Texas is LAST (50th) in spending for mental health care.
Marc Katz, the Austin deli owner running for lieutenant governor, lists health care as his No. 1 campaign issue on his Web site. So it's no surprise that he took a shot at highlighting Texas' struggling mental health system on Twitter.Texas is LAST (50th) in spending for mental health care, he saidin a message on Twitteron Dec. 8.We wanted to know the source for Katz's claim, but he didn't respond to our phone calls or email. We assume Katz was referring to data published by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation for fiscal 2006, which tallied mental health care spending for the District of Columbia and the 50 states. Texas was indeed ranked 50th for spending  per capita  though that was second to last.Spending $34.57 per Texan, the state squeaked ahead of New Mexico, which spent $25.58 and ranked 51st. Florida came in third from last at $38.17, and the national average was $103.53.When you look at total dollars spent, Texas ranked 10th in 2006, spending about $805 million.Aware of the state's shortcomings in health care services, Texas legislators allocated $55 million in 2009 to be distributed during the next year (half of it has been already) to expand services at local mental health centers, and through August this year, community mental health centers will receive another $341.8 million in state money through the Department of State Health Services.Twitter sometimes leads to clunky writing because items are limited to 140 characters per tweet. In this case, though, Katz sliced information to give it more impact. Sure, he was only off by one state, but that was the difference between Texas ranking last and not, an important detail when you're showing Texas' rank in ALL CAPS. We rank Katz's statement Mostly True.
In March 2021, new employment figures showed that the U.S. economy added 379,000 jobs in February, the first full month of Joe Biden's presidency. The news was greeted with cautious optimism, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that the gains had "set up a stronger recovery" for the spring of 2021, and The Washington Post reporting that the figures had "surpassed analysts' estimates." Politico wrote that: Wall Street Journal Washington Post Politico U.S. employers added a robust 379,000 jobs last month, the most since October and a sign that the economy is strengthening as confirmed viral cases drop, consumers spend more and states and cities ease business restrictions.The February gain marked a sharp pickup from the 166,000 jobs that were added in January and a loss of 306,000 in December. Yet it represents just a fraction of the roughly 10 million jobs that were lost to the pandemic. On social media, other observers  in particular those more broadly opposed to Biden  sought to undercut the significance of the jobs figures, claiming that a large majority of the increased employment came in one sector, namely food and beverage services. On Twitter, the libertarian economics blog Zerohedge wrote: wrote Of the 379K jobs added, 286K were waiters and bartenders.   The stockbroker and financial commentator Peter Schiff tweeted: tweeted 75% of the 379k jobs "created" in Feb. were waiters and bartenders returning to work. Since many restaurants and bars that closed will never reopen there's a limit to how long this can last... The right-wing British blog Guido Fawkes tweeted: tweeted "US economic recovery sees 379,000 jobs added this week, 286,000 were waiters and bartenders. God bless America and cheers!" Those figures were accurately stated, although "waiters and bartenders" was a reductive description of the occupations in question. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The standard measure of job growth is "total nonfarm payroll employment, seasonally adjusted," a metric that is collated and published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), each month. On March 5, the BLS published figures for the preceding month, February 2021, writing that: "Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 379,000 in February..." In effect, this means that there were 379,000 more jobs in the United States in February than there were in January. published The BLS provides in-depth breakdowns of job gains or losses, and unemployment, including details on the demographic and sectoral contours of each month's data. According to the same set of figures, the "leisure and hospitality" sector gained 355,000 of the 379,000 total new jobs in February (Summary Table B).  