri. This distinction is important, because household income can include the wages and salaries of multiple people. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis supports Smiths claim that individual federal employees bring in more pay than southern Missouri households. The mean household income in Missouri is $70,144, a figure already lower than the mean income of a federal civilian worker, which is $90,811. When asked for data supporting the claim, Smiths communications director Joey Brown pointed to census data compiled by congressional district. To determine the average household income in southern Missouri, we looked at the two congressional districts that cover the states southernmost counties  districts 7 and 8. Smiths district, Congressional District 8, encompasses the southeast corner of the state, stretching from Ozark County to Jefferson County and extending into the Bootheel region. There, the mean household income is $54,393. In neighboring Congressional District 7, which covers the southwest corner of the state, the mean household income is $62,145. There are many explanations for why federal employees are paid more than the average southern Missourian household. Experts told us that any comparison should also take into account education, training, skills and experience that increase worker productivity and typically result in higher incomes. The federal governments 2.2 million civilian workers tend to be older, more educated and more concentrated in professional occupations than private-sector workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. About 51 percent of federal workers have attained at least a bachelors degree. In Smiths district, about 16 percent of constituents 25 and older have a bachelors degree, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Personnel Management. A report by the Congressional Budget Office that accounted for these differences found that there is a disparity between how federal and private workers are paid. But this disparity depends on levels of education. Theres very little question that the top people in government are being paid quite a bit less usually than the top people with those kinds of skills in the private sector, said University of Missouri economics professor Peter Mueser. Federal workers with a professional or doctorate degree earned roughly 24 percent less than their privately-employed counterparts. But federal workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more than similar workers employed outside the federal government. Federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree earned 5 percent more. Another factor worth considering is benefits, said Iowa State University economics professor John Winters by email. In addition to salaries and wages, workers are compensated with benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans and job security. However, benefits are more difficult to quantify, because they are in part based on future predictions and less-detailed data is available on benefits than wages. The CBO study found that for federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree, benefits were 52 percent higher. Average benefits were 93 percent higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education. For employees with a doctorate or professional degree, average benefits were about the same in the two sectors. The bare bones of Smiths claim hold up to scrutiny. Federal workers do take home more in income than the average household in southern Missouri. But Smiths statement doesnt take into account differences between southern Missourians and the average federal employee that help explain income disparity, such as education. We rate this statement Mostly True. On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016):  Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years:  We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice  According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews.  "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse."
18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'"
The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'"
The Washington Post.15 January 2017. In November 2019, some people encountered a meme on Facebook that claimed the social media company was using the contributions its users were making to birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off for the company:   While this meme contains four separate assertions, we'll focus mainly on the second one for this article, that "Facebook is allowed to declare your donation for a tax write-off." Facebook launched its birthday-donation program in 2017, a feature that allows users to "donate their birthdays" to raise money for various charities. A few weeks before a Facebook user's birthday, the user receives a message asking about a possible fundraiser centered on that day. If the user decides to raise funds, he or she may choose from 750,00 non-profits, set a fundraising goal, and then share the fundraiser with Facebook friends. Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement: explained Two weeks before your birthday, youll see a message from Facebook in your News Feed giving you the option to create a fundraiser for your birthday. You can create a fundraiser for any of the 750,000 US nonprofits available for fundraising on Facebook. Your friends will receive a notification inviting them to support your cause in honor of your special day.   When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook was retaining 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company did away with those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it has helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. (The above-displayed meme claims in item 3 that Facebook can "brag" about its charitable donations, but we should note the company's announcement says "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year," not "Facebook Raises $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year.") announced The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users and not the company itself are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states: states A donation to a nonprofit through its Facebook Page or a fundraiser on Facebook may be tax-deductible. Since tax laws vary by country and region, you should consult a tax professional or review the laws for your area to determine whether a donation is tax-deductible. After you make a donation, a confirmation will be sent to the primary email listed on your Facebook account. This confirmation shows that you've made this donation as a charitable contribution and that you're not receiving any goods or services in return. We reached out to Facebook for comment on this meme and a spokesperson told us that these claims were "completely false": These claims about Facebook Fundraising tools are completely false. We are a donation platform and payments to charities are processed by our licensed, regulated subsidiaries. 100% of whats raised using donate buttons and fundraisers created on Facebook goes to the benefiting nonprofit. Nonprofits either receive funds directly from Facebook, or via Network for Good, a Donor Advised Fund we partner with."  While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations: reported Tech Crunch As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups. prompted concerns about privacy users decide if they want to share their donation with friends does a better job of policing hate speech In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data. insightful blog post from last November We've yet to come across any credible reporting, however, documenting that Facebook was using individual donations from users as a tax write-off. As such, we rate this claim  Facebook Newsroom.  "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year."
  15 August 2018. Shu, Catherine.  "Facebook Says Birthday Fundraisers Have Raised More Than $300 Million Over the Past Year."
  Tech Crunch.  15 August 2018. Sweet, Joni.  "Is It Safe to Donate Money on Facebook for Birthday Causes?"
  Yahoo News.  2 November 2018. Facebook Newsroom.  "Celebrating a Birthday? Now You Can Make It Even More Meaningful."
  16 August 2017. On Jan. 24, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden responded to a question shouted out by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy as members of the press were being ushered out of the room, calling him a "stupid son of a bitch." Joe Biden Fox News It happened at a meeting of the White House Competition Council. According to White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the purpose of the meeting was "to discuss its success thus far in providing concrete cost savings to  for Americans families, and to discuss plans for further actions in the weeks, months, and years ahead." Jen Psaki purpose  U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a meeting with the White House Competition Council in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 24, 2022. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)  As members of the press were departing the East Room, Doocy shouted to Biden, asking: "Do you think inflation is a political liability in the midterms?" According to CNN correspondent Brian Stelter (and as can be heard in the video clip below), Biden "deadpanned" the following answer: "It's a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch." Brian Stelter  CNN, LiveNow from Fox, and perhaps others referred to Biden's remark as a "hot mic" incident, though it's unclear whether or not Biden was aware that the microphone was still picking up what he said. At the time when Biden responded to Doocy, cameras were still on and he was sitting in front of a microphone with 10 members of his Cabinet, "the heads of seven independent agencies," White House staff members, and some members of the press who were still making their way out of the room.  CNN LiveNow from Fox