Do Girl Scout Cookie Proceeds Fund Planned Parenthood?
For several years, social media users have shared tweets and memes claiming that funds from the sale of Girl Scout Cookies are distributed to Planned Parenthood, often posting such items with hashtags such as "#cookiecott" to promote the rumor: How did we end up with a crooked eyed snake salesman Leader, selling nothing but snake oil to Americans?  Tiffiny Bond (@RedHatGeek) April 8, 2015 April 8, 2015  @KazmierskiR don't even get me started on Girl Scout cookies where portion goes to PP don't buy cookies write a check to the troop @KazmierskiR  QThePatriots+++ (@patriotswanted) December 23, 2015 December 23, 2015  An opinion piece dated March 22, 2018 on LifeNews.com encouraged readers to "say no" to Girl Scout cookies over "ties" to Planned Parenthood (although it did not repeat the claim that proceeds of cookie sales go to fund that organization).  LifeNews.com The claim that Girl Scout Cookie sales fund Planned Parenthood became popular in mid-2015 and early 2016, likely due in part to a series of questionable viral videos targeting the latter organizationcirculated in the summer of 2015.  However, the rumor had previously spread widely in 2012, after Fox News reprinted a (since-deleted) opinion piece from LifeSiteNews that stated (in part): videos opinion piece When our sweet little neighbor in her brown camp uniform came knocking on our door this year, we had to say no. I told her mother that I didnt want to hurt Katies feelings, but I couldnt support the Girl Scout cookie sale anymore because Id learned too much about the organizers agenda, primarily their support for abortion and partnership with Planned Parenthood ... Several years ago. a quarter of the Girl Scout councils nationwide admitted to partnering with Planned Parenthood, the nations abortion giant. When questioned about the affiliation on NBCs Today Show, Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger had no compunction in confirming it. In fact, what then-Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger said on NBC's Today show back in 2012 was that Planned Parenthood was one of several organizations (including church communities and YMCAs) that the Girl Scouts worked with "to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.  Cloninger did not state (or imply) that any financial support relationship existed between the two organizations.  We contacted the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) to determine whether any portion of the rumor was true. They responded to say thatno proceeds have ever been donatedfrom the sale of Girl Scout Cookies toPlanned Parenthood. The Girl Scout Cookies section of the Girl Scouts website's FAQ declares that all revenue raised from cookie sales goes to the local Girl Scout councils and troops, not outside organizations: Girl Scout Cookies Q: Does any part of Girl Scout Cookie Program revenue support organizations other than the local Girl Scout council? A: One hundred percent of the net proceeds from Girl Scout Cookie sales is retained by the originating council and troop to power amazing experiences for girls and influential girl-led community projects. Girl Scout troops set goals for how to spend their proceeds on program-related activities, such as paying their own way to a community event or museum or funding other program outings. Girl Scout troops may also choose to use proceeds to purchase materials for a Take Action or service project to benefit the community. The Social Issues portion of the FAQ also states that GSUSA "does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood": Social Issues  A 12 March 2015New York Times compendium piece addressed the rumor and found it lacking: piece In recent years, conservative groups have challenged the organization  even held cookiecotts  over critics claims that it supports abortion. One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 went so far as to say the Girl Scouts were quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. cookiecotts One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. does have a legislative agenda. Reducing bullying and increasing girls involvement in science, technology, engineering and math are among issues on its website. issues Not on the list: abortion, or any social issues. abortion, or any social issues Anna Maria Chvez, the chief executive of the national group, responded to critics last year, denying any relationship with Planned Parenthood. responded to critics A box of Girl Scout cookies is not a political statement, she said. As Girl Scouts of the United States of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, their financial statements are by law made freely available to the public, along with their annual report. financial statements annual report Hassan, Adeel.  "Your Thursday Briefing."
  The New York Times.  12 March 2015.

 Ruse, Cathy Cleaver.  "Say No to Girl Scout Cookies."
  LifeSiteNews.  17 January 2012.
 Harrington, Elizabeth.  "Pelosi: Girl Scouts' Relationship with Planned Parenthood Very Valuable."
  CNSNews.com   1 February 2012.
 Updated with information about a more recent example of the claim.
