Is it true that Biden's Climate Plan proposes reducing red meat consumption by 90%?
On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal have become something of a team, delivering a one-two punch for various economic development projects in Georgia, including metro Atlanta. Although the two line up on opposite sides of the political aisle, they have managed to put the D and R aside to work together on getting funding for Georgia ports, get a new football stadium built and get Porsche to move its North American headquarters close to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The relationship hascaught the eyeof politicos far and near as an example of how leadership should work. But that hasnt always been the case. And Reed noted this last month during the Governing Georgia Leadership Forum in downtown Atlanta. My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office, Reed said. But you would have thought previously that walk was a 10k. PolitiFact Georgia is always looking for an opportunity for a little fun and exercise. So we grabbed our pedometer and set out for a walk. At the Leadership Forum, Reed and Deal were co-presenters for a 30-minute session titled Shared Fortunes -- Building a Better Georgia. The description of the discussion said: the state's governor, a Republican, and the mayor of its largest city, a Democrat, discuss how they are working together to advance a common agenda. And to work together you have to be together. And being together includes office visits, so we set out to check the distance between them. Not depending on our math alone, we got out a pedometer for a more accurate step count. We walked the path from Reeds office in Atlanta City Hall to Deals office on the main floor of the Georgia State Capitol, and back again, twice. We began walking at a normal pace. But the mayor stands at 6feet, a full six inches taller than this PolitiFact Georgia reporter, so we extended our stride a bit. Our calculations found that Reed was correct. The distance from the governors office to the first step outside City Hall was 300 steps. Throw in the distance from the outside City Hall steps to Reeds actual office and the step count increases between 65 and 100 steps, depending on the route through the lobby, whether you take a short ramp or the few steps up to the main office level, and stride of the walker. To sum up, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said his office was about 300 steps from Gov. Nathan Deals office. Walking the path that the mayor is likely to take, it is 300 steps from Deals office to the bottom of the first step of Atlanta City Hall, where Reeds office is located. Walking all the way to the receptionist that sits just outside the mayors office adds additional steps, based on our calculations, which could make the mayors claim off by about one-third. Reeds overall point was that the political divide between he and Deal has closed. Based on their history of delivering economic development projects for the city and state, that statement is correct. But the mayor is off just a bit on his distance claim if you take his statement literally. We rated Reeds claim Mostly True. Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed with only Democratic support in Congress, Republicans have criticized the bill, saying it will saddle ordinary Americans with increased audits by the Internal Revenue Service. The legislation, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16,includesprovisions that would lower drug costs, address climate change, reduce the deficit, and impose higher taxes on the largest corporations. But much of the Republican criticism has focused on the laws allocation of about $80 billion over 10 years to strengthen the Internal Revenue Service. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that the Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you  with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sought to counter these attacks in an Aug. 28tweet, saying, The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like #WV families & small businesses. WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like#WVfamilies & small businesses.WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. Manchin has a point. His argument is roughly the inverse of McCarthys, which PolitiFact ratedMostly False. We concluded that McCarthys 710,000-audit estimate runs counter to the IRS stated policy and was based on a flawed use of a Congressional Budget Office estimate that assumed much higher spending on enforcement than is in the legislation that passed. (We also found that McCarthys 87,000 figure was exaggerated because not all of those employees would be enforcement agents.) Here, well zero in on Manchins statement that WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. The 710,000 figure stems from an exaggerated calculation by U.S.Rep. Kevin Bradyof Texas, the House Ways and Means Committees top Republican. He arrived at the number by bringing together two pieces of data. In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office said that $80 billion more for the IRS would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago. Brady took 2010s audit rates and applied them