Did the Phrase 'a Shot of Whiskey' Originate in the Old West?
Thanks to 150 years of fictionalization in dime novels, Hollywood films, and television shows, that hallowed time and place in American history known as the Old West is as much a figment of the national imagination as it was a historical reality. So deep a wellspring of myth and legend is it, in fact, that people are still making up stories about the Old West today on that most modern of misinformation sources, the Internet.  novels films shows Consider the origin of the expression "a shot of whiskey." In 2016, a social media meme shared via Facebook popularized a long-established folk etymology holding that the phrase originated in frontier saloons with cowboys trading bullets for drinks: meme Although the meme is of recent origin, Internet mentions of this alleged historical fact date to at least 2003. Significantly, however, we were unable to trace it back any further than that, nor could we find any credible support for the general claim that it was common to use ammunition as a substitute for hard currency in frontier drinking establishments. 2003 Was the price of a single .45 six-gun cartridge equivalent to that of a shot of whiskey in the Old West, as claimed? It doesn't appear so. The 1891 edition of Chicago hardware dealer Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.'s General Catalog lists Smith & Wesson .45 cartridges at a price of $25 per thousand, or 2-1/2 cents per cartridge. For the price of a shot of whiskey, we consulted Kelly J. Dixon's 2005 book Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City, which notes that the average cost of a measure of any drink was around two bits, or 25 cents (although the cost later dropped as competition increased when more Americans moved west). Using those figures as our base prices, one shot of whiskey would have cost the equivalent of 10 cartridges. Even allowing for price variations according to time and place, it appears highly doubtful a one-to-one correspondence between the price of a cartridge and the cost of a drink ever existed in the Old West. lists We also looked into the etymology of the noun shot, which has a long and interesting history as well as many shades of meaning. It derives from the Old English verb scotan (later scot), meaning "to shoot," or "let loose a projectile." etymology shot The earliest known usage of "shot" in the sense of "a measure of liquor" appeared in the autobiography of the Rev. Oliver Heywood (1630-1702), in which we find the phrase "their vain way of drinking shots." Unfortunately for the trading-cartridges-for-shots theory, the usage predates the time period of the Old West (which, by convention, was roughly 1850 to 1900) by some 150 years.  autobiography Interestingly enough, the term "shot" was also at one time synonymous with "a charge to be paid" (and, in a more specific usage, "a bill or one's share of it, especially in a pub or bar"), according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Again, however, those meanings predate the Old West era, in this case going all the way back to 15th-century England, hundreds of years before saloons and cowpokes dotted the western frontier of the United States. according Despite their sharing the same derivation, it's unclear precisely how these three disparate senses of the word came to be associated with one another. A theory advanced on the Etymology Online web site suggests that the expression "throw down" (as in "throw down one's money") may link them: Meaning "discharge of a bow, missile," also is from related Old English gesceot. Extended to other projectiles in Middle English, and to sports (hockey, basketball, etc.) 1868. Another original meaning, "payment" (perhaps literally "money thrown down") is preserved in scot-free. "Throwing down" might also have led to the meaning "a drink," first attested 1670s, the more precise meaning "small drink of straight liquor" by 1928 (shot glass by 1955). scot-free Finally, when we used Google's Ngram Viewer to chart how frequently the exact phrase "shot of whiskey" appeared in published sources from the year 1800 on, we found that it didn't actually become common until the mid-20th century, by which time all that was left of the Old West were fading memories, rusting artifacts, and folklore. chart Martin, Katherine Connor.  "What Is the Origin of the Term 'Scot-Free.'"
  Oxford Dictionaries.  15 April 2015. Simmons, Brian M.  "Dime Novels: The Rise of the American Hero."
  Baylor University.  13 August 2013. Smith, Gavin D.  A-Z of Whisky.
  Castle Douglas, Scotland: Neil Wilson Publishing, 2011.  ISBN 9781906476199  p. 250. Etymology Online.  "Shot."
  Accessed 13 October 2017. World Wide Words.  "Shot."
Accessed 13 October 2017.