In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. After giving his fifth State of the Union address, President Barack Obama hit the road. One of hisfirst stopswas a GE gas engines plant in Waukesha, a city about 20 miles west of Milwaukee. In both theHouse chamberand on thefactory floor, the president insisted that over the past four years, corporate profits and stock prices soared while wages fluttered. In the State of the Union, Obama claimed that average wages have barely budged. PolitiFact National rated his statementTrue, finding the average had risen no more than 1.7 percent above inflation from 2008 to 2012. In Waukesha on Jan. 30, 2014, the president alluded to a slightly different statistic and was more bold. He said: Because the truth is -- and you know this in your own lives, and you see it in your neighborhoods among your friends and family -- even though the economy has been growing for four years, even though corporate profits have been doing very well, stock prices have soared, most folks' wages haven't gone up in over a decade. We wondered: Even taking inflation into account, is it true the majority of Americans havent seen their wages increase in more than 10 years? Obamas evidence Income inequalitywas a big topic in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union. So, one thing to make clear upfront is that in his Wisconsin remarks, the president singled out wages -- the paycheck you get from your job. Thats a narrower category than income, which can include money taken in from other sources such as investments or government benefits. When we asked for evidence to back the presidents wages claim, a White House spokesman citeda databasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the median weekly earnings for full-time workers in the final quarter of each year from 1999 through 2013. The median wage means half of workers earned more than that amount and half earned less. From the database, we assembled the following table. The wage figures are adjusted for inflation. Year Weekly wages, 4th quarter of each year 1999 $335 2000 334 2001 340 2002 336 2003 337 2004 337 2005 332 2006 337 2007 332 2008 340 2009 344 2010 341 2011 335 2012 334 2013 334 So, the inflation-adjusted median wage during the final quarter of 2013 was $334 --  $1 lower than during the final quarter of 1999, more than a decade earlier. However, the table also shows that the median wage went up in some years and down in others during the period cited by the president. It was as high as $344 and as low as $332. Outside experts We put Obamas claim and the database to four experts: economistAparna Mathurof the conservative American Enterprise Institute; economistEugene Steuerleof the Urban Institute, who served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan;Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance research directorDale Knapp. They agreed that its not possible to track the wages of actual individuals over a period of more than a decade, and so it cant be known whether most of them had a higher wage in 2013 than in 2009. But the experts also agreed the median wage figure cited by The White House is the best available. As Steuerle told us: Looking at the median tells us what is happening across the economy, but not what is happening to each individual worker over time. Two other points, neither of which bears directly on the accuracy of Obamas wage claim: Mathur said the broader measure of income gives a better picture of the standard of living of low- and moderate-income people, since it includes assistance such as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. And Tanner said total compensation, including things such as health and retirement benefits, has risen in recent years even if wages havent. Our rating Obama said: Most folks wages havent gone up in over a decade. Its not possible to know, considering all Americans, whether most of them saw a wage increase in the period cited by the president. But he cites the best-available figure, which shows the  median weekly wage, adjusted for inflation, was $1 less at the end of 2013 than it was in 1999. We rate the presidents statement Mostly True. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. We now accept as commonplace the notion that actors in popular television shows are set for life financially, as we read about how cast members in hit shows such as "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "The Big Bang Theory" not only were paid upwards of $1 million per episode during those series' initial runs, but then earned millions of dollars more in residuals and royalties from syndication deals, DVD sales, and video streaming. $1 million earned That wasn't always the case, however. The actors from television shows of decades past  shows whose episodes have been continuously rerun countless thousands of times all over the world and are touchstones of popular culture  did not reap any such bounty. Those cast members were typically paid salaries that ranged from modest to pretty good, and they may have received additional payments for the first few airings of episodes in which they appeared, but that was it  they collected little or no residuals when their shows were sold into syndication, and no royalties from a home video market that didn't yet exist. As Eve Plumb, who