Was foreign aid included in the second COVID-19 stimulus package?
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 A massive federal spending bill passed by United States Congress on Dec. 21, 2020, was almost 5,600 pages long, so there was plenty for everyone to debate. But social media was full of misleading outrage takes, framing the legislation as a COVID-19 stimulus package that doled out foreign aid unrelated to the pandemic. In fact, what Congress passed was a $2.3 trillion spending bill that funds the U.S. government through the 2021 fiscal year. The bill includes a $900 billion coronavirus relief package  not the other way around. But many framed the story in reverse, claiming that Congress had passed a coronavirus relief package and opportunistically included foreign aid and other unrelated items. For example, conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk tweeted, "what does 10M dollars going to Pakistan for gender programs have to do with [coronavirus] relief for Americans?" Many other social media users posted the following meme: tweeted   Claims that Congress jammed foreign aid and museum funding into coronavirus economic relief are misleading. It's more accurate to say Congress passed a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill funding the entirety of the U.S. government, including foreign aid programs, national museum funding, and also a coronavirus relief package. funding For example, the $10 million in aid to Pakistan for "gender programs" is slated under U.S. State Department funding in the omnibus bill, along with a number of other foreign aid programs,  The way the meme above presents the $600 stimulus payments is also misleading because it juxtaposes the sum total of aid for various countries and institutions included in the spending bill, alongside individual payments to Americans included in the coronavirus relief package. The coronavirus relief package includes $600 stimulus checks, which will be paid out to most Americans, but the total cost of these checks and other aid to Americans adds up to $900 billion. It's also misleading to state that the only benefit included in the bill for Americans is a check for $600. Although the amounts of financial assistance were less than what was provided in first stimulus package in March 2020, the coronavirus relief package includes expansion of unemployment benefits, another round of small business loans, as well as rent, utilities, and food assistance along with $600 stimulus checks. includes Legislators complained they didn't have time to properly review the massive document before voting on it. Some legislators said the price tag for the legislative package was too big, while others said relief provided to Americans struggling with economic fallout from the pandemic didn't go far enough. complained On the evening of Dec. 22, 2020, the day after Congress passed the spending package, U.S. President Donald Trump made a statement echoing these internet claims, raising doubts that he would sign the legislation after the White House had already indicated he would. Among other statements, Trump said he wanted stimulus checks to be $2,000 instead of $600, which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with. statement agreed The bill comes nine months after the CARES Act stimulus package was signed in March 2020, as well as months of partisan haggling between Republicans, who wanted a more limited package, and Democrats, who had pushed for a bigger bill. It also comes amid a surge of reported COVID-19 cases amid the holiday season. More than 322,000 Americans have died from the pandemic as of this writing. nine months died
Claim:  Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C   Origins:  On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans.  article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve.  The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal.  If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site.     Last updated:  13 November 2014 < Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. Some conservatives are pushing Gov. Scott Walker to use his second term to enact much deeper changes in Wisconsin government. When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014. Some estimates now rate it as number 14 for doing business, but dont be deceived, Loyola wrote under the headline, Walkers Win: Why it was the most important GOP win in the country. He added: Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. As Walker ramps up exploration of a 2016 presidential campaign, lets check the claim about spending and taxation in the Badger state. Well take the easy part first. Taxes Walker and Republican legislators have approved a variety of tax freezes and cuts. In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes. But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported. Theres ample evidence that Wisconsin is among the middle group of states when all sources of revenue are considered. But on taxes alone, the state remains closer to the top. Spending To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. That report doesnt