In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." "If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" says the manta of the fact-checking industry. In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The posting, which was shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon) explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance of obtaining free clothes and gift for simply sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media: @lulurecruitment.co   This is not a genuine offer from Lululemon, and the accounts sharing this message are not affiliated with the brand. Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following: responded FB User: Is this legit? I am assuming no Lululemon: Hi Michelle, You've got itour accounts are verified with the blue check mark, and our ambassadors are chosen individually by our stores rather than via our social channels. This account has been flagged to our brand protection team. Let me know if you have more questions! - Camilla The non-existent ambassadorship was only offered to users with a minimum of 150 followers, which is a relatively low bar for any sort of social media position, especially for a well-known national brand such as Lululemon. This scam also required potential "ambassadors" to follow the fake Lululemon account and then share its post with their friends. This allowed the scammers to build a following and ensured that their dishonest message would be spread to a greater number of social media users. This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party. like farming One way to avoid this type of scam is to double-check to make sure that a company-affiliated post actually originated with the brand's official social media accounts: @lululemon can you confirm if this is real or fake? pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p @lululemon pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p  Jason Davis (@Jasonnn93) December 13, 2018 December 13, 2018  Social media users should also keep old adages such as "nothing in life is free" when they peruse the internet. A somewhat disturbing image of an unknown animal's feet has been circulating online for several years, alongside a variety of claims about its origins. In March 2018, the photograph was re-purposed and shared as if the creature whose prints it captured had been spotted recently on a game trail in Cleburne County, Alabama: photograph   We have not been able to identify the source of this photograph. However, the claims made in recent Facebook posts about it are false: This picture was not taken in March 2018, and the animal it captured traces of (if any) did not destroy a trail camera or kill an Alabama farmer's livestock. This image has been online since at least as far back as October 2015, when it was shared on Instagram along with a story about a sailor in Oman who was "shocked" to find the image on his camera. This photograph has also been used to illustrate similar stories about a strange creature that was supposedly found in India, Brazil, andHawaii. Needless to say, we're skeptical that this exact same photograph was pulled from cameras in so many different locations and times. Instagram India Brazil Hawaii So what does this picture actually show? While this image is frequently claimed to depict evidence of a lobisomem, South America's version of a werewolf, we're fairly certain that this is a dog (or another extant species) suffering from mange: "Mange (demodicosis) is an inflammatory disease in dogs caused by various types of the Demodex mite. When the number of mites inhabiting the hair follicles and skin of the dog become exorbitant, it can lead to skin lesions, genetic disorders, problems with the immune system and hair loss (alopecia)." mange In fact, the paws in this viral photograph closely resemble a 2014 photograph taken by the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham, UK, of a dog suffering from a severe case of sarcoptic mange: photograph This legend has circulated in Great Britain at least since 1972. Author Douglas Adams tells the "packet of biscuits" tale in his 1984 novel So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. He has since recounted it on numerous occasions, claiming it happened to him in 1976 at a station in Cambridge. His claim is doubted by many who point out the self-same tale was around years prior to that, but it is not impossible for events in real life to mimic those of lore. (Indeed, the actual folkloric term for such an event is ostension.) In any case, whether the incident happened to him or not, it is clear the legend did not begin with him: ostension Examples: [Brunvand, 1986] An elderly woman, traveling by bus, had a layover during her journey. She purchased a package of Oreo cookies from a vending machine in the bus terminal and located a table. She placed her cookies on the table, sat down, and proceeded to read her newspaper She was joined by a young man, who, to her surprise, opened the package of Oreo cookies and began to eat them. The woman, saying nothing, but giving him an icy stare, grabbed a cookie. The young man, with a funny look on his face, ate another cookie. The woman again glared and grabbed another cookie. The young man finished the third cookie and offered the last to the woman. Completely appalled, she grabbed the cookie and the young man left. Outraged, the woman threw down her paper only to find her unopened Oreos on the table in front of her.  [Collected on the Internet, 1994] A friend of my aunt was going shopping at the mall, and stopped in a snack bar to rest her feet. She bought a Kit Kat bar, a candy bar which breaks into several pieces. The place was crowded, so the friend was forced to share a table with a meek-looking gentleman. (That's just the way some malls are, I guess.) The expected business happened with the two of them sharing the Kit Kat, but since the Kit Kat had an odd number of pieces, she made sure she got the last one. The man got up without saying a word, went over to the counter and bought a couple of donuts. The friend was working herself into a rage because this guy had eaten her Kit Kat. She imagined that he had bought two donuts to give one to her in apology, and so you can imagine how she got even more angry when he had the gall to go sit by himself at a table far away from her. So, in the strength of her fury, she stalked over to his table, picked up one of the donuts, took a BIG CHOMP out of it, and set it back in front of him. Then she glared at him, said "And a VERY GOOD DAY to you, too!" and stormed out. She got to her car, opened up the purse to get her keys, and you know the rest. [Ann Landers, 1997] A Ferry Story My aunt and uncle own a business in Kamloops, B.C. Here is a true story that happened to one of the women in their office: The woman was taking the car ferry from Victoria to Vancouver. She sat on the deck. Beside her in an empty chair were her newspaper and her chocolate bar. A man sat next to the little pile. He picked up the chocolate bar, ate it, picked up the newspaper, read some of it, threw the candy bar wrapper away, tucked the newspaper under his arm and then walked off. The woman was too shocked to say anything. Having nothing to read, eat or munch on, she decided to go to the cafeteria. There, at a table, sat the man, flipping the pages of the newspaper with one hand, holding a submarine sandwich in the other. Still angry, the woman strode over to him, grabbed the sandwich out of his hand, took a big bite and then put the sandwich back in his hand. She marched off, saying nothing and not looking back. She then decided to go to her car. On the passenger seat were her newspaper and her chocolate bar. She had never taken them out of the car! Variations: Numerous stories about unwitting thieves abound in the realm of contemporary lore, with the "victim turned thief" motif appearing in such tales since the early 1900s. (Visit our Pocket(ed) Watch, Gun-Toting Grannies, and Jogger's Billfold pages for other legends of this type.) Pocket(ed) Watch Gun-Toting Grannies Jogger's Billfold As folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand put it, "All variations on the theme of unwitting theft portray a plausible situation in which we ourselves might act in such an uncharacteristic threatening manner because of a simple misunderstanding." In this legend, the "plausible situation" impels a woman one presumes would not normally make a spectacle of herself to angrily glare at a stranger, screech at him, lecture him, or even defiantly grab a food item she knows is his and tear a bite out of it. Because of the way the characters are presented (the woman exudes a faintly aristocratic aura while the man is described as a leather-clad punk, a foreigner, or an insolent-appearing young person), the woman's social lapse is more glaring. We forgive her outburst at the time ... but afterwards have a chance to reflect on how she handled the situation and conclude there had to have been a better way. Her lapse and the awareness of how she must have appeared to others serves as a caution against our taking similar action in any potentially confrontational encounter that occurs in public. We might not always have all of the facts we think we do. Moreover, even if we do have all the facts, we're going to look like a right idiot to anyone looking on. Sightings: Both the 1990 film The Lunch Date and the 1989 film Boeuf Bourgignon make use of this legend. In both, a well-dressed white woman goes off to fetch silverware and returns to find a Black man eating her lunch. Only after she shares her dinner with the stranger (at one point he fetches coffee for the two of them) and the man leaves does she notice her own meal sitting on another table. The 2010 Ian McEwan novel Solar contains an interesting sighting of the legend, where it is both related as a true story undergone by the book's protagonist and afterwards challenged by a folklorist he encounters on its basis as an urban legend of long standing. Denton. Lisa.  Chewing Gum Keeps the Hearing Aids In.
 The Chattanooga Times. 30 July 1997  (p. C1).  Kaelber, Randy.  The Biscuit Bullet: Is It My Fault?
 FOAFTale News. June 1996  (p. 8). Kreck, Dick.  A Biscuit with Her Name on It.
 The Denver Post. 6 April 1996  (p. D8). McEwan, Ian. Solar.
  Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.  ISBN 978-0-385-53341-6. 
  (pp. 117-8, 119, 121-7, 154-5, 157-8, 179-80). Owens, Gene.  Doughboy Gets Around.