portrayed Jan Brady on the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch," revealed in 2011: The biggest misconception is that were all rich from it, but we are not. We have not been paid for reruns of the show for many, many years. We are not making money off of it at all. Eve Plumb The one notable exception to this circumstance, according to legend, is actress Dawn Wells, who played the character of Mary Ann Summers in the 1960s sitcom "Gilligan's Island." Numerous websites such as Mental Floss have offered versions of the following tale about how Wells supposedly parlayed her three seasons on the show into a lifetime of paychecks: versions Wells was married to talent agent Larry Rosen when she was hired for the Gilligan cast, and it was Rosen who noted the clause in her contract (which was standard at the time) that limited her to collecting residuals only the first five times any episode re-ran after its original airing. Rosen told Wells that if the series was a success, this clause could cost her a lot of money. Wells was the only castaway who asked for an amendment to that residual clause in her contract, and the producers granted it, never thinking the series would be on the air 40 years later. As a result, [producer] Sherwood Schwartz and Dawn Wells are the only two folks connected with the show who still receive money from it. This narrative seems quite improbable on its face. Actors are generally represented by a bevy of various unions, guilds, agents, and lawyers, and the idea that only one person in the whole television industry possessed the savvy to recognize that a contractual entitlement to residuals was a potentially lucrative reward worth pursuing strains credulity. Moreover, the goal of most television producers in that era was to keep their shows going long enough (generally three years) to amass a sufficient number of episodes for syndication deals after those series ended their original network runs, as the syndication market provided the bulk of potential profits. While producers may not have expected their shows to still be airing "40 years later," they certainly hoped their series would enjoy long TV afterlives, and they would not be keen on sharing those revenues with actors who had little bargaining power (nor would they want to set a precedent for other actors to follow). A minor actor in a secondary role who dared to press for a contractual guarantee to perpetual royalties likely would have been curtly informed how quickly and easily she could be replaced.  We don't need to speculate on the state of 1960s television to know the answer here, though, because Wells herself has repeatedly stated that this legend is false. In 2014, for example, Wells said during an interview that she was paid a salary roughly equivalent to $50,000 in today's dollars and "never received any residuals": interview Q: They stopped making Gilligans Island 47 years ago. Do you still receive residuals? A: We never received any residuals. Q: How much money did you make for Gilligans Island? A: Nothing. I dont know, maybe I made $700 a week. I understand (the producer) Mr. Schwartz made $90 million on the reruns alone. I think we got paid ... maybe we made $50,000, I dont know. And in a 2016 interview, she answered the question, "Whats one big myth about [Gilligan's Island]?" by asserting that the actors "didn't really get a dime" in residuals: A misconception is that we must be wealthy, rolling in the dough, because we got residuals. We didnt really get a dime. I think my salary -- of course, I was low on the totem pole, Ginger [Tina Louise] and Thurston [Jim Backus] got more -- was $750 a week. Sherwood Schwartz, our producer, reportedly made $90 million on the reruns alone! A 2014 Washington Post obituary of Wells' cast mate Russell Johnson, who played the Professor, also observed that Johnson "resented ... that he and other cast members were left out of the bulk of the syndication profits." obituary For what it's worth, the daughter of "Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz disputed the oft-repeated claim that her father realized as much as $90 million from the series: disputed Schwartzs daughter Hope Juber dismissed that estimate as an urban myth. While he, and my family were certainly comfortable, that kind of wild estimate is ridiculous and surprising, she wrote in an email. She said her father made his own deal with the studio just like the cast members, but not for that kind of money. She added, If there is $90 million, it must be buried in a chest on the island somewhere because weve never seen it. Mackie, John.  "Full Interview With: Mary Ann on Gilligans Island."
  Vancouver Sun.  22 January 2014. Bernstein, Adam.  "Russell Johnson, Actor Who Played the Professor on Gilligans Island, Dies at 89."
  The Washington Post.  16 January 2019. Malito, Alessandra.  "Why We Keep Hearing About Once-Famous TV Actors in Financial Trouble."
  MarketWatch.  10 September 2018. Kovalchik, Kara.  "TV-Holic: Still on Gilligans Island."
  Mental Floss.  8 September 2010. OK!.  "Eve Plumb Not Paid for 'Brady Bunch' Reruns."
  3 February 2011. Goldberg, Lesley.  "Why the 'Big Bang Theory' Stars Took Surprising Pay Cuts."
  The Hollywood Reporter.  29 March 2017. Clash, Jim.  "Interview: Actress Dawn Wells Answers the Big Ginger/Mary Ann Question, More."
