US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%.
President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
Classic Disney cartoons have proved to be a consistent source of conspiracy theories, rumors, and urban legends. For instance, we've previously investigated claims that Winnie the Pooh was actually a girl (false), that the Seven Dwarfs were modeled on cocaine addiction (False) and that a topless woman could briefly be spotted in VHS copies of "The Rescuers" (True). urban legends false False True In January 2019, we encountered yet another Disney rumor: This time, the internet asked, is the Goofy cartoon character actually a cow rather than an (anthropomorphic) dog? Although this dog vs. cow debate wasn't entirely new in 2019, that time around it was supposedly supported by an "investigative article" published in 2012 by the website Reel Rundown. While that article did contain some factual information regarding the history of the Goofy character, which is likely the reason why some people have accepted it as a truthful account of Goofy's supposed sordid past, it is peppered with exaggerations, speculation, outright fabrications, and was clearly written with humorous intentions. Reel Rundown Reel Rundown presented their argument as if they were uncovering a vast Disney conspiracy theory aimed at covering up Goofy's unsavory bovine heritage. In the introductory section, entitled "Goofy Is Not a Dog -- The Cover Up," the author argued that Goofy was actually a foreign-born cow and that Disney was forced to conceal this fact due to the political climate in the 1930s: Goofy has always been thought of as a "dog with human features" according to Disney's Mouselinks. However what the Disney establishment isn't telling you is the goofy is really a cow. To be specific an Aberdeen-Angus Cattle. A fact that Disney would love to cover-up considering that Goofy's national origin is anything but American. In 1939 with American nationalism at an historic high, Goofy's true heritage could have created a huge scandal for Disney. A Scandal that would have finished Goofies [sic] career just as it was starting to take-off." The next section, "Goofy's Heritage Revealed," was even more outlandish. Reel Rundown imagined Goofy as a living, breathing, physical animal who was born "Dipalwa Dawala" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and was "discovered by Disney talent scouts during a livestock sale." During the "Dark Years" section of the article, the website upped the absurdity and claimed that Goofy's son died from Mad Cow disease. For those who took the time to read the article, it should have been obvious that it was a work of humorous fiction. However, it seems that some readers stopped at the headline and were left convinced that Goofy was actually a cow, not a dog:   Although this article was clearly written in jest, some of its curious claims have been spread in support of the "Goofy is a cow" argument. We'll dispel some of this misinformation to stop malicious propagation of rumors about this beloved Disney dog. Disney dog Was Goofy "born" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and named "Dipalwa Dawala?" First off, Goofy wasn't "born" anywhere: He was created by Disney animators Art Babbitt and Frank Webb in the 1930s. Goofy was introduced as a side character named "Dippy Dawg" in the cartoon short Mickey's Revue (1932) but underwent some revisions over the next few years. While Goofy has gone by a number of names during his Disney career (including Super Goof, Dippy Dawg, George G. Geef, Goofus D. Dawg, and Goofy Goof), we were unable to find any credible source listing the character as "Dipalwa Dawala." Art Babbitt introduced In fact, the only search results we could find for this term all point back to this Reel Rundown article. In other words, Goofy has never been named "Dipalw Dawala." Does Goofy's old love interest, Clarabelle the Cow, prove that Goofy is also a cow? Reel Rundown ended their humorous work of fiction with an "evidence" section claiming that Disney's history of creating same species couples (Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, etc.) pointed to Goofy's being a cow since he once had a love interest named Clarabele Cow: Goofy's love interest in the Mickey Mouse clubhouse is Clarabelle the Cow. The on-screen chemistry is obvious. Disney often couples characters with the opposite sex of the same species. Mickey and Mini, Donald and Daisey [sic] both follow this pattern. So why would the writers at Disney have Goofy and Clarabelle coupled up? While it's true that Goofy and Clarabelle Cow were once an item, this is not proof that they were the same species of animal. Clarabelle was the sometimes girlfriend of Horace Horsecollar, who was a horse and not a cow, and the Disney universe includes multiple examples of inter-species couples: Ben Ali Gator, for instance, woos Hyacinth Hippo in Fantasia; Jessica Rabbit (a cartoon human) has a rabbit husband in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog have an ongoing (if one-sided) relationship in the Muppet canon. Outside the Disney universe, Bimbo, a cartoon dog, was the occasional love interest of Betty Boop (a human female), and of course, Tillie Tiger once planted a kiss on Elmer Elephant:   The Reel Rundown article was clearly a jape. However, it made us curious about Goofy's actual origins and whether the character was originally intended to represent a dog. In Art Babbitt's character analysis of Goofy from 1934 (available via the website of animator Michael Sporn), Goofy is described as a "composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured coloured boy and a hick." In his description of how Goofy should be drawn, Babbit mentioned two real-world creatures, neither of which was a cow: website It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof's head and Pluto's. