Florida ranks 45th in the nation for tuition.
After the budget committee in the Florida House recommended an 8 percent tuition increase last month, parents, students and politicians alike cried foul because the state university system has raised tuition for the past six years.Even Gov. Rick Scott, who signed a budget last year with a tuition increase with nary a peep, said, I don't believe in tuition hikes.The problem with getting upset about those higher tuition bills, said House budget panel chair Rep. Denise Grimsley, R-Sebring, is that Floridians aren't really paying all that much for college as it is because Floridas tuition rates are already among the lowest in the nation.The cost of postsecondary education in Florida is almost the lowest in the nation at an average of $5,531 (Florida ranks 45th), which is 32 percent lower than the national average of $8,200, Grimsley told theTampa Bay Times. The increase is equal to $8.27 per credit hour, which equates to $248.10 for a full 30 credit hours per year. Allowing tuition increases helps keeps Florida nationally competitive.This oft-cited ranking of 45th is a very popular argument among proponents of the increase, in Tallahassee and across the state's 11 public universities. PolitiFact wondered, since this ranking is quoted so often, is it accurate?The source of the national rankings is the College Boards 2011 Trends in College Pricing report. The annual report is produced by the nonprofit organization, which also owns the SAT, and is comprised of data from surveys of almost 4,000 postsecondary institutions nationwide and historical data from the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Department of Education. In this case, we're talking about the average price paid by a full-time student for one year of undergraduate enrollment. (It does not include room and board. )For the 2011-12 academic year, this amounted to an average of $5,626, the survey says. This is an 11.8 percent increase from the previous year, when the average was $5,034. The discrepancy between Grimsley's numbers and the final reported $5,626 is a difference between weighted and unweighted data, said College Board analyst Jennifer Ma. The simple average across tuitions is $5,531, but the board uses a formula to create totals that better reflect full-time enrollment, she said.Last year, the Legislature increased tuition 8 percent, and the state university system followed up with another 7 percent hike under a program known as tuition differential. Universities are allowed to raise tuition beyond any legislative base tuition hike as long as the total increase does not exceed 15 percent each year. Theyre allowed to keep going up until reaching the national average, which currently stands at $8,244. (Last years 15 percent increase differs from the 11.8 percent listed in the Trends in College Pricing report because the report includes fees as well as tuition. )As any parent with a checkbook can see, Florida's average tuition is cheaper than $8,244. It's also cheaper than the state with the highest average tuition in the country, an honor that belongs to New Hampshire, which stands at $13,507. The last school on the list is Wyoming, which charges an average of $4,125.In addition to Wyoming, the other states costing less than Florida are West Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Utah and Louisiana. If your eyes haven't glazed over from so many numbers, the important part is that of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Florida does indeed rank 45th, although if we want to get technical, which PolitiFact always does, Florida is ranked 44th among the 50 states when you exclude D.C. (which comes in at No. 31 on the list with an even $7,000). In case you were wondering, the wide variance among state tuition costs comes down to taxpayer-funded support for postsecondary education. In states with very high average tuition, tax coffers contribute very little to public colleges and universities. Florida's tax contribution to tuition costs has dropped significantly in recent years; tuition used to pay about 25 percent of the cost of college, with state support picking up 75 percent of the bill. That ratio has moved closer to a 50-50 model.Ralph Wilcox, provost at the University of South Florida and chairman of the Council of Academic Vice Presidents for the state university system, prefers to compare Florida to other states with high-ranked public research universities recognized by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, using data from the U.S Department of Education. In that scenario, Florida ranks dead last for tuition costs. The average among those 40 states now tops $9,200.Grimsley's office defends continued increases in order to bring Florida schools in line with other research universities and to fund new initiatives. The rise in prices would also help schools recruit highly qualified faculty and researchers, she reasons.Our rulingFor this fact-check, we're not looking at the case for or against college tuition increases. Instead, we wanted to see if Florida actually came in 45th in the nation for tuition costs, because we've heard that number cited so often. Using the most comprehensive survey of postsecondary education available, Florida does indeed rank 45th if you count the District of Columbia; otherwise, the state ranks 44th. The only states that have lower tuition than we do are West Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, Utah, Louisiana and Wyoming. We rate this claim True.
Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013 Another round of stimulus payments is hitting the bank accounts of eligible Wisconsinites  but some state lawmakers have strong opinions about who should be able to receive them. State Sen. Julian Bradley, R-Franklin, and state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin, introduced legislation that would require money sent to Wisconsin prisoners under the latest COVID-19 relief package to be spent on any restitution they owe. Bradley made his argument for the bill in aMarch 15, 2021 reportfrom the Associated Press. President Biden's irresponsible stimulus package sends stimulus checks to imprisoned murderers, rapists, and child molesters, he said. This issue has been discussed often amid the debate over how to respond to the COVID-19 crisis  and even factored into packages passed under former President Donald Trump. Lets break it down. Are prisoners eligible? Our friends at PolitiFact Nationaldug into this questionafter U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, said Democrats voted to give stimulus checks to criminals in prison. They rated the claim Mostly True. While Bradley described some crimes in detail for dramatic effect, the crux of his claim is the same as Cottons. Before the Senate passed the relief package, Democrats rejected an amendment from Cotton and Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana that would have barred stimulus checks from going to prisoners. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., argued this would harm the Black and brown families of prisoners already disproportionately affected by mass incarceration. And without that amendment, the bill that was passed said incarcerated people were eligible for stimulus checks as long as theyre a citizen or legal U.S. resident and either filed a tax return or requested a payment from the Internal Revenue Service.The IRS further notesthat inmates cant be denied relief if they meet those criteria. That said, this isnt new. Prisoners were eligible for checks through similarly broad requirements in the CARES Act and a supplemental package passed in 2020 with Republican support under the Trump administration. The IRS attempted to block that group from receiving payments under the CARES Act, but a federal courtultimately rejected that effort. So, Republicans like Bradley who want to pin the blame solely on President Joe Biden and other Democrats are a bit off the mark. In an interview, Bradley said the latest stimulus checks are going to imprisoned murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Prisoners can, in fact, receive payments under the latest COVID-19 package  something thats been true since the federal government started providing pandemic relief. Implying that this is the work of Democrats, as Bradley did, leaves out the fact the same was true of packages passed under Trump. We rate his claim Mostly True. In his Democratic convention address, former President Bill Clinton took a shot at President Donald Trumps economic record during the coronavirus pandemic, saying the 45th president has botched his handling of the twin health and economic crises. Donald Trump says were leading the world, Clinton said. Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple. Using the most clear-cut multi-nation comparison  comparing January to June 2020  Clinton is right. But its worth noting some differences in how countries address unemployment. We turned to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank whose members are advanced industrialized countries. The group collects economic statistics for all its members, including unemployment rates. We chose 20 countries for which data was available, including most of the countries in western Europe, plus Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. For consistencys sake, we compared January to June because only two of the countries reported data for July. As the following chart shows, the United States was among the few countries to show a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate between January and June. The U.S. is the peach-colored line with the steep climb; you can see each country highlighted if you hover over the list of countries at the bottom. The United States saw its unemployment rate increase from 3.6% to 11.1%. That works out to a little under 3.1 times higher in June than January. No other country saw such a big increase. The only other nation that saw its unemployment rate more than double over that period was Canada, which saw its rate increase 2.2 times. Canada actually had a higher unemployment rate in June than the U.S. did, at 12.3%, but the scale of Canadas increase was more modest than the United States because Canada had a higher rate to start, at 5.5%. Using U.S. data for February instead of January doesnt change the picture much. The U.S. unemployment rate in February was 3.5%, making the increase through June about 3.2 times. There are a couple asterisks to Clintons statement. If you compare January to July, a month for which data isnt available for most of the OECD nations, the increase in the United States was still substantial, but just short of three times higher. The unemployment rate rose from 3.6% in January to 10.2% in July, meaning an increase of 2.8 times. Its also worth noting that the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen for three straight months, amid a zigzagging reopening and a volatile economy. So the unemployment rate is likely to bounce around a bit before it settles down. Finally, the OECD itselfnotessome differences across countries. Some nations have used more aggressive efforts than the United States to subsidize workers to remain on payrolls. And some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not count temporarily laid-off workers as unemployed, while the United States does count such workers as unemployed. Clinton said the United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began. Thats accurate for the broadest comparison  a 20-nation selection of OECD nations between January 2020 and June 2020. The rate in the U.S. was 3.1 times higher in June than in January. Only Canada came close, with the unemployment rate 2.2 times higher over that period. However, extending the U.S. data to July showed that the increase fell slightly below three times, and there are some complications in making cross-country comparisons. We rate the statement Mostly True. UPDATE, Aug. 20:This article has been updated with additional context about the complications of making cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates. The rating remains the same. On 14 March 2016, a Fox News producer sent a tweet positing that supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump were spotted at a Florida rally wearing armbands not dissimilar to those associated with the Nazis: .