  Forbes.  18 March 2016. Ripping thesweeping tax reformspushed by PresidentDonald Trumpand other leading Republicans, U.S. Rep.Mark Pocan, D-Madison, singled out the provision to eliminate the death tax. In an Oct. 18, 2017, appearanceon a talk showon Janesvilles WCLO radio, Pocan said: They (Republicans) go about getting rid of the estate tax -- which, to me, is the one that I wish more people would really understand. Theyve done a good of marketing it as a death tax -- you die and you get taxed. But the reality is, its a tax on the ultra-wealthy that the vast majority of people will never, ever, ever see in their life. Last year, two out of every 1,000 people paid an estate tax. So its not like a common tax thats out there. With the overall reform gaining momentum froma Senate votethe day after Pocans claim, anda House votea week later, lets see if his statistic is correct. Aimed at the rich? Thereisdebate about how the rich are treated by the reform proposal, which at this stage is considered only a framework, since it lacks details. Weverated as Mostly Falsea claim by House SpeakerPaul Ryan, a Janesville Republican who represents the congressional district that borders Pocans. Ryan said the framework, which he supports, is focused on tax breaks for the middle class and not about people who are really high-income earners getting a tax break. The framework does offer some benefits for the middle class, but whats more clear is there are specific provisions benefiting the wealthy. As for what is conventionally known as the estate tax, theTrump administration usesthe term death tax (asdo Ryanandother Republicans) in promoting how the framework would repeal the tax. Trump himself claimed ending the tax would protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer. But PolitiFact Nationalsrating was Pants on Fire: Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, with only 80 being small businesses or farms. Pocans figure The Internal Revenue Service tells usthe estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death -- including cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, business interests and other assets. In 2016, the year cited in Pocans claim, an unmarried individuals estate was potentially taxable only if the estates value exceeded $5.45 million. (The value had to exceed $10.9 million to be taxable, if there was a surviving spouse.) After deductions, such estates generally are taxed at40 percent. IRS figures showthere were 12,411 estate tax returns filed in 2016 -- but a tax was owed on only 5,219 of them. That smaller figure aligns with what PolitiFact National found. And the non-profit Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centermakes a similar estimatefor 2017: 5,460 estates owing a tax.) In 2016, those 5,219 estates paid a total estate tax of$18.3 billion. Since annual estate tax filings include deaths that occur in previous years, the Tax Policy Center says that each year, there are roughly 5,000 estates that pay the federal estate tax out of roughly 2.6 million deaths each year. That comes to 2 of every 1,000. Point of view on the tax While he doesnt dispute the statistics,Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, told us there are other points to consider regarding the estate tax, saying: The estate tax affects far more people than the relatively small number who pay. Many people who own businesses and/or investments have to spend a lot of time and money on lawyers/accountants planning to avoid it. A substantial portion of the life insurance industry exists only to avoid the estate tax. And, indeed, that is an important criticism: it is one of the most inefficient taxes in the sense that the ratio of paperwork/avoidance to tax collections is very high . The estate tax is anti-saving and anti-investment. It encourages wealthy folks to consume their wealth before death because, if the rate is high, they dont want the government to grab it. For the rest of us, it would be better if wealthy people kept their money invested in the economy,  because that spurs growth. Its better for us if the wealthy hold large pools of savings rather than going out and buying expensive cars and yachts. A high estate tax rate encourages them to go out and buy expensive cars and yachts, which does nothing for long term economic growth. Our rating Pocan says that what Republicans call the death tax is the estate tax on the ultra wealthy which, in 2016, was paid by only two out of every 1,000 people. Republicans who are proposing to eliminate the estate tax do use the death tax term. In 2016, the tax, generally 40 percent, applied only to estates worth $5.45 million or more. After deductions, the tax was paid by only about two out of every 1,000 people who died. We rate the statement True. On 21 April 2016, the web siteThe Good Lord Above published an article reportingthat a Noah's Ark Christian theme park then under construction in Kentucky had been destroyed by a flood: The new 'Noah's Ark' Theme Parkin Williamstown, Kentucky, was destroyed in a flood earlier today. The sudden flash flood only seemed to affect the location of the Ark Encounter Theme Park, which was in the final phases of construction. "From a meteorological standpoint, this is quite confusing," said Dan Schmidt, a forecaster with the National Weather Service. "There were no storm clouds in the area. We're calling this flood an act of God." While it's true that a Noah's Ark-themed attraction was  built in Kentucky, the project was not destroyed by a flood.  