to the number of tax returns in 2018, broken down by income groups. Using his approach, there would be about 710,000 more audits for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income. However, this approach ignores several key details about what the CBO report says elsewhere and what the bill  and the Treasury  have made clear: This effort aims to increase audits of corporations and high-net-worth individuals. The full sentence in the CBO report that Brady was drawing from said the audit rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. Brady also failed to note a key difference between the budget offices assessment from a year ago and the bill that was passed in 2022. The CBO assumed in its report that $60 billion of the $80 billion would go toward enforcement. But the current bill would result in substantially less than that  $46 billion  for enforcement, according to aCongressional Research Serviceanalysis. With nearly one-third less money for enforcement, the resulting number of audits would likely be smaller. Perhaps the biggest problem with assuming there will be a big increase in audits for middle- to low-income Americans, however, is that it runs directly counter to the IRS stated policy, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen laid out in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. I direct that any additional resources  including any new personnel or auditors that are hired  shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels, Yellen wroteAug. 10. Rettig had said much the same in anAug. 4letter to Congress. Audit rates for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income have held steady over thepast several yearsat about 0.4%. Thats lower than the audit rate in 2011, when it was 1%. Yellen said enforcement will focus on corporations and people with high net worth. Auditing them requires staff with special skills. Today, she said, the agency is able to audit only about 7,500 out of 4 million such returns each year. Focusing on higher earners, as the IRS plans to do, would go a long way toward reversing the agencys historical focus on auditingsome of the lowest earners, largely households that file for the earned income tax credit. The only caveat to Manchins statement is that theres no guarantee the agency will adhere to the new policy it has announced. The pledge not to use the Inflation Reduction Act funds to increase audits of those making less than $400,000 is not built into law, John Buhl, senior communications manager at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact West Virginia. Although its not written in law, its a policy that has been stated publicly on several occasions. Both the IRS and Treasury are committed to that policy decision, as outlined in recent letters, said Erin Heeter, Manchins press secretary. Both the IRS and Treasury also outlined in their recent letters that audit rates for families making under $400k will not change. Buhl agreed that its unlikely that the IRS will perform audits on lower-income families when they already have documentation through W-2 wage pay stubs and other statements. And audits of high earners arewhere the money is, anyway. The top 1% of earners account for about 30% of the $600 billion each year that is owed but goes uncollected, Natasha Sarin, counselor for Tax Policy and Implementation at the Treasury Department, told PolitiFact. Manchin said, WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. This limitation wasnt written into the Inflation Reduction Act. However, top Treasury and IRS officials have consistently confirmed that the new resources allocated to the IRS by the law will be focused on audits of the highest-paying Americans, making it stated policy. We rate the statement Mostly True. On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. Oregons economy is looking up -- and in a recent speech at the Oregon Leadership Summit, Gov. John Kitzhaber counted the ways.Unemployment is falling, our credit rating is rising, the state ranks as one of the friendliest to business and just last year, Oregon had the second fastest growing economy in the nation.It was that last one that caught our ear. Oregon usually lags behind the country -- but when the state is hot, its hot, so it wasnt out of the realm of possibility. Still we decided to check it out.We got in touch with Amy Wojcicki, the governors spokeswoman, and she reminded us of an article The Oregonian published last June. The storys headline spoke for itself: Oregon economy growing at nations second-fastest rate.The story cited figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Statistics. In 2011, Oregons gross domestic product increased by 4.7 percent. The state was second only to North Dakota, which saw its GDP grow by 7.6 percent that year.The numbers show the governor was right. Still, we decided to dig just a little bit further because we know, when it comes to economics and statistics, nothing is ever quite as clear cut as it seems.We called up Tim Duy, a University of Oregon economist. That's the fact -- you can certainly point to it. But, he added, I would be wary.I think it's important to recognize that a significant amount of those gains came from manufacturing -- particularly microchips and related industries.All of this was covered in the original article. Indeed, manufacturing was far and away the biggest driver of growth that year. Intel alone had huge growth. So, we asked, whats the problem with that?It's a real effect, Duy said, But is this the experience of the average Oregonian? I don't think the average Oregonian perceives the economy as growing at the second fastest rate in the nation.We asked Duy if he could suggest another measurement that might provide a fuller picture -- he suggested the rate of job growth. Fortunately, this just came up in the states most recent revenue forecast. According to that report, which based its numbers on figures from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Oregon ranks 26th overall in that category. Said another way: Were perfectly average.In a recent speech, Gov. Kitzhaber mentioned that a year ago, Oregon boasted the second-fastest growing economy in the nation. It was just one fact of several that he referenced to make the point that the state is rebounding from a dismal recession. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the governors statement is accurate. We agree with Duy that most Oregonians dont feel like theyre living in an economic boom, but that doesnt make the governor wrong.We rate this claim True. Claim:  A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents.  Examples:  [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare  FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections.  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins:  This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites.  The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below:  Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections."  What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention.  (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were  extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant  As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn.  Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households.  The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes.  Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."  PPACA Last updated:  5 October 2013 In early January 2023, we received reader mail that asked if it was true that a Florida man was arrested after allegedly throwing a Christmas tree at his wife. Attached to one reader's email was a screenshot of a headline that read, "Florida man arrested, allegedly struck wife with Christmas tree." We found that this was a real headline publishedby ABC6 News on WATE.com, as well as other local news websites. The article cited reporting fromFox 35 Orlando, which was originally printed on Dec. 13, 2022. WATE.com Fox 35 Orlando According to the story, 52-year-old Richard Atchison had allegedly thrown a Christmas tree at his wife after drinking alcohol.The arrest occurred on the night of Dec. 12 in the city of Fruitland Park. We confirmed via the Lake County Sheriff's Department website that Atchison was arrested at 7:16 p.m. local time on suspicion of false imprisonment, violation of injunction, and battery. According to the records, this was Atchison's second time arrested on suspicion of battery. He was released the following day. website By email, the Lake County Sheriff's Office provided us with the arrest affidavit, written by Officer K. Richetti. It read as follows: The defendant stated the victim slammed a utensil into hot food which in turn splashed the right side of his face. The defendant advised he "lost his temper" and stated he was leaving, packed clothes, and walked out to his truck. The defendant then decided to return to the residence, as he had been drinking and told the victim to leave instead. The defendant stated the argument was verbal only and no physical contact was made that evening. I then spoke with the victim, who advised she was making dinner when the defendant became angry with her for asking for help. They engaged in a verbal argument, at which point she put a spoon in the sink, accidentally, splashing the defendant and escalating his temper. The defendant began packing his things and went out to his vehicle. The defendant then returned stating she should be the one to leave. The victim attempted to leave out the front door, but the defendant used both hands and pushed the victim in her shoulder area away from the door, to which she stumbled. The victim then went into the living room and sat with her friend. The defendant picked up the Christmas tree in the corner of the room and threw it towards the kitchen, where it broke in half. The defendant then took the Christmas tree and threw it at the victim, subsequently striking her. The victim went into her bedroom and closed the door, in an attempt to separate herself from the defendant. At this time, the defendant kicked the bedroom door attempting to enter. The victim again tried to leave through the front door, but the defendant was blocking the exit and was yelling at her when law enforcement arrived. It should be noted that the front door is the only door to exit located within the residence. I observed no visible redness or injuries on the defendant. I observed slight redness to the victim's left and right arms, but no other visible injuries. I observed a partial black shoe print on the lower center half of the bedroom door. According to the rest of the affidavit, a witness corroborated the victim's story, including the part about Atchison throwing the Christmas tree. FOX 35 News Staff. "Florida Man Accused of Hitting Wife with Christmas Tree after Asked to Help with Dinner." FOX 35 Orlando, 13 Dec. 2022, https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-man-accused-of-attacking-wife-with-christmas-tree-when-asked-to-help-with-making-dinner. "Richard Daniel Atchison." Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.lcso.org/inmates/mugshot_booking_detail.php?bookingnumber=22008209. Richetti, Officer K.Arrest Affidavit/First Appearance Form for Richard Daniel Atchison. Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022. Sloan, Kaycee. "Florida Man Arrested, Allegedly Struck Wife with Christmas Tree." WATE 6 On Your Side, 15 Dec. 2022, https://www.wate.com/news/florida-man-arrested-allegedly-struck-wife-with-christmas-tree/. On 23 August 2018, amid news of the plea deal of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and the conviction of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on eight counts of financial crimes, President Trump sat down with Fox and Friends Ainsley Earhardt for an interview. The topic of impeachment was broached by the President himself, who ruminated that "I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job."  His follow-up to that remark quickly became the topic of online memes: interview  Indeed, President Trump suggested that removing him from office would have catastrophic financial ramifications for the U.S. financial markets and for all Americans, because the country's economy could not survive being stripped of his "thinking":  That same day, CNBC reported the market "had little reaction so far to Trump's renewed legal troubles, adding that "traders say the market ... expects Trump to avoid impeachment unless the special counsel investigation can tie the president directly to collusion with Russia to sway the 2016 election." reported Melloy, John.  "Trump Says the Stock Market Would Crash If He Were Impeached: 'Everybody Would Be Very Poor'."
  CNBC.  23 August 2018 In June 2021, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib came out as gay, making history as the first openly gay active NFL player. Given the high-profile nature of his announcement, it was perhaps unsurprising that the episode quickly turned political, with claims that Nassib is registered to vote as a Republican. came out as gay On June 22, for example, right-wing activist Brigitte Gabriel tweeted: tweeted "FUN FACT: The first openly gay active NFL player, Carl Nassib, is a registered Republican voter." Some left-leaning and LGBTQ observers expressed disappointment at such claims, and others posted what appeared to be screenshots of voter registration details relating to Nassib.  expressed disappointment at such claims others posted In general, readers should be wary of claims about a specific individual's party affiliation and voter registration, which often crop up in the aftermath of arrests, scandals and other controversies. Links and screenshots purporting to contain such details often come from unofficial and unreliable sources.  often crop up aftermath It should also be noted that Nassib's personal political beliefs and party affiliation are of no inherent interest to the writers and editors at Snopes, and that this fact check is simply in response to widespread and substantive factual claims about a public figure currently in the news.  In any event, Snopes has checked official, reliable voter registration data from Nevada and Florida, and can confirm that Nassib is indeed registered to vote as a Republican, and has been in at least two states, since May 2019 at the latest. We are therefore issuing a rating of  Nassib joined the Raiders in March 2020, and lives in Las Vegas. On June 23, Snopes downloaded voter rolls from the 16th state assembly district, from the official website of Clark County, Nevada. official website That database contains an entry for Carl Paul Nassib, born in 1993, with an address in Las Vegas, and shows that he is an active voter who registered as a Republican on Nov. 3, 2020  the date of the most recent general election. In the screenshot below, we have redacted certain columns which, although public record, contained personal details including Nassib's home address:   Before joining the Raiders, Nassib played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and lived in Hillsborough County, Florida. We checked registration information on the official website of the Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections, and found that Nassib registered as a Republican there on May 15, 2019. We have redacted Nassib's voter registration number, as well as his residential and permanent addresses, from the screenshot below: official website   Before joining the Buccaneers, Nassib played for the Cleveland Browns. Information found on the official website of the Medina County Board of Elections showed that he voted there in the 2016 general election, on Nov. 8, but