@realDonaldTrump supporters sporting armbands in Florida https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/MoJjuXcVOk  Nick Kalman (@NickKalmanFN) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016  The armband rumor was one of many that invoked Nazi imagery in connection with Trump's campaign (earlier quips suggested Godwin's Law was suspended for the duration of the 2016 election cycle). Nazi armbands(cataloged extensively by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) remain a strong visual reminder of Nazi-era German politics, World War II, and the Holocaust, due in part to their enduring presence in pop culture representations of those events:  Nazi imagery Godwin's Law suspended Nazi armbands extensively   However, it appeared that the initial tweet was sent without much verification as to whether the Trump armbands were legitimate campaign memorabilia sported unironically by dutiful supporters of the GOP presidential hopeful. Not long after the image hit Twitter hard, users began pointing out that the "Trump supporters" looked awfully familiar:  Trump armband guy looks like the "Rubio stole my girlfriend" guy. Maybe everyone wait a min https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG  Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/Hx21ucwKO7 pic.twitter.com/7f84UddJLG March 14, 2016  Political pranksters: Guys in Trump armbands appear to be same guys in Settle for Hillary shirts at her rally. pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ pic.twitter.com/8d0TVTWleJ  Matt Viser (@mviser) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 These are the same two guys I saw disrupt a Christie event and Jeb event on separate days in Iowa https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 https://t.co/F2GthTmuq8 March 14, 2016  Check tape from Jeb's caucus day event in Des Moines: These two were sitting in stands behind him & heckled him before security removed them  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald They were also present at Iowa events. Saw them at Christie and Jeb causing commotion as well  Andrew Johnson (@AndrewE_Johnson) March 14, 2016 @BecketAdams @aseitzwald March 14, 2016  The Washington Post noted that the men pictured were "bipartisan pranksters" who had also "hit" rallies for Democratic candidates: noted Today the Internet (briefly) went nuts over this photo, of two men described as Trump supporters, taken by a Fox News producer at a Trump campaign rally. But those guys looked familiar. And not from Trump rally sightings. Very familiar. Very, very familiar. (They're bipartisan pranksters, who've reportedly also hit Clinton and Sanders rallies.) TL;DR summary: Not everything you see on the Internet is real. So, although this photograph may be real and unaltered, the assumptions commonly made about what it depicts are not. The two men seen here are not Trump partisans genuinely donning armbands as a show of support for the candidate. Rather, the pair are well-known in the media for their ongoing interest in disrupting or otherwise "making it weird" at events for candidates from both parties. The economic equity issues that proved pivotal in the 2012 presidential campaign are again shaping up as big factors this year. Both major parties are pushing to make sure their talking points prevail. Democrats cite statistics showing a yawning pay gap between men and women, with Republicans countering that young women are out earning men in some urban areas. The Claim The National Partnership For Women & Families, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, released a new analysis April 8, 2014, to coincide with Equal Pay Day. It cited U.S. Census data showing that women who work full time in Oregon are paid 79 cents for every dollar paid to men -- a claim PolitiFact Oregon has investigated previously and found solid. But it went further. If the wage gap were eliminated, it said, a working woman in Oregon would have enough money per year for 2,877 gallons of gas, 72 more weeks of food for her family or nearly 12 more months of rent. We wondered if the specific pieces of the claim were on the money. The Analysis The basis of the groups claim comes from the U.S. Census Bureaus Current Population Survey. It lists, state by state, median annual earnings for year-round, full-time workers and draws on statistics from 2012, the most recent year available. Men in Oregon earned $47,402, compared with $37,381 for women, according to the data. Thats 79 cents on the dollar and adds up to a gap of $10,021 a year. The gap persists for a variety of reasons, said Mary King, a Portland State University economics professor, including a gender division of labor under which womens jobs are paid less, lack of strong family-leave policies, and women disproportionately ending up in low-paying retail and service work. Satisfied that women do earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by men -- the gap would be 21 cents -- we emailed Sadie