Says more than $3.5 billion in state revenue that is supposed to be dedicated to basic needs and functions is being diverted to make the books look balanced.
State Sen. Kirk Watson says he's going to fight budgetary gambits when lawmakers confront an expected shortfall in state budget revenue in the legislative session starting in January.In a Nov. 15 speech outlining his self-titled honesty agenda, the Austin Democrat names among his concerns a tendency by past legislatures to balance the budget by dipping into state income that's supposed to fund specific needs and functions.The result, Watson said, has diverted billions of dollars that had been promised to roads, parks, hospitals, clean air, utility bill relief, and other necessities  using it instead as a special piggy bank to make the books look balanced. In fact, over $3.5 billion of what people pay to support specific, basic needs and government functions is (currently) being diverted in this way. That's a lot of promises made and then broken. And this practice has grown -- more than doubled -- over the past decade.Watson mentioned the budget-balancing strategy again in aninterview excerptedin the Nov. 28 Austin American-Statesman and in a Nov. 30 talk at the University of Texas where he listed three of the affected funds, saying: Folks, I could go on (listing them) all day.The lege gets blamed for lots of things; has it really been taking funds dedicated to necessities to make the books look balanced?History: The Texas Constitution forbids the state from running in the red. Lawmakers who write each two-year budget must satisfy the state comptroller that budgeted expenditures won't exceed what the state gathers in revenue. That's what it means to balance the budget.Watson spokesman Steve Scheibal responded to our request for back-up evidence by sharing a spreadsheet prepared by the state comptroller's office. According to the spreadsheet, since the 1993 session, lawmakers have balanced budgets by tapping special accounts that collect money for specific purposes. Money taken from such accounts increased steadily through eight of the last nine budget periods, reaching more than $3.7 billion for fiscal 2010-11, which runs through August. All told, money spent in this fashion totals $18 billion.So, Watson's $3.5 billion-plus number sticks.According to the spreadsheet, more than 25 different accounts took hits from the 2009 Legislature. A category broadly termed All Other GR Dedicated Certification Accounts accounted for the largest single amount, $840 million. Next highest: nearly $671 million from the System Benefit Fund, which consists of proceeds from a tax on some utility bills intended to help low-income residents pay utility bills; $515 million from the Emissions Reduction Plan, which funds grants in targeted counties to address polluting heavy vehicles and equipment; and $331 million from an account called Designated Trauma Facility and EMS, which helps hospitals recover costs of uncompensated trauma care.An August 2009 news article in The Houston Chronicle quotes Dale Craymer, a veteran budget watcher who's president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, saying of such transfers: It's kind of like having your (household) budget laid out and spending part of your food money on entertainment, or vice versa.Finally, we turned to the tail of Watson's statement--that shifting money from such funds make the books look balanced as opposed to actually balancing the budget.For expert perspective, we contacted consultant Billy Hamilton of Austin. He was the deputy comptroller when then-State Comptroller John Sharp recommended that the 1991 Legislature -- then facing a $4 billion-plus revenue shortfall -- consolidate more than 300 state funds. That change laid the groundwork for lawmakers to use accumulated cash balances to help balance future budgets.The comptroller's July 1991 Texas Performance Review report, Breaking the Mold, anticipated criticism of the funds' consolidation as an accounting trick. It says: The truth of the matter is that under the state's constitutionally mandated cash-basis budgeting system, there is no trickery involved. Bond rating agencies, for example, see funds consolidation as a component of prudent fiscal management; the one-time revenue gain from such consolidation is a valid and immediate benefit of improving the structure of fiscal management.As it turned out, the one-time revenue gain gave lawmakers a budget-balancing tool they have wielded ever since. In an interview, Hamilton said subsequent legislatures used it to balance budgets while avoiding major tax changes, save a 2006 overhaul of the state's largest business tax and a hike in cigarette taxes.Per Watson's statement, Hamilton said, As a matter of sound public policy, if you agree that the Legislature in the past has set up these dedicated accounts to accomplish certain public policy goals, they're certainly not being accomplished because the money is being effectively used for other purposes. Then again, Hamilton said, just because (lawmakers) set up a fund, that doesn't mean there's an inherent requirement that they spend the money (on that purpose); the Legislature has the power to appropriate most state funds as desired.Strolling into wonk territory, we also interviewed Craymer, who said the legislative practice of tapping special-purpose accounts doesn't mean the accounts won't someday recover money spent on other budget items. For instance, future legislatures could vote to replenish the funds from other sources and/or quit draining their dollars.Craymer continued: Lawmakers are not spending the dedicated revenue, they're spending cash balances the revenue creates. Say what? It's a distinction only an accountant could appreciate.Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the comptroller's office, agreed that dollars made available from the special-purpose accounts actually helped balance the 2010-11 budget, rather than just making the books look balanced.Maybe so, Watson acknowledged, but conversely, if lawmakers spent the dollars taken from a so-called dedicated account on its intended purpose, then they couldn't make the books look balanced because they wouldn't be -- meaning funding would fall short somewhere else in the budget. And Watson reminded that once money from such accounts is spent on other items, the dollars aren't available to pay for the needs they were originally intended to support.Watson also noted that on May 27, 2009, Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his Senate colleagues that the Legislature was unable to write an appropriations bill that would serve the needs of this state without relying to a fairly significant extent on surplus balances in our general-revenue dedicated funds.Ogden also said that a review of the practice would belong in a comprehensive assessment of the state's finances. At the end of the story, Ogden said, the obvious answer is a tax overhaul in the state of Texas. We really have a pretty rickety system right now.Bottom line: Watson accurately recaps the amount of money allocated from specific-purpose accounts for the 2010-11 state budget. But the shifting of funds doesn't just look like a book-balancing; it's for real.We rate Watson's statement Mostly True.
In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party.   It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim,  Hahn, Steve.  "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan."
  AARP.  26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?"
  Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org.  "IRS Definition."
  3 March 2011. AARP. org.  "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity."
  Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA."
  1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young. Social media users love to share words of inspiration and wisdom  if you can pair a profound (or at least vague) life lesson with a striking photo of a celebrity, all the better.  That was the case in early 2018, when a photograph of California's former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared along with an elaborate, but false, back story. A photograph of Schwarzenegger in a sleeping bag in front of a statue of himself bore the following caption: caption Famed actor Arnold Schwarzenegger posted a photo of himself sleeping on the street under his famous bronze statue, and sadly wrote "How times have changed"... The reason he wrote the phrase was not only because he was old, but because when he was governor of California he inaugurated a hotel with his statue. Hotel staff told Arnold, "at any moment you can come and have a room reserved for you." when Arnold stepped down as governor and went to the hotel, the administration refused to give him a room arguing that he should pay for it, since they were in great demand. He brought a sleeping bag and stood underneath the statue and explained what he wanted to convey: "When I was in an important position, they always complimented me, and when I lost this position, they forgot about me and did not keep their promise. Do not trust your position or the amount of money you have, nor your power, nor your intelligence, it will not last. " Trying to teach everyone that when you're "Important" in the people's eyes , everyone is your "Friend " But once you don't benefit their interests , you won't matter. " You are not always who you think you will always be, nothing lasts forever."    The story is riddled with falsehoods, and its primary claim  that Schwarzenegger slept outside a hotel after being refused a free room is a fabrication.  In reality, the photograph (which is legitimate) was taken in January 2016, while the Hollywood star was shooting a film in Columbus, Ohio. Schwarzenegger posted it to his Instagram account on 15 January 2016, apparently as a joke: shooting account   The statue is located outside the city's convention center and has never been situated in front of a hotel, despite the false claims in the Facebook post.  located Schwarzenegger first helped unveil the statue in 2012, outside the Franklin County Veterans Memorial, and then took part in its rededication in 2014, after it was moved to its current location. The former bodybuilder has longstanding ties to Columbus, which is host to an annual bodybuilding competition called the Arnold Sports Festival.  2012 competition Finn, Natalie.  "Here Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Sleeping Next to a Statue of His Bodybuilder Self in Ohio."
  E! Online.  15 January 2016. Associated Press.  "Arnold Schwarzenegger Statue Rededicated in Downtown Columbus."
  WBNS-TV.  6 October 2014. Audi, Tamara.  "Hello, Columbus: Arnold Schwarzenegger Is Back, Bigger Than Ever in Ohio."