did not indicate his party affiliation at that time, if any.  official website   As we have shown, Nassib has been registered as a Republican in two different states  Florida and Nevada  since May 2019 at the latest, and he was registered as a Republican for the most recent general election, in November 2020. The claim that Nassib is registered to vote, as a Republican, is therefore undoubtedly accurate, as of June 2021. If former Gov. Ted Strickland had used a theme song in his unsuccessful re-election bid, it might have been I've Been Working on the Railroad.Jobs were the biggest issue of the fall campaign, and Strickland said that thousands would be created by his plan for a 3C Corridor passenger rail system linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. He described Gov.-elect John Kasichs intention to kill the plan and return a $400 million federal grant as tragic and a job-killer.Critics of the plan claimed that its employment potential was exaggerated, its ridership forecasts were too optimistic and its cost projections too low.Ultimately, Plain Dealer columnist and former editorial director Brent Larkin wrote: Voters never warmed to the idea of spending hundreds of millions on a passenger rail project that would have taken riders from Cleveland to Cincinnati over a period an hour and 15 minutes longer than it would have taken on a New York Central train in 1935.We dont usually look at remarks from columnists, but that comment stopped PolitiFact Ohio in its tracks.We knew that the 3C Corridor was not a high-speed rail plan. We had not realized it was more like a trip back in time.So PolitiFact Ohio asked Larkin where he got his figures.He referred us first to a year-old feasibility report on the proposed Cleveland-to-Columbus-to- Cincinnati Amtrak service.This is the schedule Amtrak said it would run, and the schedule Ohio included as part of its application to the feds for the $400 million, Larkin said. No other schedule was ever formally provided to the feds.The proposed schedule shows a 255-mile Cleveland to Cincinnati trip taking 6-1/2 hours. The first daily train would leave Cleveland at 6:30 a.m. and arrive in Cincinnati at 1 p.m.Larkin then shared a railroad timetable from New York Central Lines, effective Feb 3, 1935. It showed a departure time of 3:10 p.m. from Cincinnati and an arrival in Cleveland of 8:20 p.m., for a travel time of 5 hours 10 minutes -- an hour and 20 minutes faster than the 3C line.Criticism of the 3C as snail rail with an average speed of 39 mph started as soon as the project was proposed.The Ohio Department of Transportation responded in September with a new average estimate of 50 mph and speed up to 79. It shortened the Cleveland-to-Cincinnati trip to 5 hours 12 minutes.But, not so fast.As an October story in the Columbus Dispatch noted, ODOT itself had said a year earlier that the trip couldn't be made in less than 5 hours 20 minutes -- even if the trains didn't stop. ODOTs revised schedule hadn't even been seen by the three freight lines that own the tracks the 3C passenger trains would use, putting its feasibility in serious doubt.And, no matter how weak or strong its support, the optimistic revision still comes up longer than the best rail time of 1935.The schedules speak for themselves, Larkin said.We rate his statement as True. Claim:  A letter-writing Air Force veteran chides Clinton for stating that the "older generation must learn to sacrifice as other generationshave done." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I was embarrassed to read that President Clinton and his advisors have said, "the older generation must learn to sacrifice as other generations have done." That's my generation.  [As a former World War II "fly-boy" and ex-prisoner of war, I greatly resent President Clinton saying that the older generation must learn to sacrifice as other generations have done. When did he ever sacrifice?]  I knew eventually someone would ferret out the dirty secret: we've lived the "lifestyle of the rich and famous" all our lives. Now, I know I must bare the truth about my generation and let the country condemn us for ourselfishness.  During the Depression we had an hilarious time dancing to the tune of "Brother Can You Spare A Dime?" We could choose to dine at any of the country's fabulous soup kitchens, often joined by our parents andsiblings . . . those were the heady days of carefree self-indulgence.  Then, with World War II, the cup filled to over-flowing. We had the chance to bask on the exotic beaches of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and Okinawa; to see the capitols of Europe and travel to such scenic spots as Bastogne,Malmedy and Monte Cassino. Of course, one of the most exhilirating adventures was the stroll from Bataan to the local Japanese hotels, laughingly known as death camps.  But the good times really rolled for those lucky enough to be on the beaches of Normandy for the swimming and boating that pleasant June day in '44. Unforgettable. Even luckier were those that drew the prized holiday tickets for cruises on sleek, gray ships to fun-filled spots like Midway, The Solomons and Murmansk.  