compute per-capita spending, but based on a survey of budget officials it shows a total spending figure from state revenues, federal aid and other sources. We did the math and it backs up the claim: In 2013, Wisconsin state budget spending was about $7,500 per capita compared to about $3,600 in Texas. The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings. The study cautions, however: State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, in many states, the funding of elementary and secondary education is considered primarily a local function. We could not replicate the studys findings using U.S. Census surveys of state and local government finances. That Census data is preferred by researchers, though one drawback is that reporting of the data lags about two years. One researcher, Dale Knapp with the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the census figures are better because the Budget Officers study includes some things that we generally dont consider part of the state budget -- the biggest of which is state retirement payments. They also include unemployment payments, lottery prizes, and capital expenditures, which can vary from year to year. When looking just at state spending (and excluding transfers to local governments), Wisconsin state government spends 27.1% more per capita than Texas in 2011, Knapp found. We also asked the Wisconsin Budget Project to run comparisons. Tamarine Cornelius and Jon Peacock of the group told us that Wisconsin per capita direct general expenditures were $1,114 above that of Texas, or 15 percent. That was for state and local expenditures. Wisconsin ranked #21 among the states; Texas was #38. So neither group backs up the claim that Wisconsin state government spends 100% more -- twice as much -- as Wisconsin on a per-capita basis. Still, we found that the numbers in the study cited by Loyola were drawn from the annual financial reports published by Texas and Wisconsin. On a topic where various definitions of state budget are fair game, that gives his claim a reasonable basis. Our rating Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. Loyolas on target on taxes, and cites a credible study on spending that is open to challenge but generally defensible. We rate his claim Mostly True. Claim:  Soon after winning the largest-ever Megabucks slots jackpot, the new multi-millionaire died a violent death.  Origins:  The potential for great wealth creates its own lore, which is why Las Vegas is a hotbed of Megabucks-related rumors. For the uninitiated, Megabucks is a network of linked progressive slot machines whose top prize starts at $10 million and continues to grow until someone gets lucky and lines up the three Megabucks symbols on the payline of his slot machine. At times when it's been a lengthy period since the previous win, the jackpot climbs to an almost unimaginable amount, and Megabucks rumors (which are always quietly simmering away in the background) become the hot gossip among the casino crowd. In general, Megabucks rumors fall into one of three categories:  The unhappy fate of previous winners.  Startling tales of flawed wins.  Where the next one is going to hit. On 21 March 2003, the largest-ever slots prize was awarded in Las Vegas when a 25-year-old man who prefers to remain anonymous hit a $39,710,826.36 Megabucks jackpot at the Excalibur casino. Scant days later, rumors were already afoot that tragedy had overtaken this lucky gentleman. According to the whispers, he had:  Fatally overdosed at The Palms (a trendy Las Vegas casino resort greatly favored by the 20- and  30-somethings).   Died in a plane crash.  Been killed in a gang fight in Los Angeles. Although the mode of the unnamed winner's demise changed from telling to telling, the basic rumor remained intact  this man so favored by Fate one day became its victim on another. His luck ran out soon after the win, said the rumor, felling him before he'd had any chance to enjoy his millions. The "overdosed at the Palms" version carried the further implication of the man's good fortune having been his undoing. In the unspoken subtext   of that telling, the lucky winner had used his new wealth to hole up in a swank hotel and dabble in drugs. In attempting to live like a rock star, he instead died like one. The rumor (all versions of it) was false. According to Connie Fox of International Game Technology (IGT), the maker of Megabucks machines and the distributor of its prizes, the young man has not been harvested by the Grim Reaper. He lives on, wealthy and anonymous. IGT It is possible memories of a tragedy that befell a previous Megabucks winner have fueled this tale of good luck turned chillingly bad. On 11 March 2000, 37-year-old Cynthia Jay-Brennan, a cocktail waitress who had hit a $34.9 million jackpot at the Desert Inn just six weeks earlier, was left a quadriplegic by an auto accident that claimed her sister's life. The pair had been sitting in their car at a red light when their vehicle was rear-ended by one being operated by a drunk driver. Five others were injured in the resulting chain reaction accident. A year later, 58-year-old Clark