Kliner, the National Partnership for Women & Families communications director. She directed us to a separate fact sheet. Gasoline prices, according to the sheet, were provided by Oil Price Information Service in cooperation with Wex, Inc. A gallon of regular gas in Oregon currently costs $3.697, it read. We checked that against AAA Oregon/Idahos website, which shows regular gas in Oregon right now averaging $3.69 per gallon. Then we did the math, dividing the wage gap of $10,021 by $3.69. The group claimed a woman could buy 2,877 gallons, but we found closing the gap would enable a woman to buy only 2,715 gallons. We contacted Kliner again, who noted that Oregons gas prices were $3.48 when the fact sheet was prepared in early March. A check of AAAs gas-price information confirmed Kliners point. We moved on to the 12 months worth of rent piece of the claim. The group, citing data from the Censuss 2012 American Community Survey, put the median cost for rental housing in Oregon at $862 a month. It showed a margin of error of plus or minus 8 percent. Independently verifying that number wasnt easy, since no county or or state organization tracks it. We called Multifamily NW, whose members manage more than 150,000 rental units from southern Washington to Medford. Jonathan Clay, the associations research and communications analyst, pointed us to a semi-annual survey released in October. Two-bedroom, one-bath units averaged $818 per month across the metro area, according to the survey, putting it within range of the margin of error in the Census data. We calculated that $10,021 would pay for 11.5 months of rent, just over half a month shy of the groups original claim of 12 months. Again contacting Kliner about the discrepancy, she noted that the group rounded the figure up, using the word nearly to account for the difference. Finally, in assessing food costs, we noted that the original claim said 72 more weeks of food for her family. While the claim didnt specify the number of children, we settled on two. We then checked the U.S. Department of Agricultures website, which publishes monthly food plans representing a well-rounded diet at four different cost levels. Drawing from the low-cost plan, two children could be fed on $97.50 per week. Food costs for an adult female would bring the familys weekly total to $144.90. That compares with the $139.10 per week for the 72 weeks in the groups pay-gap claim. Our Ruling A national advocacy group, in spotlighting Equal Pay Day, claimed that a pay gap between men and women exists in Oregon. PolitiFact Oregon has looked at the gap before and found that its real, but we took the next step by fact-checking the groups claim that the gap is big enough to pay for 2,877 gallons of gasoline, 72 months of food or nearly 12 months of rent. All three elements of the claim checked out -- or were very close -- according to independent sources. We rate the claim True. On April 5, 2021, former aide to U.S. President Trump Stephen Miller shared a photo on Twitter of the two in Trump's post-presidency, Mar-a-Lago office. As numerous publications and social media users have pointed out, one of the many items seen in the photo is a statue of Trump himself: a photo As numerous publications   Indeed, it is hard to come to the conclusion that the statue partially hiding behind Miller's right arm is anything other than a figurine or small statue of Trump: behind Miller's right arm   According to Politico, which analyzed several of the items contained in the former president's office, nobody they spoke to was sure where exactly the statue came from: According No sources knew the provenance of this mini-bust of Trump, and a Trump spokesperson didnt share any details about it when asked about it. A former senior White House official said it was most likely a gift that was sent in. Wed get tons of those  paintings, statues, etc. Because the statue is present in his office in Mar-a-Lago, we rate this claim as On 9 April 2019, the "Santorini Holidays" Facebook page posted a set of picturesque images and claimed that any social media user who commented and shared the post would have a chance to win an all-expenses paid vacation to the "Grand Opening Celebration" of this new hotel in Greece: Facebook picturesque The Facebook message reads: "We're going to celebrate our Grand Opening by doing something special for you. We're going to be rewarding someone who has shared then commented by April 16th with a 7 night holiday for 4 people in this 2 Bedroom 5 star hotel. You will have a year to use the holiday. No need to worry about flights & travel, it's all included."  This Facebook post contains all of the hallmarks of a like-farming scam, and none of the information (such as the name of the new hotel) that would be included in a genuine giveaway.  This genre of scam relies on the promise of a big giveaway (we've previously covered similar scams giving away everything from gift cards, to cars, to cash to airline tickets) in order to generate likes, shares, and comments. This can drive up the value of the page, which can then be sold to a third-party or used to sell advertisements. gift cards cars cash airline tickets You can read more about like-farming scams here. For the moment, let's address some of the red flags that give away the fact that this is a giveaway scam.  here For starters, this post provides no basic information about this alleged hotel. Despite reporting that the vacation would take place during the "Grand Opening," this message does not contain the address of the hotel, a phone number, or even the property's name. We looked for a hotel named "Santorini Holidays" on the Greek island but found no matches.  