Summary Table B Of those, 285,900 jobs were specifically in "food services and drinking places" (Table B-1). That's the source of the "286K" figure presented by Zerohedge. Those 285,900 jobs made up 75.4% of the total number of new jobs added in February, the percentage figure provided by Schiff in his tweet. Table B-1 However, the "food services and drinking places" subsector is made up of more than just "waiters and bartenders." The following is how that subsector is defined in the official North American Industry Classification System: defined Industries in the Food Services and Drinking Places subsector prepare meals, snacks, and beverages to customer order for immediate on-premises and off-premises consumption. There is a wide range of establishments in these industries. Some provide food and drink only; while others provide various combinations of seating space, waiter/waitress services and incidental amenities, such as limited entertainment. The industries in the subsector are grouped based on the type and level of services provided. The industry groups are full-service restaurants; limited-service eating places; special food services, such as food service contractors, caterers, and mobile food services; and drinking places. The BLS figures for February 2021 don't specify the proportion of those 285,900 jobs composed of specific occupations, but it's highly unlikely they were all "waiters and bartenders." In 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, the following was the breakdown of occupations within the "food services and drinking places subsector": breakdown As can be seen from those figures, "waiters and waitresses" made up less than one-third of workers within that subsector. If the distribution of occupations was even broadly similar among the 285,900 new "food services and drinking places" jobs added in February, then it would appear highly unlikely that even a majority of those 285,900 new jobs were made up of "waiters and bartenders" alone. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.     : Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. In April 2021, as Florida congressman Matt Gaetz was being investigated for lewd and potentially illegal behavior involving underage women, some social media users started to mockingly share a picture of Gaetz with unusually tall hair: investigated   This is not a genuine image of Gaetz' hair.  It comes from a July 2020 hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee concerning the online dominance of companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. Here's a genuine screenshot of Gaetz from this hearing (left) and the doctored image (right). It's clear that the height of his hair was embellished in the fake image. House Judiciary Committee   A video of the full "Online Platforms and Market Power: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google" hearing can be seen below. Gaetz speaks several times during this hearing. He can be glimpsed, for example, around the 3:03:00 mark: Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that a Missouri school district asked parents to sign COVID-19 death waivers in advance of the academic school year. news reports The waiver went viral after a Twitter user shared it. shared   The focus on the word death came from an article published by online tabloid Raw Story that extrapolated language from the waiver meant to release Hazelwood School District (HSD) in Missouri from legal liabilities in the event a child dies in any way related to COVID-19. Raw Story While it is true that HSD issued a waiver related to COVID-19, Anthony Kiekow, HSD director of communication and public relations, told Snopes that parents would only be required to sign if their child planned on participating in summer athletic programs. The waiver asked that a parent confirm their acknowledgment of the public health crisis related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and confirmed that they would not allow a child to participate in programs if they showed any symptoms of COVID-19 or had been exposed to anyone diagnosed with the disease or awaiting test results. It further notes: Anthony Kiekow waiver The undersigned agrees to release, discharge, hold harmless and indemnify the Hazelwood School District, its agents, employees, officers, Board of Education members, insurers and others acting on the Districts behalf (the Releasees), of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action and/or legal liabilities for injuries to or death of my child occurring during, or resulting from, or participation in the above-mentioned program or activity and related in any way to COVID-19, even if the cause, damages or injuries are alleged to be the fault of or alleged to be caused by the negligence or carelessness of the Releasees. Such verbiage is not uncommon in school athletic waivers and headlines referring to the document as a COVID-19 death waiver were sensationalizing and largely misleading, added Kiekow. The waiver was created by the Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC), a non-profit program that provides insurance coverage for Missouri public schools and community colleges. Snopes spoke with MUSIC Executive Director Mark Stockwell who said that the organization supplied all member school districts with two waiver templates recommended for summer athletic programs and not necessarily for those that take place during the academic school