 [Greensboro] News & Record. 11 July 1995  (Food; p. A7). Rose, Allen.  Story of Biscuit Dough Explodes in My Face.
 The Orlando Sentinel. 31 May 1996  (p. D1). Rose, Allen.  Biscuit Dough Makes Impact on Shopper.
 The Orlando Sentinel. 30 May 1996  (p. D1). Sandstrom, Karen.  Joke Telling Done Well Gives Audience More Than Laughs.
 The Plain Dealer. 19 June 1994  (p. B5). Setencich, Eli.  City Shoots First, Asks Questions Later.
 The Fresno Bee. 22 January 1996  (p. B1). Truly, Pat.  The Unthinkable Is Becoming Less So Every Day.
 The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. 19 January 1994  (p. B5). Venable, Sam.  Highway Shooting Incident Turned Out to Be Poppin Fresh.
 The Knoxville News-Sentinel. 19 April 1998. Viets, Elaine.  The Half-Baked Biscuit Bullet Story Wont Die.
 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 13 December 1995  (Food; p. 3). Wikipedia.  "Ostensive Definition; Ostension in Folklore."
  Accessed 14 November 2018. State Sen. Jason Carter -- grandson of former Georgia governor and former President Jimmy Carter -- was theguest speakerat a Marietta Rotary Club meeting last month. In Republican-dominated Cobb County, the Decatur Democrat delivered a speech that veered from the traditional GOP message. Carter told the attendees that continual shrinkage of the government -- which has been a conservative standard -- is hurting Georgia in the long run. We collect fewer state taxes per capita than any other state. We have won the small-government competition, he said. ... And although state taxes are low, Georgia is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government. Is Georgia collecting fewer state taxes while receiving lots of federal government funds on the back end? PolitiFact Georgia decided to look into it. Carter told us that The Marietta Daily Journal, where we first saw his Rotary Club comments, left out part of his statement. He told the crowd that his tax and dependency claims were based on information from the Tax Foundation, Carter told PolitiFact Georgia in a phone interview. He also cited an Atlanta Journal-Constitutionarticleas a second source for his dependency claim. The discussion was about the difference in the levels of government. And while weve shrunk the federal government, weve increased the burden on the state and local governments, Carter said. The key is the state government taxes. We found the Tax Foundation statistics that Carter cited in the organizations Facts and Figures report of state tax data, released in March. The report, by the nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, includes state tax and federal dependency data for fiscal year 2011. According to the charts, Georgia ranked last with $1,639 in state taxes collected per capita. (Georgias2010 populationwas about 9.7 million.) The chart is based on the census definition of state tax collections, Tax Foundation officials told us. The next closest state was South Carolina at $1,650. Alaska collected the most state taxes per capita at $7,708. A second Tax Foundation chart, also for fiscal 2011, showed that Georgia also ranked last in the amount of state revenue collected per capita, at $3,807. The revenue data include the taxes levied by the state as well as other general revenue used to operate, such as licenses, fees and transfers from the federal government. We next went to the Census Bureaus state government tax collectionssummary report, released in April, for fiscal 2012 data. Governing magazine, which covers politics, policy and management issues of state and local governments,aggregatedthe census data. We compiled Governings data into a spreadsheet and found that Georgia ranked second-to-last for the lowest total state taxes per capita, at $1,711.44. New Hampshire ranked last at $1,675.94 taxes collected per capita. So Carters tax claim was correct in fiscal 2011 but off a bit for the following fiscal year. On the second part of his claim, Carter again used Tax Foundation data, along with anAJC storypublished about a week before his Rotary Club speech. The Tax Foundation used figures from the Census Bureau to determine states dependence on the federal government. The organization divided each states intergovernmental revenue, or grants and other aid received from the federal government, into the states general revenue, which includes all tax revenue. Those calculations, also in the Facts and Figures 2013 report, showed that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in the nation in fiscal 2011. Federal aid accounted for about 41 percent of general revenue. Mississippi was the most dependent, getting 49 percent