Just one school district in Texas, Austin ISD, is projected to face a loss of over $530 million in local property tax revenue due to the Robin Hood system this year.
Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Since at least January 2021, actor Anthony Hopkins was featured in an online advertisement about the height of Hollywood celebrity men. The ad read: "Some of the Shortest Men in Hollywood Today."   Readers who clicked the online ad were led to a 95-page story on Cleverst.com. Its headline read: "These Short Male Celebrities Remind Us That Height Doesn't Matter In Hollywood." The lengthy article began with a picture of actor Dave Franco, who is purported to be 5 feet 7. We clicked "next page" 95 times until we realized we had clicked "next article" at the end. Hopkins didn't even show up in the story. Anthony Hopkins' height is listed at 5 feet 9 on various sources, including on his IMDb page. The actor is anything but "short." his IMDb page Hopkins is perhaps best known for his work in the 1991 classic, "The Silence of the Lambs." He won the best actor Oscar for playing the role of the terrifying cannibal, Hannibal Lecter. The long story of "short male celebrities" also featured a 6-feet-tall Vin Diesel, a 5 feet 10 Jason Statham, and 5 feet 9 actors Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Hardy. This was hardly a list of "some of the shortest men in Hollywood today." The Cleverst.com story appeared to be a strategy known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal was to make more money on ads that were displayed on all 95 pages than it cost to display the original Hopkins clickbait picture. The Hopkins photograph lured the readers. Readers then clicked "next page" in a search for Hopkins, who never appeared. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." They also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins The same strategy employed for Hopkins' height was used by other advertisers in the past who placed an ad about Pierce Brosnan's net worth. The ad claimed that "Pierce Brosnan's final net worth left his family in tears." Not only was Pierce Brosnan still alive, but he also did not appear in the lengthy slideshow story that resulted. Pierce Brosnan's net worth Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  The Corporate Angel Network, an organization that coordinates free air travel for cancer patients, began when Coca-Cola executives arranged for the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels to fly a liver from San Diego to Houston in time for transplant into a little girl.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] On November 1, 1986, a Coca-Cola corporate jet arrived at Elisabeth City, North Carolina, carrying the CEO and several members of the Board of Directors. At the same time as it was arriving, a Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was about to take off. It was headed to Memphis, Tennessee to pick up a little girl by the name of Crystal Grant and carry her on to Good Samaritans Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas, to undergo a liver transplant.  As the Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was beginning its takeoff, it blew both front tires, causing the jet to veer off the runway and run into a fence line.  The pilots of the Coca-Cola plane watched the events and slowly began to hear reports over their cockpit radio about the other jet's mercy mission. The CEO and his passengers witnessed the scene, and asked the pilots what was going on. Once the CEO had learned of the situation, he asked to be taken to the Coast Guard Station so he could speak with the Station Commander.  Once there, he asked the Commander if there was anything he could offer or do. The Commander said, in a frustrated voice, "Yeah, can you make miracles happen. We need a jet and we need one fast."  The CEO just smiled and said, "You've got one," pointing to his company jet. Within two hours the Coca-Cola jet was on its way to Memphis and the situation seemed under control.  But - unknown to them - a similar scene was playing out in San Diego, where the donor organ was being prepared for transport to Houston.  The aircraft lined up to take it to Houston had lost its ability to pressurize its cabin and a similar scramble was under way to find a replacement. Calls went out and everyone in San Diego made excuses - from corporate CEO's to airline managers - as to why they just couldn't help out.  Word of the dilemma made its way to Elisabeth City. The situation was reaching its last window of opportunity for the surgeons. Time was now becoming an enemy.  Again, the CEO of Coca-Cola was called to help out. He jumped on the phone and contacted his pilots, who were now in Houston. They told him there was just no way they could go from Houston to San Diego, retrieve the organ, and then return to Houston in time for the operation to take place.  The CEO began to consider what would be speedy enough to retrieve it in time. The answer came to him like a miracle. A call was placed to the Governor of Georgia, and he in turn placed a call to the Governor of California requesting help.  On   that day, sitting on the ramp at the Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego, were 8 brand new F18 Fighters wearing the colors of the "Blue Angels." They were waiting for their debut at an 'Air Show' November 6th.  It took four phone calls to reach the Air Station Commander, and two more to reach the Commander of the "Blue Angels." In less than an hour, Navy Lt. Tony Less, in Blue Angel No. 8, was gear-up and East-bound. His precious cargo was in the rear seat, securely strapped in place by four dress belts.  In Houston, neither the family nor anyone else knew what events had been unfolding.  Without the family or anyone else knowing, the local media had interviewed little Crystal moments before she was placed into the prepping room for her surgery. A reporter asked her if she were scared. Crystal said, "No, I'm not worried. My mommy told me that my Angel would watch over me."  