This budget also reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century.
When Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced he approved a$74.1 billion budget, he portrayed it as having plenty of goodies for everyone, from school teacher raises to hot meals for the elderly. But he also claimed that the budget was lean. This budget also reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century, Scott wrote in his May 20thveto and budget message. The Florida Families First budget is one of our state's smallest budgets this century, when adjusted for population growth and inflation. PolitiFact Florida has separately tracked Scott's 2010 campaign progress to reduce the state workforce by 5 percent -- we rated thatPromise Keptearlier this year. Here, we wanted to fact-check Scott's claim that the recently approved budget reflects the smallest state workforce in relation to population since 2000. Scott's data There are a few valid ways to measure the number of state workers. TheU.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticscompiles data on actual state workers while the state Department of Management Servicesannual workforce reportsshow both established positions (including vacant ones) and actual employees (some folks refer to that as heartbeats'.) But here, Scott's office of policy and budget created their ownchartby pulling together budget data. We did not review the full backup that shows all the details that went into the chart but we interviewed spokespersons in Scott's office who explained their methodology to PolitiFact. Here is how they arrived at their figures: They started with the state's general appropriations budget each year, which does not include the state university workers. Then they made some adjustments to provide apples to apples comparisons: Scott subtracted for vetoes -- his own and by recent past governors -- and by subtracting county health workers, who were not included in state budgets before 2009-10. Scott's office also added in positions that were included in separate bills not reflected in the general budget bill. That's how Scott's office arrived at a figure of adjusted positions. Then Scott's office examined population data from the state's Office of Economic and Democratic Research. That data includes some projections so it sometimes has slightly different figures from the Census Bureau. Let's look at Scott's figures:  Year Population (in 1000s) Adjusted positions Positions per 1,000 residents 1999-2000 15,881.7 126,557 8 2000-01 16,228 124,843 7.7 2001-02 16,551.2 120,091 7.3 2002-03 16,892 117,869 7.0 2003-04 17,273.8 116,797 6.8 2004-05 17,677.3 116,317 6.6 2005-06 18,062.2 116,463 6.4 2006-07 18,378.2 113,634 6.2 2007-08 18,578.9 114,270 6.2 2008-09 18,671.4 112,867 6.0 2009-10 18,770.5 114,852 6.1 2010-11 18,879.1 113,202 6.0 2011-12 19,028.6 108,844 5.7 2012-13 19,218 105,023 5.5 2013-14 19,432 101,784 5.2 We spot-checked some of the math and the calculations were correct. The ratio declined before Scott, too Our task here is to fact-check whether Scott's claim about the declining state workers per capita was correct -- not whether or not that is the best policy or why the numbers declined. But we will briefly provide some background about the state workforce. First, we'll note that the ratio of Scott's adjusted positions compared to population has declined under not only Scott, but also his predecessors Charlie Crist (Republican turned independent while in office, and now a Democrat) and Jeb Bush (Republican). PolitiFact Florida fact-checked a claim by Alex Sink, Scott's Democratic opponent in 2010, who said at the time that Compared to other states, Florida ranks last in the ratio of employees to residents: 118 per 10,000 compared to the national average of 216 employees per 10,000 residents. And Florida is dead last in the nation in state employee payroll expenditures per resident: $38 compared to the national average of $69 per resident. We rated Sink's claimTrue. (The National Conference of State Legislatures did not have an updated ranking to reflect Scott's tenure.) Since Scott took office, there have been about 60,000 staffers to leave because they quit, retired or for other reasons, and the state laid off 2,197 workers. (Those figures don't include state universities but do include temporary state workers who briefly work for the state.) One area Scott has targeted in the budget to save money is the state prisons. In January, his administration announced that it would outsource health care for more than 15,000 inmates including at prisons in Miami-Dade County. That has affected about 400 workers but about 97 percent were hired by the company, according to the state Department of Corrections. We sent Scott's claim to Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody's who studies Florida. (He used BLS data to examine Scott's claim.) He's right if you look at it in terms of state government workers per capita, but this is partially because of all the retirees that have flooded into the state. If you look at the state government share of total employment, it is low, but not at an all time low. .... This number has been steadily declining since the mid 1990s, and Scott has continued it on the downward trend, Lafakis told PolitiFact Florida in an email. We also interviewed two professors of public administration at Florida International University -- chair Howard A. Frank and assistant professor Hai (David) Guo. Both said that Scott's claim may not tell the full story about the state's workforce. Frank raised a question about how to factor in privatization efforts. Ideology aside, those employees are less burdensome in terms of direct outlays, but I suspect at least some are quasi-governmental if they are employed by entities that derive a significant part of their revenue from the state-local sector, he wrote. Guo said that additional indicators of government size include the budget per capita and its growth and whether the state has shifted any responsibilities to local governments. The employee number of state government alone may not tell the whole story, Guo wrote in an email. Our ruling Scott said that the 2013-14 budget reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century. To get there, Scott's office examined budgeted positions and made certain adjustments including subtracting for vetoes. They also projected the state's population for 2013-14. We think their assessment is largely fair, with some small caveats. First, there are other ways to measure both the state workforce -- either by using federal labor statistics, or other state data. And second, the size of the state workforce per capita has been declining for years. Minor points, though. We rate this claim Mostly True.
Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. On 16 March 2017, the web site Newslo published an article positing that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price had said that it would be better for the federal budget if cancer patients died quickly:   "At the risk of sounding insensitive, we've pretty much got two choices here: we either repeal Obamacare, or we take out more loans from countries like China. And nobody wants to be in debt to the Chinese. At the end of the day, it's better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it's a lousy way to live anyway, and I'm sorry to say it out loud, but it's the truth," Price concluded. This quote was not a genuine statement issued by Secretary Price.  It originated with Newslo, a "hybrid" web site that publishes articles containing a mixture of fact and fiction: hybrid JUST ENOUGH NEWS ... Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find what is fact and what is satire. The web site's hybrid articles are accompanied by two buttons labeled "show facts" and "hide facts" that allow readers to see which parts of an article are factual and which parts are fictional. In this case, pressing the "show facts" button highlighted the introductory paragraph of the article, indicating that the remainder of the article, the portion containing the fake Price quote, was fictional:   Newslo is a rather prolific purveyor of fake news, having previously penned articles containing fake quotes from Steve Bannon, KellyAnne Conway, and Mike Pence. Steve Bannon KellyAnne Conway Mike Pence Newslo.  "Tom Price: 'Its Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly.'"
  16 March 2017. Before announcing his bid for California governor in November 2016,Antonio Villaraigosasaid he went up and down this state on a listening tour. The former mayor of Los Angeles said he witnessed markers of the states economic vitality and also its extreme poverty. What I saw was two Californias, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California. Villaraigosa then made a statement that included two bold claims PolitiFact California has examined individually in the past. What people dont realize about California is that although we have the sixth largest economy in world, we have one of the highest poverty rates in the nation, Villaraigosa said at the event. Villaraigosa makes his claim at about the 6:45 minute mark in this video by the Public Policy Institute of California. Well revisit our analysis on those claims below. First, heres some background on Villaraigosa and the 2018 California governors race. Governors race Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others already announced include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include State AssemblymanTravis Allenof Orange County; John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a Hall of Fame professional football player. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. As part of ourTracking The Truthseries, PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in the 2018 governors race. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. Weve already checked one of Villaraigosas statements at the June 6, 2017 forum. He made theFalse claimthat California is currently home to one-quarter of the nations 300 poorest cities. He mischaracterized the results of astudy, which relied on data from 2013, when many of the states cities had not yet recovered from the Great Recession. Today, many of those same cities have experienced strong economic improvement. Sixth largest economy in the world? Turning to Villaraigosas bold claim involving the economy and poverty, well start by checking the first part: that California has the sixth largest economy in the world. This is a talking point California leaders love to make on national and international stages. We fact-checked this hypothetical comparison of the states economy against that of nations in July 2016 when State Senate LeaderKevin de Lenmade the same assertion at the Democratic National Convention. We rated itMostly Truebased on Californias 2.4 trillion GDP in 2015, which ranked sixth behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom and slightly above France and Brazil. The rankings came from the Brown Administration, which analyzed figures from the International Monetary Funds World Economic Outlook Database. The claim missed a completely True rating because it ignored Californias sky high cost of living and Silicon Valleys outsized role in the states economic growth, which speaks to Villaraigosas description of unequal economies across the state. In a separate set of rankings, the California Legislative Analysts Office, adjusting for the states high cost of living, reported in 2016 that the states GDP ranking dropped to 11th in the world. That placed it just below France and just above Mexico. The Brown Administration, not including cost of living, recently updated theGDP rankings for 2016. Californias now $2.60 trillion GDP remained in the sixth spot, though it was just a tick behind the United Kingdoms $2.62 trillion economy. Villaraigosas statement is accurate, but needs the same clarification about the states high cost of living. One of the highest poverty rates? The second part of Villaraigosas claim