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human. The Goof's head can be thought of in terms of a caricature of a person with a pointed domelarge, dreamy eyes, buck teeth and weak chin, a large mouth, a thick lower lip, a fat tongue and a bulbous nose that grows larger on its way out and turns up. His eyes should remain partly closed to help give him a stupid, sloppy appearance, as though he were constantly straining to remain awake, but of course they can open wide for expressions or accents. He blinks quite a bit. His ears for the most part are just trailing appendages and are not used in the same way as Pluto's ears except for rare expressions. His brow is heavy and breaks the circle that outlines his skull. A description of the character from Disney.go.com also compares Goofy to Pluto but notes that Goofy was created as more of a human character: "Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice." Disney.go.com When we reached out to Disney for comment, a spokesperson told us that both The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agreed that Goofy was indeed an anthropomorphic dog. Erin Glover, Director of Publicity and Communications at Disney Animation, told us: The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agree that this question was best answered by Disney Legend Dave Smith: "Goofy was originally created as a human character with dog-like characteristics, thus why he walks upright, wears clothes, talks and has animal features that resemble a dog." The Disney Domain.  "The History of Goofy."   13 April 2016. Disney.go.com.  "Characters: Goofy."   Archived 1 August 2003. Fischer, Tony.  "Is Goofy a Dog?"   Reel Rundown.  9 January 2019. House Democrats are advocating legislation that would send Americans a new round of checks to help with financial problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic. A Facebook post says that under their proposal, immigrants in the country illegally also stand to benefit, getting billions of dollars. Pelosis new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments, said text over a photo of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding a gavel, with a crowd of people, purportedly immigrants, in the background. The caption on the May 12Facebook postsaidthe payments would not just be a one-time check, they would give them past, current any future payments of YOUR money as 33 million Americans are unemployed. The post is from We Build The Wall, Inc., a group that's raising money to build sections of barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) Pelosi does support a bill that would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to get coronavirus emergency aid from the federal government. But the Facebook post needs clarification and additional information. The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or theHEROES Act, was introduced May 12 and passed the House May 15,208-199, with only one Republican vote. Among thekey provisionsof the roughly $3 trillion bill, it gives nearly $1 trillion to state and local governments, creates a $200 billion hazard-pay fund for essential workers, and provides $75 billion to support coronavirus testing, contact tracing and patient isolation. The bill also offers a new round of direct payments to families  $1,200 per person and up to $6,000 per household. The payments would go out to people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 (and to some who didnt), with the total amount based on income. For instance, a single person who earned less than $75,000 would get $1,200; those who earned $75,000 or more would receive less. The proposal seeks to augment the financial assistance that started mid-April when one-time checks were sent under theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act. Under the CARES Act, however, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents were ineligible for a check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used anIndividual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN. ITINs are issued by the IRS to people who dont have a Social Security number, including immigrants in the country illegally, so they can use it to pay federal income taxes. (Some international students and researchers and their spouses also use ITINs.) The IRS in 2014saidITIN filers pay over $9 billion in annual payroll taxes. RELATED:Claim about stimulus check eligibility for Americans married to immigrants missing context Pelosi and other House Democrats havesaidthat mixed-status families should not have been left out of the CARES Act. So the proposed HEROES Act includes them in its aid package, and retroactively makes ITIN filers eligible for the CARES Act payment as well. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, using IRS data,estimatedthat this provision would benefit more than 4.3 million adults and 3.5 million children in households of ITIN filers or of mixed immigration status, paying them a total $16.4 billion ($7 billion under the CARES Act and $9.4 billion under the HEROES Act). The beneficiary figures include ITIN filers as well as their spouses and children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Meg Wiehe, deputy executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said it was difficult to discern from the IRS data exactly how many prospective beneficiaries are immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Julia Gelatt, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said a lot of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents can get support through unemployment insurance, stimulus payments, food stamps and other public benefits. ITINs are used for federal tax reporting, but they do not provide legal immigration status, and immigrants in the country illegally are generallyineligiblefor federal public benefits, such as food stamps. The goal of the HEROES Act, as it relates to unauthorized immigrants and their family members, is to help people who are struggling financially and who have no access to other financial support, Gelatt said. The HEROES Act financial assistance isnt exclusive to ITIN filers; U.S. citizens and green-card holders who file taxes using a Social Security number would also benefit, with the same aid amounts and income thresholds. The payments to all eligible people are estimated to costmore than $400 billion. A Facebook post said, Pelosis new coronavirus bill allows illegals to receive billions in relief funds in past, current, and future payments. The HEROES Act, a proposal backed by Pelosi, would allow immigrants who are in the country illegally and who pay taxes to receive federal relief funds during the coronavirus pandemic. Immigrants who pay taxes using an ITIN would be eligible for an aid payment under the HEROES Act, and retroactively under the CARES Act, which corresponds to the current and past payments cited in the post. Its unclear what is meant by future payment. We contacted We Build the Wall for comment, but did not hear back. A tax policy group estimated that if the HEROES Act became law as written, about $16.4 billion would go to households of ITIN filers or of mixed status. Beneficiaries would include U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who live in a household with an ITIN filer. The post is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. In the summer of 2020, readers asked us to examine widely shared Facebook posts that claimed the Kroger supermarket chain was refusing to give customers cash change, and thereby overcharging them.  One widely shared post from July 9 stated that: post "Kroger will no longer keep coins in the drawer. Starting tomorrow. We will take them, but we can't give change. You can round up to the nearest dollar and donate it to the food bank, or round up and it goes onto your Kroger card as a credit. So it begins ..."   One week later, Facebook users began sharing a post that purported to describe a contentious transaction and conversation at a Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois. The post claimed that, in light of a coin shortage, Kroger was rounding up the price of items to the next dollar, where a customer pays in cash, and then refusing to give out change, thus effectively overcharging customers: users began sharing post ... Stopped by Kroger today for just a gallon of milk. Seems due to this "Change Shortage", their new policy is to round every cash purchase UP to the next full dollar! I can even accept if they insisted on they could not "give" any coin back.It cost $2.41. I offered $2.50 payment. The clerk refused the quarters, explained "due to change shortage" policy & demanded another dollar instead. I offered the $2.50 again.Clerk: "Your total is $3.00."Me: The total is $2.41, which $2.50 adequately covers & I don't care to give up the 9 cent, but I do NOT accept being up charged 60 cent while you refuse to take the coins I am offering.Clerk: it's $3.00 So literally the clerk was insisting I pay the $3 or they were refusing the sale. WTF ?!?...   A nationwide coin shortage did take place in the summer of 2020, contrary to a prevalent conspiracy theory that falsely claimed the crisis was fabricated or manufactured in order to usher in a cashless economy as part of a broader push towards a "New World Order." That conspiracy theory reared its head in the Kroger post, which included the line, "This is how being FORCED into a Cashless economy begins!" did take place conspiracy theory Remarkably, it is not clear what Kroger's company policy was with regard to providing cash change to customers, at the time the Bourbonnais Facebook post was originally published, in the early hours of July 16.  