  The Wall Street Journal.  2 March 2012. FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan?      Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins:  On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated:  6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015 Native American tribes have beenamong the hardest hitby the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,Biden told The Arizona RepublicMay 21. He took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes  and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. Its unacceptable. Indian treaty rightsrecognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States protection. Under a trust responsibility legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes.That consultation processstartedbefore the lawsuit over the delay in payments.A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasnt until May 5 that the Treasury Departmentsaidit would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Bidens claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to theAlaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of tribal government, or Indian tribe and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued apreliminary injunctionto prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at a later date based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved. The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5saidthe judges April 27 ruling led to the (Treasury) Departments announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes. In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administrationarguedthat providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor arguably should have produced better results, but a court intervention was not warranted. Egregious delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was lagging unreasonably behind in delivering the funds. The Secretary has not been twiddling his thumbs, he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today. Biden said Trump took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes  and only did so after tribes sued. It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued. We rate Bidens statement Mostly True. On Jan. 6, 2020, amidst escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, U.S. Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Az., tweeted a picture of former President Barack Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, along with the caption "The world is a better place without these guys in power": airstrike  However, Obama and Rouhani never met face-to-face during the former's term of office, and the image of the two men tweeted by Gosar was a fake created by altering a 2011 photograph of Obama's meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss nuclear-liability laws: Manmohan Singh  Moreover, Gosar's critical caption for the fake photo ("The world is a better place without these guys in power") was inaccurate, as Rouhani is still very much in power as Iran's president. Rouhani After the picture of Obama and Rouhani was identified as a fake, Gosar then criticized the "dim witted reporters" who pointed it out and attempted to claim that the false and misleading aspects of his tweet were irrelevant:   Reuters. "'Never Threaten the Iranian Nation,' Rouhani Tells Trump."
  The New York Times.  6 January 2020. Wright, Tom.  "Indian, U.S. Leaders Meet on Nuclear Law."
  The Wall Street Journal.  18 November 2011. Mallard ducks frequently make their nests at ground level, but for whatever reason a female Mallard in downtown Spokane, Washington, chose a cement awning ten feet up an office building for her nesting site.  As detailed in viral email at the time, the duck laid her clutch of eggs just outside the window of Joel Armstrong, a senior loan officer at Sterling Savings Bank, and he arrived at work one day in May 2008 to find the ducklings hatched and the mother standing on the edge of the awning.  As Armstrong watched, mama duck then flew down to the sidewalk below, and her ducklings started lining up on the ledge to jump down onto the hard concrete below to join her:   Something really amazing happened in Downtown Spokane this week and I had to share the story with you. Some of you may know that my brother, Joel, is a loan officer at Sterling Bank. He works downtown in a second story office building, overlooking busy Riverside Avenue. Several weeks ago he watched a mother duck choose the cement awning outside his window as the uncanny place to build a nest above the sidewalk. The mallard laid nine eggs in a nest in the corner of the planter that is perched over 10 feet in the air. She dutifully kept the eggs warm for weeks and Monday afternoon all of her nine ducklings hatched.   Joel worried all night how the mamma duck was going to get those babies safely off their perch in a busy, downtown, urban environment to take to water, which typically happens in the first 48 hours of a duck hatching. Tuesday morning, Joel came to work and watched the mother duck encourage her babies to the edge of the perch with the intent to show them how to jump off!  