Morse, the driver who caused this carnage, was sentenced to 28 years in prison. Morse was a habitual drunk who had been previously arrested at least 16 times on driving under the influence charges and had at least five DUI convictions, yet he had not prior to this incident been jailed for his inebriated forays behind the wheel. On the one hand, it would be easy to see the 'dead Megabucks winner' rumor as a misremembering of the circumstances that have placed Cynthia Jay-Brennan in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. Yet on the other, whispers about Megabucks winners having been struck down by  misfortune have been part of gaming culture long before the March 2000 tragedy. In one well-traveled Megabucks rumor, an elderly gambler who lined up the three winning symbols on his machine suffered a heart attack and died on the spot. (Shades of Vegas Vacation and Sid Caesar kicking the bucket after hitting a $30,000 keno jackpot, that.) That particular tale had for so long been part of the Megabucks canon that it came in for mention in a 1998 newspaper story, described even then as one of the many rumors IGT had been called upon over the years to debunk. Another whisper (also around since at least 1998) claimed that every Megabucks winner under the age of 50 was now pushing up daisies. (Not true, says Connie Fox of IGT. While she doesn't know the fate of everyone who has won Megabucks, all those she has become acquainted with or has heard of through her work are still alive.) I would hazard the opinion that such tales say a great deal more about our sense of envy than anything else. Every time a large jackpot is hit (Megabucks or otherwise), for every gobsmacked winner there are countless thousands  maybe even millions  of gamblers who were not awarded the prize. For at least some of them, a measure of solace is drawn from'misfortune followed soon afterwards' tales, both for their sour grapes ("That lucky schmuck might have won a great deal of money, but it didn't bring him happiness, did it?") and 'disaster narrowly avoided' ("Just think, if I'd won the money I'd be the one left lying dead in a pool of blood") values. The legends we tell are our way of mentally chewing over concepts that disquiet us, and very few feel at all comfortable with the realization of their feeling envious. Other rumors about the mystery man who won the $40 million Megabucks jackpot in March 2004 are undiluted expressions of envy  they assert he had no right to the prize and thus 'cheated' to get it, which in itself is another way of saying "I feel cheated because I didn't win." One version claimed the unnamed man was an illegal alien. (Which, by the way, would not have barred him from winning, but that is not generally understood by most of those who frequent casinos.) Another proclaimed him to have been under 21 at the time of the win and thus ineligible. (That couldn't happen: Under the laws governing gaming in Nevada, persons under the age of 21 are prohibited from gambling. Casinos therefore must remove underage patrons or face heavy fines, and companies like IGT that pay out slot machine wins have to very carefully vet the ages of those laying claim to any win.) This last whisper brings us to the most common wild tales associated with the big jackpot: the flawed win. Over the years, I have heard the Megabucks 'one that got away' story told three ways:  The underage winner who could not be awarded the riches he'd won.  The casino worker who was ineligible for the prize because he had, against the rules, played the machine at the property where he was employed.  The player who lined up the three winning symbols on the pay line but who hadn't wagered the full $3 necessary to qualify for the top prize. Connie Fox of IGT denies there ever having been an underage Megabucks winner. However, such rumors did attach to the anonymous UNLV student who hit the $10.9 million jackpot on 18 October 1995 at the Gold Coast  it was said he'd had to return the money. Because the winner did not want his identity made known to the public, the members of the press who had heard the tale had no way of themselves determining the actual age of the young man. IGT held an online chat session with reporters to reassure them that the prize had been fairly awarded to a legal winner. Although Megabucks has yet to have an underage claimant, other large slots jackpots have. A young man who hit a big one at Caesars Palace in 1987 was denied his prize because he was underage. Kirk Erickson, a 19-year-old from Royal, Arkansas, lined up the winning combination on  a dollar slot machine called "The Million Dollar Baby," but he was not paid the $1,061,812 jackpot for it. Erickson took the matter to court, and in 1989 a District Court judge ruled against him. As for casino workers being barred from playing the Megabucks slots at their place of employ, although individual properties might have such a policy, it is to be doubted that were such a person to play anyway and win that a prohibition against his gaming on the in-house machines would interfere with the jackpot being duly awarded. Granted, the worker would in all likelihood lose his job for having broken a casino rule, and he might have to wait until the Nevada Gaming Commission made its determination on the case before receiving his money, but there is little reason to suppose the Commission would deem the jackpot improperly gained. The one class of folks who could not possibly collect on such a win are IGT employees and all members of their households  even if one of them were to line up the three winning symbols, they could not be awarded the cash.  