John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts.
In a debate in Nashville on Oct. 7, 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain tussled over tax policy. Obama, responding to a question about fiscal responsibility, said the federal debt needs to be reduced in a way that shares the burden fairly. Now, when Senator McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts, that's not sharing a burden. To come up with that number, the Obama campaign cites an average CEO salary of $12.8-million and a tax savings of 5.5 percent for the top earners during the year 2012 under a McCain administration. That comes to about $705,000. The math is accurate, but the numbers require a small amount of explanation. The $12.8-million comes from aForbesmagazine study of the average CEO compensation in 2007 for the 500 largest companies. Technically speaking, this would not be the Fortune 500, a listing compiled byFortunemagazine. An extremely minor point, but we note it to giveForbesits due for compiling the study. The 5.5 percent tax savings comes from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which estimated tax impact for income brackets under the McCain plan. They created an analysis that draws on the candidates' campaign stump speeches, and found that according to those proposals, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would get a 5.5 percent decrease in their tax rates in 2012 under McCain's plan. That comes to $700,000. But the center also did an analysis based on information from the candidates' economic advisers, and those policies are slightly more conservative than what the candidates say in their stump speeches. For example, the candidates will talk about a proposal as if it will begin immediately, when the advisers say it will actually be phased in. Using the more conservative analysis, CEOs would receive a tax rate decrease of 2.1 percent, or about $270,000. That's still a big number, but not quite as big as $700,000. It's not surprising that candidates select the numbers most advantageous to their argument, but it's worth noting that there is a different way to look at this calculation that is also valid. Still, Obama is using credible numbers from independent sources to make his point. It does seem that high earners do better under John McCain's plan. We rate his statement Mostly True.
On 27 June 2015, a Facebook post purportedly made by actress Jennifer Aniston comparing gay rights activists to soldiers caused a stir on social media: post  Within a few days, Aniston's supposed Facebook post had been shared more than 200,000 times, with many users who encountered it vowing to boycott the actress' movies over her alleged viewpoint.  The above-displayed post, however, was not made by Jennifer Aniston. The "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page is not affiliated in any way with Jennifer Aniston the actress. Similar to other "like farming" scams, this "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page employs sexy photos of the actress, inspirational quotes, and other shareable content in order to increase user engagement. The site's purpose, however, has nothing to do with presenting visitors first-hand information about the actress.  (Indeed, most of the links provided on this Facebook simply point to videos uploaded to YouTube by user Sam00962.) like farming In fact, the substance of the post attributed to Aniston came from "DV Dan," the admin of the Dysfunctional Veterans web site, who wrote of it: Dysfunctional Veterans   With the major publicity of the Iwo Jima/gay pride flag comparison photo going viral, it is a disappointment to me that, what appeared to be Jennifer Anistons account is receiving all the attention from a powerful statement stolen from my original post. It is why, when the post was stolen by the owner of this Jennifer Aniston account, I made the comment that I did not appreciate the post being taken from my page  DV Dan  without any credit. As the statement was made by myself, an actual U.S. Marine Veteran, it would have been nice to direct that attention to a much higher cause than gossip. Such as the fight we continue to face daily in the Veteran community. Our goal with Dysfunctional Veterans, DV Farm, DV Radio, and DV TV is to bring awareness to the estimated 23 a day. Suicide prevention and veteran support is something that actually needs the national attention behind it, not the color of a celebrity dress. As I made the post I did based on how I felt the depiction of the pride flag being raised in that manner disrespected the Marines and Navy Corpsman that fought, bled, and gave the ultimate sacrifice during WWII. The original post had been pulled due to constant reporting of it, and I was getting messages from veterans who felt offended by the depiction. They were offended due to not reading my words condemning the picture, they just saw the image and, like myself, knew it was wrong. I will state again that I have nothing against the LGBT community, however as it is their right to publicly call out what they find offensive to their cause. It is my same right to express what I feel is offensive to the veteran community. As it is also their right to portray Art in any fashion, there should have been more respect and consideration given toward the Men and Women that protect those constitutional rights. You may not agree with my views on this issue, however, one should not be hypocritical in the ways others express their views. Hate can be a two way street, not one with a one way sign. I hope the real Jennifer Aniston will see this message and contact me as she is gaining a lot of support for my statement. It would be a nice gesture to show her what we do within the DV community to bring both humor and seriousness into Veteran lives through the Dysfunctional Veterans Facebook Page.  Along with that, it would be great to show her how we work with Battle In Distress to combat the 23-a-day and reduce that number down to 0. Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had  in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans  signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers.    As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall.  The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers.  It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing.  "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries.  place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant  but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively.  Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy  the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA.  letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living.  As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss  not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter.  figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors.  page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate."
 Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump."
 Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End."
 Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report."
U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross."
NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)"
 U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective."
 ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme. Hillary Clinton is attacking DonaldTrumps tax plan, saying it actually benefits the hedge fund managers Trump had promised to cut down to size. Now, before releasing his plan, Trump said, Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. And he added, Theyll pay more,  Clinton said. Then his plan came out. And it actually makes the current loophole even worse. It gives hedge-fund managers a special tax rate thats lower than what many middle-class families pay, Clinton continuedin the June 21, 2016, speech. And I did have to look twice because I didnt believe it. Under Donald Trumps plan, these Wall Street millionaires will pay a lower tax rate than many working people. Trumps plan does roll back one high-profile advantage for hedge fund partners. Is Clinton right to say they still come out ahead? Trump took an aggressive position on tax rates for hedge fund managers during his fight for the Republican nomination. In an interview with CBS in August, Trumpcalledthem paper pushers who did not build this country. In a Republicandebatein September, Trump said his tax plan would make them pay more. The hedge fund guys wont like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but theyll pay more, Trump said. After the Republican debate, Trump released the outline of histax plan. Trumps plan eliminates the so-called carried interest tax loophole, which allows general partners in private investment firms (including most hedge fund managers) to treat some of their income as income from investments, or capital gains, subject to a top tax rate of 23.8 percent, instead of the much higher tax rate for ordinary income (43.4 percent). Under Trumps plan, income from carried interest would no longer be treated as capital gains. Tax rates for ordinary income tops out at 25 percent under Trumps plan. This looks like a hike in line with Trumps promises. Except. Along with private equity and venture capital funds, many hedge funds are structured as partnerships. Under Trumps plan, income through a business partnership is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, significantly less than the 23.8 percent they previously paid, according to ananalysisof Trumps tax plan from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Eliminating the carried interest loophole actually helps these hedge fund managers under Trumps plan. If carried interest was still treated as capital gains, it could be taxed at the top rate for capital gains in the plan (20 percent), higher than the fixed 15 percent tax for partnership income. Trumps plan presents the discounted rate for partnership income as a way to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. It also helps large businesses and wealthy financiers who structure their businesses as partnerships, including the hedge funds managers he attacked in his campaign. Clinton also said that rates for hedge fund managers would be lower than for middle-class families under Trumps plan. Defining the middle class can be tricky, but in thePew Research Centers rangeof $42,000 to $125,000 for a household of three in 2014, a substantial number of middle-class households would make enough to qualify for a marginal tax rate of more than 15 percent if Trumps plan were enacted. Not all of these people would pay more than 15 percent overall, according to Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center, and it would be difficult to say how many middle-income people would pay more than hedge fund managers once the many different variables involved played out. But some would, Williams wrote in an email. In May,Politicoreportedthat the Trump campaign had engaged two economists to craft a new tax plan. The Trump campaign has not confirmed whether they plan to re-write their tax plan, and did not respond toPoliticosrequest for comment. The tax plan announced in September remains on Trump's website, and is the basis of this article. The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for comment on this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trumps proposed tax rate for hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse. She has a point. By setting a lower tax rate for income from business partnerships, Trumps tax plan would benefit many hedge fund managers. Though the plan would cut tax rates for middle-class families as well, the cuts that would apply to most hedge fund managers are steeper and their resulting tax rate is lower. Trump promised that his tax plan would roll back advantages for hedge fund managers. Instead, in most cases, it would improve their position. We rate the statement True. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us A photograph of Barack Obama carrying (and presumably reading) the best-selling book, The Post-American World, is a real one, snapped by Doug Mills of the New York Times in Bozeman, Montana, in May 2008: What does Obama read?Hussein Obama with a book in his hands. He's reading "The Post-American World"  it's a Muslim's view of a defeated America!  However, the characterization of the pictured book as "a Muslim's view of a defeated America" is erroneous: The book does not posit a "defeated America," nor does it express a Muslim point of view: The The Post-American World was written by Fareed Zakaria, an Indian-born political journalist (commonly described as a "political moderate") who specializes in world affairs and has written for (and edited) U.S. national news publications, hosted U.S. television news programs, and authored several books on international issues. A Village Voice profile described Zakaria (a naturalized citizen of the United States) thusly: Fareed Zakaria written hosted authored Although he was a rising star in the serious foreign-policy world of the '90s (The Nation once described him as a "junior Kissinger"), it was his post-9/11 Newsweek cover story "Why They Hate Us" that put him on the mainstream map as someone who could make sense of the now threatening outside world. And he has continued to win himself a substantial following with his thoughtful critiques of the Bush administration's activities in Iraq. He is America's go-to man for global chaos, providing some urgently needed outside perspective on our never ending war on terror.His own upbringing was open-minded and secular; he sang Christian hymns at school and celebrated Hindu as well as his own Muslim holidays. "I do know a lot about the world of Islam in an instinctive way that you can't get through book learning," he says thoughtfully, but admits he finds the role of token Muslim explainer in the American media slightly uncomfortable. "I occasionally find myself reluctant to be pulled into a world that's not mine, in the sense that I'm not a religious guy." The following review (from Publishers Weekly) summarizes the thesis of The Post-American World  When a book proclaims that it is not about the decline of America but the rise of everyone else, readers might expect another diatribe about our dismal post-9/11 world. They are in for a pleasant surprise as Newsweek editor and popular pundit Zakaria (The Future of Freedom) delivers a stimulating, largely optimistic forecast of where the 21st century is heading. We are living in a peaceful era, he maintains; world violence peaked around 1990 and has plummeted to a record low. Burgeoning prosperity has spread to the developing world, raising standards of living in Brazil, India, China andIndonesia. Twenty years ago China discarded Soviet economics but not its politics, leading to a wildly effective, top-down, scorched-earth boom. Its political antithesis, India, also prospers while remaining a chaotic, inefficient democracy, as Indian elected officials are (generally) loathe to use the brutally efficient tactics that are the staple of Chinese governance. Paradoxically, India's greatest asset is its relative stability in the region; its officials take an unruly population for granted, while dissent produces paranoia in Chinese leaders. Zakaria predicts that despite its record of recent blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong, buoyed by a stellar educational system and the influx of young immigrants, who give the U.S. a more youthful demographic than Europe and much of Asia whose workers support an increasing population of unproductive elderly. A lucid, thought-provoking appraisal of world affairs, this book will engage readers on both sides of the political spectrum. As for what the chief executive reads in his spare time, according to deputy press secretary Bill Burton, President Obama brought the following books with him to his August 2009 vacation at Martha's Vineyard: In 2015, President Obama's summer reading list, as announced by the White House, included the following books: arner, Dwight.  "What Obama Is Reading."
  The New York Times.  21 May 2008. Joffe, Josef.  "The New New World."
  The New York Times.  11 May 2008. Press, Joy.  "The Interpreter."
  Village Voice.  9 August 2005. Wolf, Richard.  "President's Reading List a Hefty One."