The mother flew down below and started quacking to her babies above. In his disbelief Joel watched as the first fuzzy newborn toddled to the edge and astonishingly leapt into thin air, crashing onto the cement below. My brother couldn't watch how this might play out. He dashed out of his office and ran down the stairs the sidewalk where the first obedient duckling was stuporing near its mother from the near fatal fall.   Joel looked up. The second duckling was getting ready to jump! He quickly dodged under the awning while the mother duck quacked at him and the babies above. As the second one took the plunge, Joel jumped forward and caught it with his bare hands before it hit the cement. Safe and sound, he set it by the mamma and the other stunned sibling, still recovering from its painful leap. One by one the babies continued to jump to join their anxious family below. Each time Joel hid under the awning just to reach out in the nick of time as the duckling made its free fall. The downtown sidewalk came to a standstill. Time after time, Joel was able to catch the remaining 7 and set them by their approving mother.   At this point Joel realized the duck family had only made part of its dangerous journey. They had 2 full blocks to walk across traffic, crosswalks, curbs, and pedestrians to get to the closest open water, the Spokane River. The onlooking office secretaries then joined in, and hurriedly brought an empty copy paper box to collect the babies. They carefully corralled them, with the mother's approval, and loaded them up into the white cardboard container. Joel held the box low enough for the mom to see her brood. He then slowly navigated through the downtown streets toward the Spokane River, as the mother waddled behind and kept her babies in sight. As they reached the river, the mother took over and passed him, jumping into the river and quacking loudly. At the water's edge, the Sterling Bank office staff then tipped the box and helped shepherd the babies toward the water and to their mother after their adventurous ride.   All nine darling ducklings safely made it into the water and paddled up snugly to mamma duck. Joel said the mom swam in circles, looking back toward the beaming bank workers, and proudly quacking as if to say, 'See, we did it! Thanks for all the help!   Thankfully, one of the secretaries had a digital camera and was able to capture most of it (except the actual mid-air catching) in a series of attached photographs. Please join me in celebrating my brother  The Downtown Duck Hero!  [Ed. note: Yes, we're aware that the captions to the pictures displayed above reference nine ducklings, even though ten are plainly visible in some photographs.] Joel Armstrong himself described what happened for Spokane television station KREM: "The first duckling goes to the edge and... smack. Just hits the sidewalk," he said. Horrified, Armstrong darted out of his office and to the sidewalk below. The duckling laid motionless for about 10 seconds before regaining its senses. The next thing Armstrong knew, all the ducklings had instinctively lined up on the ledge ready to follow the first one's lead. Now lined up a like a centerfielder, Armstrong proceeded to shag ducks like falling baseballs from the sky with his bare hands. "In one instance two jumped at the same time," he said. Armstrong caught both. "I truly think the entire time the mother duck could sense I was trying to help," he said. "She just stood there and allowed me to catch them." Armstrong and some of his Sterling Savings co-workers then tried to escort the mother and her offspring to the Spokane River, but the ducklings were too slow to dodge traffic and make it all the way to the water under their own power.  So their human helpers obtained a cardboard box, placed the ducklings into it, and walked them to the river, where the little fowl quickly took to the more hospitable aquatic environment. "It was amazing watching them jump," Armstrong said. "Could you imagine the second day of your life having to jump from a building to get home?"  Armstrong's story quickly spread on the Internet in the form of the  narrative reproduced above, put together by his sister, Candace Mumm. narrative In May 2009, the "duckling rescue" scenario was repeated when a second brood of ducklings hatched on the ledge at Sterling Savings Bank and was once again caught by Joel Armstrong as they jumped from their nest. hatched Variations:  A March 2009 variant shifted the setting of this piece from Spokane to San Antonio; the duckling savior to "Michael R" (said to be an accounting clerk instead of a loan officer); and the bank to "Frost Bank."  Also, instead of just "onlooking secretaries" helping corral the ducklings, the variant reported that "several San Antonio Police Officers" helped get the ducklings into the box to be carried to the river.  Blocker, Kevin.  "Man Catches Ducklings Jumping from Ledge."
  KREM-TV [Spokane, WA].  26 May 2008.

 KREM-TV [Spokane, WA].   "Duck Makes Nest on Spokane Office Ledge ... Again."
   1 May 2009.

 KREM-TV [Spokane, WA].   "Duck Family's Amazing Journey Caught on Tape."
