In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time.
Chris Christies heard the complaints often. He cut education funding. He supports charter schools. Hes hard on teachers, and his quest for tenure and other reforms is over the top. But the governor continues responding to those complaints with various versions of this refrain: New Jersey has the most funding put toward education in state history. And Christie said it again Nov. 2 during a gubernatorial campaign stop in Somers Point, when he and a public school teacher got into an argument. Christie was re-elected Tuesday. In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time, Christie said when the teacher cited the governors education funding cuts for why he has referred to New Jersey schools as failure factories. Technically Christie is right about the level of education funding in New Jersey, but as weve pointed out in the past, theres a bit more to this story that he doesnt address. First, lets get back to that remark about failure factories. Christie used it during a speech he gave Oct. 6 to the Orthodox Union in Teaneck, where he promoted his education policies. I would be happy to take as many dollars as possible away from failure factories that send children on a no-stop route to prison and to failed dreams, if we could take that money and put it into a place where those families have hope, Christie said. Now, to the governors point about education funding. Christies proposed fiscal year 2014 budget called for nearly $9 billion in education funding, about $1 billion more than the previous year. Under that spending plan, state aid to schools increased $97 million. While no district saw a state aid decrease, many either received an increase of $1 or their funding stayed the same as the previous year. At the time, Christie released a statement through the state Department of Education in which he touted the funding level while also emphasizing fiscal restraint. However, even as we continue to fund education at the highest levels in state history, we must remain willing to reflect on how we are spending our money and work towards solutions that make every dollar we invest count, he said in the statement. Weve previously run Christies claim past Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the states largest teachers union. Wollmer agreed that in terms of dollars, its correct that the state has its highest-ever level of education funding. But that doesnt mean there hasn't a been long-lasting downside to cuts that Christie made during his first year as governor. He took office in January 2010. But what he doesnt mention is that he cut $1.3 billion from state aid in his first year  Withholding $475 million in aid in January, which was the amount that the states nearly 600 districts had in total surpluses for unanticipated expenses (a new roof, a bus that needed replacing, an unanticipated special ed placement), and another $820 million in the FY11 budget (which began for schools in September of 2010), Wollmer said previously in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey. Districts cut back dramatically, and 10,000 teachers and staff were laid off, programs were cut, and class sizes increased. Those cuts continue to sting, Wollmer said. In addition to the cuts, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 ordered Christie to increase aid to the now-former Abbott districts by about $500 million. Our ruling Christie last week said during an argument with a teacher, In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time. Critics frequently call the governor out for the massive funding cuts hes made to education since taking office, and for either increasing state aid by a minimal amount or not at all. But the fact of the matter is that despite the cuts, New Jerseys education funding level is the highest its ever been. For that reason, we rate Christies statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.
On July 11, 2022,we received reader mail asking us about sponsored posts on Facebook Marketplace that advertised portable power generators at Costco Wholesale. The sponsored posts led to a page that, to some viewers, may have looked like an official website for Costco. However, that was not really the case. The page was designed by scammers to try to fool users into losing money. One of the sponsored posts on Facebook Marketplace read, "30-day money-back guarantee!" and led to expeditaeos.com. The real website for Costco is costco.com.  Facebook Marketplace costco.com That sponsored ad on Facebook looked like this:  Once users clicked the sponsored post on Facebook, they were directed to the look-alike website that featured the Costco logo and 22 different products, most of which were portable power generators. The brands for the generators included Honda, Generac, Ryobi, and Toro. Such generators can easily sell for well over $1,000. On the scam page, however, the generators were supposedly available for less than $100.  