year. Kiekow confirmed that the waiver was sent in late June 2020 and was intended for parents whose students typically participate in summer athletics. He noted that required athletic waivers and documents from the previous school year were very different from this waiver, but that language related to COVID-19 is likely to be the new norm for sports. MUSIC Mark Stockwell two waiver templates For the 2020-21 school year, the district announced that it would be offering families the option of selecting 100% virtual school or a blended option that includes both virtual and in-person learning. A statement issued by HSD further reads that: statement Parents who want their child to participate in athletics are asked to sign a waiver. This years waiver includes language about COVID-19 to ensure that parents can make an informed decision Our district has implemented unprecedented safety precautions in all of our buildings; however, it is important for parents to understand that school districts can only mitigate the risk of COVID-19. No district, organization, or business can offer 100% protection against exposure to a global pandemic. Visit the Centers for Disease Control website for more information about COVID-19. Parents of HSD students who choose to allow their children to attend in-person class would not be required to sign a COVID-19 waiver. When asked why HSD adopted this policy, Keikow replied via text message that athletics are optional and that a waiver for in-person instruction is just not something that were requiring. EdCounsel, a Missouri-based law firm that represents over 200 public school districts, wrote in a blog post that state law is not clear on whether school districts can require that families sign a COVID-19 waiver for students attending in-person instruction, but liability waivers for extracurricular activities are largely exempt. EdCounsel blog post While liability waivers for normal classes may be suspect, extracurricular activities are a different matter, wrote EdCounsel attorney Tom Smith. (Snopes attempted to contact Smith for comment but did not hear back at the time of publication.) Extracurricular activities are a privilege, not a right; and districts have the legal authority to place certain restrictions on participation in these activities so long as the restrictions are uniformly applied and do not target a protected class. Tom Smith Under Missouri law, eligible students have a legal right to free public education and requiring that a parent or guardian sign a waiver as a condition of attendance would arguably interfere with that right. Even so, some schools and facilities around the United States have adopted similar waivers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly as many states have seen a spike in cases during the 2020 summer. Turlock Unified School District in California issued a similar waiver asking all persons participating in its activities during this pandemic sign an assumption of risk and waiver of liability. The YMCA of Minnesotas Greater Twin Cities also issued a waiver for adults and children who use its services and programs. spike in cases similar waiver waiver The HSD waiver was just one of many documents that come in a summer athletic packet and the school district said that it would continue to follow guidance from state and public health officials for the upcoming 2020-21 academic year. In mid-July 2020, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released guidelines for reopening schools across the state but did not issue statewide mandates. released guidelines I want to thank all of the medical experts across the state who contributed to this guidance. We are confident that if schools implement this guidance, they CAN safely reopen this fall, wrote Gov. Mike Parson in a Facebook post. Facebook post Ultimately, individual school districts and jurisdictions have the authority to implement their own preventative measures. Edwards, David.  "Missouri School District Asks Parents to Sign COVID-19 Death Waiver for Children."
  Raw Story.  14 July 2020. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. "Missouri School Reopening Guidance Frequently Asked Health-Related COVID-19 Questions."
  9 July 2020. Smith, Tom.  "Liability Waivers in the Wake of COVID-19."