At least once, Megabucks has been hit by someone playing less than full coin. On 14 March 2001, Kirk Tolman, a 22-year-old Utah man, mistakenly played two dollars instead of the Megabucks-requisite three on a machine at the State Line Hotel and Casino in Wendover, a gambling establishment in Nevada just across the Utah state line. The Megabucks symbols lined up on the payline, and for want of a buck, $7.96 million was lost. The $10,000 consolation prize probably wasn't all that consoling to the man whose distracting chat with a friend had led to his not dropping the third coin into play.  An additional bit of Megabucks lore confidently states the jackpot will be hit at the newest resort casino in operation. Savvy frequent visitors to Las Vegas will sagely nod as they inform you the next Megabucks is "set to go" at whichever glitz palace just opened. That too is hogwash. Where the jackpot is hit is determined by pure chance, not by anyone high in the casino industry paying off IGT for the prestige of having one of its machines register the win. (And prestige is all that would accrue to the casino, because unlike some lotteries which distribute cash premiums to the venues that sold winning tickets, Megabucks does not award a small piece of the prize to the casino for having been the building that housed the winning machine. Although most of the money being dropped into play by jackpot seekers goes to fund the game's prizes, some goes to IGT, and some goes to the gaming establishment that hosts the machines, so casinos already receive compensation whether their Megabucks units are winners or not. Also, casinos that have been the sites of multi-million dollar strikes do very well just on the prestige alone because gamblers are attracted to luck, figuring if one guy hit the big one there, there's a fair chance they might be just as lucky if they went to the same spot.) If the Megabucks jackpot appears to be awarded more often at the newer casinos, it's due to their being better attended  more people through these gambling halls means more people playing the machines. The more people who play the machines at any one location, the greater the chances the jackpot will be hit there. And that's all there is to it.  Many of the instant millionaires Megabucks and its ilk create are reluctant to sign the releases that allow their names and some information about them to be made public, worrying that strangers will appear on their doorsteps to pressure them for money.  But from what Connie Fox of IGT has seen, the ones these people have the most to fear from are their nearest and dearest, the very kith and kin they were moved to telephone in the first blush of excitement over their astonishing good fortune. Connie has gotten to know a number of Megabucks winners over the years, and she has seen through the lens of their experiences with their loved ones how a large prize can shake up relationships and redefine the pecking order. A large win can and has in some cases changed the family dynamic, overnight making the fortunate slot player the de facto head of the family  that person suddenly finds everyone looking to him for everything.  It has also changed the power balance between couples, making the partner who had previously been the follower into the decision-maker for that pair. Some couples and families weather these shifts without too much trouble, and some do not. Barbara "so there you have it  oranges, lemons, cherries, and a few sour grapes" Mikkelson Additional information: Last updated:  1 June 2014    Koch, Ed.  "When Good Luck Turns Bad."   Las Vegas Sun.  5 April 2000.    Schoenmann, Joe.  "Megabucks Slot Bursting at Seams as Record Jackpot Continues to Grow."   Las Vegas Review-Journal.  4 April 1998  (p. B1).    Wagner, Angie.  "Morse Gets 28 Years for Injuring Vegas Jackpot Winner."   The Associated Press.  20 April 2001.    Associated Press.  "Judge Denies Jackpot to Underage Gambler."   27 June 1989.    Reuters.  "$7.96 Million Jackpot Just a Dollar Away."   The San Diego Union-Tribune.  17 March 2001  (p. A4). As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts: conflicts of interest         In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media: court ruled that a lawsuit social media   While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981.  On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust: released listed The transition group has studied existing laws and regulations bearing on conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics of officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy ... In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm: suffered While he serves as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone elses care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. In regards to a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020.  If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction: back on the construction site announced Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic, said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful to their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture." Gerstein, Josh.  "Appeals court Greenlights Emoluments Suit Against Trump."