Costco scam  While scanning the products, we came across another red flag that this was a scam: The fake page attempted to convince onlookers that they could buy Honda generators from Costco, when, in reality, Honda generators are not sold at Costco stores, nor are they available on the companys website. Honda generators are not sold at Costco stores The scammers appeared to be targeting users Paypal accounts. While checking out, the website asked people for Paypal.com login information even when they wanted to pay with credit or debit cards. We previously reported on a similarly-run scam about a supposed giveaway of pricey items from Traeger Grills. That scam also targeted users' Paypal information. Paypal Paypal.com reported We strongly recommend against ordering any products that claim to be sold by Costco unless the address bar at the top of your web browser specifically says that you are visiting costco.com. The scam involving portable power generators was not the first fraudulent scheme we've seen on Facebook using Costco's name and logo. Less than a month prior, scammers created a Facebook page named "Costco Wholesale Fans" and falsely claimed that the company was giving away TVs for free. (Additionally, we previously reported on a similar scam about Walmart, not Costco, giving away televisions for free.) claimed reported Walmart  In sum, no, Costco was not advertising and selling deeply discounted power generators through Facebook Marketplace. We recommend caution when clicking on sponsored posts on Facebook that claim to provide steep price cuts on products that are normally pricey and quite useful. Facebook In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the accuracy of reports that a doctoral student and philosophy instructor at the University of California Berkeley had provoked outrage, especially among right-leaning observers, by remarking that people in rural America were "bad people who have made bad life decisions." On Nov. 12, Fox News published an article with the headline "UC Berkeley Instructor Calls Rural Americans 'Bad People' Who Deserve 'Uncomfortable' Lives," which reported that: reported A UC Berkeley graduate student and instructor took to Twitter to shame "rural Americans" and those who aren't "pro-city." Jackson Kernion, who has reportedly taught at least 11 philosophy courses at the California university, made the comments last Wednesday. "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans," Kernion wrote in a now-deleted tweet. "They, as a group, are bad people who have made bad life decisions ... and we should shame people who aren't pro-city." Kernion started going after rural citizens, saying they should have higher health care, pay more in taxes and be forced to live an "uncomfortable" life for rejecting "efficient" city life, Campus Reform reported. Similar articles were also published by the right-leaning websites Breitbart, PJ Media, and Campus Reform. Breitbart PJ Media Campus Reform Kernion did indeed attract the ire of many online commentators with a series of tweets on Nov. 5, in which he outlined, apparently in earnest, his views about the sustainability of living in rural America, and the character of those who chose to do so. Kernion's Twitter account is no longer available, but many of the key tweets in question were archived and can be viewed here. here He wrote: "The need for affordable rural healthcare" = "The need for people who decide to live in rural America to be subsidized by those who choose a more efficient way of life." Rural healthcare should be expensive! And that expense should be borne by those who choose rural America! Same goes for rural broadband. And gas taxes. It should be uncomfortable to live in rural America. It should be uncomfortable to not move. None of the replies I'm getting even *try* to address the central point I'm making: that we shouldn't make rural life *artificially* cheaper. That's how you know I'm right. When another user responded to Kernion with a point about health care in rural America, Kernion replied: "I'm generally in favor of crushing rural America through market mechanisms ..."   Another user asked ironically, "Is this your campaign slogan?" Kernion responded by declaring: responded "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans. They, as a group, are bad people who have made bad life decisions. Some, I assume, are good people. But this nostalgia for some imagined pastoral way of life is stupid and we should shame people who aren't pro-city."   Kernion certainly made the remarks attributed to him in various subsequent news reports. Although those news reports typically did not provide the full context of his Twitter thread and exchanges with other users, the reports did not substantively distort the meaning or sense of what Kernion wrote. There was arguably a hint of irony to his remarks. For example, he wrote (of rural Americans) "some, I assume, are good people"  an apparent nod to Donald Trump's infamous description of Mexican people at his 2015 presidential campaign launch. description In a later tweet, Kernion reflected on the heavy backlash against his comments, writing "what I thought would read as cheeky hyperbole did *not* read as such ..." which suggests there may have been an element of humorous exaggeration behind what he wrote about rural Americans. tweet However, these factors are counterbalanced by the obvious fact that Kernion stipulated "I unironically embrace the bashing of rural Americans," and that he later articulated a measure of earnest contrition, writing, "Pretty sure I did a bad tweet here. Gonna delete it. I'll want to reflect on it more later, but my tone is way crasser and meaner than I like to think I am." writing,  In an email, Kernion told Snopes "There's both a substantive aspect to my original tweets and a semi-humorous aspect to my original tweets...but I'm not sure I want to go down the rabbit hole of doing a line-by-line annotation of what I was thinking/wanting to communicate." He added that his tweets had, until Nov. 5, typically reached only a small audience whom he "expected to understand" what he was trying to convey. When the thread he published on that day was exposed to a much wider audience, Kernion said, "they read into it attitudes that I do not hold." He reiterated that he had retracted and deleted his Twitter thread and would continue to "reflect on it." Parke, Caleb. "UC Berkeley Instructor Calls Rural Americans 'Bad People' Who Deserve 'Uncomfortable' Lives."  