is that California has one of the highest poverty rates. We interpreted this to mean compared with other states in the nation. We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living. At 20.6 percent, Californias poverty rate in 2015 was well above the national average of 15.1 percent, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report that factors in cost-of-living. Floridas 19 percent poverty rate ranked second. Unlike Mayes statement on poverty, however, Villaraigosas claim makes no mention of cost-of-living. Ignoring this factor, California would have the 17th highest poverty rate, not the first, according to the census bureau. Villaraigosas statement needs this key clarification. Our ruling Antonio Villaraigosa recently claimed California has the sixth largest economy in the world and one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. The facts show Villaraigosa was correct on both points. He omitted, however, the key point that Californias high cost-of-living drags down its economic output and accelerates its poverty. The candidate for governors statements would benefit from this additional information. We rate Villaraigosas claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Amid discussions of statehood for Washington, D.C., in late April 2021, a meme spread on social media positing that the Dakota territory was split into the states now known as North and South Dakota in the late 1800s for the purpose of giving the Republican Party more political power, namely more senators and electors. One example is a meme from U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.:   The meme read, "Congress split the Dakota territory in half in 1889 to admit two new states with 4 Republican senators. So spare us the fake outrage over DC statehood." The text was taken from a tweet posted by journalist Ari Berman on April 22. tweet The meme generally responds to congressional Republicans who have stated that allowing D.C., a heavily Democratic region, to become a state will shift the balance of political power in Congress. Noting the racial demographics of D.C. versus other states, some Democrats have accused Republicans of stonewalling D.C. statehood because of racism. stated racial demographics accused It also characterizes current Republican opposition to D.C. statehood as hypocritical, noting that the national Republican party has benefited historically from addition of new states with Republican populations. Writing for The Atlantic in 2019, Boston College historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote: The Atlantic The number of states in the union has been fixed at 50 for so long, few Americans realize that throughout most of our history, the addition of new states from time to time was a normal part of political life. New states were supposed to join the union when they reached a certain population, but in the late 19th century, population mattered a great deal less than partisanship. While McConnell is right to suspect that admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia now would shift the balance in Congress toward the Democrats, the Republican Party has historically taken far more effective advantage of the addition of new states. In 1889 and 1890, Congress added North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyomingthe largest admission of states since the original 13. This addition of 12 new senators and 18 new electors to the Electoral College was a deliberate strategy of late-19th-century Republicans to stay in power after their swing toward Big Business cost them a popular majority. The strategy paid dividends deep into the future; indeed, the admission of so many rural states back then helps to explain GOP control of the Senate today, 130 years later. Like most things viewed through the lens of history, the reasons North and South Dakota exist as two separate states are complicated by changing context. Business interests, local efforts, and national political wrangling all played a role, but without a doubt, adding North and South Dakota to the growing union of states had the effect of benefiting the national Republican party politically, and they didn't hide that motivation. But comparing the statehood process for North and South Dakota to current advocation for Washington, D.C. statehood is comparing apples to oranges, said Michael Card, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.  That period in American history was drastically different to the current circumstances in many ways  namely, at that time, a large number of states were in the process of being added into the Union. One of the major factors in deciding statehood was population counts of non-indigenous American settlers. That figure was set at 60,000 in 1787. set at 60,000 Another contextual difference was that the nature of the political parties have evolved over time, meaning the Republicans and Democrats of today are not representative of the parties with those names from the late 19th century in many ways. Many of the non-indigenous settlers in the southern part of what was then Dakota territory were Union veterans of the Civil War and their families, who were Republicans. Many likely moved far away from the battlefields in the American South in an effort to