  EdCounsel School Attorneys.  6 July 2020. An image widely circulated on Facebook in response to the National Football League's anthem controversy held that NFL players did not stand on the sidelines during the playing of the U.S. national anthem before games prior to 2009. Instead, they stayed in locker rooms during the anthem and did not begin standing along the sidelines for renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" until after the Defense Department began paying the NFL to hold patriotic displays in 2009:  The issue has been in the public spotlight ever since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began protesting police brutality by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem during exhibition games played prior to the start of the 2016 NFL season. Several other players, including some in other sports, have since taken part in similar silent demonstrations during the 2016 and 2017 seasons. Tom E. Curran of Comcast Sportsnet New England reported in a story published on 29 August 2016 that teams standing together on the field during the playing of the national anthem was a relatively recent development in NFL history: "NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed this the practice began in 2009, adding, 'As you know, the NFL has a long tradition of patriotism. Players are encouraged but not required to stand for the anthem.'" published What actually changed in 2009, according to NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, was that (due to network timing issues) players had previously remained in their locker rooms during the playing of the national anthem for primetime games.  After 2009, players appeared in the sidelines for the anthem during primetime games, just as they had been doing all along for Sunday afternoon games.  (The distinction often went unnoticed by viewers, as network telecasts frequently didn't air the pre-game anthem ceremonies.)   ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith referenced Currant's report during a segment on 14 September 2016, adding a "paid patriotism" element to the mix: segment The players were moved to the field during the national anthem because it was seen as a marketing strategy to make the athletes look more patriotic. The United States Department of Defense paid the National Football League $5.4 million between 2011 and 2014, and the National Guard [paid] $6.7 million between 2013 and 2015 to stage on-field patriotic ceremonies as part of military recruitment budget-line items. The practice of "paid patriotism" came to light on 30 April 2015, when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) released a statement chiding the New Jersey Army National Guard for paying between $97,000 and $115,000 to the New York Jets for a series of promotions involving military personnel. That November, Flake and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain issued a report stating that the Defense Department had been paying for patriotic displays in football and other sports between 2011 and 2014: statement report Contrary to the public statements made by DOD and the NFL, the majority of the contracts  72 of the 122 contracts we analyzed  clearly show that DOD paid for patriotic tributes at professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer games. These paid tributes included on-field color guard, enlistment and reenlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches and puck drops. The National Guard paid teams for the opportunity to sponsor military appreciation nights and to recognize its birthday. It paid the Buffalo Bills to sponsor its Salute to the Service game. DOD even paid teams for the opportunity to perform surprise welcome home promotions for troops returning from deployments and to recognize wounded warriors. While well intentioned, we wonder just how many of these displays included a disclaimer that these events were in fact sponsored by the DOD at taxpayer expense. Even with that disclosure, it is hard to understand how a team accepting taxpayer funds to sponsor a military appreciation game, or to recognize wounded warriors or returning troops, can be construed as anything other than paid patriotism. However, this report did not cover the year 2009, so it is unclear whether NFL teams' appearing on the field for the playing of the national anthem truly began in conjunction with the "paid patriotism" policy. In a September 2017 piece about the anthem controversy, CNN noted that:  [T]he connection between "paid patriotism" and players being mandated to be present for the anthem is tenuous. The report does mention several instances where teams were paid for anthem performances, but that was about the specific artist or presentation. There is nothing in the report to suggest teams were paid or coerced into pulling players on to the field as part of "paid patriotism" initiatives. In fact, Pentagon spokesman Army Major Dave Eastburn recently clarified the Defense Department's current relationship with professional sports. "DoD does not require or request that athletes be on the field during the playing of the national anthem when military members are part of the patriotic opener," he said in a statement to CNN. The league announced in May 2016 that they would refund $723,724 to taxpayers which they said "may have been mistakenly applied to appreciation activities rather than recruitment efforts" during the years in question. announced Willingham, A.J.  "The National Anthem in Sports (Spoiler: It Wasn't Always This Way)."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. Jacobson, Louis.  "A Short History of the National Anthem, Protests and the NFL."
  PolitiFact.  25 September 2017.