   19 May 2009. On 14 August 2015, a Facebook user shared what appeared to be a movie poster for a film called Twilight Saga: Moonlight Glow (Part 1) (embedded above). Subsequently that post was shared hundreds of thousands of times, followed by rumors about a soon-to-be-released Twilight sequel. shared Example: I have been seeing pictures posted on social media about a new twilight saga coming in Nov, of 2015 called twilight moonlight glow but  when I search it on the web I can't find any info about this movie. Is this a hoax? However, a closer look at the image revealed that the poster was clearly not the harbinger of new Twilight sequels (which would certainly not be a surprise to fans, were the projects legitimate): As the detail illustrates, the date of the film was rendered in a style most commonly seen outside the United States (day/month/year), whereas official Twilight movie posters utilize an American format (month/date/year, as seen here, here, and here). Under the date, a URL led to a DeviantArt user's page, which revealed that the circulating Twilight saga "Moonlight Glow" poster was a creative work of fan tribute and not an official promotional graphic. here here here revealed Moreover, fan interest in a new entry to the series has remained strong enough to warrant significant entertainment news coverage (of which there was none supporting the rumor). The books on which the films were based ended at the same juncture as their cinematic counterparts, so no additional book story lines exist for further Twilight adaptations involving the characters of Edward and Bella Cullen. Although author Stephenie Meyer originally planned a novel presenting the events of the series from Edward's perspective (titled Midnight Sun), that project was scrapped after unfinished drafts of the book were leaked online. story lines Finally, rumors of a different November 2015 Twilight sequel (purportedly the third part of the films' final installment, Breaking Dawn, Part 3) had previously circulated. Those claims were junk news, similarly spread by hopeful fans, and not related to any new projects attached to the franchise. Twilight sequel On 14 March 2016, a Fox News producer sent a tweet positing that supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were spotted at a Florida rally wearing armbands not dissimilar to those associated with the Nazis: .@realDonaldTrump supporters sporting armbands in Florida https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk  Nick Kalman (@NickKalmanFN) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016  The armband rumor was one of many that invoked Nazi imagery in connection with Trump's campaign (earlier quips suggested Godwin's Law was suspended for the duration of the 2016 election cycle). Nazi armbands(cataloged extensively by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) remain a strong visual reminder of Nazi-era German politics, World War II, and the Holocaust, due in part to their enduring presence in pop culture representations of those events:  Nazi imagery Godwin's Law suspended Nazi armbands extensively   However, it appeared that the initial tweet was sent without much verification as to whether the Trump armbands were legitimate campaign memorabilia sported unironically by dutiful supporters of the GOP presidential hopeful. Not long after the image hit Twitter hard, users began pointing out that the "Trump supporters" looked awfully familiar:  Trump armband guy looks like the "Rubio stole my girlfriend" guy. Maybe everyone wait a min https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG  Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG March 14, 2016  Political pranksters: Guys in Trump armbands appear to be same guys in Settle for Hillary shirts at her rally. pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ  Matt Viser (@mviser) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 These are the same two guys I saw disrupt a Christie event and Jeb event on separate days in Iowa https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8 March 14, 2016  Check tape from Jeb's caucus day event in Des Moines: These two were sitting in stands behind him & heckled him before security removed them  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald They were also present at Iowa events. Saw them at Christie and Jeb causing commotion as well  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald March 14, 2016  The Washington Post noted that the men pictured were "bipartisan pranksters" who had also "hit" rallies for Democratic candidates: noted Today the Internet (briefly) went nuts over this photo, of two men described as Trump supporters, taken by a Fox News producer at a Trump campaign rally. But those guys looked familiar. And not from Trump rally sightings. Very familiar. Very, very familiar. (They're bipartisan pranksters, who've reportedly also hit Clinton and Sanders rallies.) TL;DR summary: Not everything you see on the Internet is real. So, although this photograph may be real and unaltered, the assumptions commonly made about what it depicts are not. The two men seen here are not Trump partisans genuinely donning armbands as a show of support for the candidate. Rather, the pair are well-known in the media for their ongoing interest in disrupting or otherwise "making it weird" at events for candidates from both parties. On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. Claim:  McDonald's will stop serving overweight customers beginning 1 January 2015.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is this article true? "McDonald's Will Stop Serving Overweight Customers Beginning 1/1/15"   Origins:  On 4 December 2014, Daily Buzz Live published an article claiming the McDonald's fast food chain would stop selling food to overweight customers as of 1 January 2015: article Obesity in America has more than doubled over the last 2 decades and has become the leading public health issue in the U.S. With more than two-thirds of the adult population overweight, McDonald's has decided to become part of the solution  not the problem. According to reports, beginning January 1, 2015, McDonald's will no longer serve customers with a weight capacity over 170 lbs for women and 245 lbs for men. Children's weight restrictions will vary depending on age and height. McDonald's is currently running campaigns to shake its "junk food" image, insisting they sell nothing but good quality food. They are are branding themselves from "A dining experience of fast food" to "Good food served fast." McDonald's has taken a few steps to make its menu healthier, but the restaurant chain has not announced any plans to stop serving customers based on their weight. In addition to the logistical menu  impossibilities of weighing drive-thru customers, the potential lawsuits for discriminating against obese people, and the likelihood of McDonald's losing millions of dollars in profits, the article can be debunked simply by considering its source:  According to the Daily Buzz Live disclaimer page, all articles published on the site are meant for "entertainment purposes only." Some articles are inspired by "real news events," but the content of these articles is "complete fiction." disclaimer Last updated:  5 December 2014