Initially, a spokesperson for the company provided Snopes a statement which asserted that, in light of the ongoing nationwide coin shortage, Kroger was offering customers the option of receiving the amount of their change in the form of loyalty card credit or rounding up their total and donating the remainder to charity, as well as the existing options of paying by credit or debit card, or paying by cash and getting cash change. The statement read: "We remain committed to providing our customers with an uplifting shopping experience and the freedom and flexibility to choose their payment method, including cash, during this unprecedented time. The Federal Reserve is experiencing a significant coin shortage across the U.S., resulting from fewer coins being exchanged and spent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many retailers and businesses, we are adjusting to the temporary shortage in several ways while still accepting cash. "Customers can switch their payment type (e.g., use debit or credit vs. cash), and through our upgraded technology, we can now load coin change to their loyalty card for use during the next shopping trip, provide coin change at a lane with coins available or round up their order to support The Kroger Co. Zero Hunger | Zero Waste Foundation, a public charity committed to creating communities free of hunger and waste." [Emphasis is added.] However, after this fact check was first published, we became aware of contradictory public statements attributed to Kroger earlier in July. In a July 15 article, KABC-TV reported that Kroger had "announced this week that they will not be returning coin change to customers who pay with cash." The article attributed the following statement to the company: KABC-TV "Currently our stores are collecting donations... by allowing customers to round up their order total to the next dollar... For customers that choose not to donate, our cashiers will load the coin value due back through their loyalty card. Customers can redeem the amount on their next transaction. We know this is an inconvenience for our customers and we appreciate their patience." That statement made no mention of the continued possibility of customers receiving their coin change as coin change, an omission which naturally indicates that Kroger policy at that time was to not provide customers with coin change.  On July 10, a named company spokesperson appears to have told another news outlet that Kroger policy was to no longer give out coin change. WXIX reported that: "Kroger spokesperson Erin Rofles confirmed Friday the grocer will no longer return coin change to customers. Instead, the remainders from cash transactions will be applied to customers loyalty cards and automatically used on their next purchase." WXIX We asked Kroger to explain these glaring discrepancies in the company's various public articulations of its policy on coin change. A spokesperson said that the statement initially provided to Snopes (which asserted that company policy was to give customers the option of receiving coin change) was "first issued on July 13," suggesting the company had been consistent in its messaging on the subject. We found the same wording in a series of tweets the company sent to a customer on July 14. Nevertheless, the company also told KABC-TV the opposite in an article published the following day.  tweets In one particularly egregious example of the confusion surrounding Kroger's articulation of its policy, on July 14 the company actually posted two different sets of tweets in response to the same customer's inquiries on Twitter. In one pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that customers could either have their change loaded on to their loyalty card or donated to charity (no mention of coin change). In a second pair of tweets, Kroger told @bbaum17 that the company could accept a credit or debit card as payment, or load the customer's change on to their loyalty card, or have it donated to charity, or they could "provide coin change at a lane with coins available."  sets of tweets The company spokesperson suggested to Snopes that news articles reporting that Kroger was no longer giving out coin change might have been based on signs that have been erected inside Kroger supermarkets. The spokesperson provided the following example, which reads: ATTENTION CUSTOMERS:The Federal Reserve is currently experiencing a coin shortage. Please consider Rounding Up for Zero Hunger ZeroWaste, using exact change or another form of payment. We apologize for any inconvenience this maycause and appreciate your help.   A sign that apologizes to customers for the inconvenience associated with an ongoing nationwide coin shortage, suggests three ways to avoid the need to provide change, and omits to mention that customers can still get their change in coin form is very obviously likely to create the perception that Kroger no longer gives out coin change.  We asked Kroger for exact details on whether, when and how its policy on coin change had changed; as well as whether, when, and how those changes had been communicated to Kroger's regional divisions, in-store employees, and paying customers. We will update this fact check if we receive a response to those questions.  In its initial statement to Snopes, Kroger gave us the clear impression that its policy on coin change was unambiguous, made no mention of any existing confusion or misinformation over that policy, and made no mention whatsoever that the company and its spokespersons had previously made directly contradictory public statements about that policy.  