  USA Today.  24 August 2009. Claim:  Wal-Mart employees must pony up to buy flags, flagpoles, and floodlights, or else their stores have to do without American flag displays. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] I have run across a situation that I think should be changed; it upset me and so I decided to put it out on the Internet. If you decide to forward this note to your friends, that's fine-if not, that's okay, too. Maybe I'm wrong in feeling this way, but this is what I found on Friday, October 12, 2001. I ran to our local Wal-Mart store before I went to work. While I was being checked out at the counter, I realized that I had not noticed an American Flag flying outside and asked the clerk why there wasn't one. I was told that the policy is that Wal-Mart does not provide flags to their stores. Rather, each store must provide their own.  At this store, the employees would have to take up a collection among themselves to make the purchase of the flag, pole & flood light. I was sure there was a misunderstanding in that policy somewhere, but I needed to get to a meeting, so I didn't pursue the problem. As I drove to my meeting I became more and more upset to think that the Company that always "seems" to encourage patriotism and "Buy American" won't even, in these days of horror and heroism and war on terrorism, provide their stores with flags to show their support!!  When I got to my meeting I told one of my friends what I had found that morning and they agreed that I must be mistaken. Wal-Mart would not have a policy that made individual stores/employees purchase their own flag, "for heavens sake!" My friend suggested I just call Wal-Mart's corporate offices and there I would discover the truth to this misunderstanding. So, I did. I called the Corporate office and spoke to their representative. By the way, their number is 1-800-Wal-Mart. Do you know what I was told? I wasn't misunderstanding their policy!  Each store must provide their own flag  if the store can't fit the expense into their budget, then the employees have to take up a collection. Now, I find this a disgrace. I have always noticed the large flags flying at every Perkins Pancake House  they always fly the flag, even when there isn't a National Emergency. But here's Wal-Mart, the company who has become wealthy beyond measure in this great Country of ours; who claims to be "one big happy family," who recommends we "Buy American," but who cannot/will not provide a flag pole/flag and light to each of their stores wherever they are.  Would this be expensive? Oh, somewhat, I agree, but I hear that Wal-Mart is planning to build many new stores in the near future and that, possibly, they will make every existing store into a "super-store." Now, I realize that expanding like that will bring in more money and make them wealthier still, where providing flags to all their stores would only COST money and not add money to their fortune. Maybe, just maybe, not providing flags to their stores and not flying the flag in support of our Country will start costing them more money-maybe I will start looking more closely for the flag before I shop and begin supporting the smaller stores who don't worry so much about the "bottom line," but rather are happy to spend some money to show they really love America. Do you think I am really way off base on this, or do you feel the same. Thanks for taking the time to think about this with me-if you feel the same, forward this on to your address list-if not, that's what your "Delete" is for. Origins:  This one reminds me of an episode of TV's M*A*S*H, in which Hawkeye and Trapper John attempt to acquire an incubator so that they can save time (and lives) by growing bacterial cultures right at the M*A*S*H hospital instead of having to send them out to labs.  As they   attempt to cut their way through layers of military red tape they find that even though the Army agrees an incubator is a perfectly sensible piece of equipment for a M*A*S*H unit to possess, they can't have one because an incubator is not on the list of recommended supplies for a M*A*S*H unit, leaving them to resort to some less "official" means of obtaining their goal.  (They finally get their incubator when Radar, the company clerk, surreptitiously swaps their commanding officer's barbeque for one.) Most of us who have had to deal with the management of business budgets know that you often have to make do with whatever amount of money you're allotted, even if it's woefully inadequate for the job expected of you.  You soon become an expert in finding all sorts of ways to pay Paul by robbing Peter: charging necessary expenses to different budgets (preferably someone else's), making deals, getting creative with expense reports, and doing whatever it takes to scrounge up the funds you need.   If you desperately need to purchase a new photocopier because the old one is broken beyond repair, but you've already used up the entire year's office equipment budget, you claim it as a personnel expense and maintain with a straight face that yes, you did indeed hire a contractor by the name of Mr. Xerox. So, you're the manager of a Wal-Mart store, and you need an American flag to display outside the store.  Wal-Mart corporate may have assigned money (on paper) to your facilities budget for a flag (and Wal-Mart corporate assures us they do indeed  budget each store for such an expense), but maybe you already used up all the start-up funds allotted to you getting the store ready for its grand opening before you got around to purchasing a flag and pole.  Or maybe you had a flag, but it got ruined; you need a new one, but you're already over budget. What do you do?  Go without a flag? Purchase one, submit the expense, and hope you don't draw corporate censure for running over budget?  Perhaps you take the path of least resistance and just go and pay for a new flag out of your own pocket (possibly even asking some of your employees to chip in).   