Instead of asking "what can we do for our country," an indulgent government let us fritter away our youth wandering idly through the lush and lovely jungles of Burma and New Guinea.  [Yes, they were certainly pampered. And just when it looked like they might have to take on some responsibility, off they went to camp in the "Land of Fozen Chosen," and more of the same - reveling in the sights and sounds of peace-loving people along the Yalu, the fun run to Pusan, water skiing at Inchon and the thrill of Hamburger Hill.  After soaking up the GI Bill and moving into plush VA quarters, thanks to the military-industrial complex, those of them still around got to compete for silver, bronze and purple medals in the great Southeast Asian War Games.] Yes, it's all true: we were pampered, we were spoiled rotten, we never did realize what sacrifice meant. We envy you, Mr. Clinton, the harsh lessons you learned in London, Moscow and Little Rock.  My generation is old, Mr. President . . . and guilty; but we are repentant. Punish us for our failings, sir, that we may learn the true meaning of Duty, Honor, Country.  [Older America is all worn out from a lifetime of fun and frolic. They are surely guilty as you have charged. Cut their entitlement so they may know the true meaning of duty done for flag and nation.  By the way, Mr. President, what have you ever done for our country?] [As the Eighth Airforce News says, "Yes, it's all true. We are pampered and spoiled rotten. We never did learn what sacrifice meant. My generation is old, President Clinton.  "Please continue to punish us for our failings, so we might learn the true meaning of duty, honor, country' and love for our creator."  Thanks a lot, Mr. President.] (Bracketed sections indicate text found in variant versions) Origins:  Exactly who wrote this evocative and well-crafted letter chiding President Clinton for calling on older generations to "learn sacrifice as other generations have done" remains a mystery.  It has appeared in the print media, on the radio, and throughout the Internet in several variant forms, credited to a variety of writers.  The version most frequently cited on the Internet is attributed to a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel from Colorado Springs named Robert J. Grady and reportedly ran in the (now defunct) Public Intelligence Review and Newsletter on 30 July 1994.  It also appeared in St. Petersburg Times in 1996, where it was credited to Otho E. Hays of Clearwater, Florida; was printed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (also in 1996) under the name of Kitty Dowdell; and was awarded the December 1997 "Letter of the Month" honor by The Seattle Times, who cited its author as one Joe Regan of Kirkland.  Even stranger, the letter was reportedly read by actor Charlton Heston on Rush Limbaugh's radio show on 31 May 1994, before its earliest known  publication. Whoever its author, this letter is a heady reminder that previous generations endured times of hardship and crisis that those of us who have enjoyed only an era of economic booms and peaceful security find it hard to imagine.  (The post-World War II era has not been completely free of economic downturns, armed conflicts, and various other crises, of course.)  This piece has become a favorite of conservative critics and radio talk show hosts, with Heston's readings being especially popular.  But was it prompted by a real remark of Clinton's, or merely something the writer (and others of similar sentiment) mistakenly assumed he said? The intended irony here is in President Clinton  a man who wasn't born until well after the Depression and World War II were over, has enjoyed living in a country with a strong economy throughout most of his lifetime, and avoided military service during the Vietnam War  stating that, for the good of the country, "the older generation must learn to sacrifice as other generations have done."  However, one searches in vain to find evidence that Clinton ever made any such statement. The earliest attribution of this letter (31 May 1994) narrows the timeframe in which he could have said these words, but nothing resembling this quote turns up in any major news database.  Nor does this quote sound like anything the politically astute Clinton would have been foolish enough to utter.  (If nothing else, Clinton's recent impeachment and lawsuit troubles have demonstrated how carefully he chooses his words.) Perhaps the writer was responding to something that was erroneously reported as having been said by Clinton, a quote by someone in the White House administration other than Clinton, or a putative summarization of Clinton's policies (real or imagined).  One of the main points of the letter, however, is a pointed attack on the alleged hypocrisy of President Clinton; as such, the letter should be based on something he actually said, not what someone wants to believe he said. Additional Information:     Charlton Heston reads the letter  Last updated:  3 December 2007    Sources:   Dowdell, Kitty.  "Seniors Should Be Ashamed."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  24 September 1996  (p. B8).     Hays, Otho E.  "Letters."   The St. Petersburg Times.  2 February 1996  (p. A15).     Regan, Joe.  "Letters to the Editor."   The Seattle Times.  17 December 1997  (p. B5).