It was an ironic statement indeed. At that moment, Blue Angel No. 8 was disengaging from an Air National Guard refueling tanker over New Mexico and making a mad dash for Houston. The clock was still ticking, and each movement of the hand went further against the surgeons.  With only 90 minutes to spare, Angel No. 8 landed on Houston's Hobby Runway 4L and rolled out to a stop surrounded by police cars and an ambulance to rush the organ to the hospital.  The transplant was successful, and Crystal returned home to Memphis in time for Thanksgiving.  The CEO of Coca-Cola lobbied the Fortune 100 companies to create "Corporate Angel Network," the name inspired by the event involving Coca Cola and the Blue Angels. To this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name "Crystal" written underneath.  A little over a month after the surgery the "Blues" made a planned detour to Memphis to say hello to a little girl named Crystal. And it was on that day, December 18, 1986, that Crystal met her Angel, the Angel who saved her life.  That was fourteen years ago. Today, Crystal Grant is 24, and every year she is personally invited by the Blue Angels to attend a show near her home in Memphis as the guest of honor. Origins:  Glurge involving specific, identifiable people and events are usually based upon a kernel of truth, even if that kernel has surrounded with layer upon layer of fiction, embellishment, and exaggeration.  This one, however, despite referencing names, dates, and places, is as devoid of anything resembling the truth.  The Corporate Angel Network is a real organization, and the Blue Angels are indeed the U.S. Navy's famous flight demonstration squadron, but after mentioning them, this piece takes a left turn from  Corporate Angel Network Blue Angels reality. The Corporate Angel Network works with a network of hundreds of different companies to make availableempty seats on regular business flights of corporation-owned airplanes to cancer patients traveling to or from treatment centers (a service provided without regard to a patient's financial status), and so far they have arranged over 13,000 such flights.  But none of the details provided here about its origins jibes with the truth. The founding of Corporate Angel Network had nothing to do with the CEO of Coca-Cola (in 1986 that position was held by Roberto Goizueta) "lobbying Fortune 100 companies," nor did it involve the participation of (or derive its name from) the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels squadron:  The Corporate Angel Network was started in 1981 by Priscilla Blum of Greenwich, Conn., and Jay Weinberg of Armonk, N.Y., both of whom are recovered cancer patients: Roberto Goizueta The idea of matching cancer patients and corporate shuttle flights began with Pat, who has been flying her Piper Comanche from Westchester for more than 30 years. Time and again, she saw corporate planes take off or land with only the pilot and one or two passengers aboard. Many were small planes, but others were Lear jets and Beechcrafts capable of seating as many as 10.  She contacted Weinberg, a friend and fellow volunteer for the American Cancer Society, who was working with patients at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan. From their conversation in the fall of 1981 the "Corporate Angel Network" was born.  "The name seemed appropriate," Weinberg recalled. "We would be using corporate aircraft and we would be flying missions of mercy."1 The Corporate Angel Network's first beneficiary was not a little girl from Memphis for whom a donor liver was flown from San Diego to Houston on a U.S. Navy F/A-18 in time for transplant, but a Detroit man who traveled to New York on a corporate jet for ongoing cancer treatment: The first passenger was 18-year-old Michael Burnett of Detroit, a patient at Sloan-Kettering who had just lost a leg to cancer. Burnett wanted to spend the Christmas holiday with family and friends in Detroit, but he needed to return to New York to continue his treatment.  Safe Flight Instrument Corp. was sending one of its planes from New York to Detroit on Dec. 22. Leonard Greene, Safe Flight's chief executive officer, had lost his second wife to cancer. Greene didn't hesitate. 1 This piece also oddly omits the names of many of its participants (the CEO of Coca-Cola, a Coast Guard station commander, a U.S. Navy air station commander, and the governors of Georgia and California are all identified as key players in this drama, yet none of them is identified by anything other than his title), and the two names that are mentioned don't correspond with available information.  No locatable news story mentions anything about a girl named Crystal Grant in connection with either the Blue Angels or a liver transplant, and although an officer named Tony Less was indeed the Blue Angels' Commander at one time, he served with the squadron in 1974-75, far too early to have been involved in the Corporate Angel Network's 1981 founding (or the fictional 1986 flight described here).  Additionally, the "fact" that "to this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name 'Crystal' written underneath" is news the U.S. Navy.  Although eight pilots comprise the squadron, only six jets and six pilots are used during demonstrations.  The Blue Angels maintain an additional pair of two-seat jets used for publicity footage and rides for VIPs, as well as three spare jets, but none of the planes bears any artwork or writing other than the standard markings on its exterior. Tony Less The Corporate Angel Network has been able to accomplish a great deal of good for cancer patients thanks to the contributions of hundreds of companies, all of whom should be applauded for their generosity, but let's not allow sappy glurge about Coca-Cola executives and the Blue Angels to slight the honors due to the two people whose imagination and perseverance made the Corporate Angel Network a reality in the first place: Priscilla Blum and Jay Weinberg. Corporate "angels" do indeed help cancer patients.  And little Internet devils create glurge. Last updated:  22 February 2007    Sources:   Blake, Judith.  "You May Be Able to Call for Help When Traveling in an Emergency."   The Seattle Times.  2 February 1986  (p. K1).    Pray, Tom E.  "Corporate Angel Network Finds Friends in High Places." 1   The Westchester County Business Journal.  3 October 1988  (p. 1).    Richter, Paul.  "Transportation Made Available on Otherwise Idle or Unfilled Aircraft."   Los Angeles Times.  21 January 1985  (Home; p. 1).    Business Wire. Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesnt mean the IRS isnt going to come after your earnings. Thats because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities.  The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner.  publications joked running out of time  And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income  categorized as self-employment activity  required to be reported to the federal tax agency.  Publication 17 general rules  Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 the IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items so long as the person returns them to the person they were stolen from in the first place.   Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, notes that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and notes that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in the Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. Its not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, its taxable.  If you find and keep property that doesnt belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), its taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year its your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. Its not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022.  Sources Dolan, Debra. Time Is Running out to Return Stolen Goods to Avoid Paying Taxes on Them. Https://Www.Wdbj7.Com, https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/12/29/time-is-running-out-return-stolen-goods-avoid-paying-taxes-them/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. IRS Asks That Criminals Provide Its Cut of Stolen Property, Illegal Income. KXXV, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/irs-asks-that-criminals-provide-its-cut-of-stolen-property-illegal-income. Publication 17 (2021), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Stole Something? IRS Says Stolen Property and Bribes Must Be Reported as Income. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. John Robitaille, Republican candidate for governor, believes that one reason more Rhode Islanders aren't back at work is that the state pays too much to people who have lost their jobs.During an Oct. 4 appearance on The Helen Glover Show, Robitaille asserted that unemployment compensation and welfare payments can discourage people from accepting jobs that are available, which is why the system needs to be changed to wean them from such programs.One contractor who's a friend of mine told me that he had two people turn him down flat [for a job] because they were making more money on unemployment than wanting to go to work for $15, $17 an hour. That's wrong, he said. Rhode Island has a very generous unemployment compensation rate compared to most other states and, couple that with our very generous welfare programs, and there's not really an incentive for people to go back to work.As of August, 37,298 Rhode Islanders who had lost a full-time or part-time job were receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Whether those payments discourage people from accepting jobs is a matter of opinion. We were interested in the question ofwhether the unemployment benefits are truly generous compared to other states.According to the latest numbers from the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (RIDLT),duringthe first quarter of 2010, the average unemployment insurance payment was $390.53 per week, the fifth highest in the nation. Only Hawaii ($419.27), Washington state ($401.95), Massachusetts ($400.57) and New Jersey ($400.55) paid out more per person.Another way to look at the question is the maximum benefit you can receive. In July 2010, thecapfor a single Rhode Islander was $551 per week. Five other states had a higher ceiling. Massachusetts was tops at $629 weekly.When dependents are factored in, Rhode Island ranks second, at $688 per week. (Massachusetts was the highest, at $943.) But that ranking is misleading because, according to RIDLT spokeswoman Laura Hart, different states have different limits on how many dependents you can claim. In Rhode Island, the limit is five.And that's not the whole story.Living expenses vary from state to state, and New England is noted for having a higher cost of living than many other regions.It's an important consideration, but not an easy one to gauge. The federal government puts outacost of living index for different regions, but not on a state-by-state basis.Instead, RIDLT compared the average weekly benefits in each state with the average weekly wage in those states, using data from the U.S. Department of Labor.By the latest measurement, during the first quarter of 2010 Rhode Island ranked second in the nation. The state paid the typical recipient 47.8 percent of the average weekly wage of $816.71. (Hawaii topped the list, at 54.8 percent. Massachusetts, by that measure, was at 37.3 percent, ranking it 29th. )Put another way, the average hourly wage in Rhode Island during the first quarter of 2010 was $20.42. The average person receiving unemployment insurance got the equivalent of $9.76 per hour. The benefit could be as much as $13.76 an hour for an individual or $17.20 per hour for someone with five or more dependents.By all these measures, Rhode Islanders receiving unemployment benefits are doing better than out-of-work people in most other states, so we rank Robitaille's statement True. After the presidenttalked up national job gains, a Central Texas member of Congress suggested things havent been rosy. U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, whose district stretches nearly to Fort Worth, said in a Jan. 12, 2016,responseto the