Thereporting of such was a spoof fromThe Good Lord Above, a web site responsible for several other religiously-based fake news stories, such as anarticle proclaiming that Donald Trump had called Jesus a "socialist loser" and astory reporting thatBernie Sanders savedthree children from a house fire. To their credit, The Good Lord Abovemakes the site's humorous nature very clearon their "About" page: attraction built socialist saved God made the world. Then he flooded it. Then God went to sleep for 2000 years or so. Anyway, eventually God woke up and felt pretty bad for what he'd done in the past. In 2011, after years of therapy, God started his Divine God Facebook Page to restore his good name. In his infinite wisdom, in 2015 God launched this Holy Website, TheGoodLordAbove.com. Thou shalt remember that The First Amendment protects satire as a form of free speech and expression. TheGoodLordAbove uses invented names in all of its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental. TheGoodLordAbove is not intended for readers under 18 years of age. The Ark Encounter Christian theme park finally opened in Kentucky on 7 July 2016, with a fully intact ark as one of its exhibits: opened On 27 November 2016, the web site The American Tribune published an article reporting that Green Party candidate Jill Stein had been arrested for "embezzling" money donated to her to fund a recount of 2016 general election votes: article In yet another crazy turn of events this election season, Green Party's Jill Stein was arrested following a speech in Los Angeles this Saturday. Investigators received a tip from an anonymous source that Stein had hosted a "marijuana dinner party for ... some of the richest liberals in Los Angeles." When asked for comment, representatives for Jill Stein refused to respond. A spokesperson for the LAPD only said that they are "taking the case very seriously, and will update the public with any major announcements." President-Elect Donald Trump was quick to call out "two-face Stein" for her "rude scheme" to "gyp the whiny liberals!" As of now, the guest list for the dinner party, which purportedly cost Stein $75,000, has not been released. It is unclear whether Stein obtained the marijuana legally or not -- chances are some legal shortcuts were taken to supply a large amount of cannabis for an event where medical licenses were not verified. If found guilty, Stein faces fines of up to $5 Million (ironically, the amount raised for the recount), and a sentence of up to 2 years in prison. An "About" page linked in The American Tribune's footer disclaimed: page The American Tribune provides a satirical view of current events. Our articles should be taken with a grain of salt. Our articles are a parody of the terrible news coverage in 2016 and beyond. A reverse image search led to a page (which has since been disabled) on the official Green Party web site, bearing the caption: page Photos from arrest [of Jill Stein] at the Conestoga Bank next to Fannie Mae August 1, 2012. The clothing worn by Jill Stein and the image's August 2012 date matched a separate photograph documenting her arrest while protesting banking practices in Philadelphia: documenting Concerned by Donald Trump's secrecy about his dealings with other countries, 55 former government, military and national security officials  Democrats and some Republicans  havesigned a letterurging him to reveal his international business relationships and foreign investments, and to pledge to divest himself of all overseas business interests if he wins the presidency. The letter was drafted in part by Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It says that the limited amount of information available to the public  Trump has refused to release his tax returns  suggests business relationships that would be problematic and might influence his policy positions as president, particularly when it comes to Russia. On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putins authoritarian leadership, while outlining policies that read like a Kremlin wish list. He has claimed that Putin would never invade Ukraine, suggested permanently ceding Crimea to Russia, and placed conditions on upholding our obligation to protect our NATO allies. He even encouraged Russian espionage to interfere with our election, a tactic Putin has deployed across Central Asia and Europe to boost his preferred candidates. In addition, he has floated lifting sanctions against Russia, which would benefit both Putin and the Trump Organization. For this fact-check, we were interested in whether Trump has outlined policies that read like a Kremlin wish list. We talked to Russia experts who signed the letter as well as those who didn't. We emailed several people in the Trump campaign asking for reaction and information to dispute the assertion. We received no reply. We contacted Morell and more than a half dozen of the signers to get details on the claim. Their focus is on the issues mentioned in the letter: NATO, Ukraine and the lack of support for economic sanctions against Russia. Let's review them separately. NATO:In July, Trumptold theNew York Timesthat he wouldn't automatically come to the defense of a NATO ally that hasn't paid its expected contribution. