Does 2021 Infrastructure Bill Include 'Methane Tax' on Cattle, Pigs?
In October and November 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of social media posts that claimed that the Build Back Better Act, a major budget and infrastructure bill, contained a "methane tax" of around $2,600 per head of cattle, and around $500 per swine, per year.  For example, one widely-shared Facebook post claimed: widely-shared Facebook post "Were you aware the $3.5 Trillion Human Infrastructure package includes an animal agriculture tax of $2,600!! per head of cattle? $500 for swine!!!..." The post contained a photograph of a column written by U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma. In the column, which was also posted to his website on Sep. 22, Mullin claimed that: posted to his website on Sep. 22 In an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, this legislation [the Build Back Better Act] would impose a fee on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry. We all know that a fee is just a tax and that consumers are the ones who will pay for it. The tax is estimated to cost $6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine each year. That is more than what the animals are worth, itll run ranchers out of business.    Mullin's description of the provisions of the bill was inaccurate, as were the numerous social media posts based on it. At the time those claims were made, and as of Nov. 2, 2021, the Build Back Better Act did not contain a tax or fee on methane that would equate to thousands of dollars per head of cattle, or hundreds of dollars per head of swine. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, is a 2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill, and has been the subject of intensive negotiations during the fall of 2021. Section 30114 of the legislation provides for a "methane fee," but it applies only to "petroleum and natural gas systems," and not the agriculture sector. Therefore, Mullin's claim  that "this legislation would impose a 'fee' on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry"  is false.  2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill A spokesperson for Mullin told Politifact that the congressman was referring to an amendment to the bill, proposed by Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would have explicitly stipulated that the methane fee does not apply to agriculture. Democrats voted down that proposal, on the basis that the text of the legislation already explicitly stipulated that the fee related only to oil and gas production.  told Politifact amendment While expressing concern about hypothetical future actions on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the spokesperson effectively acknowledged that the Build Back Better Act does not currently do what Mullin claimed it did: "While the language specifies the oil and gas industry, it also references EPAs greenhouse gas inventory and leaves too much room for the EPA to expand its regulatory reach." The same spokesperson also told Politifact that the key figures from Mullin's op-ed  "$6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine"  came from an analysis prepared by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). However, the AFBF later issued its own news release, clarifying that the analysis was conducted in order to address an entirely hypothetical question, namely what the effect of a methane tax would be if it were applied to the agriculture industry  a proposal that no participants in Congressional negotiations have so far made.  In that Sept. 30 news release, AFBF Vice President Sam Kieffer said: Sept. 30 news release Over the summer, American Farm Bureau economists conducted an analysis, at the request of Congressional committee staff, to determine the potential impact if agriculture were to be included in legislation imposing such a tax. We did so based on the formula set forth in legislative proposals that impose a methane tax on the oil and gas sectors.  ...While we oppose any tax on methane, Farm Bureau is grateful to lawmakers for recognizing the thin margins in agriculture and that such a tax would undoubtedly put family farms out of business. We are especially grateful to the Senate for passing an amendment that specifically exempts agriculture. That Senate amendment was one proposed by U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10. It prohibited "the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock." passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10
Claim:  Article chronicles aspects of Senator Ted Kennedy's life and career. true Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] The Last of The Kennedy Dynasty As soon as his cancer was detected, I noticed the immediate attempt at the "canonization" of old Teddy Kennedy by the mainstream media. They are saying what a "great American" he is. I say, let's get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history. 1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying aclassmate to cheat for him. 2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him!  3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private! 4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing! 5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we? 6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond. 7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew  that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills ... a "token of friendship"? 8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism". In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries. 9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. 10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. Origins:  It's probably impossible for a politician such as Edward M. ("Ted") Kennedy  the youngest child in a family that included a U.S. President (John) and a U.S. Attorney General and Senator (Robert)  to have served as long as he did without acquiring a good many admirers and detractors.  When Ted Kennedy died of cancer in August 2009, after a career spanning more than 46 years as a U.S. Senator, both groups offered their observations, laudatory and critical, on his life and career.   The much-circulated example cited above, of the critical variety, is true in its broad outlines (although some of its subjective observations are questionable): 1)  Ted Kennedy did get expelled from Harvard for cheating (but not twice: a single incident has erroneously been represented as two different events in the example reproduced above).  