State of the Union address: Its been seven years since President Barack Obama took office. In that time, the United States has accumulated the largest national debt in its history, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency and the executive branch has expanded its power immensely  the president has chosen which laws to enforce and created new ones without Congress approval. Thenational debt, in raw dollars, is at a record high, and Obama has issued provocative executive orders though, PolitiFactfound in 2014, fewer orders than most recent predecessors. A reader asked us if Williams was correct about the country having fewer working adults than when Carter was president from 1977 into January 1981. Just given population growth, could that be? We asked Williams spokesman Vince Zito how Williams reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. In 2012, PolitiFact explored similar territory,finding Mostly Falsea claim that the American workforce was smaller than when Carter was president. The word workforce refers to the absolute number of people employed or seeking work; that tally was way up by 2012 compared with Carters era due to population growth and, through the 1990s, the expansion of working women. Counting workers So, did the number of working adults subsequently plunge to Carter-era levels? No, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose figures indicate that in 1980, around 100 million people were in the civilian workforce. In 2015,bureau figures show, nearly 150 million Americans were in the workforce -- up about 50 percent from Carters last year as president. By phone to our inquiry, economistStephen Roseof the Urban Institute, a former deputy in the Department of Labor, told us Williams claim isnt supported. Not close, Rose said. Achartin the 2015 Economic Report of the President shows 99.3 million people comprised the civilian workforce in 1980 and 146.3 million were in the workforce in 2014. Another bureauchartindicates 149.7 million people in the workforce in December 2015 and also that the workforce increased nearly every year from 1980 through 2015 -- with the exceptions of 1982, 1991, 2002 and 2008 through 2010, a period encompassing the end of George W. Bushs terms and the first two years of Obamas tenure. From 2010, when an Obama-low 139 million people were in the workforce, the count inched to nearly 140 million in 2011; 143 million in 2012; 144 million in 2013 and 146 million in 2014, according to the bureau. Employment-population ratio By another indicator, Rose said, its possible to compare the share of Americans who had jobs in Obamas years with the share of job-holders when Carter was president. The BLS, drawing on results from the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, calculates the employment-population ratio to reflect the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over thats employed. The highest ratio under Obama was 60.6 in January 2009, the month he was sworn in. The lowest ratio on his watch, 58.2, was set in November 2010 and June and July 2011. In Carters four years as president, according to the bureau, the highest ratio, 60.1, was reached in February and December 1979 and the lowest ratio, 57.0, occurred in January 1977, the month he was sworn in (it nudged to 57.2 the next month). Labor force participation We wondered if another indicator might be relevant. That statistic is the civilian labor force participation rate --meaningthe labor force, civilians 16 and older working full- or part-time, divided by the civilian population. According to the BLS, 62.6 percent of the population comprised the labor force in December 2015, the latest month of available figures. While Carter was president, a bureau chart indicates, the participation rate fluctuated from 61.6 percent in January 1977 to 64 percent in January and February 1980. Score one for Williams, though the rate on Obamas watch peaked at 65.8 percent in February 2009--which was higher than any rate in Carters years or the first seven years of successor Ronald Reagans tenure. The rate was 66.5 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989. Labor force changes Theres another chewy issue: Demographics, particularly the aging of the population, have affected changes in the workforce, making comparisons between current times and Carters era tricky. In the 2000 Census, Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so soon -- numbered about 20 million. But thanks to Baby Boomers, that number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, for almost a 50 percent increase. This matters because the more people aged 60 to 69, the more people who pass into retirement age -- or, put another way, leave the labor force. Even though more people proportionally remain in the workforce after retirement age, the difference isnt big enough to cancel out the flood of new retirees. In 2015, Atlantic magazine published a chart contrasting the workforce in October 1977, in Carters first year as president, and June 2015, in the seventh year of Obamas tenure:  SOURCE: Story,How America's Workforce Has Changed Since 1977,the Atlantic, July 2, 2015 (accessed Jan. 21, 2016) Our ruling Williams said that under Obama, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency. This claim doesnt hold up in that far more people were working the past few years than in Carters time as president. According to a government calculation, about the same share of adults was employed during each Democrats presidency. We rate this statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. During the tour to promote his presidential memoir,Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC'sToday Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents.Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average.Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of modern presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent),George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures. )You can do the same with spending and tax receipts.For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent),George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4).For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson andGeorge W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent).Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider modern. If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts.But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures.And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower.The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller.This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the modern presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the modern presidents to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the modern presidents to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True. On 3 May 2018, the "Occupy Democrats" Facebook page posted a meme which claimed that the president had violated the constitutional separation of church and state by setting up a "religious office": meme   President Trump did sign an executive order in May 2018 to establish a new faith-based initiative within the White House, but nobody from his administration called it a "religious office"  that description appears to have come from Occupy Democrats.  Furthermore, Trump's initiative represents significant continuity of, rather than a departure from, the previous two administrations. Although every detail and working of the new initiative has not yet been outlined, it certainly does not represent a radical change. Trump's White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative bears a striking resemblance to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which George W. Bush set up in 2001, and which Barack Obama continued during his administration but renamed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  set up renamed In brief, Trump's executive order  which he signed on 3 May 2018, the National Day of Prayer  replaces the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships with the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, keeping it within the Executive Office of the President of the United States.  executive order The executive order also sets out the following: Beyond that, Trump's order is somewhat vague on the exact workings of the initiative and the duties of the advisor who will lead it: One potentially significant provision in the executive order calls for those in charge of the Faith and Opportunity Initiative to contact the Attorney General if they see potential executive branch violations of a religious liberty memorandum published by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October 2017.  The Sessions memorandum reiterated the positions set out by Trump in an earlier executive order, in which the President wrote: memorandum executive order It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal laws robust protections for religious freedom.... All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  President Trump has prioritized enhancing legal protections for religious freedom, including when it comes to obligations placed on faith-based organizations that receive federal funding, the freedom of employers and employees to abstain from practices (particularly in health care) which they feel compromise their religious beliefs, and in calling for an end to the Johnson Amendment, a long-standing provision that bars religious 501 (c)(3) non-profit groups from engaging in electoral activism. prioritized provision In his 2001 executive order establishing the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, President George W. Bush emphasized that a driving force behind the policy was a desire to "level the playing field" in the disbursement of federal funding, and enhance the funding opportunities available for religious non-profit organizations  especially those focused on poverty, addiction, crime and other social issues: executive order The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality. The Occupy Democrats meme is largely accurate. In May 2018, Trump did indeed establish an initiative within the White House which would give faith-based organizations what the administration called a "voice in the White House." However, the description of the initiative as a "religious office" did not come from the Trump administration itself, and that is not its official name. called Furthermore, Trump's 2018 initiative represents significant continuity from predecessor offices set up by George W. Bush in 2001 and Barack Obama in 2009, although the exact focus, workings, and influence of Trump's initiative remain to be seen. On 5 May, the "Being Liberal" Facebook page and web site published an article with the headline "Trump quietly signed an Executive Order allowing government to fund religious groups." article This is very misleading, and ignores the fact that the federal government has been providing grants, funding and tax write-offs to religious non-profit organizations for many years, including during the Obama administration. Trump's creation of the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative did not usher in that state of affairs.  Bush, President George W. "Executive Order 13199 -- Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives."
 The American Presidency Project/UCSB. 29 January 2001. Obama, President Barack. "Executive Order 13498 -- Amendments to Executive Order 13199 and Establishment of the President's Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."
 Federal Register. 5 February 2009. Trump, President Donald J. "Executive Order on the Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative."
 White House. 3 May 2018. Sessions, Jeff. "Memorandum for All Executive Departments and Agencies -- Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty."
 Office of the U.S. Attorney General. 6 October 2017. Trump, President Donald J. "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."
 White House. 4 May 2017. White House. "Fact Sheet -- President Donald J. Trump Stands Up for Religious Freedom In the United States."