  Politico.  14 May 2020. Folley, Aris.  "Jimmy Carter Back to Building Homes for Habitat for Humanity One Day After Fall."
  The Hill.  7 October 2019. The New York Times.  "Texts of Carter Statement on Conflicts of Interest and Ethics; Appointees Guidelines."
  5 January 1977. Buchanan, Larry.  "The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency."
  The New York Times.  14 December 2016. Following the 94th Academy Awards ceremony on March 27, 2022, a false tweet from Twitter user @fondasbian was posted with a decades-old video of actor Jane Fonda with the caption, "The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." false tweet Twitter Jane Fonda Oscars While this misleading message was somewhat overshadowed by an incident involving comedian Chris Rock and actor Will Smith, that didn't stop the tweet from receiving tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes. Those shares only served to boost the false claim. an incident Chris Rock Will Smith The tweet in question claimed: "Jane Fonda signed her best actress speech in 1979 because the Oscars wouldn't offer closed captions. The Oscars only started providing closed captions in 2021." Jane Fonda Oscars Oscars   In the brief 30-second video from the 51st Academy Awards in 1979, Fonda did sign part of her acceptance speech for the hearing-impaired. She was accepting an award for best actress for her role in the 1978 film, "Coming Home." One of the main characters in the film is a disabled veteran. He was portrayed by actor Jon Voight. Fonda disabled veteran Jon Voight The full speech was uploaded to the official Oscars YouTube channel: the official Oscars YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL_73XeE8fo&t=157sThe portion included in the tweet is bolded below: I'm so happy. I wanted to win very much because I'm so proud of "Coming Home," and I want many people to see the movie. I'm signing part of what I'm saying tonight because while we were making the movie we all became more aware of the problems of the handicapped. Over 14 million people are deaf. They are the invisible handicapped and can't share this evening. So this is my way of acknowledging them. The tweet in question claimed that the Oscars first started providing closed captions in 2021. In truth, the Oscars had been providing closed captioning for decades. Oscars Oscars On March 27, 1982, Wisconsin's Leader-Telegram newspaper published that a brand new way of providing captions during live television would be debuting at that year's Oscars: Leader-Telegram published Oscars A new method for providing closed captioning for hearing-impaired viewers will be unveiled by the National Captioning Institute during ABC-TV coverage of the 54th annual Academy Awards presentations March 29. Called Real Time, the method is a form of electronic computerized shorthand which will allow hearing-impaired viewers to receive closed captions throughout the entire telecast, including acceptance speeches the moment they are spoken. NCI spokesman John E. D. Ball said Real Time involves a courtroom style stenotype machine and a computer capable of transmitting phonetic symbols into words. Twitter user @bubbaprog pointed out that the March 27 tweet from @fondasbian was misleading. "This tweet has 5,000 retweets and it's completely false," @bubbaprog tweeted. "The Academy Awards were literally the first live program to utilize closed-captioning in 1982 and have been captioned ever since." pointed out tweeted It's true that the Oscars had featured closed captions during every ceremony since 1982. However, while the Academy Awards were the first program to utilize closed captions during a live broadcast, similar technology for prerecorded programs (not live) had already been partially implemented two years before. Oscars On March 16, 1980, the Chicago Tribune newspaper published that NBC, ABC, and PBS announced they would begin to "inaugurate a new service designed to enlarge the world of prime-time TV for Americans with impaired hearing." Chicago Tribune published According to the article, programs that received the first closed captions on American television were the "Wonderful World of Disney," ABC's "Sunday Night Movie," "Eight Is Enough," "Barney Miller," "Masterpiece Theater," "Once Upon a Classic," and "Mystery Theater." In sum, no, the Oscars did not wait until 2021 to start providing closed captions. The Academy Award ceremonies had been broadcast with closed captions since 1982 and were the first live program to utilize the technology. Oscars As social media users