At the end of his freshman year at Harvard College, in 1951, Kennedy arranged for a classmate to take a Spanish exam in his place: As it had been at Milton [Academy], Spanish was the course that gave Teddy the most difficulty at Harvard. For the others, he would muddle through with C's, he thought, but as the final examination approached, he felt in danger of failing both the test and the course, which would render him ineligible for varsity football in the fall, an intolerable prospect. Knowing he could not pass the examination himself, he arranged to have a friend [Bill Frate], much more proficient in the language, take it for him, signing Teddy's name to the booklet. As it happened, however, the graduate student assigned as proctor for the Spanish examination that day was personally acquainted with the student whom Teddy had recruited as his stand-in. When the stand-in, who did exceedingly well on the test, handed in the booklet, the proctor saw that he'd signed it "Edward M. Kennedy." Perhaps no more than an hour later, [Kennedy and Frate] were both called to the dean's office and expelled. They were told they could apply for readmission in a year or two if they behaved themselves. That was not the most severe punishment Harvard imposed, but it was typical in serious cases. [The preponderance of sources suggest that Frate agreed to take Kennedy's exam for him out of friendship, not because he was paid for his efforts.] 2. With Kennedy's expulsion from Harvard in 1951, he was ineligible for a student deferment and therefore subject to the draft (which had been re-initiated after the Korean War broke out in mid-1950).  In June 1951, he enlisted in the U.S. Army for four years, a term which his father's intervention shortened to two years: On the morning Ted enlisted for four years, the newspapers reported truce proposals [in Korea] but also severe Communist attacks, along with twenty-eight New England casualties.  Joe Kennedy, having lost one son to war, was furious, asking Ted, "Don't you ever look at what you're signing?" In those days, most young men understood the laws about military service, even if they had a student deferment. But Ted did not know that he had the option of volunteering for induction, in effect getting drafted when he chose and for the draft's two years. After Joe intervened, Ted got the shorter term. 3.  Also due largely to his father's influence, Ted Kennedy spent the bulk of his military service stationed in Paris:  Joe had no intention of letting Teddy get anywhere near the war in Korea. Instead, Teddy was inducted at Fort Dix, New Jersey, sent to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training, and then shipped to Paris, where his father had arranged for his assignment to a military police honor guard detachment which had the wholly ceremonial task of standing watch over the NATO headquarters office located there. Kennedy was discharged from the Army in March 1953 with the rank of private first class, returned to Cambridge (where he took two summer school courses), and was readmitted to Harvard for the fall 1953 term.   The comment about a "person of his 'education'" only having attained the rank of private is something of an anachronism, as at the time Kennedy enlisted in the military he had little more than a high school education (having been expelled from Harvard at the end of his freshman year).  The bulk of his education (his final three years at Harvard and an additional four years of law school) did not take place until after his discharge from the Army. 4.  Ted Kennedy was known for driving wildly and accumulating speeding tickets while attending the University of Virginia (UVa) law school, prompting his UVa alumnus brother Robert to quip (during a talk at the school) that their mother had asked him to find out "what side of the court my brother is going to appear on when he gets out of law school, attorney or defendant." After the most serious incident (involving a police chase at speeds up to 90 MPH), Kennedy was arrested and charged with reckless driving and driving without a license (he possessed a valid license but had left it at home), an arrest which his father managed to keep out of the news for several weeks.   There does not appear to be a record of his driver's license having been revoked (but standards for mandatory revocation may have been quite different fifty years ago).   We're unsure what "amazing coincidence" supposedly connects Kennedy's having been arrested for reckless driving in Virginia in March 1958 and his having passed the Massachusetts bar exam in August 1959. 5.  On the evening of 19 June 1964, after a late vote in the U.S. Senate on a civil rights bill, Senator Ted Kennedy boarded a six-seat private plane to fly to the Massachusetts Democratic Party convention in West Springfield.  The plane crashed on approach to Barnes Municipal Airport in conditions of marginal visibility; the  pilot and a Kennedy aide were killed; Kennedy himself suffered crushed and fractured vertebrae, a collapsed lung, and several broken ribs, injuries which required several months of hospitalization and rehabilitation. The mention of Kennedy's supposedly having been "legally intoxicated" at the time of the accident is a red herring  he was a passenger in the plane, not the pilot, and was not responsible for the crash.  (The Civil Aeronautics Board found the probable cause to be "an improperly executed instrument approach in which improper altitude control resulted in a descent below obstructed terrain.") 6.-7.  The July 1969 "Chappaquiddick incident," in which Mary Jo Kopechne (a former campaign worker for Robert F. Kennedy) drowned after Ted Kennedy drove the car in which he and Mary Jo were riding off the side of a bridge late one evening, is well known and too complex a subject for us to adequately summarize in a paragraph or two, so interested readers might wish to peruse Wikipedia's entry on that topic.   entry It's fair to say that, at the very least, Kennedy's actions after the Chappaquiddick accident (particularly his failure to report it to authorities until well into the following morning) were both questionable and inexcusable. As Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer wrote of the Chappaquiddick controversy: No other automobile accident in history has stirred as much suspicion and speculation. There is no question that the authorities, simultaneously sympathetic, in awe, and in fear of a messy case involving a hugely popular Senator, did a terrible job of investigating the accident. The Kennedy camp did not help, but in legal terms, it did nothing to obstruct, either. Absent different evidence, it is almost impossible to see how the authorities could have proved a more serious crime [than leaving the scene of an accident]. The accident itself is consistent with the fact that Kennedy was a terrible, easily distracted driver. Moreover, even if he had only the two drinks he reported, liquor probably mattered. He was almost certainly not legally drunk in 1969, when the blood alcohol standard was 0.15 percent. He might not even have been over the current Massachusetts standard, which is 0.08.  But any alcohol consumption diminishes driving ability.  