get away from traumatic memories, Card noted. Scandinavian and Canadian immigrants tended to settle in the north. As USA Today pointed out, "the Republican Party was much more concerned with protecting African Americans and their voting rights from its founding through the early 20th century. In the mid-20th century, both parties' stances on racial equity began to switch." That switch came after Democratic legislators passed voting and civil rights legislation i the 1960s. pointed out Another important point of context the population counts in North and South Dakota justified statehood and that Democrats, who were at that time were in control of national government and aware of the territory's Republican leanings, had slowed the statehood process, in hopes of gaining a political toehold in the region. slowed the statehood But they couldn't stall forever. According to historian Elwyn B. Robinson in the book "History of North Dakota," there were 190,983 inhabitants in North Dakota in 1890, while there were 348,600 in South Dakota. And in the end, it was Democrats in Congress and Democratic U.S. President Grover Cleveland who relented, signing legislation granting statehood to North and South Dakota, along with Montana and Washington. In "History of North Dakota," Robinson noted that local advocacy also came into play when it came to the creation of the two states. At the local level, there was an internal push for statehood from a small group of influential men who were unhappy with the outside control that came with Dakota being a territory, and who wanted political equality of status.  History of North Dakota Statehood was a quiet revolution, accomplished by less than two hundred men. The first leaders were Yankton politicians, but all came from southern Dakota and all were Republicans. With few exceptions, they were conservative, middle-class business and professional menbankers, lawyers, ministers, railroad employees, and newspaper editors. They were of the older American stock and came from New England, New York, or the states of the Old Northwest. They were Republicans because Dakota was a one-party regiona result of the long years of territorial status when the Republican party had control of the United States government. The idea of splitting the northern region off from the southern one started with this group, but not because of political power in Washington, D.C., Robinson wrote: "From the beginning the Yankton leaders, a small oligarchy with much influence, planned for the division of the territory at the forty-sixth parallel. Division seemed natural. The railroads ran east and west, so that southern and northern Dakota had little contact with each other." When Robinson described the decision to ultimately split the territory into two when admitting it into the Union though, he noted that it was pushed hard by the Republican Indiana senator who would become the 23rd U.S. president, Benjamin Harrison: Finally, the program of division, with southern Dakota becoming a state and northern Dakota a territory, was dropped in favor of a bill to admit two states. Senator Benjamin Harrison of Indiana pushed it hard and the large population of Dakota (in 1890, North Dakota alone had 190,983 inhabitants and South Dakota 348,600) made further denial seem unjust and irresponsible. In the presidential campaign of 1888 the Republican platform called for admission of two states. Ordway and the Dakota Democrats finally dropped their single-state bill. Both Republicans and Democrats voted for the Omnibus Bill of February 22, 1889, authorizing the framing of constitutions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington. When the bill finally passed the House of Representatives, some of the members threw books and papers into the air in celebration and there was a general handshaking of congratulation. A step toward equality of status had been taken. Updated rating to "Mixture" and added additional context. Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. Early on the morning of June 6, 2023, at around the time residents reported hearing explosions, the Nova Kakhovka Dam in the Kherson region of Ukraine failed, leading to catastrophic flooding in several downstream towns and cities. Ukrainian authorities have blamed Russia for the collapse. Russian authorities have denied involvement, blaming Kyiv. Nova Kakhovka Dam failed have blamed denied The city of Nova Kakhovka, directly below the dam, experienced extreme flooding shortly after its failure. As images of the town's administrative center under several feet of water went viral, claims soon emerged that a large portion of a local zoo's animal population had perished in the floodwaters. These reports concern "a recreation complex for children and adults" named Kazkova Dibrova  which roughly translates to Fairytale Dibrova  that contained, along with sculptures and other attractions, a small zoo. On the morning of the dam's failure, the Facebook page of that park reported the death of its animal population: Kazkova Dibrova Facebook page This morning, the recreation complex "Kazkova Dibrova" was completely flooded with water after the explosion of the Russian Kakhovskaya HPP. About 300 animals that our Novokakhov residents knew and loved died. Monkeys Anfisa