sorted through a flurry of news articles, opinion pieces, calls for boycotts, and other hot takes in September 2018 about Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new Nike ad campaign, some stumbled across what appeared to be a news article reporting that Ford USA was following Nike's example by making the former NFL quarterback the face of their new ad campaign: articles   This item was not a social media link to a genuine news article, nor did the featured image show a genuine Ford advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. This item was created as a joke for the political humor section of the Reddit social news site. Kaepernick became a controversial figure in 2016 when he started kneeling during the pre-game performance of the U.S. national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. A number of conservative football fans, including President Trump, maintained that Kaepernick's protest was disrespectful to veterans, so when Nike announced that the former football star would be featured in their latest ad campaign, social media users urged each other to boycott the brand and started posting images purportedly showing them destroying various pieces of Nike apparel. 2016 Twitter user @Patterico apparently found the videos of people burning their shoes to be amusing but noted that the entertainment value would increase if people were burning Ford F-150 trucks instead: I'll pay Ford $10 if they put Kaepernick in a commercial for F-150s so I can watch some dumbass torch his pickup on Twitter, who's with me  Patterico (@Patterico) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Reddit user u/fakenewsanchorman saw this tweet and decided to create a fake news item (note the username) stating that Ford USA had indeed named Kaepernick as their new brand ambassador. On 5 September 2018, his meme was posted to the Political Humor subreddit under the title "Please Make This Actually Happen." Political Humor That Reddit user admitted in the comments section that his image did not reflect a genuine news item, but we double-checked with FoxNews.com to see if reporter Judson Berger had filed any such report. This article does not appear on Berger's author page nor anywhere else on the Fox News web site. author page This bit of fake news may have sparked sparked interest in a genuine, albeit outdated, article about Ford's stance on the national anthem protests. In September 2017, the company officially took the side of the protesting players, saying that they respected the "individuals' right to express their views": article "We respect individuals' rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share," the company said. "That's part of what makes America great" ... Martha Firestone Ford, owner and chairwoman of the Detroit Lions and a member of the Ford family, issued a statement criticizing President Trump for his comments. "Our game has long provided a powerful platform for dialogue and positive change in many communities throughout our nation," she said. "Negative and disrespectful comments suggesting otherwise are contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions." Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Wiener-Bronner, Danielle.  "Ford: We Respect the Right of NFL Players to Protest."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. Content warning: While the linked footage does not have gruesome imagery, it contains the final moments before the crash, with the sounds of screams, images of flames, and burning airplane debris. We therefore have only shared screenshots from the video and not linked directly to it. Harrowing footage authenticallydepicts the final moments of an airplane crash in Nepal on Jan. 15, 2023, from a Facebook Live video taken by a passenger. A group of Indian friends appeared to be enjoying themselves as they recorded the plane's descent into the town of Pokhara. The flight carried 72 passengers and crew, and no one was believed to have survived. depicts 72 passengers The friends can be heard laughing. With no warnings from the airplane staff, the aircraft appeared to shake, followed by crashing sounds, before the entire screen filled with flames. Shots of airplane debris covered in flames and smoke was briefly visible before the footage ended. Numerous independent media reports and local fact-checkers, who reached out to family and friends of the Indian passengers, confirmed the footage as real; a close analysis of the footage also confirmed it to be in the Yeti Airlines flight that was landing in Pokhara.  