Fox News. 12 November 2019. Ciccotta, Tom. "UC Berkeley Instructor: Rural Americans Are 'Bad People.'"  Breitbart. 10 November 2019. Fox, Megan. "Rural Americans Are 'Bad People' Who Deserve to Be Shamed, Says Berkeley Instructor."  PJ Media. 13 November 2019. Ryan, Celine. "Berkeley 'Instructor': 'Rural Americans' Are 'Bad People.'"  Campus Reform. 8 November 2019. The Washington Post. "Full Text: Donald Trump Announces a Presidential Bid."  16 June 2015. Several similar items have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges: Barack Obama  Editor of the Harvard Law Review  Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesnt seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Such claims are false ones, based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel  and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in was wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (rather, she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. worked She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage was also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license, while a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license  simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.  A lawyer's holding active license status can entail a number of obligations, both financial and otherwise: paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: Volokh The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer  as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field  even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than [their] employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage included the erroneous implication that Barack Obama also gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired"  what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This passage was similarly incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like his wife, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on voluntarily inactive status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to voluntarily retired. Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of a law license through the action of "surrendering" it. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. list Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. The above passage was also not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database.   (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" was not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") rules So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady  who don't actually have licenses to practice law.  This was hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas held a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady was a position that required one. This statement was also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency. Claim:  Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C   Origins:  On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans.  article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve.  The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal.  If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site.     Last updated:  13 November 2014 < Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is President Donald Trump made public a letter from his tax attorneys on May 12 saying Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. That same day, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., found what was a too-good-to-pass-up irony about the firm Trump used to write the letter. Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal, Murphy said in a May 12tweet. The post was certainly popular -- it has been retweeted 56,000 times as of the writing of this fact-check. It also elicited an eye-rolling .GIF from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn. Law firm@POTUSused to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. Given the continued interest in possible links between Trump and Russia, we decided to look into Murphys statement. Trumpstaxlawyersare partners in the Washington, D.C., office of Morgan Lewis, which employs some 2,000 attorneys in 30 cities around the world, including 40 lawyers and staff in Moscow. In the May 12letter, Trumps attorneys generally downplayed the presidents ties to Russia, and said Trumps tax returns from the past decade contain no undisclosed income from Russian sources. Murphy is correct that Morgan Lewis was once named the Russia Law Firm of the Year. This award was bestowed in 2016 by Chambers & Partners, a reputable source of law firm rankings, which cited the firms work in Russias energy, finance and technology sectors. Murphys spokesman, Chris Harris, also pointed us toan itemon Morgan Lewis website trumpeting the accolade, calling it a prestigious honor that recognizes its Russia offices excellence in client service, strategic growth and other achievements. Elsewhere on Morgan Lewis website the firmboastsabout its Moscow office, saying Our lawyers are well known in the Russian market, and have deep familiarity with the local legislation, practices, and key players. So Murphy is basically right on the facts: (1) Trump did use a letter from his Morgan Lewis tax attorneys to downplay Russia ties, (2) Morgan Lewis was named Russia Law Firm of the Year, and (3) the firm has extensive Russia ties. That said, it would be wrong to conclude that by hiring Morgan Lewis, Trump shares the firms extensive Russia ties. Thats unproven. A Morgan Lewis spokesman toldABC Newsnone of the firms attorneys have handled any business dealings for