Wal-Mart itself stated on its web site that: web site Wal-Mart shares the enthusiasm of Americans everywhere for displaying the American flag. In fact, we display the flag at all Wal-Mart stores and Supercenters. While some of our stores are equipped to fly the flag outside on flagpoles, others display the flag inside, usually in the front of our stores. In every instance, the flag has been purchased by Wal-Mart out of the local store's operating budget. Wal-Mart is proud of our American heritage and the things our associates and customers do every day to support this great country. So, if this piece isn't a complete work of fiction, it sounds like the writer grossly misunderstood what she was told.  Yes, Wal-Mart stores get money for flags, but managers often have to perform juggling acts with their budgets, and funds don't always end up being used for their specifically allocated purposes.  If you're a store manager and your store needs six things (including a flag), but the cost of those six things (which all come out of the same budget) exceeds the monies available to you, you have to decide which one(s) you're going to do without.  You don't have to take up a collection amongst your employees to buy a flag, but you might decide it's better to do that than to skip on lights for the exterior sign or painting lines in the parking lot.  Certainly your workers are more likely (out of pride) to chip in for an American flag than they are for, say, new mops and brooms.  It's not hard to see how someone might misinterpret  an explanation of the sometimes difficult trade-offs managers have to make to mean "They have to get their employees to pay for this stuff or do without!"  Last updated:  2 December 2007 As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. On Nov. 21, 2019, a rumor started to circulate on social media that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) had removed Fox News from "Armed Forces Radio" over the network's coverage of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's testimony during the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump: circulate   No, Fox News has not been removed from "Armed Forces Radio," a misnomer of the American Forces Network Radio (AFN). Navy Capt. Bill Speaks, a Pentagon spokesperson, confirmed to the Associated Press that this rumor was false: Associated Press "We have not cancelled Fox News from American Forces Network programming, either on our radio or TV services." A spokesperson for American Forces Network Radio told us via email: American Forces Network (AFN) Radio has and continues to air FOX radio newscasts and features on many of our radio services. AFN Radio rotates top of the hour radio newscasts between FOX, Associated Press, ABC, CBS and Westwood One radio. While Fox News was not removed from America Forces Network Radio, the network truly was criticized for how it covered Vindman's testimony. Vindman's lawyer sent a letter to Fox News asking it to retract an Oct. 28 segment that aired on Laura Ingraham's prime-time show, "The Ingraham Angle." On the show, guest John Yoo, a former deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, appeared to suggest that Vindman was guilty of espionage. letter Newsweek reported: reported A law firm representing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman sent Fox News a warning letter on Wednesday asking for the retraction and correction of a segment on Laura Ingraham's show which suggested the colonel might be guilty of espionage. "We are compelled to write because of a deeply flawed and erroneous Fox News segment that first aired on October 28, 2019, the gist of which has since been republished countless times, including by the President of the United States to his 66.9 million Twitter followers." The segment on The Ingraham Angle featured a panel with lawyer John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General and current U.C. Berkeley law professor, and legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz. In an exchange with Yoo, Ingraham remarked on something she read about about the colonel, the New York Times reports. "Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine, while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually, they spoke in English," said Ingraham. "Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?" "I find that astounding and, you know, some people might call that espionage," responded Yoo. Fox News released a statement saying that "Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments": As a guest on FOX News, John Yoo was responsible for his own sentiments and he has subsequently done interviews to clarify what he meant.  Yoo also wrote an op-ed for USA Today on Nov. 1, 2019, in which he claimed that he was talking about Ukraine, not Vindman specifically, and that he has "no reason to question Vindmans patriotism or loyalty to the United States." USA Today Vindman's lawyers also addressed Yoo's Op-Ed in their complaint, writing: writing "On November 1, 2019, Mr. Yoo published an op-ed in USA Today regarding his appearance on Fox News several days earlier. In the Yoo op-ed, Mr. Yoo stated, contrary to fact, that "I didn't call Alexander Vindman a spy." But of course, he did - Mr. Yoo's statement on Fox News expressly accused LTC Vindman of "espionage" and was universally understood to have done so. it is why Mr. Yoo wrote an op-ed seeking to rewrite recorded fact; it is why he begins his op-ed, "I really stepped in it this week." What Mr. Yoo "stepped in" was a lie. Darcy, Oliver.  "Lawyer for Impeachment Witness Lt. Col Vindman Demands Fox News Retract 'False and Defamatory' Segment."
  CNN.  21 November 2019. Associated Press.  "Fox News Was Not Removed From Armed Forces Radio Over Vindman Testimony."
   21 November 2019. Yoo, John.  "John Yoo: No, I Didn't Call Alexander Vindman a Spy. But Ukraine Did Engage in Espionage."