In reality, Kroger and its spokespersons had indeed issued contradictory and confusing public statements, and had done so before the original "Bourbonnais" Facebook post was published in the early hours of July 16. As a result, we are changing the rating in this fact check from "false" to "Mixture." It's not entirely clear what took place at the Kroger supermarket in Bourbonnais, Illinois, specifically, but it appears to have been at least similar to the description in the widely shared Facebook post. A spokesperson for the company told Snopes:  "The associate who engaged with this customer was newly trained to the cashier role and misunderstood the various ways were adapting to the temporary national coin shortage. It is an isolated event, and weve since coached the associate and contacted the customer." This appears to be a tacit admission by the company that, in the specific instance highlighted in the Facebook post, the cashier did incorrectly insist on receiving $3 in cash for the milk, but that this was not in keeping with the company's policy, although as we outlined above, the company's public articulation of its policy on coin change has not been consistent. The image of a receipt that accompanied the viral Facebook post was dated July 15, and indicates that the customer in question paid $3 in cash for a $2.41 container of milk (after tax). A line in the receipt labelled "change shortage" had $0.59 next to it, and the "change" line had 0.00 next to it. That indicates that the customer did not receive cash change.  Shortly after midnight on July 16, a person who lives near Bourbonnais, whose name we are withholding because their original Facebook post was private, published what appears to be the original version of the subsequently widely shared post. (That original version of the post began "Stopped by Kroger today" while versions published later began "Stopped by Kroger yesterday," and the edit history of the post shows that a photograph of the receipt that showed the name of the cashier was replaced with a photograph showing the cashier's name obscured -- both signs that the post was published by the customer in question).  We contacted that person, whose identity we verified. In an email to Snopes, that person reiterated the version of events presented in the original Facebook post. The customer clarified that it was not possible to purchase the milk with a debit or credit card because the patron lives on "a cash basis." To complicate matters further, on July 22 a Facebook page with the name "KROGER-Bourbonnais" published responses to the viral post, explaining that the company was "currently allocating the remaining change that you would typically receive after your purchase to your Kroger Loyalty Card," but later wrote that "we are not rounding up ... it was just a mistake of [sic] a cashier." explaining later Those posts were not written by an authentic Kroger company account, a spokesperson told Snopes, adding "Our social media team isnt affiliated with it." Mac Guill, Dan. "Did a Nationwide US Coin Shortage Occur in Summer 2020?"
  Snopes.com.  8 July 2020. Grider, Geoffrey.  "Remember the Psy-Op Called the Great Toilet Paper Shortage? Now We Are Pretending There's a National Coin Shortage ..."
  NowTheEndBegins.com.  11 July 2020. Updated [23 July 2020]: Rating changed from "false" to "Mixture." Article substantially updated to include Kroger's previous, contradictory public articulations of its policy on coin change. In late March 2020, a meme circulated on social media that falsely reported the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., had "laundered" COVID-19 stimulus money for the Democratic Party instead of paying its workforce, including musicians with the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO):The Kennedy Center, a major venue for classical performing arts in Washington, D.C., did receive $25 million from the $2.2 trillion federal-relief package to stem financial fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The relief package included millions earmarked to support various arts organizations.  The Center also completed a privately funded $250 million renovation in late 2019 and received an appropriation in 2019 of $41 million from the U.S. government in 2019. Both examples listed in the meme, however, are unrelated to funds it received in the coronavirus-relief package. $250 million $41 million Furthermore, the Center did indeed furlough workers, including orchestral musicians, even after learning it would receive $25 million from the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that President Donald Trump signed into law on March 27, 2020. However, the Center, which is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, did not then donate $5 million of relief funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Under U.S. tax law, 501(c)3 organizations are legally prohibited from making "contributions to political campaign funds." A spokeswoman for the Center confirmed to us that the organization made no contribution to the DNC and said the Center "has never donated money to a political organization." legally According to a statement from the Center, the organization furloughed the majority of its workforce beginning April 6 through "at least May 10, 2020." Even with the $25 million federal relief funds, the Center said its financial projections showed it would "run out of cash as early as July. In order to stretch the Centers finances as long as possible, we must take immediate action to change our expense structure and preserve cash." The Twitter user who originated the meme followed up by clarifying that she meant the scenario as a "hypothetical" and not as something to be taken literally: clarifying  John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts."A Statement from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts."