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, 'Congratulations, you will be defending yourself,' he said. NATO was created as deterrent to the former Soviet Union, of which Russia was the key player. Putin hasstrongly objectedto attempts to expand NATO because of Russian security concerns, so anything that weakens NATO could strengthen Russia. This is exactly what Putin wants  to sow the seeds of doubt in those countries on his periphery over whether the West will be there for them, Morell told us in an email. This kind of talk forces those states to be more accommodating to Russian interests. Trump'spotential unwillingness to defend NATO memberswho don't contribute enough financially to the alliance is essentially undermining unconditional nature of our commitment to their defense, said a cosigner of the letter, Richard Nephew, a former principal deputy coordinator of sanctions policy for the State Department who is now at Columbia University. Crimea and Ukraine:Russiaannexed Crimea, andPutin supportedan uprising in eastern Ukraine, sending in fighters after a revolution removed a pro-Russian president in 2014. Putin said annexation was morally and legally justified. The United States and the European Union disagreed. Trump hada different attitude. The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were,he saidin a July 31 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. He also called Putins grab so smart inan April 12, 2014 Fox News interview. As PolitiFact reported in August, Trumps comments actually echo theofficial Kremlin positionthat Crimea is now Russian and its citizens prefer it that way. Trump has sided with Putin on all these issues, said Samantha Vinograd, another co-signer and former director for international affairs and Iraq at the National Security Council. If you look at how Trump will not condemn Russia's military takeover of Crimea, that's something that literally Putin was probably jumping up and down over when he said that. This lets Putin off the hook for the first land grab in Europe since World War II, said Morell. That gift to Putin even has a bow on it. Sanctions against Russia:The European Union and the United States responded to the situation in Ukraine by issuing sanctions against Russia.They affectRussian banks, arms makers and energy companies, andhave bothlimited Russia's access to Western markets and hindered its ability to deal with a recession caused by the sharp drop in oil prices. Clearly, Russia would like to see those sanctions lifted.Trump has saidhe would consider removing them. That undermines sanctions as a tool, said Vinograd. You don't just remove them without proof that a country has met its international obligations. What other Russia experts say Experts we consulted who didn't sign the letter agreed that many of Trump's comments line up with actions that Putin would probably like to see. I think Trump's foreign policy is the most pro-Russian policy we've seen from a major presidential candidate, at least since World War II, said Matthew Kroenig, associate professor at Georgetown University and a senior advisor on the Marco Rubio campaign who signed an anti-Trump letter last spring. With talk of tearing up NATO and positive talk about President Putin, it seems to be a very sympathetic Russian foreign policy, Putin and the Russians would be delighted to see him elected, Kroenig added. To be more supportive of the Kremlin, Trump would have to scrap America's nuclear arsenal and sign a treaty to give the Ukraine back to Russia. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, made additional points in an Aug. 17, 2016,Washington Postcommentary. For example, a political battle over building a wall on the Mexican border, would be a major distraction in this country and a United States convulsed by infighting over Trump's deeply divisive policy proposals gives Putin more freedom to act around the world. But Peter Feaver, a professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, said the claim that Trump's policies read like a Kremlin wish list is hyperbole to be sure, because it's looking at some of Trump's statements and not others. For example, the candidate's pledge to reinvigorate the United States military would not be part of a Russian wish list. He said the idea that NATO allies aren't paying their fair share for the defense of Europe is a longstanding United States complaint. It's just that Trump is the first to threaten to take action by not defending a country that's attacked but is not paying. And he described the situation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in a way that was favorable to Russia's interpretation of what's happening, said Feaver. So I wouldn't say his comments are are on the Kremlin's wish list, but they were certainly reinforcing Putin's approach and undermining NATO, which is a way of achieving one of Putin's goals, which is to weaken NATO. He also cautioned that it can be hard to tell what Trump really thinks, given all the things he says in off-the-cuff remarks. Only the other hand, he noted, Trump seldom backtracks on an outrageous statement he's made. The claim that Trump's policies read like a Kremlin wish list has a lot more to do with Donald Trump's overall statements about Russia than it does with any concrete policies, and that's because Donald Trump doesn't really have many concrete policies, said Emma Ashford, a defense and foreign policy research fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. Trump tends to be quite inconsistent on a lot of things such as working with Russia to fight ISIS, she said. So with Donald Trump's inconsistency, it's really really hard to tell what he would do on some of these issues. Our ruling Morell and others said Trump has outlined policies that read like a Kremlin wish list. Trumps comments on backing away from NATO, supporting Russia on the Ukraine and rethinking sanctions against Russia certainly qualify as statements that dovetail with what the Putin administration would like. But not all of his opinions, such as wanting to increase military spending, are in lockstep with policies the Kremlin might favor. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5df18d2f-7ff9-4a32-8bc9-ab8300a0ac0c Debate over raisingthe minimum wageis heating up. President Obama is advocating for it, Democrats in Congress are promoting it and their Republican counterparts are warning that it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Adding fuel to that fire was Tuesday'sCongressional Budget Office report, which predicted that increasing the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty but cost 500,000 jobs. U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, went on thefloor of the House on Feb. 11to argue that inflation has eroded the value of the minimum wage, now $7.25 per hour, over time. It's been five years since those working for the minimum wage have seen an increase in the minimum wage, and according to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. This is shameful, and we have the responsibility to address growing income inequality by increasing the minimum wage immediately, he said. In other words, a worker in 2014 would need to earn $9.25 an hour to have the same buying power a minimum-wage worker had in 1968. We wondered whether that was true. Cicilline's office wouldn't say what study the congressman was referring to. When we asked Cicilline about it during a Feb. 18 news conference, he said couldn't recall. Instead, his chief of staff said a Google search had just uncovered a June 2013 Huffington Post article headlined, The Minimum Wage Is Worth $2 Less Today Than It Was In 1968: Study. The Huffington Post article citesa study from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington, D.C. think tank funded by organized labor, that quotes the $2 figure but doesn't analyze the minimum wage directly. Instead, it quotesanother EPI studythat did, looking at the minimum wage value from 1968 through 2012. It reports that the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 per hour was essentially worth $9.25 in 2012 dollars, precisely two dollars less than $7.25. But what was the difference when Cicilline gave his speech this month?The latest EPI study, issued Dec. 19 byDavid Cooper, puts that difference at $2.15. When we tried to confirm that calculation by going to theonline inflation calculatorfrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we came up with an amount that was even higher: It said that today's $7.25 minimum wage is worth $3.46 less than in 1968, a much bigger difference than what Cicilline cited. Why the difference? The online calculator, Cooper said, uses the conventional Consumer Price Index, known as CPI-U. He and other researchers use a variant of that, called theCPI-U-RS, which tries to take the modifications that have been made to the CPI-U over the years and apply them to previous years. Although the government doesn't claim one index is better than another, he said the CPI-U-RS is designed to do a better job of accurately capturing the changing value of the minimum wage. If you adjust an old minimum wage for inflation using the traditional CPI, its value appears much higher today. In summary, Cicilline says he was quoting a report, but we're not sure what report that was. There is a report that supports his claim, as his staff noted, but it's out of date. He said the buying power of the minimum wage in 1968 was, in effect, $2 higher than its value today. The difference in 2013 dollars, by one measure, is actually $2.15. That's pretty close. By another measure, it's even more: $3.46. His underlying point -- that the minimum wage has significantly less buying power than it had 45 years ago -- is correct, and the erosion in the minimum wage is even more dramatic if you use the conventional cost of living index. We rate his statementMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing "behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket" as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate: photograph  The man pictured in the above-displayed photograph does bear a resemblance to a young Bernie Sanders, but that similarity isn't sufficient by itself to confirm that Sanders took part in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march: The above-displayed image was taken on 26 March 1965, and a caption to the photograph provided by licenser Corbis Images identifies Martin Luther King, Jr. along with several other prominent political leaders but makes no mention of Bernie Sanders: caption Dr. Martin Luther King (C) leads thousands of civil rights demonstrators out on the last leg of their Selma to Montgomery 50-mile hike. Others identifiable in the front row include John Davis (2nd from L) of SNCC, King's aide Reverend Ralph Abernathy (3rd from L), Dr. Ralph Bunche (5th from L), Mrs. King (next to her husband) and Reverend Hosea Williams (carrying little girl, R). This photograph has been widely available for decades, but it wasn't until January 2016 that Bernie Sanders' name became associated with a face in the crowd. Although Sanders has stated that he did participate in the landmark "March on Washington" civil rights event of August 1963 (where Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech), we haven't found any record of Sanders' claiming that he was also present at any other civil rights march involving Martin Luther King, Jr: stated speech On the national holiday named for the civil rights leader, Sen. Bernie Sanders called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., "one of the great leaders in American history." Sanders, then a college student, was in the crowd on The Mall in Washington when King delivered his "I have a dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. "We must never forget his heroic efforts to end segregation and racial injustice. It is also important, however, to remember that he fought for