independent local fact The video waspublishedby Indian media. published The footage was reportedly taken by Sonu Jaiswal, a 29-year-old father of three young children who was visiting temples and planning to paraglide with his friends in Nepal's Annapurna mountain range. Vishal Koswal, a friend of his, confirmed to the Guardian news site that the footage was from Jaiswal's phone, and the other men who could be seen or heard in the video were Anil Rajbhar, Vishal Sharma, and Abhishek Singh Kushwaha. Koswal said he had been planning to join them on the trip but stayed home after the death of a relative. Local police also confirmed the identities of the men in the video. Vishal Koswal Koswal spoke to them many times via a video call before the flight. "Sonu was showing us the mountains around on the call and was clearly excited, so were we," he told the Guardian. "He told me on that call that after landing in Pokhara, they would visit some temples there and then in the evening take a train back home." the Guardian Indian fact-checking site Boom Livealso closely analyzed the footage. It noted that the poster in the video on the back of the passenger seat showed prominent Nepali and Hindi film actors. The aerial view of the city also showed sports stadiums, which they confirmed as being the Pokhara Football Stadium and Pokhara Cricket Ground. Jaiswal's Facebook account, while private, also featured the same profile picture as that seen in the corner of the livestream. Nepal Fact Check also shared a passenger list of the foreigners who were on the flight, and the names of the Indian friends were confirmed there. Boom Live Nepal Fact Check Screenshot showing prominent Nepali and Hindi film actors. Screenshot that shows one of the Indian passengers. Screenshot that shows an aerial view of Pokhara, Nepal.  Rajat Jaiswal, Sonu Jaiswal's cousin, reportedly confirmed to Indian media that the latter did the Facebook Live feed. "Sonu was on Facebook live after boarding the flight for Pokhara. The live-streaming showed that Sonu and his companions were in a happy mood, but suddenly, flames appear before the streaming stopped," he said. Rajat Jaiswal The plane crash is believed to be the deadliest one in Nepal in the last 30 years. Aviation accidents are not uncommon in the country due to the remote runways, hazardous weather conditions, and difficult mountain terrains. Poor regulations and a lack of investment had also been blamed. The European Union has banned Nepalese airlines from its airspace over concerns about their training and maintenance standards. deadliest banned We rate this claim as   Alphonso, Anmol. "BOOM Verified: Video Of FB Live By Indian Flyer Captures Nepal Plane Crash." BOOM, 16 Jan. 2023, https://www.boomlive.in/boom-verified//viral-video-nepal-pokhara-plane-crash-facebook-live-flyer-sonu-jaiswal-capturing-last-moments-20761. Accessed 16 Jan. 2023. Ellis-Petersen, Hannah, and Aakash Hassan. "Nepal Plane Crash: Last Moments inside Cabin Caught on Passenger's Facebook Live Video." The Guardian, 16 Jan. 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/16/nepal-plane-crash-facebook-live-video.Accessed 16 Jan. 2023. "Flyer Onboard Nepal Plane Captures Moments before Crash." Deccan Herald, 16 Jan. 2023, https://www.deccanherald.com/national/flyer-onboard-nepal-plane-captures-moments-before-crash-1181442.html.Accessed 16 Jan. 2023. "Nepal Plane Crash: Pilot Didn't Report Anything Untoward, Official Says." BBC News, 15 Jan. 2023. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64284366.Accessed 16 Jan. 2023. "          ?" Nepal Factcheck. 16 Jan. 2023, https://nepalfactcheck.org/2023/01/yeti-airlines-crash-live-streaming-facebook/.Accessed 16 Jan. 2023. If former Gov. Ted Strickland had used a theme song in his unsuccessful re-election bid, it might have been I've Been Working on the Railroad.Jobs were the biggest issue of the fall campaign, and Strickland said that thousands would be created by his plan for a 3C Corridor passenger rail system linking Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. He described Gov.-elect John Kasichs intention to kill the plan and return a $400 million federal grant as tragic and a job-killer.Critics of the plan claimed that its employment potential was exaggerated, its ridership forecasts were too optimistic and its cost projections too low.Ultimately, Plain Dealer columnist and former editorial director Brent Larkin wrote: Voters never warmed to the idea of spending hundreds of millions on a passenger rail project that would have taken riders from Cleveland to Cincinnati over a period an hour and 15 minutes longer than it would have taken on a New York Central train in 1935.We dont usually look at remarks from columnists, but that comment stopped PolitiFact Ohio in its tracks.We knew that the 3C Corridor was not a high-speed rail plan. We had not realized it was more like a trip back in time.So PolitiFact Ohio asked Larkin where he got his figures.He referred us first to a year-old feasibility report on the proposed Cleveland-to-Columbus-to- Cincinnati Amtrak service.This is the schedule Amtrak said it would run, and the schedule Ohio included as part of its application to the feds for the $400 million, Larkin said. No other schedule was ever formally provided to the feds.The proposed schedule shows a 255-mile Cleveland to Cincinnati trip taking 6-1/2 hours. The first daily train would leave Cleveland at 6:30 a.m. and arrive in Cincinnati at 1 p.m.Larkin then shared a railroad timetable from New York Central Lines, effective Feb 3, 1935. It showed a departure time of 3:10 p.m. from Cincinnati and an arrival in Cleveland of 8:20 p.m., for a travel time of 5 hours 10 minutes -- an hour and 20 minutes faster