31 March 2020. DC Federation of Musicians."Kennedy Center Unilaterally Cuts Off National Symphony Orchestra Musicians Pay."
29 March 2020. McGlone, Peggy."Kennedy Center Announces 250 More Layoffs in Wake of $25 Million Federal Grant."
 The Washington Post.31 March 2020. Internal Revenue Service."The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations." In September 2018, a photograph went viral on social media along with a caption which claimed it showed a woman named "Brittany L." holding a leopard she had just killed during a hunting expedition. On 10 September, the wildlife artist Sue Dickinson posted the photograph to her Facebook page along with a message which read as follows: posted This is Brittany L. She just killed this male leopard in his prime. According to SCI (Safari Club International) this leopard ranks as potentially the 9th largest leopard ever hunted. She's a cretin. Please share if you agree. Let's name and shame her.   Dickinson's post was shared hundreds of thousands of times within a week and was re-published through multiple accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, including the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Naomi Campbell The image is authentic and captures a woman posing with a real leopard that she herself killed. The photograph was first posted on 7 September 2018 to the web site of Safari Club International, a hunting organization based in Tucson, Arizona, as part of a group of new entries into the organization's online record book: posted SCI members share their hunter pride SCI Members hunt all over the globe, and are proud to share their successes. By entering their successful hunts in the SCI Record Book, they are not only documenting their hunting legacy for future generations, they are also adding to one of the largest and most comprehensive wildlife databases in the world. The URL of the controversial photograph contains the words "Brittany L" and "leopard," so it was reasonable for internet users to deduce that the woman shown with the leopard had the first name Brittany and a surname beginning with the letter "L." Indeed, we can confirm that Brittany L. is the woman shown in the photograph (rather than the name of the person who submitted it to SCI's record book). On 7 September, SCI posted more details about "Brittany L.'s" leopard photograph on HuntForever.org, a website affiliated with the organization. That blog post has since been removed, but we obtained an SCI newsletter email dated 7 September with content identical to the blog post's embedded in it (despite the post's having been removed from HuntForever.org itself). affiliated That blog post described the contentious photograph as follows: "Brittany L. is featured here with her African leopard that potentially ranks number 9 overall and scores 18 4/16." described Safari Club International.  "SCI Members Share Their Hunter Pride."
  7 September 2018. Claim:  A store in Colorado accepts food stamps towards the purchase of food items containing marijuana.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Is there a pot shop in Colorado that is taking food stamps for food items containing marijuana?   Origins:  On 3 January 2014, the National Report published an article positing that in Colorado (where marijuana use had just been legalized) a store had begun accepting food stamps towards the purchase of food items made with marijuana: article As of January 1st, 2014, Colorado became the first state in the nation to allow adults aged 21 or older to purchase and use marijuana for recreational use. The decision has led to excessively large lines at pot shops across the state and store owners reportedly surpassed $1 million in sales statewide on just the first day according to Denver's 9News. In all, 136 licenses have been approved by the state of Colorado for retail operations for the purposes of selling marijuana.  A majority of those licenses were issued tobusinesses in Denver with just eighteen city stores completing the process in time for opening day. One of those shops, Rite Greens, located on E. Colfax Ave in Denver, has taken the steps needed to accept food stamps (now called EBT cards) for the purposes of purchasing marijuana, effectively leading to taxpayer funded marijuana for welfare recipients.  Electronic Benefit Transfer cards  part of the Department of Agricultures Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  are typically of two general categories:  food and cash benefits.  [Store owner] JC Franco was able to take advantage of a loophole in the SNAP program as his shop sells a wide array of "edible" marijuana ranging from cookies and brownies to barbeque sauce and homemade butter. By the end of the day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news item.  However, the article was just a bit of political humor from the National Report spoofing the controversy over legalized recreational marijuana use and stereotypes about recipients of government assistance.   The National Report is a satirical web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's  (since removed) disclaimer page states that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. (NOTE: A good deal of misunderstanding about the use of EBT funds to purchase marijuana has led many readers to maintain that the article referenced above, though satirical in nature, is true in concept.  