  USA Today.  1 November 2019. FACT CHECK: Is the city of Seattle forcing local businesses to comply with Sharia law?  Claim: The mayor of Seattle has "launched" a new "rule" forcing businesses to comply with Sharia law.   false WHAT'S   Seattle is exploring options to make home loans accessible to Muslims who are unable to participate in standard mortgage programs due to religious proscriptions.     WHAT'S   Seattle businesses are being forced to comply with tenets of sharia law. Examples: Seattle Mayor Planning to Force Banks to Give Sharia Compliant Homes Loans to Local Muslims https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB https://t.co/QSKZ1XqzMB  Warner Todd Huston (@warnerthuston) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Seattle's Liberal Mayor Caves To Muslims Following Sharia Law - BuzzPo https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r https://t.co/A3m76OJz7r  EMERSON E.RODRIGUES (@EMERSON_NALITA) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Mayor, no Sharia law applies in America!! Stop this unconstitutional junk. https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx https://t.co/fx7VENmVQx  Bunch (@bunch1243) July 17, 2015 July 17, 2015   Origins:On 17 July 2015, the unreliable web site Conservative Tribune published an article titled "ALERT: Seattle Mayor Launches Rules to Force Local Businesses to Comply With SHARIAH LAW" claiming that: article In one major American city, new rules may force banks to comply with Shariah law on lending and interest. One of the major tenets of Shariah law is that Muslims cannot pay interest on loans. In countries with large Muslim populations, theres something known as Islamic banking, which manages to get around this through various machinations. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to see that change, and hes apparently willing to force banks into Shariah-compliant lending if necessary. This means that, if it passes, Seattle will be the first city in America to mandate that its banks allow access to Shariah-compliant financing.  That claim was sourced to the TeaParty.org site's article "Seattle Mayor Offers Plan for Sharia-Compliant Housing Rules," which offered the following visual: article That article was a word-for-word copy of a Puget Sound Business Journal article about a potential plan by the mayor of Seattle to help Muslims obtain home loans to buy houses.  Quoting both Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Seattle-area Chapter Executive Director Arsalan Bukhari, the article explained that the city was examining housing options available to home-buying Muslims who are prohibited from participating in the traditional American housing market due to religious restrictions that prohibit them from obtaining standard home loans (despite their having desirable credit profiles): article   For some Muslims, it can be hard to buy a house, and Mayor Ed Murray plans to do something about it. Murray's housing committee released its recommendations for ways the city can increase housing in the city. Most ideas were what you'd expect, including increasing the city's housing levy and implementing new rules and regulations to foster development of market-rate and lower-income housing. One suggestion would help followers of Sharia law buy houses. That's virtually impossible now because Sharia law prohibits payment of interest on loans. The 28-member committee recommended the city convene lenders and community leaders to explore options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products. More and more lenders are offering Sharia-compliant financing. The sector has grown to more than $1.6 trillion in assets worldwide over the past three decades, and analysts see potential for continued growth as the number of Muslims in the United States and Europe grows. Based on what he called "rough anecdotal evidence," Bukhari estimated a couple hundred people aren't borrowing money for houses due to their religion. He said this includes even high-wage earners, such as the more than 1,000 Muslims who work for Microsoft and more than 500 Amazon.com  employees. They could easily qualify for home loans but opt not to apply "simply because they don't want to pay interest," Bukhari said. "We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs," Murray said. The overall topic of Seattle-area Muslims and banking products was also addressed in another Puget Sound Business Journal article about retirement plans. According to that piece, CEO Thom Poulson of Falah Capital is working to facilitate opportunities for Muslim tech workers to access products such as 401(k)s and mortgages previously inaccessible to them due to religious barriers: article   It's estimated that more than 1,000 Muslims in the Puget Sound region work for Microsoft, and for those who closely follow their faith, it can be difficult to participate in the company's retirement plan. That's because Sharia law forbids them from investing in funds with holdings in companies that peddle pornography, alcohol and other vices. It's almost impossible for retirement funds to guarantee all their investments are free from those kinds of businesses. This has become an issue for workers at other tech companies, too. "You have people who aren't getting the full benefits of their employer's offering," said Thom Polson, CEO of a new Seattle company, Falah Capital LLC, which works with Muslims to ensure they're investing while staying true to their beliefs. In partnership with Seattle-based Russell Investments and IdealRatings of San Francisco, Falah set up its first Islamic exchange traded fund (ETF) last fall. Listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "FIA," the Russell-IdealRatings Islamic US Large Cap Index, the ETF is the first of its kind on the exchange. Polson said a large percentage of the Muslims who work at tech firms are not using their 401(k) plans because they're not Sharia-compliant. "All of our advisory business is about addressing these needs," Polson said, adding his company is working with clients from the Muslim Association of the Puget Sound. The association has a large community center with a mosque in Redmond near Microsoft's headquarters. Next up for Fallah is a possible foray into home mortgages so clients can buy houses without taking out interest-bearing loans, which is against Sharia law. As part Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's landmark housing initiative, the city plans to work with lenders to help observant Muslims buy homes.   