and Charlik, pony Malysh, donkey Osya, raccoons Mishka, Lolya, Dinka, parrot Venya, crow Roma, marmots, Cameroonian goats, sheep, parrots, guinea pigs, ferrets and many other small pets of ours. Only a couple of swans and ducks survived. A small swan chick, born only 5 days ago, also died. Already at 6 in the morning, when Dibrova's workers arrived, everything was flooded with water. A video shared on Telegram appeared to show the park as workers arrived that morning. While Snopes can verify that these videos showedthe entrance of the Kazkova Dibrova, we cannot independently confirm the time when the video was filmed: the entrance  As viral headlines reported that "300 zoo animals drown in floodwaters," Russian media was quick to deny any aspect of the claim whatsoever, asserting in the English language version of the state-owned news agency TASS that the story couldn't be true because there was no zoo in the town: viral headlines no zoo Ukrainian media reports about animals who were killed by a flood at a zoo in the city of Novaya Kakhovka are untrue, because the city has no zoo at all, a spokesperson for the city's emergencies services has told TASS. "Earlier, the Ukrainian media reported that beavers, swans and dogs were killed in Novaya Kakhovka. Some media said that a zoo with around 300 animals was allegedly flooded," the spokesperson said. "No animals were killed, because our city has no zoo." As tourist guides and years of Instagram and other social media posts predating the war can attest, Kazkova Dibrova is a real place with a real zoo that was, indeed, a home to the animals described in the zoo's viral Facebook post. The park has been around since 1992, and is only meters away from the administrative center that flooded in the immediate wake of the dam collapse. tourist guides   (Bing Maps / Snopes) Russian language editions of TASS later reported a slightly narrower denial that accepted the existence of a zoo in Novo Kakhovka (via Google Translate): narrower denial All animals from the zoo in the city of Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region were taken out last year, Mayor Vladimir Leontiev told reporters. "Even last year, all the animals from the Kazkova Dibrova Zoo were evacuated and transported, there was no one left, not a single animal. Volunteers took custody of these animals," he said. According to a TASS correspondent, now it is impossible to get to the place where the zoo was previously located due to the fact that it is flooded. This area is cordoned off for security purposes. Employees and volunteers associated with the zoo deny that narrative, but they did state that their earlier assertion that all the animals perished failed to account for the fact that some animals had been in the care of volunteers. As explained on the park's Facebook page: explained  The information on the animals of Kazkova Dibrova, which were saved, is being clarified. Yesterday, the workers, being in a state of shock, gave me inaccurate information. Some animals were not on the territory of Dibrova, but were at home [with a volunteer] That's why they stayed alive! Our favorite parrot Venya, flying squirrels, ferrets, parrots, chinchillas and guinea pigs are protected from the flood. Volunteers had been working to keep many of the animals alive during the war. "A year back, we all raised funds as a group to buy feed for the year. Farmers, entrepreneurs, and many people helped by bringing vegetables and sending money to help animals," the park wrote on Facebook. Two volunteers, according to the zoo, had been risking their lives and taken fire in an effort to feed the animals as fighting intensified. on Facebook Some animals were, indeed, brought to zoo employees' homes during the winter, but  the zoo said - these had been returned to the park. "Dibrova survived a terrible winter without light and heating," the park's Facebook page wrote, explaining that their park director "took home all the warm-loving animals" before they were "returned back to Dibrova." wrote The assertion that there were no animals at all present at the zoo at the time of the flooding is hard to support. For one thing, one of the earliest viral images of post-dam-collapse flooding showed two swans  matching the description swans from the zoo next door  swimming in front of the Novo Khakovka administrative center:  The struggle posed by mines and shelling made the full-scale evacuation of all the animals impossible, zoo officials said. These assertions are supported by posts on Facebook by the zoo in late 2022. in late 2022 Because Kazkova Dibrova is a zoo in the city of Nova Kakhovka and because at least a large portion of animals were at that zoo at the time of the catastrophic flooding, the claim that many if not most of the animals died at a zoo following the dam's failure are  CNN. "Kremlin Denies Allegations That Russia Attacked Nova Kakhovka Dam, Accuses Ukraine of 'Sabotage.'" CNN, 6 June 2023, https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-06-23/h_5988282ee9df7ca66979a76cb7b45107. ---. "Live Updates: Ukraine Blames Russia for Critical Dam Collapse." CNN, 6 June 2023, https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-06-23/index.html. Kazkova Dibrova, Nova Kakhovka: Information, Photos, Reviews. https://travels.in.ua/en-us/object/1104. Accessed 7 June 2023. Yerushalmy, Jonathan. "Nova Kakhovka Dam: Everything You Need to Know about Ukraine's Strategically Important Reservoir." The Guardian, 6 June 2023. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/nova-kakhovka-dam-everything-you-need-to-know-about-ukraines-strategically-important-reservoir. "   ,        2022 ." TACC, https://tass.ru/obschestvo/17951039. Accessed 7 June 2023.    ... https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid025tTJj5kHXLp4ry9R8jSupoJBZtZxpr3mWyCJBeNkMCetXaJRPN3qf1RfKWon8fcJl&id=100063905471298. Accessed 7 June 2023.       ,   .  ,    ,     ... | By " " . " | Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/100063905471298/videos/%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8E%D1%8E%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%96%D1%8F-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC-%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%97-%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D1%80%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0-/1319108985624200/. Accessed 7 June 2023. On 16 March 2019, an image of President Donald Trump bestowing a Purple Heart decoration on a wounded veteran named Clint Trial went viral after a Facebook user shared it along with the claim that the event "didn't make the news": Facebook user shared   The text of the meme reads: "The President Awarding a Purple Heart to Marine MSGT Clint Trial. This Didn't Make the News, Share, Because It Should Have." This is a genuine photograph of President Trump awarding a Purple Heart to a wounded veteran reportedly named Clint Trial. While the majority of "news media blackout" claims that we've encountered  an allegation often levied in an attempt to either spread fake news or to push narratives of biased reporting  have proved false, in this case, it's true that mainstream news outlets provided little (if any) coverage of this event. fake news narratives biased So why didn't this photograph make the news? While many social media users shared this image as "evidence" of the news media's alleged bias against President Trump, that claim wasn't supported by what we found. If this were simply a case of "liberally biased" mainstream media outlets ignoring a positive story about President Trump, we would still expect coverage of this event to turn up in conservative-leaning news outlets. However, we found almost no information about this veteran's receiving a Purple Heart from President Trump in any news outlets, regardless of their perceived political leanings. The only article we could turn up was published in a Pennsylvania newspaper, the Titusville Herald, on 16 February 2019. That paper reported on the event not because of its national importance, but because of the pictured veteran's family ties to Saegertown, Penn. Titusville Herald The report also contained an editor's note explaining that the veteran's surname was omitted due to a request for privacy: "*Editors note: There are two Clints referenced in this story. One, simply referred to as Clint, is Luke McGills uncle, while the second is his father. The last names of Clint and his wife, Casey, have been omitted by request of the family for privacy." The event began with President Trump's visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland in February 2019 for his annual physical. While there, the president met with a few of the wounded veterans who were being treated at that facility: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center met   The Titusville Herald also reported that President Trump's visit with Trial was unexpected, and that no members of the press were present at the meeting. In other words, President Trump didn't meet with this wounded veteran for a photo op or with the expectation of garnering positive news coverage. The newspaper also reported that the photographs were taken by a White House photographer (not a press photographer) and were privately provided to the family as keepsakes: A Saegertown boy and his family got an unexpected visit from the President of the United States while meeting with an uncle who was injured in the military. Luke McGill, 11, travelled with his mother, Stacey Gotchy, of Saegertown, and his cousin to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, on Feb. 6 to visit his uncle Clint, a marine who lost both of his legs to a land mine in Afghanistan ... While they were there, Clint was asked if he would be up for seeing a special VIP visitor, according to Gotchy. Little did they know, the special VIP visitor would turn out to be the president of the United States ... According to Gotchy, the meet and greet was not political in any way. There was no press at the meeting, and the only pictures taken were by a White House photographer who provided images as keepsakes for the family. President Trump was very kind and compassionate, Gotchy said. There was nothing political about it. He was very kind, concerned and very respectful and you could tell his sole purpose was to make sure [Lukes uncle] Clint was okay and his family was supported throughout the process. The visit became even more special when the president learned that Clint had not yet received his Purple Heart. Casey reached out to