There is no direct evidence that Kennedy dove to the wrecked car. Some critics have dismissed his account, claiming that his bad back and the tides made this impossible. But since childhood, Kennedy had taken physical risks. After he broke his back, he was skiing on difficult slopes again the next year. Adrenaline would have boosted his energy. There is no reason to doubt that he tried as hard as he could to rescue Mary Jo immediately. Just as there was no good excuse for Kennedy's not knocking on doors until he found a house with a telephone, there was no excuse at all for [Kennedy friend and former U.S. Attorney Paul] Markham and [Kennedy cousin Joe] Gargan's failing to summon help. Each was a lawyer, and [unlike Kennedy] neither had a concussion. Their instinct, and perhaps Kennedy's too, appears to have been to prevent disclosure of his having been in the car with a pretty young woman under circumstances that invited suspicion. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that faster action to summon help would in fact have saved her life. Considering that it took more than an hour to get her body out the next morning, when everyone involved was already awake and dressed and visibility was good, Lange and Dewitt [authors of Chappaquiddick: The Real Story] argue convincingly that she had to have died before help would have arrived in the middle of the night. But Markham, Gargan, and Kennedy didn't know that. They should not have worried about how it would look and should have called the police without delay. 8.  How one evaluates the accomplishments and achievements of Ted Kennedy's 46-year tenure as a U.S. Senator is a subjective issue, but no even-handed evaluation could fairly describe them as "scant."  Wikipedia, for example, observes that: Wikipedia Since his presidential bid [in 1980], Kennedy became one of the most recognizable and influential members of the party, and was sometimes called a "Democratic icon" as well as "The Lion of the Senate". Kennedy and his Senate staff had written about 2,500 bills, of which more than 300 were enacted into law. Kennedy had co-sponsored another 550 bills that became law since 1973.  Kennedy was known for his effectiveness in dealing with Republican senators and administrations, sometimes to the irritation of Democrats. During the 101st Congress under President George H. W. Bush, fully half of the successful proposals put forward by the Senate Democratic policy makers came out of Kennedy's Labor and Human Resources Committee. During the 2000s, almost every bipartisan bill signed during the George W. Bush administration had significant involvement from Kennedy. A late 2000s survey of Republican senators ranked Kennedy first among Democrats in bipartisanship. Kennedy strongly believed in the principle "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and would agree to pass legislation he viewed as incomplete or imperfect with the goal of improving it down the road. In April 2006, Kennedy was selected by Time as one of "America's 10 Best Senators"; the magazine noted that he had "amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in the country" and that "by the late 1990s, the liberal icon had become such a prodigious cross-aisle dealer that Republican leaders began pressuring party colleagues not to sponsor bills with him". (A [partisan] list of Kennedy's accomplishments published on his portion of the U.S. Senate web site can be viewed here.) here Ted Kennedy was a strong advocate for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a bill that abolished U.S. national-origin immigration quotas which had been in place since 1924  quotas that apportioned immigration visas according to the demographic breakdown of the U.S. as recorded by the 1920 census and thereby placed few limits on immigrants from Western and Northern Europe but strict limits on immigrants from the rest of the world. Although Kennedy argued during debate on the bill that "Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [this bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think," the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did have a significant impact on immigration patterns: President Kennedy proposed a new immigration structure that would no longer be based on national origins. After Kennedy's assassination, his brother Ted took up the fight, pushing the Johnson administration to go even further than it wanted in evening the playing field. Though Lyndon Johnson, in signing the bill, tried to reassure opponents that it wouldn't do much to change the balance of immigration, its impact was dramatic. In the 1950s, 53 percent of all immigrants were Europeans and just 6 percent were Asians; by the 1990s, just 16 percent were Europeans and 31 percent were Asians. The percentages of Latino and African immigrants also jumped significantly. In 1965, the U.S. was around 85 percent white, according to various estimates. Today, a third of the country is minority, and nonwhites are on track to become the majority sometime in the 2040s. Minority populations have grown by leaps and bounds because of high birth rates among those first generations of immigrants and a steady flow from Latin America, Asia and Africa since. 9.  During his long career in the U.S. Senate, Ted Kennedy was certainly a consistent advocate of immigration policy reform: Historians and immigrant advocates are remembering the senator  perhaps more than any other  as championing legislation that directly benefited immigrants, their children and their grandchildren. The 1965 law that he sponsored fundamentally changed the demographics of the country and transformed many urban enclaves into majority-minority cities. But they say Kennedy also remained a "point man" in the Senate for immigrant advocates and minorities throughout his career, even supporting recent proposals to overhaul immigration laws aimed at undocumented workers. Kennedy advocated for the children of immigrants and minorities by pushing legislation on voting rights and health care for uninsured children. The list of accomplishments on Kennedy's web site describes his efforts in this area thusly: Senator Kennedy had long been convinced that legal immigration is good for our country. As such, he had been at the forefront of efforts to improve U.S. immigration policy by sponsoring beneficial legislation and opposing initiatives that are harmful to immigrants and refugees. In 1986, Senator Kennedy worked to obtain legal status for undocumented workers and address the potential for increased employment discrimination against immigrant workers as a result of the employer sanction provisions. He was the lead sponsor of the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased the quotas for family immigration, established a diversity visa program, and created a temporary safe haven program for persons