 White House. 3 May 2018. Updated [8 May 2018]: Added examination of "Being Liberal" article. InJanuary 2016, a photograph purportedly showing musicians David Bowie and Motrhead frontman Lemmy together at a party started circulating online. The photograph was originally posted to the image sharing web site Imgur on 11 January 2016, along with a caption that referenced the deaths of both musicians. Lemmy passed away on 28 December 2015, and Bowie passed a short time later on 10 January 2016: Imgur Bowie Bowie and Lemmy are about to start the most rocking, stellar band ever.Rock In Peace you legends. The photograph went viral as fans of Motorhead and David Bowie mourned the loss ofthe two rock legends. Unfortunately, the above-displayed image is fake. The fake imageof David Bowie and Lemmy isa combination of two photographs: A 1972photoof Lemmy and an unidentified girlfriend, and another image of David Bowie and singer Claudia Lennear: photo     It's possible that David Bowie and Lemmy Kilmister met at some point during their careers, but the above-displayed photo is not proof of such a meeting. Concerns about the countrys food supply are weighing heavily on many Americans as baby formula is hard to find and international conflict threatens commodities like wheat in some parts of the world. A social media post invoking those fears harks back to U.S. history to suggest that the government is purposely creating food shortages. In 1873 the U.S. government killed 1.5 million buffalo to starve Native Americans so they would become more dependent on the government, read one such May 11post. Fast forward to today, and the government is creating food shortages to achieve exactly the SAME goal! It was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) The post has a point about why so many buffalo were killed in the late 1800s, but it makes an unfounded comparison: Theres no evidence the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages. In the mid-1800s, more than 30 million buffalo roamed the plains; by the end of the 19th century, only afew hundredremained. The rapid population decline was due to overhunting, which was welcomed by U.S. officials as a way toforceNative Americans in the Great Plains region tosettle on reservations. Andrew Isenberg, an American history professor at the University of Kansas and theauthorof The Destruction of the Bison, said white hunters in the late 1800s likely killed far more than the 1.5 million buffalo mentioned in the post  a fact federal authorities knew. The U.S. federal government did not actively destroy bison in order to starve Indigenous people in the Great Plains into submission, he said. But the federal government stood by and refused to prevent the wasteful destruction of bison by private white hunters and then welcomed the result of the near extinction of the species: Indigenous peoples surrender to the reservation system. Bison skulls await industrial processing in Michigan in 1892. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library and Wikimedia Commons) Gen. William Sherman, who commanded the U.S. Army in the region, negotiated treaties with groups of Indigenous peoples in the Great Plains in the late 1860s, Isenberg said. The U.S. agreed to allow Native Americans to occupy large parts of the Great Plains so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase. Not long after those treaties were negotiated, Isenberg said, Sherman wrote a letter saying, it will not be long before all of the buffalos are extinct near and between the railroads. By 1873, welcoming the extinction of buffalo to suppress Indigenous peoples had become de facto government policy, Isenberg said. In an 1872 report, Interior Secretary Columbus Delanowrotethat the buffalos disappearance must operate largely in favor of our efforts to confine the Indians to smaller areas, and compel them to abandon their nomadic customs, and establish themselves in permanent homes. Although the decimation of the buffalo population was ultimately the work of private hunters, the idea that destroying bison was a way to force the surrender of Indigenous people in the Great Plains was quite overt, Isenberg said. While there is concern about global food shortages because of the war in Ukraine, experts told PolitiFact in April that the U.S. isless vulnerableto food shortages than poorer nations that rely largely on imports. The U.S. food system has a good level of self-sufficiency, so currently, it is hard to imagine empty shelves in grocery stores, said Ohio State University agricultural economist Seungki Lee. And though claims have surfaced suggesting the U.S. government isintentionallycreatingfood shortages, we have found there is no evidence to back that up. A number of factors havecontributed tothe U.S. baby formula shortage, including arecallby a major U.S. manufacturer, existing supply chainissuesassociated with the COVID-19 pandemic and thehighlyconcentratednature of the formula market. View of almost empty baby formula shelves at a Duane Reade in New York City on May 11, 2022. (AP) A post claimed that the U.S. governments inaction over buffalo killing that harmed Native American populations in the 1800s shows it is now is creating food shortages so that Americans are more dependent on the government. Millions of buffalo were killed by hunters in the late 1800s as part of a de facto government policy meant to force Native Americans in the Great Plains to abandon their customs and accept the reservation system. This racist history, however, does not prove that the U.S. government is currently creating food shortages to force government dependence. We found no evidence to support that claim. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: What can parents do if they cant find baby formula in stores?