 This story was updated to note that 2009 changes in NFL anthem policy were specific to primetime games. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2021, a video went viral of a gymnast celebrating after a successful vault landing. While gymnastic celebrations don't often make viral content, this video proved share-worthy as this athlete, Evan Manivong from the University of Illinois, removed a card from beneath his uniform and started waving it around to the crowd:  He later revealed he was showing off his vaccination card and encouraged everyone to "go get vaccinated": encouraged go get vaccinated   Vaccination distribution plans vary by state in the U.S. NBC News reports that more than 80 counties in Illinois have "expanded COVID vaccine eligibility to all state residents 16 years and older." Residents of Illinois can check the Illinois Department of Public Health website for more information on how to get their COVID-19 vaccines. For residents outside of Illinois, the CDC recommends using VaccineFinder.org to find a nearby location that is administering vaccines.  NBC News Illinois Department of Public Health CDC VaccineFinder.org Manivong, who earned the B1G Sportsmanship award, helped the Fighting Illini take fourth place at the 2021 Big Ten Men's Gymnastic Championship with a score of 14.45 in the vault. His teammate Michael Fletcher was crowned the B1G Vault champion with a score of 14.6.  Head Coach Justin Spring said: said "We really struggled on parallel bars, but we never gave up and finished strong. We finished the last two rotations hitting 10/10 routines, and had our best pommel horse of the season, so I'm really proud of how we finished despite having multiple gymnasts out." In his latest TV ad, Gov. Scott Walker rips challenger Mary Burkes attempt to attract a giant Illinois-based company to add thousands of jobs in Wisconsin when Burke ran the state Commerce Department under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. As Jim Doyles Commerce secretary, Mary Burke spent $12.5 million dollars to buy a vacant lot for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs in Wisconsin,the adsays. In fact, the same company had already laid off over 800 workers when Burke closed the deal. The ads kicker: Mary Burke says shell work to create jobs and spend our tax money wisely. But her record as Jim Doyles Commerce secretary tells a different story. Is Walker right about his likely Democratic opponent in the November 2014 election? Did Burke really authorize an aid package for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs here -- after massive layoffs at the firm? The Burke campaign reacted to the ad by saying: Everyone from local officials to the local chamber of commerce to Walker's own administration agrees that this was and is a good deal from an economic development standpoint. The grant contained strong protections for taxpayers if job creation goals were not met or infrastructure was not developed for economic development. Lets dig into what happened. The ad focuses on a major move by Doyle and Burke in the spring of the 2006 election year. In March 2006, they announced a $12.5 million forgivable loan funded through federal community block grant funds, the largest such award in Commerce Department history. It was to support development of 500 acres acquired in Kenosha County by global pharmaceutical maker Abbott Laboratories Inc. Abbott, a major employer of Wisconsin residents based just 15 miles south of Kenosha County, had purchased parcels of land on the Wisconsin side since June 2005 for possible expansion. Doyle and Burke sought to augment that purchase with another 40 acres paid for with the $12.5 million state award. They and local officials wanted to get the land in order to block plans for a truck stop they thought could impede development in the area. Judging by the comments of Doyle and Burke at the time -- she had full confidence 2,400 jobs would result; he welcomed the company to Wisconsin -- youd have thought Abbott had already announced its expansion in early 2006. But theJournal Sentinel reported Wednesdaythat not only did no jobs materialize, federal officials in 2013 demanded the money back. Eight years after the 2006 deal, Abbott has not developed the Kenosha County land. Abbott showed interest Did it have no plans to create jobs, as the Walker ad claims? In one sense, Abbott clearly had shown an interest in possible expansion in Wisconsin, as evidenced by the land purchases made with its own funds. The possibility was real enough for local officials in Kenosha County to actively work on working on paving the way for the firm. The company paid out $35 million for those parcels. But that solid interest fell short of an actual plan to build and start hiring. (The company, we should note, also signed a development agreement with the Village of Pleasant Prairie to develop that land. But that was a year after Burkes agency made the award). The company didnt stand alongside state officials when Doyle announced the loan in 2006. And officials said precious little about their intentions at that time. Heres a look back: Chicago Tribune story, Feb. 14, 2006:  Abbott has acquired approximately 500 acres of land in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., in anticipation of future growth and expansion, a company spokesman said. No specific plans are in place at this time for development of the property. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, March 3, 2006:  Abbott spokesman Jonathan Hamilton said the Wisconsin site is for future growth, without any specific plans at this time. Commerce Department newsletter, April 2006: Abbott has purchased this land in Wisconsin in anticipation of future growth and expansion, said Dale Johnson, the companys divisional vice president for State Government Affairs. We are pleased to have worked with the Governor, his staff, the Village of Pleasant Prairie and the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. Those comments made clear the company was preparing for possible expansion in Wisconsin, but had no specific plan at the moment. Feds object One media story, in the Chicago Tribune in February 2006, speculated that Abbotts Wisconsin land buys might be leverage for the company on various issues it had before Illinois lawmakers. With the uncertain timetable in mind, the Commerce Departments aid deal was long term. If in 10 years, at least 2,400 jobs were created by Abbott in Wisconsin, the loan -- actually made to the village of Pleasant Prairie, which passed the funds to Abbott -- would not have to be repaid. In theory, that means there is still time to make the expansion happen with help from the loan. But the US Housing and Urban Development office in Milwaukee demanded the $12.3 million back in 2013 saying the development project was ineligible for the block grant dollars the state had used. The reasons the federal agency cited in its decision are relevant to judging whether Abbott stated any plans to create jobs in Wisconsin. A letter from HUD to the state in August 2013 concluded that the Commerce Department had no written commitment from Abbott to develop the property or create jobs. State officials agreed to that deal at the time. The federal agency declared that Commerce participated in a speculative land banking venture without ensuring that the funded activity would be eligible. Even years later, the specific proposed use of the acquired land has not yet been identified, HUDs Sernorma Mitchell wrote to state Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch. Those comments from HUD help Walkers case. Finally, the Walker ad also mentions layoffs, citing Chicago newspaper stories. Media in Illinois reported that Abbott cut at least that many jobs in Illinois in 2005 and early 2006. Our rating Walkers ad said: As Jim Doyles Commerce secretary, Mary Burke spent $12.5 million dollars to buy a vacant lot for a company that said it had no plans to create jobs in Wisconsin and had laid off 800 workers. Theres a hint of mischief in the ads language in that it can be heard to mean that Burke was so incompetent she gave money to a firm with zero interest in a Wisconsin operation. That idea is off base. But as we say at PolitiFact, words matter, and the ads claim closely mirrors what company officials said at the time of the award. And HUD officials found that even seven years later, no specific use for the land was proposed. We rate Walkers claim Mostly True. Finally, a point where Republicans and at least one prominent Democrat agree.LikePresident Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Austins U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul says corporate tax rates are too high.To a recentvoters guidequestion on how to combat unemployment, McCaul -- a Republican seeking another term representing the 10th Congressional District -- gave responses that included lowering Americas corporate tax rate, highest in the world at 35 percent.A decrease to 25 percent would stop driving American businesses overseas, McCaul said in the guide, produced by the Austin and Texas chapters of the League of Women Voters and theAustin American-Statesman. McCaul faces Tawana Cadien (Democrat) and Richard Priest (Libertarian) on Nov. 6.PolitiFact has recently checked corporate tax rate claims with a different figure, so we decided to compare this statement.McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen told us by email that 35 percent is the top statutory rate for U.S. corporate taxes, citing an April 5, 2012,backgrounderfrom the Council on Foreign Relations.The council, an independent, nonpartisan think-tank, said the U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world by two measures: Excluding state and local taxes, the rate was 35 percent. With those sub-national taxes, the rate was 39.2 percent.Most news stories we read while researching this fact-check used the latter rate -- combining federal, state and local. Thats the yardstick used in related PolitiFact articles, and its also the statistic that made headlines when an April 1, 2012, rate cut took effect in Japan and moved the U.S. into first place. The rest of the top five are France, Belgium and Germany, according to a September 2011reportby the Washington-based Tax Foundation that gave 2012 federal-plus-state/local rates, weighted to reflect the economies sizes so that small countries would not have a disproportional effect on the average. OECD statutory corporate tax rates, 2012  Source: Tax Foundation 2011report The foundations 2011 report and most of the news articles we read for this story limited their comparisons to advanced industrialized countries -- often citing the34 membersof the global Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We