fleeing oppressive governments. He was also an original sponsor of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act and its re-authorization in 2000, which allows battered immigrant women and children to apply for permanent residence without the cooperation of their abusive spouses or parents. He strongly opposed the harsh 1996 immigration laws, which divided families, returned refugees to the hands of their persecutors, and denied immigrants their day in court, as well as the 1996 welfare law that turned immigrants into second class citizens, and he continues to work to eliminate the harshest provisions of these laws. His goal was to preserve families, assure fairness and due process, and maintain the integrity of our immigration laws. Senator Kennedy believed that immigrants deserve the same due process protections available to U.S. citizens, and that it is contrary to basic principles of fairness and justice to take immigrants from their U.S. citizen families, without even an opportunity to have their day in court.  He also helped lead the way in efforts to restore fairness and justice to immigrants and refugees. Senator Kennedy's support was instrumental in restoring public benefits, such as Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid, to countless elderly, disabled, and legal immigrants. He continues to push for the further restoration of benefits to all legal immigrants. 10.   No one could deny that Ted Kennedy was known as a drinker and a womanizer, particularly in the earlier years of his life.  As the Miami Herald noted of his passing: For his many critics, the flaws in Kennedy's character and his mistakes  above all, Chappaquiddick  overshadow his good works. He paid for that by losing the campaign to unseat President Carter in 1980 and later suffered humiliations over his drinking and womanizing. Ultimately, he turned his energies to Congress and forged one of the great Senate careers. Last updated:  30 August 2009    Canellos, Peter S.  "Obama Victory Took Root in Kennedy-Inspired Immigration Act."   The Boston Globe.  11 November 2008.    Canellos, Peter S.  Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.  ISBN 1-4391-4873-2.    Clymer, Adam.  Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography.   New York: William Morrow, 1999.  ISBN 0-688-14285-0.    Contreras, Russell.  "For Immigrants, Kennedy Remained Tireless Advocate."   Associated Press.  29 August 2009.    McGinniss, Joe.  The Last Brother: The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy.   New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.  ISBN 0-671-67945-7.    Miami Herald.  "Ted Kennedy: The Lion Sleeps."   27 August 2009. If you're strapped for cash, as Rhode Island certainly is, you're always looking for a way to cut expenses.One area often targeted by pundits, because it makes up such a large share of the state budget, is spending on human services such as Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income people.In April, we looked at one aspect of that portion of the budget, giving aHalf Trueto a statement by Rhode Island Tea Party founder Colleen Conley that Rhode Island has the most generous welfare benefits in New England. (We found that every New England state, except Maine, pays more to its welfare recipients. )During the June 26 broadcast of10 News Conference, Gary Sasse, former director of the Rhode Island Department of Administration and the business-backed Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, made a related comparison, saying that the state gives out far more benefits than the national average.Speaking of what is now the 2012 state budget, Sasse said that of the $200-million increase [in overall spending], 90 percent is to support human service programs. We spend 52 percent more per capita on human service programs than the national average.When reporter Bill Rappleye asked for specific numbers, Sasse said, Well, we spend about $9,300 per capita on Medicaid programs, and that's soup to nuts, that's everything from RIte Care to nursing homes. The average for the country is about $6,100. There's a $3,000 difference.So the question on human services is not necessarily cutting back on eligibility, but looking at what optional services we provide. We provide about $60 [million] -- probably more than that, probably about $70 million -- in optional Medicaid services that many other states don't provide.We asked Sasse for the source of his assertion that Rhode Island spends $1.52 for every $1 spent nationally.He gave us two.The first is aFeb. 10 presentation developed by the House Finance Committee, which reported that in 2008, a total of $294 billion was spent nationally on Medicaid recipients. That averages out to $6,120 per recipient (19.4 percent of the money went to children, 13.5 percent went to adults, 43 percent was for the disabled and 24.1 percent was spent on the aged).In Rhode Island that year, the state spent $1.7 billion (about 52 percent of it federal funds) or $9,341 per recipient, with children and adults getting less (13.5 percent and 10.1 percent respectively) and the disabled getting a lot more (51.4 percent). House spokesman Larry Berman said the source of those numbers was theHenry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which collects state and federal spending data.The per-enrollee spending is 52.6 percent higher in Rhode Island than the United States. Sasse said that's where his 52 percent statement came from.But what about the per capita spending?Sasse said in an interview that when he said per capita, the population he was referring to was enrollees. However, we believe most people who hear the term will think it's based on the population in Rhode Island.Would the number be different if calculated using the general population?As a second source, he referred us to RIPEC's 2010 How Rhode Island Compares report. It's based onU.S. Census datafrom 2008 and looks at the cost of public welfare -- Medicaid and cash payments to the poor -- on the basis of state population. That report says public welfare costs were $2,036 per Rhode Island resident, which is 51.8 percent more than the $1,341 spent per capita nationally.If you just look at RIPEC's Medicaid numbers, as the House Finance Committee staff report did, per capita spending in Rhode Island is actually 55.8 percent more than the national average, a bit higher than Sasse said.Why does Rhode Island spend so much more?We have very high residential care costs, said Sasse, a factor others have noted.In addition, Rhode Island covers some services regarded as optional by the federal government, such as adult daycare, assisted living for the elderly and hospice care for the dying.Sasse offered no specific suggestions about what to cut. He said that's for the politicians to decide; he's just looking at the basic numbers.Fred Sneesby, spokesman for the state