a society in which all people had good jobs at good wages and that quality education and health care were available to all. At a time when we have an almost record number of Americans living in poverty, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality and millions working longer hours for lower pay, we still have much to learn from Dr. King's extraordinary life." As Mother Jones noted, Sander's active participation in the Civil Rights movement was "brief and localized" and effectively ended in 1963: noted Civil Rights Sanders' involvement was brief and localized, his sacrifices limited to one arrest for protesting and a bad GPA from neglecting his studies. But Sanders was, in his own right, an active participant in the movement during his three years at the University of Chicago. Although Sanders did attend the 1963 March on Washington, at which Lewis spoke, most of his work was in and around Hyde Park, where he became involved with the campus chapter of CORE [Congress of Racial Equality] shortly after transferring from Brooklyn College in 1961. During Sanders' first year in Chicago, a group of apartment-hunting white and black students had discovered that off-campus buildings owned by the university were refusing to rent to black students, in violation of the school's policies. CORE organized a 15-day sit-in at the administration building, which Sanders helped lead. The protest ended when George Beadle, the university's president, agreed to form a commission to study the school's housing policies. That spring, with Sanders as its chairman, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC [Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee]. Sanders announced plans to take the fight to the city of Chicago, and in the fall of 1962 he followed through, organizing picketers at a Howard Johnson in Cicero. Sanders told the Chicago Maroon, the student newspaper, that he wanted to keep the pressure on the restaurant chain after the arrest of 12 CORE demonstrators in North Carolina for trying to eat at a Howard Johnson there. Sanders left his leadership role at the organization not long afterward; his grades suffered so much from his activism that a dean asked him to take some time off from school. But he continued his activism with CORE and SNCC. In August of 1963, not long after returning to Chicago from the March on Washington, Sanders was charged with resisting arrest after protesting segregation at a school on the city's South Side. He was later fined $25, according to the Chicago Tribune. Some have pegged the identity of the face circled above as likely being that of Paul Reese, who looked somewhat like a young Bernie Sanders, participated in civil rights events of the time, and was present at the march pictured here: Paul Reese In short: One more time: that picture is not of Bernie Sanders, who did not march in Selma. His campaign has *confirmed* this. https://t.co/EseJmycaVX https://t.co/EseJmycaVX  Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, 2016 February 12, 2016 Canada doesnt often get mentioned in political debates in the United States, but our northern neighbor had a cameo in the vice presidential debate, cited as a bastion of low taxes.Seeking to draw a contrast with the tax policies of President Barack Obama, Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin native, said, Where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior  the Canadians  they drop their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent.We wondered whether Canada was really as much of a low-tax haven as Ryan indicated.Canadian corporate taxesWe found two measurements of Canada's corporate tax rate from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations. Over the past 15 years, the trendline for both has been consistently downward. Since 1998, the central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent today; while the combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent today.So Ryan is right that Canadas national rate was recently lowered to 15 percent -- the culmination of policies put forward by both center-left prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin and current center-right prime minister Stephen Harper, who took office in 2006. Small businesses today have a special, lower rate of 11 percent.Still, its worth noting that when you take into account average provincial tax rates -- the equivalent of state corporate taxes in the U.S. -- the combined corporate tax rate in Canada rises to 26.1 percent.International comparisonsWhat about Ryans claim that the average tax rate on businesses in  the industrialized world is 25 percent?We can use the same OECD data to check this claim. Averaging the 2012 tax rates for OECD members, we found that the average for the 34 countries studied is just slightly under 25 percent. Thats just as Ryan said.And in case youre wondering, the top U.S. corporate tax rate, including both federal and state taxes, is 39.1 percent. Thats quite a bit higher than Canadas, and since April, it has been the highest corporate tax rate on the books of any OECD nation.Still, the actual tax rate paid by a company will likely be lower than the official rate, due to deductions and exemptions.Our ratingRyan said Canada dropped its corporate tax rates to 15 percent and that the average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. Hes correct on both counts, though its worth pointing out that provincial taxes boost Canadas rate to 26.1 percent, and that the actual rate paid by specific companies in certain countries, such as the U.S., can be lower than official rates due to deductions and exemptions. We rate Ryans claim Mostly True.