than the 3C line.Criticism of the 3C as snail rail with an average speed of 39 mph started as soon as the project was proposed.The Ohio Department of Transportation responded in September with a new average estimate of 50 mph and speed up to 79. It shortened the Cleveland-to-Cincinnati trip to 5 hours 12 minutes.But, not so fast.As an October story in the Columbus Dispatch noted, ODOT itself had said a year earlier that the trip couldn't be made in less than 5 hours 20 minutes -- even if the trains didn't stop. ODOTs revised schedule hadn't even been seen by the three freight lines that own the tracks the 3C passenger trains would use, putting its feasibility in serious doubt.And, no matter how weak or strong its support, the optimistic revision still comes up longer than the best rail time of 1935.The schedules speak for themselves, Larkin said.We rate his statement as True. Kathie Tovo, facing Austin City Council Member Randi Shade in a June 18 runoff, says in aTV adthat debuted in April: Were in a budget crisis, but the council may give $4 million a year to subsidize a race track. Thats the wrong priority.City Hall coughing up for vroom-vroom?First, lets brake to define subsidy. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionarysaysits a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. Offered examples are expenditures for public transit or to farmers in case of crop failure.To back her claim, Tovos campaign pointed us to an eight-pagefact sheeton her website touching on money that could flow to support Formula One races to be held on a track being built east of Austins airport.According to the sheet, state Comptroller Susan Combs has agreed to provide $25 million a year for 10 years from a state trust fund to cover an annual sanctioning fee that local F1 organizers must pay to the British-based international race organization.The fund reimburses event organizers with some of the extra sales, hotel, alcohol and car rental tax revenue attributable to the event itself  i.e., money that the state theoretically would not have collected if the event had not been held. In the past it has been used to attract NFL Super Bowls and the Major League and NBA All-Star games.Per a 2009 state law, though, the states $25 million a year can only be spent if a local city or county government puts up $1 for every $6.25 in state aid. The law specifies that in order to get the state aid, local organizers need a local city or county to agree to endorse the event.So, $4 million a year is to be ginned up locally with the money would be dedicated to covering costs of staging the event -- police overtime, say, or erecting traffic barriers -- municipal expenses that might otherwise be charged to the promoter.Subsidy case closed?Not by the lights of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. A June 8 Austin American-Statesman newsarticlequotes Leffingwell saying during a June 7 City Council work session: The city will never put any money into the Formula One project.During the session, Richard Suttle, the projects Austin lawyer, said the first of the 10 payments will come from a local organizing committee, which in turn expects to get the money from the Formula One promoters. A city employee noted that the subsequent local contributions of $4 million will come from tax revenue the state expects to reap in connection with the races.Next, we asked Tovos camp why the $4 million amounts to a subsidy if the first installment is to come from a non-governmental source and future payments are expected to reflect tax revenue that presumably would not exist without the races.Jim Wick, Tovos deputy campaign manager, replied: What you have happening right now is the mayor and some members of the council are trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesnt appear the city (is) giving the promoters of this event a subsidy. It looks like fuzzy accounting.Shade campaign spokeswoman Lynda Rife pointed out by email that the trust fund money can be spent on the races -- not construction of the track itself. Also, each race is expected to generate more than $4 million in new tax revenue that wouldn't come to the city without the event taking place.Rifes email continued: If we dont generate that $4 million in new tax revenue from the event, then the city doesnt have to pay the whole $4 million. The city is not on the hook, if the event doesnt meet the performance standard, she said.Notably, the city can use its contribution to the trust fund to pay race-related expenses. According to Rodney Gonzales, deputy director of the city's Economic Growth and Development Services office, any amount not spent to cover hosting expenses would remain in the trust fund the next year and could not be spent for other municipal purposes.Time to wave our checkered flag.Maybe we missed a hairpin turn or two, but its clear the council is gearing up to vote on an agreement committing tax revenue to a trust fund devoted to supporting the F1 races.Subsidy? Sure, though Tovos statement skirts the expectation that the area will draw tax benefits equal to or exceeding the local expenditures. We rate it Mostly True.