the staff at the office with the request that the president be the one who pinned the medal awarded to soldiers wounded in the line of duty on Clints shirt. President Trump saved Clints visit for last and held an award ceremony with the family present. We haven't been able to track down the initial internet origins of this image, but it seems likely that the photograph was lifted from one of the personal social media pages of Trial (whose Twitter account is now set to private) or those of one of his relatives, and then turned into a meme and shared (against his wishes for privacy) with his full name. This meme does not appear to demonstrate any news media "bias" against President Trump but rather a private interaction that was never meant to receive press attention. President Trump didn't meet with this veteran for a photo opportunity, nor did the news media refuse to cover the event out of a desire to provide nothing but negative stories about the president. If anything, this meme seems to demonstrate that some social media users will exploit even wounded veterans in order to advance their own political viewpoints. A GoFundMe campaign to help Sgt. Trial with his injuries was established in March 2019: GoFundMe In mid-January 2019, Clint Trial was working overseas when an explosion caused serious injuries to his body, resulting in a bilateral leg amputation, traumatic brain injury, and numerous internal injuries. We want to make sure this warrior and his family never have to worry about future costs as he adapts his life to a new normal and learns to get back on his "new feet." When you make a contribution to this fund, you will help ease this transition. Money raised with this fundraiser will be used to cover gaps in coverage for care outside of hospital bills, to include vehicle modifications, traveling costs for family members, moving expenses, and construction costs to ensure their house is properly adapted to ADA standards. CBS News.  "Trump Has His Annual Physical at Walter Reed."
  8 February 2019. Brown, Tyler.  "Local Family Meets President Trump."
  Titusville Herald.  16 February 2019. Claim:  A Canadian housewife penned the 'I'll care if . . ." polemic.     Examples: Could not have said this any better myself! especially today  The lady that wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq. Read it! ===================== WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS? "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all! I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia. I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling, slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and  you guessed it  I don't care!" I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!!!!! [Collected via e-mail, December 2010] British Housewife Speaks Out Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?. Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister! Written by a housewife, to her daily newspaper. This is one ticked off lady. 'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York on 11 Sept 2001, and have continually threatened to do so since? Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in London , and in downtown Manhattan , and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11 and 7/7. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crimepunishable by beheading in Afghanistan I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank: I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! you guessed it ...... I don't care!! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add: 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. Our soldiers don't have that problem.' I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this. Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The British Soldier. 3. The Canadian Soldier. 4. The US Soldier, and 5. The Australian Soldier One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THEM. AMEN Origins:  Although the first example quoted above has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster who resides in Atlanta and the second to an unnamed British housewife, the article is actually the work of Doug Patton, a freelance columnist and political speechwriter who lives near Omaha, Nebraska. The first e-mail-circulated version left off his two opening paragraphs and added a closing "I don't give a sheet either about those sheet heads!" statement that wasn't in his original, but it is otherwise a faithful copy of his article, which was first published on the gopusa.com web site on 6 June 2005 under the title "Ask Me if I Care About 'Mishandling' of Koran" and which has since been reproduced on a number of other web sites. Doug Patton published Pamela Foster said this of how her name came to be associated with Doug Patton's article:     The item has subsequently come to be attributed to a variety of unnamed housewives, each of whom supposedly wrote the bit as a letter to the editor of her local paper. A version appeared in March 2007 that attributed the piece to one of them in New Jersey was prefaced "Here is a woman who should run for President!" The text of the original "I'll care if" polemic was shortened a little, and tacked onto the end was the bit about defining forces "which have ever