asked foundation spokesman Richard Morrison for help tracking down country-by-country rates that did not include taxes below the federal level, to make an apples-to-apples comparison with McCauls 35 percent.Morrison pointed us, via email, to anOECD web pagewith achartshowing those numbers for 2012.The U.S. rate of 35 percent is the highest on the chart, with the other OECD nations averaging 23.6 percent (figures that, unlike the statistics cited above, are not weighted to reflect size of national economies).So McCauls statement holds true for federal-level-only corporate tax rates as well as for the state/local-plus-federal rate.Butrecent PolitiFact itemshave also taken into account the rate corporations pay after deductions and exemptions, called the effective rate.In anAug. 27, 2012, Truth-O-Meter article, PolitiFact New Jersey wrote, When you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.The 2011 foundationreportsummarized 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world, which used different methodologies and were not limited to the OECD roster. The smallest study compared 10 countries; the largest, 183.Those studies found the U.S. effective tax rate ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, which often placed it in the top five, but never No. 1.But the U.S. hit the top spot in a more recent report. Morrison told us the latest such comparison was made in September 2012 for the libertarian Cato Institute. Thatreportcalculated the U.S. effective rate at 35.6 percent and ranked it highest among OECD nations but fourth among all 90 nations it examined.How did U.S. rates get to be among the highest? Actually, other countries dropped theirs, we learned by phone from Jonathan Masters, author of the Council on Foreign Relations piece.We found succinct descriptions of the history in Time magazine and The Hill, a Washington, D.C. newspaper. An April 2, 2012, Timeblog postsays that while the U.S. rate stayed steady for two decades, the trend internationally has been towards lower corporate tax rates. The Hills Aug. 27, 2012blog postsays that in 1986, the OECD nations average corporate tax was 50 percent, but today, its 25 percent for those countries -- it has fallen in half. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate, which fell from 46 percent to 34 percent as a result of tax reform in 1986, is now stuck at 35 percent.Our rulingMcCaul said the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35 percent.The rate set by federal statute is the highest, both by itself and when considering the federal rate plus state and local taxes.However, theres much less consensus about effective corporate tax rates -- the rates corporations actually pay. Studies dont even agree on what the U.S. effective rate is, pegging it between 23 percent and 35.6 percent. Older studies put the U.S. near the top; a recent study says the U.S. is No. 1 among OECD nations.We rate McCauls statement as Mostly True. On March 10, 2021, an image started circulated on social media that supposedly showed a statement from former U.S. President Donald Trump in which he implored American citizens to remember that the United States wouldn't have had these "beautiful" COVID-19 vaccine shots for another 5 years (a dubious claim) if it wasn't for him: This was a genuine statement from Trump.  Trump released several statements after he left office on Jan. 20, 2021. Since the former president was banned from Twitter (as well as other social media networks) for posting content that could have incited more violence after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, these statements are being released via email and are then subsequently shared on social media by reporters. Margo Martin, the lead press secretary for the office of the 45th president, confirmed to Snopes via email that this was a genuine statement released by Trump.  banned shared social media lead press secretary While this is a real statement, the claims made within it (that the United States would not have had a vaccine for 5 years if it wasn't for Trump) are dubious at best. The Trump administration attempted to speed up the development of a vaccine via Operation Warp Speed. Although the Trump administration certainly deserves some credit for aiding the development of a vaccine, some companies, such as Pfizer, developed vaccines without funding from the Trump administration. It should also be noted that companies outside of the United States managed to develop vaccines without much aid from the former president.  vaccines without funding managed to develop vaccines Its a statement often heard in the Ocean State: Rhode Islands state legislature is the strongest in the nation. And it was recently repeated by Governor Lincoln Chafee as he doled out advice to his successor, Governor-elect Gina Raimondo. Chafee was one of several people who were asked by The Journal what advice they would give to Raimondo as she prepares to take office Jan. 6. Their comments were published Nov. 17 in The Journals Political Scene column. The only [advice] I would add is we all know ... that Rhode Island constitutionally has a very strong legislature, Chafee said. Thats a fact, the strongest in the country  And its critical, to move your agenda forward, to have relationships ... build those relationships. Since this claim has been made so often, we