We address those misconceptions in a separate article.) misconceptions Last updated:  13 September 2014 On 16 April 2017 Politicalo.com published an article suggesting that the President's son Eric Trump claimed his father was going to discontinue taxation on wealthy Americans, thereby rendering debate over the elder Trump's tax returns irrelevant: Politicalo.com article As always, his son Eric was there to provide a helping hand in defending his father. During an brief phone interview with KYXL Radio based out of Orlando, Florida, President Trumps second son argued that his fathers tax return is irrelevant, largely because he knows all there is to know about following the letter of the law, especially when it comes to paying taxes. He said, When you come from a background like the one my father comes from, you have to know all there is about paying taxes and doing your part to make this country a better place. Eric continued, And while were on the subject, I kind of have to say, its funny how taxes work. They sort of punish the hardest working and most productive members of our society while taking nothing from those who would rather be lazy and beg on the streets. Thats kind of not fair. What he have here is a system that flat out punishes those who want to contribute and make their lives better and at the same time, rewards those who want to be nothing more than dead weight. The worst part is, Im not saying something thats revolutionary here; this system has been in place ever since the country was established. My father, regardless of the fact that hes president, is just one person out of millions of those who are capable enough to be successful but are simultaneously struck down by our tax system. Thats a catastrophe ... At the end of the day, its irrelevant whether my father choses to disclose his tax return or not. It wont matter soon anyway Although Newslo (and its sibling sites Religionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo) are often identified as fake news by social media users, the claim was picked up by the hyper-partisan web site Democratic Moms and spread with fewer obvious red flags. Newslo and related sites normally start each article with a paragraph of factual information followed by the embellishments featured in its headlines. Newslos "hybrid" fake news sites include a clickable feature enabling readers to "show facts" or "hide facts." When a reader clicks "show facts," the factual portions of the article are highlighted. However, by default, all articles first appear in "hide facts" mode: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo Democratic Moms fake news   As the article indicated, President Trump tweeted about his tax returns and currency manipulation on 16 April 2017: Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  I did what was an almost an impossible thing to do for a Republican-easily won the Electoral College! Now Tax Returns are brought up again?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017  But as the "Show Facts" button demonstrated when activated, the Eric Trump's purported statements on taxation and wealth were fabricated: Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. Chris Christies heard the complaints often. He cut education funding. He supports charter schools. Hes hard on teachers, and his quest for tenure and other reforms is over the top. But the governor continues responding to those complaints with various versions of this refrain: New Jersey has the most funding put toward education in state history. And Christie said it again Nov. 2 during a gubernatorial campaign stop in Somers Point, when he and a public school teacher got into an argument. Christie was re-elected Tuesday. In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time, Christie said when the teacher cited the governors education funding cuts for why he has referred to New Jersey schools as failure factories. Technically Christie is right about the level of education funding in New Jersey, but as weve pointed out in the past, theres a bit more to this story that he doesnt address. First, lets get back to that remark about failure factories. Christie used it during a speech he gave Oct. 6 to the Orthodox Union in Teaneck, where he promoted his education policies. I would be happy to take as many dollars as possible away from failure factories that send children on a no-stop route to prison and to failed dreams, if we could take that money and put it into a place where those families have hope, Christie said. Now, to the governors point about education funding. Christies proposed fiscal year 2014 budget called for nearly $9 billion in education funding, about $1 billion more than the previous year. Under that spending plan, state aid to schools increased $97 million. While no district saw a state aid decrease, many either received an increase of $1 or their funding stayed the same as the previous year. At the time, Christie released a statement through the state Department of Education in which he touted the funding level while also emphasizing fiscal restraint. However, even as we continue to fund education at the highest levels in state history, we must remain