Department of Human Services, said in April after we published our earlier item that it's important to consider other fiscally meaningful differences among states; for example, the percentage of disabled and elderly in Rhode Island is significantly higher than in neighboring states as well as the national average.He pointed us to section of the Kaiser website, StateHealthFacts.org, showing that since the 2004 fiscal year, the state's growth inMedicaid spending has been significantly less than the U.S. average. He also said that eligibility for Rhode Island programs isas strict -- if not stricter-- than Massachusetts and Connecticut.To sum up, Sasse said Rhode Islands per capita human services spending -- by his definition, Medicaid spending per enrollee --  is 52 percent higher than the national average. By that definition, hes correct.Hes also correct in the more common use of per capita -- spending by population.So we rate his claimTrue.As often happens, our research on this item raised questions that go beyond the statement we evaluated. Chief among them: How concerned should we be that Rhode Island spends more than the national average?Advocacy groups rarely address the question directly when they offer their reports and statistics.The 52-percent figure could mean that the state is being overly generous with its benefits.Or it could mean that the characteristics of Rhode Island's population require us to spend more to give the same level of service that other states provide.Or it could mean that the national average is depressed by states that are declining to provide some of the optional services, such as hospice care for the poor, that some Rhode Islanders might regard as anything but optional.Such context would help voters and their leaders make intelligent decisions about where to attack the problem. It would also help them ensure that our money is being spent wisely on the services we want to offer. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day." Donald Trump   In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts). New York Times story previously reported The April 3 Times report details the experience of Trump donor Stacy Blatt, a retiree who was in hospice care, suffering from cancer, when he discovered his bank account depleted from those recurring donations. Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaughs dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trumps campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution  federal records show it was his first ever  quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge  until Mr. Blatts bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud. Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt. pre-checked box As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly. asking donors As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this: looked like this   As the pre-checked box evolved, the result was an increase in refunds issued to donors who had missed the finer print in the box that allowed the refunds to be weekly recurring. The refunds issued by the Trump campaign outpaced and dwarfed the $21 million in refunds issued by his political rival, now-U.S. President Joe Biden. The effect can be seen in a graph posted by Shane Goldmacher, the Times report's author:  The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive. Internet Archive A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times. found on OpenSecrets.org We sent emails to WinRed and the Trump campaign seeking comment, but didn't get an answer in time for publication. We will update if we do. But we note that in their public statements responding to the Times story that neither Trump nor WinRed refute the financial figures or facts laid out by the Times. Instead, the stance taken by both WinRed and Trump is that the Times' report was unfairly negative about their approach to fundraising. In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted. called tweeted In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low: statement We learned from liberal ActBlue  and now were better than they are! In fact, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over, and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than 1% of total online donations, a very low number. This is done by Dems also The Times story reported that WinRed "typically granted [refunds] to avoid more costly formal disputes." It also pointed out that while WinRed is a for-profit company, ActBlue is a non-profit organization. As such, WinRed "makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given. WinRed was paid more than $118 million from federal committees the last election cycle; even after paying credit card fees and expenses like payroll and rent, the profits are believed to be significant." We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue: was $38.08 ActBlue said in a statement that it had begun to phase out prechecked recurring boxes unless groups were explicitly asking for recurring contributions. Some prominent Democratic groups, including both congressional campaign committees, continue to precheck recurring boxes regardless of that guidance. Still, Democratic refund rates were only a small fraction of the Trump campaigns last year. On April 7, 2021, Timothy Miller, a writer for the political news site The Bulwark, tweeted that he received a fundraising text from the National Republican Congressional Committee with a similar, pre-checked fundraising box:  Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points. widespread voter fraud won Typhoid Mary was a cook. Working at that job made her single-handedly responsible for multiple outbreaks of typhoid fever, in and around New York City, about a century ago.PolitiFact Ohio couldn't help recalling that bit of history recently after reading advice for the flu season from the Centers for Disease Control, which urged sick people to stay home from work and school to avoid the spread of illness.The history was freshened by last week's news that a college cafeteria worker in Indiana had been diagnosed with typhoid fever, and it came to mind when we saw a release from Sen. Sherrod Brown saying that he is co-sponsoring the Healthy Families Act, which is being reintroduced in Congress.Also called the earned sick time initiative, the legislation would allow workers at businesses with 15 or more employees to earn paid sick days. Workers could earn up to one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a total of seven days.For far too many Americans, a day home from work means a day without pay, Brown said. Some 40 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. dont have any paid sick days at all. Its worse for low-income workers  three in four dont have any paid sick days available.We wondered about the numbers. Brown's staff said the source was last year's National