What these articles address are efforts to help businesses  service a significant portion of the local Seattle-area working population who are unable to utilize those business' current offerings  due to religious limitations, not to force businesses to comply with tenets of sharia law.  Mayor Murray's 13 July 2015 "Action Plan to Address Seattles Affordability Crisis" merely included a policy point of "explor[ing] the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products," not mandating that any local businesses offer such products: Action Plan  Support the Community in Finding Housing Tools for Sharia-Compliant Lending: For our low- and moderate-income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law  which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money  there are limited options for financing a home. Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions. The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle.   Last updated: 17 July 2015 Originally published:  17 July 2015 Republicans who control the state Legislature are touting their just-completed work on the 2011-2013 state budget.State Sen. Alberta Darling, a co-chairwoman of the legislatures Joint Finance Committee, has been especially vocal about the virtues of the $66 billion spending plan. As one of nine senators facing recall elections over their actions on the separate collective bargaining bill, shes also been the target of criticism for her votes.I think this budget really does put us in the right direction -- phenomenally, Darling said in a June 20, 2011, meeting with Journal Sentinel editors and reporters. Its phenomenal whats been accomplished in terms of debt and deficit reform and restructuring.Darling added: Were in the black for the first time in decades.To be clear, the budget has to be in the black every year when it is passed. The state constitution says it must be balanced. Darling was talking about the structural deficit, which is a relatively new way of measuring the states future fiscal health.The structural deficit measures the future imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law. So you can have a balanced budget, but one built upon assumptions that are projected to result in a deficit later on.Weve been hearing about that problem for years.Darling, Walker and others argue their predecessors made the state budgets balance by using one-time maneuvers -- such including the states share of federal tobacco settlement money, and diversions of funds for transportation and medical malpractice insurance.All these approaches only delayed the day of fiscal reckoning to make the budget balance, leading to the structural deficit, said Walker, in themessageaccompanying his budget introduction.So, is Darling right?Did Walker and the Legislature resolve -- for the first time in decades -- the underlying problems, as well as balance spending for the two-year period that begins July 1?The size of the structural deficit is determined by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, considered by both parties to be a neutral scorekeeper on budget matters. The agency started doing the projections with the 1997-99 budget.The agency takes a look at the budget as proposed, amended and passed, said agency director Robert Lang. He begins his estimates with a baseline -- the second year of the current budget, which is adjusted based on previously approved law changes or legal commitments. The new budget is then factored in.It takes out speculation, Lang said of the structural deficit estimates. It puts out a marker based on current revenues and projections.Agency reports show for the past 14 years show the highest structural deficit was $2.8 billion for the 2003-05 budget, and the lowest was $1.49 billion for the 2007-09 budget.Areportissued June 13, 2011, said the 2011-13 budget as approved by the Joint Finance Committee would result in a $306 million surplus. The Legislature changed very little of the committees work. Langs office will evaluate the budget again now that Walkers vetoes are completed and the budget signed.Here was Langs assessment based on the earlier action: Weve had structural deficits since I started doing this, and now theres a structural surplus.So Darlings right on that account: the budget has a structural surplus and not a deficit.The budget does include the changes in pension and insurance payments state workers -- a law enacted before the budget was considered that did not take effect until after it passed -- that helped reduce the budget gap. Those changes are viewed as permanent, not one-time fixes, Lang said.Langs office has only 14 years of records covering a total of nine budgets, including the most recent one. No budget in this time frame showed a surplus, until the current one.In making her statement, Darling said the structural deficit was fixed for the first time in decades. When we talked to her, she said she misspoke when she said decades.As aide Bob Delaporte said: The point was that its in the black for the first time in a long time.Fair enough.Since the structural deficit was not measured before 1997-99, we cant say just when the structural deficits began.Whats the bottom line?In talking about the structural deficit, Darling claimed lawmakers delivered a budget in the black for the first time in decades. The budget lawmakers sent to Walker is projected to have a $306 million surplus. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau report on structural deficits says theres not been a budget with a structural surplus dating back to when it started recording such things 14 years ago. Darling may have overstated how far back the problem goes, but no one knows for certain and that does not change the underlying point of her statement.We rate her statement Mostly True.