When we performed a reverse-image search on the photos, we found they came from a variety of sources, such as stock photography websites, travel blogs, and online booking platforms. These photographs also show a variety of properties. For instance, the image of the oval, blue pool was taken at the Volcano View Villas Hotel and the images of the bathroom interior come from the Chromata, both in Greece. Neither of these hotels is having a "grand opening" this weekend.  Volcano View Villas Hotel  Chromata,  The Facebook page itself is also suspicious. For example, this page claims in its "About" section (left) to have been established in April 2014, but Facebook's Page Transparency blurb (right) states that it was actually created in March 2019:   In short, social media users who share and comment on the Santorini Holidays Facebook page's "Grand Opening Celebration" giveaway post should not expect to win an all-inclusive vacation to Greece.  GreekTravel.com.  "Where to Stay in Santorini."
  Retrieved 15 April 2019. In a new 2-minute TV ad, Barack Obama explains his economic plans and contrasts them with John McCain's. In two other Truth-O-Meter rulings, we examined Obama's claims about his plans for small businesses and the middle class. Here, we'll address his plan for senior citizens. He says in the ad that seniors making less than $50,000, who are struggling with the rising costs of food and drugs on fixed incomes, wont pay income taxes at all. That is correct. Obama's tax plan specifies that he would eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. The campaign estimates it will cut taxes an average of $1,400 for 7-million seniors. It's worth noting that Obama's proposal has been criticized on several fronts. Some economists have questioned whether it's a wise policy because seniors already receive favorable tax treatment. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan tax research group, said Obama's plan would create inequity by eliminating taxes for senior citizens who earn a modest income but continuing to tax younger workers earning the same amount. Also, it would help seniors who are currently paying income taxes but provide no benefit for those too poor to owe any tax. Still, Obama accurately describes his plan in the ad. We rate his statement True. Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day share many common elements from an American perspective: Although neither is a legal holiday in the United States, they are both nonetheless widely observed as celebrations of another nation's culture, both occasions are marked with parties featuring national music and cuisine (and involving a good deal of drinking), both events have become heavily commercialized, and most Americans have little idea what either holiday is actually about. St. Patrick's Day little idea either holiday Many Americans mistakenly believe that Cinco de Mayo ("May 5th") is the Mexican equivalent of the United States' Fourth of July holiday  a date marking the official casting off of colonial rule via the announcement of a new independent country. However, the Mexican version of Independence Day is celebrated on September 16, for it was on that date in 1810 that the commencement of the war for Mexican independence from Spanish rule was pronounced in the small town of Dolores by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla -- an event now referred to as the "Grito de Dolores" ("Cry of Dolores") or "El Grito de la Independencia". Grito What Cinco de Mayo really commemorates is the Mexican victory against French forces led by Emperor Napoleon III in the Battle of Puebla, which took place on 5 May 1862. The French had invaded Mexico at Veracruz in 1861 (while the United States was preoccupied with its own Civil War) with the intent of establishing a dominance in Mexico that would favor French interests.  After beating President Benito Jurez and his government into retreat, the French army moved on from Veracruz toward Mexico City, where they encountered heavy resistance from Mexican forces just outside the city of Puebla. Despite possessing an overpowering superiority in weaponry and numbers (6,000 well-armed French troops battled 2,000 poorly-equipped Mexican troops), the French were forced to retreat after a full day of fighting. Although the French later overran Puebla, conquered Mexico City, and installed Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico, the Mexican victory at the Battle of Puebla was celebrated for its importance in symbolizing Mexican unity, pride, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. (The event is roughly equivalent in national lore to the American celebration of the Battle of the Alamo: although the Texan defenders of the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Bxar were decisively defeated by Mexican forces in 1836, the tenacity and courage of the 200 or so combatants who fought to their deaths against about 1,800 Mexican troops served as inspiration for the Texan defeat of the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto a few months later.) The other common misconception about Cinco de Mayo among Americans is that if the holiday is so well known here in the U.S., it must be a really big deal in Mexico itself. But Cinco de Mayo is not a national holiday in Mexico: It is celebrated in Mexico, but it's only an official holiday in the Mexican states of Puebla and Veracruz, and the biggest Cinco de Mayo celebrations typically occur not in Mexico but in U.S. cities with large Hispanic populations such as Los Angeles. And just as St. Patrick's Day has long been observed throughout America in areas without significant Irish populations, Cinco de Mayo is now also commonly celebrated in towns across the U.S. that are predominantly non-Hispanic. Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent  the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True.