willing to reflect on how we are spending our money and work towards solutions that make every dollar we invest count, he said in the statement. Weve previously run Christies claim past Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the states largest teachers union. Wollmer agreed that in terms of dollars, its correct that the state has its highest-ever level of education funding. But that doesnt mean there hasn't a been long-lasting downside to cuts that Christie made during his first year as governor. He took office in January 2010. But what he doesnt mention is that he cut $1.3 billion from state aid in his first year  Withholding $475 million in aid in January, which was the amount that the states nearly 600 districts had in total surpluses for unanticipated expenses (a new roof, a bus that needed replacing, an unanticipated special ed placement), and another $820 million in the FY11 budget (which began for schools in September of 2010), Wollmer said previously in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey. Districts cut back dramatically, and 10,000 teachers and staff were laid off, programs were cut, and class sizes increased. Those cuts continue to sting, Wollmer said. In addition to the cuts, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 ordered Christie to increase aid to the now-former Abbott districts by about $500 million. Our ruling Christie last week said during an argument with a teacher, In fact, theres more state funding for education today than any other time. Critics frequently call the governor out for the massive funding cuts hes made to education since taking office, and for either increasing state aid by a minimal amount or not at all. But the fact of the matter is that despite the cuts, New Jerseys education funding level is the highest its ever been. For that reason, we rate Christies statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. A reader noted Republican Glenn Hegars upbeat comments about plummeting oil prices and requested a fact check. Hegar, the former state senator elected Texas state comptroller in 2014, told reporters early this year there are benefits to falling oil prices. Lower fuel costs should reduce the price of importing goods, which is great for consumers and, ultimately, our economy, Hegar said, according to anAustin American-Statesmannews story. In fact, the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. The same story noted the price of oil had fallen about 50 percent since June 2014 to just more than $50 a barrel. And are lower fuel prices equivalent to a 2 percent pay raise for taxpayers? By email, Hegar spokesman Chris Bryan said Hegar drew that percentage from a December 2014news storyin the Economist magazine. The story said, in part: Cheaper oil should act like a shot of adrenalin to global growth. A $40 price cut shifts some $1.3 trillion from producers to consumers. The typical American motorist, who spent $3,000 in 2013 at the pumps, might be $800 a year better offequivalent to a 2% pay rise. The magazine didnt engage with our inquiry about how its figures were worked up. We went on to query James Hamilton, a University of California, San Diego, economistquoted by theWall Street Journalin November 2014saying lower gas prices relative to the average of the past three years will in effect put an extra $108 billion into U.S. consumers pockets, generating a nearly 0.8 percent increase in disposable personal income. By email, Hamilton pointed us to his Dec. 21, 2014, blog post stating: The average U.S. retail price of gasoline right now is about $2.40 a gallon. Last year, in 2013, American consumers and businesses bought135 billion gallonsof gasoline, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, at an average price of$3.60 a gallon, he wrote. Hamilton wrote: If gasoline prices stay where they are and if we buy the same number of gallons of gasoline this year as last, that leaves us with an additional $160 billion to spend over the course of the year on other items. If we restate the total savings for U.S. consumers and businesses in terms of the116 million U.S. households, that works out to almost $1,400 per household. We checked his bottom-line figure$1,400 per householdand compared it to what the U.S. Census Bureau estimates to have been the median household income for the U.S. and Texas, respectively, from 2009 through 2013. In Texas, the estimated $1,400 in unspent money shakes out to a 2.7 percent increase on the median income of $51,900. Nationally, it would amount to a 2.6 percent increase from the median household income of $53,046. Also, EIA spokesman Jonathan Cogan noted by email that in December 2014, the agencypredictedthe average U.S. household would spend about $550 less on gasoline in 2015 than in 2014 due to falling gas prices and more fuel-efficient cars and truckswhich would be 1 percent of the median household income in Texas. Our ruling Hegar said the average taxpayer will see the equivalent of a 2 percent pay raise as a result of low fuel prices. Provided gas prices dont go back up, that percentage seems in the ballpark for how much Texans could save on gas compared to what they spent, though it's also possible to get to higher and lower projections. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.