Compensation Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Its chart for paid leave benefits shows that 61 percent of all workers in the private sector have paid sick days -- meaning about 40 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 25 percent of workers, the chart shows that 29 percent have paid sick days, meaning more than 70 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 10 percent of workers, 18 percent have sick days, so 82 percent do not. (Three in four, the figure used by Brown, is 75 percent. )We found other figures as well:. More than three in four food service and hotel workers (78 percent) dont have any paid sick days, according to an analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Workers without sick days are more likely to go to work with a contagious illness, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. And a 2011 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that a lack of sick leave helped spread 5 million cases of flu-like illness during the outbreak of 2009.Critics of the sick leave initiative, including the National Association of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, say paid sick days add costs to low-margin businesses, are burdensome to business and result in lost jobs.In a recent survey of businesses by the Employment Policies Institute, Roughly 70 percent of respondents said that Connecticuts sick leave law was not good for business, the group said.PolitiFact Ohio is not rating the legislation, however -- only Browns statement on the numbers of workers who dont have access to paid sick days. We rate it 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. While evangelical leader Franklin Graham has been a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, his father Rev. Billy Graham publicly warned against the prospect of religious figures becoming too attached to a political stance. Several readers contacted us in January 2018 seeking to confirm a statement attributed to the elder Graham: I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. The statement was also circulated online in meme form:   In this case, the quote is authentic, and taken from the 1 February 1981 cover story in Parade magazine; it was part of Billy Graham's account of conversations with fellow reverend Jerry Falwell, who helmed the conservative politcal group the Moral Majority. Graham said: I told him to preach the Gospel. That's our calling. I want to preserve the purity of the Gospel and the freedom of religion in America. I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. Liberals organized in the '60s, and conservatives certainly have a right to organize in the '80s, but it would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. The statement was featured early on in the story and was also highlighted below a picture of Falwell and then-President Ronald Reagan:     In the story, Graham admitted that he no longer thought of Communists as being "disciples of Lucifer," contrary to his own rhetoric from earlier in his career. He also cast himself as having no part of Falwell's organization, which became a key conservative constituency before dissolving in 1989. He said: It would be unfortunate if people got the impression all evangelists belong to that group. The majority do not. I don't wish to be identified with them. I'm for morality. But morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak out with such authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists can't be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future. While the elder Graham has had relationships with several U.S. presidents spanning decades, he told Christianity Today in 2011 that, given the chance to do anything differently in his life, "I also would have steered clear of politics." told His son, on the other hand, has positioned himself as a Trump supporter since 2011, when he contributed to the debunked "birther" conspiracy theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. In October 2016, the younger Graham published a social media post (misattributed to his father) urging evangelical voters to vote for Trump. contributed misattributed More recently, Franklin Graham has refused to criticize the president for reportedly calling African countries "shitholes" or for alleged extramarital affairs -- drawing criticism from Graham's own niece -- and claimed that the U.S. was "in a coup d'etat" perpetrated by political enemies of Trump who were using the media against him. refused criticism claimed Bailey, Sarah Pulliam.  "Q & A: Billy Graham on Aging, Regrets, and Evangelicals."
  Christianity Today.  21 January 2011. YouTube.  "Interview with the Rev. Franklin Graham," uploaded by ABC News.
  https://youtu.be/lx2E286GAcE  24 April 2011.  Vales, Leinz.  "Evangelical Leader Franklin Graham Says Trump is a 'Changed Person.'"
    CNN.   24 January 2018. Allen, Bob.   "Franklin Graham Asserts That Trump Could be Toppled in a Coup."
    Baptist News.   30 January 2018. Delk, Josh.   "Billy Graham's Granddaughter: Trump Needs to Ask for Forgiveness."
    The Hill.   27 January 2018. Claim:  Diet Coke (or Diet Pepsi) contains more calories than claimed, but the company gets away with the deception by paying a yearly fine.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] There was an old rumour that stated that a particular diet soda company (Coke I believe) paid a fine to print their cans as stating that the soda had 'just one calorie'.  According to the rumour, companies who knowingly printed misinformation on the nutritional facts of their product would have to pay a fine.  The company in question figured it could make more money by convincing people the product only had 1 calorie than it would cost to pay the fine, meaning a higher profit margin for them.  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I heard a rumor today that Diet Coke actually contains 40 calories, and the Coca-Cola company pays a huge fine to the FDA every year to keep "0 calories" on the can.  Have you heard anything of this?  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Comment: Is it true that Pepsi One is really not one calorie and that Pepsi Co. pays a fine every year for false advertising (because the calorie count is a lot higher than that)? Origins:  How long this particular belief about low-calorie sodas has been around is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it dating back to 1990. We've encountered claims of Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (which are listed as containing zero, zero, and one calories per 12-oz. can, respectively) actually containing 25, 50, 70, or 90 calories, in each case with the parent   company's paying an annual fine to continue falsely listing the beverage's caloric content.  (A can of non-diet cola typically contains about 120 calories.) The rumor associates most strongly with Diet Coke (which is known as Coca-Cola Light outside the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain).  In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place. Federal Trade Commission Act Lanham Act Common sense should also serve to rule out what the whispers say about an annual payoff.  For health reasons, many potential consumers of diet drinks have to carefully monitor what they ingest. Were the rumor true, diabetics with a love of Diet Coke, for instance, would experience glucose levels spiraling out of control. Imagine the lawsuits resulting from  that! This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria. bananas If there is the tiniest bit of truth to this rumor, it's that even though sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are advertised as having zero calories, they do have some caloric content from ingredients such as artificial sweeteners, citric acid, and caramel coloring.  However, the number of calories per can is still less than one, and FDA regulations allow any food product that contains fewer than five calories per serving to be advertised as calorie-free. Barbara "calorie countered" Mikkelson Last updated:  26 August 2013 In mid-April 2021, the fast-food empire McDonalds announced a meal collaboration with Korean pop boy band BTS. The announcement rocked Twitter, inciting Tweets from the millions-strong musical groups fanbase. McDonalds  The collaboration was announced on TikTok and Twitter by the fast-food company and BIGHIT MUSIC, the record label of BTS. In an email to Snopes, McDonalds said that the signature meal is set to include a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, medium World Famous Fries, medium Coke and, for the first time ever in the U.S., sweet chili and cajun dipping sauces inspired by popular recipes from McDonalds South Korea. BIGHIT MUSIC said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  BTS truly lights up the world stage, uniting people across the globe through their music, said Morgan Flatley, Chief Marketing Officer, McDonalds USA. Were excited to bring customers even closer to their beloved band in a way only McDonalds can  through our delicious food  when we introduce the BTS signature order on our menu next month." McDonalds said that the BTS collaboration builds on McDonalds partnerships with rapper Travis Scott and reggaeton musician J Balvin last year under the celebrity signature orders program launched in U.S. restaurants in 2020. But this time around, BTS will be the first member of the program to eventually launch in 50 countries across six continents. Travis Scott J Balvin celebrity signature orders The band has great memories with McDonalds. Were excited about this collaboration and cant wait to share the BTS Meal with the world, said BIGHIT MUSIC. Also known as the Bangtan Boys, the seven-member boy band was formed in 2010 and debuted in 2013. BTS fans are so die-hard that theyve given themselves the nickname The Army  which stands for Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth. McDonalds told Snopes that customers will have the option of ordering BTS meals in participating restaurants or through contactless mobile orders, the app, drive-through or via McDelivery. The BTS meal will be available at select U.S. restaurants beginning May 26 and will be rolled out to others across the globe through June 25. And on May 26, the bands signature order was made available at participating U.S. restaurants nationwide.  Seeing the passion and anticipation from our fans worldwide since we announced the BTS Meal has been incredible, said Morgan Flatley, McDonald's chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, of the launch. And the best part is, we are just getting started. We are preparing to give customers even more ways to experience this collaboration in the coming weeks  through a merch drop and exclusive digital content that will provide a behind-the-scenes look at BTS. said  Image courtesy of McDonald's  UPDATE [May 26, 2021]: This article was updated to announce the launch and include newly released images. In August 2014, an episode of Discovery Fit & Health's medical scare docudrama Untold Stories of the E.R. dramatized a supposed real-life scenario in which a teenage girl arrived at Florida hospital's emergency room with a bulging stomach, and the cause of the patient's malady was eventually revealed when she went to the bathroom and excreted tapeworms. The girl's mother then allegedly admitted that she had fed her daughter tapeworm egg pills to help the girl drop some weight before an upcoming beauty pageant: dramatized    At some point, the patient went to the bathroom and started screaming. "It was a toilet bowl full of tapeworms. Blegh!" [E.R. nurse, Maricar] Cabral-Osorio said. "It was so gross and she had pooped all these tapeworms. There were a couple that were very long and wiggling around trying to get out of the toilet bowl." Trying to keep up the proper bedside manner, Cabral-Osorio told the patient that since the tapeworms were out of the body, she'd be just fine. One question remained. "We were wondering how did she get those tapeworms, and then you saw the mom turn white," Cabral-Osorio said. "The mom was apologizing to the girl. It's like 'I'm so sorry. You know, I did it just to make you a little skinnier. You needed some help before we went on to the pageant." Cabral-Osorio said the mother denied giving her daughter tapeworms per se, but admitted giving the girl pills with tapeworm eggs. This dramatization echoed a century-old rumor about women buying and ingesting diet pills made of tapeworm eggs in order to maintain slender figures, with the parasites taking up residence in the women's intestines and consuming a significant portion of their caloric intake, thereby preventing food from being stored as undesirable, poundage-adding fat and fostering the burning up of previously stored fat. Whether such a method of weight loss was actually ever a common or widespread practice remains a subject of debate. Purported vintage advertisements for tapeworm-based diet pill products dating from the early 20th century are often cited as proof that it was, but whether such products actually matched their advertised descriptions would be difficult to verify at this remove. Just because an ad for a diet pill proclaimed the product contained tapeworm eggs doesn't mean it really did  duping people into buying medicinal nostrums by way of making false and exaggerated claims was standard procedure in the days before government regulation of food and drug products. In the 1960s, memories of those ads resurfaced as appetite-suppressant candies came into vogue, prompting curious dieters to speculate on how they worked. By 1970, diet pills were all the rage, and amphetamines accounted for 8% of all prescriptions written that year. Simple reports about various