offered to die for you" that also appears in two other Internet-circulated items: A variant of a 2005 piece about complaints made about the noise of a military fly-over in New Mexico and reaction to same, and a version of a pithy quote attributed to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. fly-over Tony Blair In March 2008, the (shortened) item once again circulated, that time attributed to an unnamed ("pissed off") housewife in the Canadian province of New Brunswick, with the forward prefaced with a "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!"and the remainder of the original piece suitably altered to replace American references with Canadian ones. The "defining forces which have ever offered to die for you" enumeration was expanded from the previous twosome of "Jesus Christ and the American G.I." into a list of five: Jesus Christ, the Canadian soldier, the British soldier, the Dutch soldier, and the American soldier. In July 2010 the unnamed housewife was relocated yet again, that time to Britain, and again proclaimed as "Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!" Textual changes were once again made in the piece to replace American (or Canadian) references with British ones, and the "who will die for you" list was updated thusly: Jesus Christ, the British soldier, the Canadian soldier, the US soldier, and the Australian soldier. We're betting the unnamed housewife will next show up in Australia. Last updated:  7 August 2013 <!-- Sources:    Voight, Jon.   "An Open Letter to President Obama from Jon Voight."   The Washington Times.  22 June 2010.--> In May 2014 Facebook announced they would be rolling out an "Identify TV and Music" feature that would allow users who access the social media platform through their cell phones to identify and tag music or television programs playing in their area. When a user begins to compose a status update, Facebook will activate the phone's microphone, filter out live conversations, and try to detect and identify audio programming. If a matching song is found, Facebook will include a sample of the music in the status; if a matching television program is found, Facebook will label the specific season and episode "so you can avoid any spoilers": announced When writing a status update  if you choose to turn the feature on  you'll have the option to use your phone's microphone to identify what song is playing or what show or movie is on TV. That means if you want to share that you're listening to your favorite Beyonc track or watching the season premiere of Game of Thrones, you can do it quickly and easily, without typing. If you share music, your friends can see a 30-second preview of the song. For TV shows, the story in News Feed will highlight the specific season and episode youre watching, so you can avoid any spoilers and join in conversations with your friends after you've caught up. Facebook said the digital fingerprinting feature would be opt-in only, meaning users would have to give the program permission to start. Once activated, an icon on the face of the phone would indicate that the microphone was active and the phone was listening. Users who opted in could still choose to turn off the feature on a post-by-post basis. (Audio fingerprinting would only be available in the United States and only via iOS and Android mobile apps; it would not function if Facebook were accessed through a browser.)   Facebook's announcement was later updated to address rumors that the new app would listen in on, and store, user conversations: Myth: The feature listens to and stores your conversations. Fact: Nope, no matter how interesting your conversation, this feature does not store sound or recordings. Facebook isn't listening to or storing your conversations. Here's how it works: if you choose to turn the feature on, when you write a status update, the app converts any sound into an audio fingerprint on your phone. This fingerprint is sent to our servers to try and match it against our database of audio and TV fingerprints. By design, we do not store fingerprints from your device for any amount of time. And in any event, the fingerprints can't be reversed into the original audio because they don't contain enough information. Myth: Facebook is always listening using your microphone. Fact: Nope, if you choose to turn this feature on, it will only use your microphone (for 15 seconds) when you're actually writing a status update to try and match music and TV. Two years later, a similar rumor erupted, holding that Facebook was listening to user conversations in order to better target advertising and content to them. rumor  Griffin, Andrew.  "Facebook Is Using Smartphones To Listen To What People Say, Professor Suggests."
  The Independent.  31May 2016. Hill, Kashmir.  "Facebook Wants To Listen in on What You're Doing."
  Forbes.  22 May 2014. Kleinman, Zoe.  "Facebook 'Listening' Claim Denied By Professor"
  BBC.  3June2016. Tate, Ryan.  "Facebook Will Soon Detect What You're Watching and Listening To."
  Wired.  21 May 2014. Tate, Ryan.  "Why Facebook Spent a Year Learning to Listen in on Your TV Shows."
  Wired.  22 May 2014. Facebook Newsroom.  "Facebook Does Not Use Your Phones Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories."
  2 June 2016.