decided to check whether Rhode Islands General Assembly really ranks as the strongest in the nation. We asked Chafees office what facts he had to support his statement. It took awhile for his office to get back to us. Meanwhile, we reached out to nearly a dozen political science professors nationwide, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and others to get their views. All who responded generally shared the view that Rhode Islands governor has relatively limited power compared with governors in many other states We were referred to Governors and the Executive Branch, a chapter in the book Politics In The American States: A Comparative Analysis. Its author, Margaret R. Ferguson, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, measured the institutional power of governors in each of the 50 states, based on various factors. Those included  term limits; power to appoint without the involvement of the legislature; control over the budget; veto power; and whether the governor is the same political affiliation that controls the state legislature. Rhode Island placed dead last overall in Fergusons list for executive power, while Massachusetts placed at the top. The book also noted that Chafee was the only governor in the country in 2011 to face a legislature controlled by an opposing party. At the time, Chafee was registered as an independent; he changed his affiliation to Democrat in May 2013. We also looked to Rhode Islands Constitution. It limits governors to two terms and specifies that the governors appointments of state officers be subject to Senate advice and consent. Pardons, too, need Senate approval. A veto by the governor can be overridden  by a vote of three-fifths of members present in the House and Senate. One of the key provisions limiting a Rhode Island governors power concerns the state budget. Governors are required to submit budgets, but the documents are then subject to legislative cuts and additions, before the General Assembly passes its own version. In 44 other states, governors have so-called line-item veto authority, the power to reject individual items, while keeping the rest of the budget intact. In Rhode Island, the governor can only approve or veto the final budget, which usually prompts the Assembly to override a veto. When Chafees office got back to us, it shared emails sent to the governors staff by Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri political science professor who is widely known for his study of state legislatures. The email exchanges were part of the preparations for last years 350th anniversary of the Rhode Island Colonial Charter of 1663. We can always quibble about rankings, but every accounting puts the power of Rhode Islands governor at or near the bottom in terms of institutional powers, Squire said in an email to Jonathan Stevens, Chafees director of special projects. Rhode Islands governor enjoys only moderate appointment powers. The governor also has a weak veto and relatively little ability to influence the budget. A line-item veto and greater control over appointments would greatly strengthen the governor. On a constitutional power metric, Rhode Island is among the most powerful state legislatures,  Squires wrote. Squire confirmed the statements to PolitiFact Rhode Island via email and cited his book The Evolution of American Legislatures, Colonies, Territories and States, 1619-2009,  as well as an earlier book, 101 Chambers. We also heard from Jay S. Goodman, a political science professor at Wheaton College, who noted that the Rhode Island legislature had given up a certain degree of power over the past 20 years, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the revolving door limitations on jobs, ethics rules, and the separation of powers amendment. Voters approved the separation  of  powers constitutional amendment in 2004 to curb legislative powers and remove lawmakers from state boards and commissions. Those changes certainly strengthened the governorship, Goodman said via email. But the overwhelming one-party rule coupled with iron discipline still makes the Speaker [of the House] the most powerful single person [in Rhode Island]. While the strength of the governorship might appear to be inversely proportional to the General Assemblys power, Maureen Moakley, a political science professor at the University of Rhode Island, observed that a governors force of personality also factors in. She used the late Governor Bruce Sundlun, a Democrat, as an example. He was a very forceful personality. The day he took office he faced a crisis. [The collapse of Rhode Islands credit unions.] That gave him a lot of leverage through his administration, especially his first administration, Moakley said. If a governor has the political savvy to be able to take the bully pulpit and turn [it] into a political force, it can go a long way to mitigating the limitations of the office, Moakley said. Their initial presentation of their agenda is critical, she said. Our ruling Governor Chafee said the Rhode Island state legislature is the strongest in the country  Our research found that Rhode Islands governor has the least institutional power in the nation under the state Constitution. That would make the Rhode Island General Assembly the most powerful, supporting the governors point. We rule his claimTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)