Trump in Russia. The spokesman added that Trumps tax attorney, Sheri Dillon, has never been to Russia and does no work there. The reality is, beyond a laugh line, theres not much people should read into Murphys statement. By the same logic, for instance, Trumps tough talk toward Germany would potentially be undermined by the fact his tax attorneys work in a firm that operates an office inFrankfurt. And unless Murphy were willing to credit Trump forMorgan Lewis progressive telecommuting policyto help working parents, his position would lack coherence. Murphy said, Law firm @POTUS used to show he has no ties to Russia was named Russia Law Firm of the Year for their extensive ties to Russia. Unreal. While any suggestion Trump shares the law firm's extensive ties is unproven, Murphy has the basic facts correct. The tax attorneys Trump has used to minimize his Russia ties are partners at Morgan Lewis, the 2016 Russia Law Firm of the Year, which boasts significant work in Russia. The firm, however, says that Trumps lawyer has done no work in Russia. We rate Murphys statement Mostly True. Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II.  Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys.  Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals.  Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish.  (It didn't work.)  The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits.  (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) White Day Green Day However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas.  Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century.  (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is a primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias.  The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it, however.  The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual is reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss.  The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, (both secular and religious) in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,  a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure Santa Claus nailed to a cross.  It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West.  It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. Examples:  A few Decembers ago a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernised and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display, featuring a life-sized Santa Claus, crucified upon a cross.1  The granddaddy of cultural faux pas [in Japan] occurred just after World War II, when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix.2  A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon which had a Santa Claus prominently displayed on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been doing the rounds in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend, is unclear.3  [An American Motorola executive] recounted a famous story of 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and they wanted to capitalize on it.  "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," [he] said. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes."4  A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus.5 However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect.  No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location.    As well, in true urban legend fashion the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling:  Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to  "a few years ago." As well, the mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians.  Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet.  Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity.  As parody it's believable; as an honest mistake we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing.  Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American, dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world economy) by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center.  Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus.  This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997:  Anderson, Walter Truett.  The Truth About the Truth.
  New York: J P Tarcher, 1995.  ISBN 0-874-77801-8. The Truth About the Truth Conry, Kieron.  "A Time Not to Forget the Suffering Figure on the Cross."
  The [London] Independent.  27 December 1994  (p. 15). Gaskell, John and Adam Hock.  "Our Memories of Christmas Past Lost to Japanese."
  The Sunday Telegraph.  6 January 1991  (p. 7). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  "Urban Myths #67: Santa Sleighed."
  The Guardian.  23 December 1993  (p. 43). McCarthy, Terry.  "Christmastime for Everyone."
  The [London] Independent.  19 December 1993  (p. 77). McKibben, Bill.  "Christmas Unplugged."
  Christianity Today.  9 December 1996  (p. 18). McQueen, Anjetta.  "Artist's Crucified Santa Draws Fire."
  Associated Press.  22 December 1997. Shweder, Richard.  "Why Do Men Barbeque?"
  Daedalus.  Winter 1993. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Dashing Through the Dough."
  The Washington Post.  22 December 1995  (p. A21). Watanabe, Teresa.  "Japanese Parade for St. Patrick, Whoever He Was."
  Los Angeles Times.  16 March 1993  (p. 6). Yates, Ronald E.  "Japanese Merrily Leave the Christ out of 'Kurisumasu.'"
  Chicago Tribune.  22 December 1985  (p. 16). The Buffalo News.  "Buffalo's Favorite Santa Stories."
  24 December 1995  (p. M8). The Economist.  "Santa Christ."
  25 December 1993  (p. 77). Financial Times.  "A Cultural Clash of Symbols."
  27 December 1984  (p. 8). Fortean Times.  "Strange Days."
  December 1994  (p. 5). The Hartford Courant.  "Santa on a Cross."