wonder products evolved into appalling whispered-behind-hands tales about women so desperate to keep their figures that they routinely swallowed magic diet pills which were really tapeworms in capsules. Sometimes the tidbits ended there as "Did you know ...?" shared tales, but other times the buzz was expanded into tragic tales detailing the gruesome deaths that had befallen some beautiful but vain young things who were foolish enough to try such remedies. This rumor has been associated with a number of prominent women, such as German model Claudia Schiffer, but probably no one was singled out by it more often than opera singer Maria Callas (1923-1977). Callas was indeed afflicted with tapeworms, but not due to any "lose weight quick!" reducing scheme: she was overly fond of steak and liver tartare, raw meat dishes prone to contamination. In her case, the rumor about tapeworm diet pills collided with her real-life condition, resulting in her being misidentified as someone who used such a product. Compounding the error, respected newspapers passed along fatuous statements about her and this rumor as if they were revealed fact. (Example: "Maria Callas, whose desperation to lose weight led her to swallow a tapeworm, shed several stones over a matter of months and never regained her former power," trumpeted The Guardian in 1992.) Some poorly-researched biographies have even claimed this as truth, falling for the myth instead of the reality. It's interesting to note many accounts of the Callas rumor spitefully and self-righteously conclude with the news that her indulgence in this ill-advised tapeworm diet fad caused her to lose the ability to hit the high notes. Such flourishes remind us that vanity rumors are often employed to humble women who aren't much liked or are seen as having attained high positions they did not merit. In Callas' case, her well-publicized, long-standing liaison with Aristotle Onassis caused some to belittle her talent by ascribing her success to her having a powerful benefactor; others wanted to find additional justification for disliking a woman who openly consorted with a (then) married man. The tapeworm diet pill claims usually posited that partakers eventually swallowed deworming pills once they had achieved their desired figures to be rid of the tapeworms, but the rumor also melded with a folk tale to form a new entity:   Other versions of how to draw out a tapeworm include placing milk, cookies, and a hammer near the afflicted person's anus for a few nights and letting the tapeworm gorge himself into complacency on the treats. Once this has been accomplished, the cookie is withheld. When the worm comes all the way out to demand, "Where's my cookie?," whoever is stuck with worm-watching duty that night bashes it with the hammer. An alternative vermifuge calls for 29 steaks and a hammer: The patient eats a steak for 29 days in row, then fasts on the 30th day. The worm becomes closely acquainted with the hammer when it emerges to demand its T-bone. Baker, Ronald.  Hoosier Folk Legends. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1982.  ISBN 0-25-332844-6. Bret, David.  Maria Callas: The Tigress and the Lamb. London: Robson Books, 1997.  ISBN 1-86-105257-X. Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.  ISBN 0-393-30321-7  (pp. 111-112). Cohen, Daniel.  The Beheaded Freshman and Other Nasty Rumors. New York: Avon Books, 1993.  ISBN 0-380-77020-2  (pp. 107-108). de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 148). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (p. 65). Moye, David.  "Woman Feeds Daughter Tapeworms on 'Untold Stories of the E.R.'" The Huffington Post.  20 August 2014. Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nastier Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.  ISBN 0-7102-0573-2  (p. 69). Thomas, Tessa.  "Health: Pavarotti and Other Weighty Tissues." The Guardian.  11 September 1992  (p. 27). Tucker, Elizabeth.  "The 7-Day Wonder Diet." Indiana Folklore.  Vol. 11; 1978  (pp. 141-150). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 178). This article was updated on Aug. 22, 2014 The Oracle of Omaha is still for Obama. So the president claimed on60 Minutes, interrupting interviewer Steve Kroft to tout the continued support of Warren Buffett, the Omaha-based stock-picker extraordinaire. Your plan really for solving the banking crisis was met with very, very, very tepid response, Kroft said to Obama. A lot of people said they didn't understand it. A lot of people said it didn't have any, enough details to solve the problem. I know you're coming out with something next week on this. But these criticisms were coming from people like Warren Buffett, people who had supported you, and you had counted as being your... And Warren still does support me, Obama interjected. But I think that, understand, Warren's also a big player in the financial markets who's a major owner of Wells Fargo. And so he's got a perspective from the perspective of somebody who is part owner of a bank. Indeed Buffett, who endorsed Obama during the campaign, did explicitly say during a three-hour interview March 9 with CNBC that he still supports Obama. I voted for Obama and I strongly support him, and I think he's the right guy, Buffett said early in the interview.Buffett did criticize Obama's handling of the banking crisis, saying that a bank that's going to go broke should be allowed to go broke, as long as the depositors are protected. (Obama's approach has leaned toward giving the banks more bailout money in some form rather than letting them fail and having the government take them over. )But Buffett's primary concern was that Obama wasn't communicating clearly with the public about struggling banks. The right answer for me (to the banking crisis) is the president to clarify things as only he can, because you have heard so many different things, he said. He is the commander in chief on this, and it has to be clarified ... because if people aren't clear, they're going to be confused. And if they're going to be confused, they are going to be scared stiff. And that has to end.It's not surprising Buffett would want Obama to focus on the financial crisis  it has cost Buffett $25 billion. That's how much of his $62 billion fortune he lost in the past year, as shares of his holding company Berkshire Hathaway fell nearly 50 percent,Forbesreports. That knocked Buffett off his perch as the world's richest man, to No. 2 behind Bill Gates.Toward the end of the three-hour interview, Buffett reiterated his support for Obama. He is the right president, Buffett said. He's very, very smart. He's got, I think, exactly the right goals. He's articulate and I  you know, he will be the right person to be the commander in chief in this economic crisis.So clearly Obama was on solid ground touting Buffett's continued support. We find this claim to be True.