of its revenue from the federal government; Alaska was the least dependent with 24 percent. The AJC story reported that about 31.6 percent, about $12 billion, of Georgias state agency spending was made up of federal funds in fiscal 2012, according to the papers review of budget records. The paper found that Georgia has been using federal money to fill budget gaps created by shrinking tax collections and higher demand for state services such as Medicaid. Georgia legislators have discussed forming a committee to study the states federal government dependence. To sum up, Carter said that the Peach State collects fewer state taxes per capita than any other state, yet is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government. Based on Tax Foundation and census data for fiscal 2011, Carter is correct on his tax collection claim. Advance the data forward a year and Georgia moves up a step in its collections for fiscal 2012. On federal government dependence, analysis of census data shows that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in fiscal 2011. Carters overall point is that Georgia is fostering a smaller state government but at the same time relying heavily on federal funds. He seems correct on that point. But his calculations were slightly off. We rated his claim Mostly True. Evaluations of crime and fraud warnings always generate several related questions. Is this form of scam possible? Is it plausible? Is it common? Has it ever occurred at all? Those are the questions we applied to the following social media meme, which posits a "scam" involving the theft of wallets from purses sitting in grocery carts and related residential burglaries:  The meme contains no detail that would allow tracking its narrative to a particular crime, and we've turned up no verified reports of a similar occurrence. What we can say is that although the theft of purses effected while their owners' attention is focused elsewhere is not uncommon, the burglary aspect of this warning seems to be based on long-outmoded premises about how Americans live and work that would render it extremely unlikely today. purses For starters, you're a prospective burglar. You've lifted a woman's wallet from her purse. Now you need to call her to lure her out of her house, but ... what phone number do you call? This "scam" seemingly hearkens back to the days of landlines, when one could often tie information gleaned from a driver's license (i.e., full name and address) to a phone number through the use of a phone directory or directory assistance. But no similar mechanism exists for now-ubiquitous cellphones. (Possibly one could use the internet to quickly match up a name and address with a phone number, but the odds aren't good.) Moreover, this scheme relies on the out-of-date notion that if a woman is away from home in the middle of the day, her residence will then necessarily be unoccupied (because, of course, the man of the house will be out working somewhere, and the kids will be in school). But a variety of different domestic scenarios are common these days that would place other people at home in the middle of the day: a woman might be living with roommates or parents or adult children; some 40 per cent of Americans work mostly during nonstandard times and are therefore home during the daytime; working at home is becoming increasingly common, etc. 40 per cent at home As well, just because a residence is unoccupied by human beings doesn't preclude the possibility that a security system, barking dog, attentive neighbors, or some other impediment to a broad-daylight burglary isn't present. And in fact, as police routinely point out, most residential burglaries are crimes of opportunity and involve very little planning on the part of the thief (like the type posited here). police All in all, a crook who has successfully lifted a woman's wallet is much more likely going to be content with the bounty found within (e.g., cash, debit cards, credit cards) than with trying to parlay that score into a risky residential burglary. And your residence is far more likely to be the target of an opportunistic, spur-of-the-moment burglary than of one involving an elaborate scheme to lure you away from home. The best advice to be gleaned from this warning is to be sure not to leave purses (or other valuable items) unwatched  even for the briefest of moments  in shopping carts, in restrooms, and in automobiles. And engage in some simple security precautions to make your home less of an inviting target for theft. shopping carts restrooms automobiles precautions Consumer Reports.  "14 Ways to Make Your Home More Secure."