   23 December 1997  (p. F2). Does Hillary Clinton think the federal minimum wage should be $12 an hour or $15? This question produced one of the more heated back-and-forths in an April 14 Democratic presidential debate between Clinton and opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders  starting when Clinton asserted that she has continuously supported the Fight for $15 advocacy campaign. I have supported the Fight for $15, Clinton said. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the Fight for $15. To Sanders, that was news. I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, Sanders said. When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. An extended back-and-forth followed. Were putting Sanders claim on the Truth-O-Meter. Hes right that Clintons official position is to raise the national minimum wage to $12 as a floor. However, she has also shown support for the Fight for $15 campaign that pushes for higher minimums in individual states and cities. Heres whatClintons website sayson that point: Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for $15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. In June 2015, early on in her campaign, Clinton spoke with a gathering ofFight for $15members via phone and told them she supported their campaign. All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage, she said,according to theWashington Post. A few days later, Clinton delivered acampaign kickoff speechin which she called for raising the minimum wage, but she did not specify a number. Her support for the $12 minimum wage proposal seems to have emerged around July 2015, when she praised legislation proposed by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., arguing that it would be more politically feasible. Lets not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there, she said, according to theNew York Times. But lets get behind a proposal that actually has a chance of succeeding. By November,Clinton had started to say plainly that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage. In the same month, though,she tweetedwith the hashtag #FightFor15. What about Sanders? Hes right that he has advocated specifically for a $15 minimum wage since his campaign began. Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages,  he said as part of hisMay 2015 announcement. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. A couple months earlier, in March 2015,he put forward an amendmentto eventually raise the minimum wage to $15. He also put forth legislation inJuly 2015. Our ruling Sanders said, When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. Since the start of his campaign, Sanders has advocated for a $15 minimum wage. Since early on in her campaign, Clinton has supported the Fight for $15s efforts in individual cities and states. But her official position is that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage as a floor, allowing cities and states to go further. Sanders has a point that he is calling for a federal minimum wage that would be $3 more an hour than what Clinton says she favors. However, he misses the nuance that Clinton is also supportive of local efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15. We rate his claim Mostly True. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survived a recall vote this month, prompting pundits to weigh in on what that means for public sector unions that had campaigned aggressively for his ouster. Remember, Walker is the Republican governor who pushed through a number of changes unfriendly to organized labor in the Badger State, including an end to automatic union dues deductions from public paychecks.Here in the Beaver State,Steve Bucksteinof theCascade Policy Institute, a think tank that promotes limited government,tweeted: Did you know Wisconsin's AFSCME union has lost 50%+ of its members since no longer requiring membership? The tweet links to a June 14 online post by Buckstein called End Forced Unionism Now, where he quotes from an opinion column by syndicated writerCharles Krauthammer, also published in The Oregonian:Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, AFSCME, the second largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership.The question is a simple one: Did membership in Wisconsins American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees drop by 50 percent since dues became optional?Heres a quick reminder of what happened in Wisconsin: In March 2011, Walker signed a bill that drastically changed bargaining rights for some but not all state, local and school employees. As pointed out by Krauthammer, dues are no longer taken out of paychecks automatically, curtailing the unions money base.According to PolitiFact Wisconsin, the law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. Unions have to recertify every year with fresh votes. And he increased employee contributions for pensions and health care.We asked Buckstein for his sourcing; he said he relied on the Krauthammer column. Krauthammer cites no source for the information, but a quick check online shows a May 30 news article in the Wall Street Journal: Wisconsin Unions See Ranks Drop Ahead of Recall Vote.The reporters write that membership in the states second-largest public-sector union fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed AFSCME's figures. That is indeed more than half its membership. Another story in the Wall Street Journal a few days later puts the drop at 45 percent.The union disputed the figures then, and disputes them now to PolitiFact Oregon. However, Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, declined to give updated figures, saying that even people on the inside dont have an accurate count. Certainly numbers are down, they say. (A spokesman for Walker said the state does not have figures. )But what the union really objects to is the underlying premise in the syndicated column, and by association, Bucksteins post: That premise is that union membership numbers dropped dramatically because people were given a choice between joining a union or not joining a union.According to the original Wall Street Journal news article, some members didnt re-up because of the financial pinch of health care and pension costs. Bargaining was so curtailed that anotherfact check by PolitiFact Wisconsinfound four experts who agreed the law could mean the end of some public unions in Wisconsin.Buckstein acknowledges that numbers probably went down more in Wisconsin because of the changes as a whole. But he stands by the idea that more members may opt out when deductions become optional.Oregon is a great example, he says. A check with the Department of Administrative Services finds that 24 percent of the more than 24,000 people eligible to be represented by the states two biggest state government unions pay a share in lieu of member dues. In other words, they pay in, but are not members. The fair-share option may not be available to all employees, and depends on the terms of the bargaining contract. In either case, the money is deducted automatically from workers paychecks.People on various sides of the political spectrum have their own theories about why there was a decrease in Wisconsin: higher premiums, limited bargaining subjects, complicated recertification votes, optional dues, all or some, or none of the above. We cant rule on reason.What we can rule on is that membership has gone down about 50 percent, according to news reports, since Walker implemented his changes. That decrease may or may not hold when numbers finally shake out. The tweet is accurate, but needs additional information.We rule the statement Mostly True. 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