  21 June 2014. Population Reference Bureau.  "A Demographic Profile of U.S. Workers Around the Clock."
  18 September 2008. Kopf, Dan.  "Slowly But Surely, Working at Home Is Becoming More Common."
  Quartz.  17 September 2018. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True. Ohio law contains 128 tax breaks that cost the state about $7 billion per year in lost revenue it otherwise would collect, according to the Department of Taxation.State Rep. Mike Foley, a Democrat from Cleveland, wants to close some of these loopholes so the state has more money for schools, safety forces and other local government services.Foley co-sponsored a bill in February to establish a committee that would review the states tax exemptions every two years. More recently, he tried to get approval for his plan by adding it to a broadly supported general tax bill, House Bill 508, under consideration in the House of Representatives on April 25.Foley said during a floor speechthat tax exemptions need to be reviewed because some of them are fairly silly, such as a sales tax exemption related to private jets.I dont think we need to be giving exemptions to rich people who own private jets, Foley said. Were giving tax breaks to guys that own private jets  that doesnt make any sense.Foleys statement hits on individual tax burdens, a frequently discussed political topic that resonates with many voters. So PolitiFact Ohio decided dig into Foleys claim.Foleys office provided us with a handful of documents to back up his claim, includinga tax expenditure report presented in March 2011 by the Ohio Department of Taxation.But before we examine the report and whether it supports Foleys claim, lets look into how these tax breaks work.Here is the Taxation Departments explanation:Tax expenditures represent tax dollars that are foregone through deductions, exemptions, credits, and other provisions in tax laws, the tax expenditure report says. Tax expenditures result in a loss of tax revenue to state government, thereby reducing the funds available for other government programs. In essence, a tax expenditure has the same fiscal impact as a direct government expenditure.Among the tax exemptions in the report is one for people  who buy a share of a private jet, or what is called a fractionally-owned aircraft.This particular tax break was passed in 2003 as part of the state budget.It does have some limitations. It was crafted to apply only to those who do business with qualified companies that provide fractional ownership of private jets. Qualified companies would operate at least 100 aircraft and meet other criteria.The tax break does not apply to individuals who buy their own private jet.Foley did mention fractional ownership at another point during his floor speech: If you won a fractional or some other sort of ownership of a private jet, then were giving you an exemption on your taxes.The tax loophole caps sales tax at $800 for the sum of shares of a fractionally owned jet. Fractional owners are charged a fraction of the $800 that corresponds with their ownership stake. So if somebody owns one-eighth of the jet, he would pay $100 in sales tax.There are only two companies in Ohio that fit the requirements as a qualified company for this exemption, according to the Department of Taxation. That means only people who buy their fractional ownership from one of these two companies qualify for the tax break.The department, however, would not disclose those companies because the law prohibits disclosure of almost all information on specific taxpayers, taxation department spokesman Gary Gudmundson said in an e-mail.Although the state would not say which two companies qualify for the exemption, NetJets and Flight Options are two prominent fractionally owned aircraft companies based in Ohio.When lawmakers debated the merits of the tax break in 2003, a fractional-ownership company reported that its average share cost was $1.2 million, according to a Department of Taxation analysis of this tax expenditure produced in Jan. 2011. The analysis did not name the company.The taxation department last year estimated in its tax expenditure report that the tax break for fractionally owned aircraft costs the state about $1 million a year.So what does all this mean for Foleys claim?There is no doubt that a tax loophole exists for people who buy a stake in a private jet.A listener hearing Foleys quip about tax breaks for rich people buying private jets could believe he was referring to anyone who buys a private plane. The tax break, however, only applies to fractional ownership programs. Thats additional information that provides clarity. And to his credit, Foley did mention fractional ownership at a different point in his speech on the House floor.And the average share price previously reported -- $1.2 million  suggests the tax exemption would be available wealthy people, just as Foley claimed.On the Truth-O-Meter, Foleys claim rates Mostly True. Madison Mayor Paul Soglin wants to require city contractors to publicly disclose donations theyve made to super PACS or advocacy groups operating in Wisconsin. That has drawn objections from a conservative public interest law firm, theWisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. It contends the liberal mayors proposed ordinance is unconstitutional and violates a bedrock principle of our democracy that government cannot play favorites among citizens, including public contractors, based on their political beliefs. So why does Soglin want to mandate the public disclosures by firms doing business with the city? Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty offered this answer in a June 4, 2012post on its website: Theproposed ordinance, according to Mayor Soglin, is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. Is that what Soglin has said is a goal of the legislation? Asked to back up the groups claim, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty president and general counsel Rick Esenberg pointed to a May 8, 2013story in Madisons Capital Timesthat quoted Soglin extensively about his motives. The article stated that actions by Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature that ran contrary to the wishes of Madison and Soglin were on the mayors mind  when he drafted the ordinance. Legislative action since Gov. Scott Walkers election  including Act 10 in 2011 curtailing the collective bargaining power of most public workers, and more recently, legislation setting levy limits for municipalities and restricting cities powers in tenant-landlord law  got Soglin wondering if companies supporting Republican causes would rather lobby against the city or do business with it, the Cap Times story said. It added: Hes betting that exposing such activities might prompt some companies to curtail them. Those passages suggest pretty strongly that Soglin believes that some contractors faced with being identified as pro-Republican or pro-conservative will reconsider their political activity under his proposal to require them to publicly report their now-private donations to advocacy groups. Deeper into the Capital Times interview, Soglin made another reference to the right side of the political spectrum. He mentioned the Koch Brothers, the billionaire industrialists who founded the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, a tea-party organization that supported Walker in his 2012 recall win. Its unclear how much the group raises and spends because as a tax-exempt organization the group, like many others, does not have to disclose its donors. Soglins additional comments from the article: I think it would be a good idea to know if the bidders are contributing to political efforts which go into organizations that may be lobbying for certain kinds of outcomes or working against the interests of the city. It is simply the idea that sunshine is good. If a company bidding on a city contract also is lobbying for state or federal regulations that make their product required in their industry, the public ought to know about it. At the same time if theyre supplying the city while they're behaving like theKoch brothers, it would be good for the public to know it. Its a bit ironic when someone wants a contract with government, yet supports organizations that hate government and try to make it inefficient. So that is what is in the article. To be sure, the language of the proposed ordinance itself doesnt say Soglins intent is to squelch donations. It says information on donations is essential to the operation of a democracy, informing voters and governments about the activities of those attempting to influence the operations of government. Indeed, the proposal would require disclosure of donations to groups of any political stripe -- it does not single out conservatives or Republicans. Rather, the ordinance specifies that firms and minority owners disclose donations made to tax-exempt 501(c)(4) advocacy or super PAC organizations operating in Wisconsin the prior two years. Contractors would face a one-year ban from receiving city contracts if they fail to disclose any donations to advocacy groups within 30 days of getting a contract. When we reached Soglin, he acknowledged the ordinance might cause some firms hoping to continue as city contractors to stop making donations to groups that oppose the views of he and other city leaders. I will not say that this will leave things exactly the way things are, he said. But Soglin added this: He said the contractors were free to exercise their First Amendment rights and that he hopes they continue to make such donations, saying, I want to know where they stand. He said his goal was to unmask donations, for example, by firms whose ownersmake private donations to advocacy groups working to unseat sitting aldermen. Or to identify firm officials who give to groups supporting private-school vouchers and other programs and decisions he and city officials have opposed. I think the public has a right to know, said Soglin. What would happen if left-leaning city officials discover that contractors are fighting the views of city officials in private? Soglin said no city officials will take into account political donations when officials are deciding on awarding a contract. That language is also included in the ordinance. But Scott Resnick, the Madison Common Councils president pro tem, told us in an interview that aldermen would, in fact, use the information on donations made to groups supporting Republicans in state government when evaluating whether firms should be rewarded future city contracts. So we want to know if you were putting money towards that before we sign another contract with you, he said. This would be one more data set that will be used to make decisions on awarding contracts. In the view of Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Esenberg, the ordinances statement that political activity would not be held against firms at contract time shows the provision has no legitimate government purpose. Curiosity is not a valid governmental purpose, nor is the exposure of private contributions to the public for use by you or others in the political arena, Esenbergwrote to Soglinon June 3, 2013. Soglin, Esenberg said, leaves the listener no other choice but to think that he favors an outcome in which contractors curtail their political activity. He wants to out these people as conservatives or libertarians, and they wont want to be outed that way in Madison, Esenberg said. Our rating The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty contended that, according to Soglin himself, the proposed ordinance is intended to discourage contributions to organizations with which he disagrees. The group cites a newspaper interview that paraphrased Soglin saying that could happen in some cases as a result of his legislation. Soglin told us the same thing, but said his goal was limited to transparency. His statements make pretty clear he looks forward to forcing contractors to choose between trimming their political activity or disclosing it and facing the consequences. And he predicts some will stop making donations. We rate the statement True. 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 As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false.