Is the CDC categorized as a 'Private Nonprofit Corporation'?
Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is
Claim:  Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses to children 12 and under. WAS PARTLY Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] PLEASE PASS ON! THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITIESWHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPAIR OR PURCHASE GLASSES FOR CHILDREN. In case you have a child or know of someone who does (ages 12 and under),they can get a FREE pair of eyeglasses from Target: Target is doing a special promotion for their optical service. It couldend any time but will definitely end no later than April 29th. Children12 and under can get a free pair of glasses. They need to bring in a validprescription for glasses from their doctor and Target will let the childpick from about 40 different frames. They will place their best lenses inthe frames which are non-glare and scratch resistant and normally sell for$200.00. There are no income guidelines. Any child 12 or under iseligible. You can find stores with optical departments at www.target.com to confirmthey are participating before making a trip to their store. Please pass this information on to anyone who can benefit from thispromotional offer. If you know someone with lost or broken glasses pleaseshare this information with them ASAP, as the promotion could end at anytime.They would like families to come in as soon as they can. Origins:  Unfortunately, during troubled economic times ordinary (i.e., non-urgent) health care is one of the first things many families have to eliminate from their budgets  not just routine doctor visits, but also regular dental and optical checkups may go by the wayside, especially among families who have no insurance to cover such services. The claim that Target stores with optical departments are offering free eyeglasses (frames and lenses) to children 12 and under would therefore seem to be a  welcome announcement to many parents: It would mean they could get their children's existing eyeglasses replaced for free, and even if they had to pay for optical exams to obtain new or updated eye prescriptions for their children, they could rest assured that those prescriptions would be filled free at Target for children 12 and under. Sounds too good to be true?  That's what we thought, especially when we noted that the Optical section of Target's web site makes no mention of any such promotion. (They merely offer coupons for discounts on glasses, contacts, and premium lenses.)   Optical coupons So, we contacted Target's Customer Relations department to ask about this promotion and were told that they were offering such a deal, but only in a very limited sense.  The "free eyeglasses to children 12 and under" promotion was a pilot program currently available only in a few stores in select areas (e.g., Kansas City, Kansas).  However, that pilot program has now ended, as a Target Optical marketing manager communicated to us on 10 April 2009: Free Kids Eyeglasses Promotion At Target Optical, we believe strongly in our value, product and services and wanted to introduce Target Shoppers to the unique shopping experiencethat we offer.  So, to introduce more Target Shoppers to our stores, during the month of March we offered families a way to try Target Opticalfor free through our Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion. The Free Kids Eyeglasses promotion is now over.  It was a limited time offer in seven stores within the greater Kansas City area. We were pleasedto distribute over 1,000 pairs of free children's eyeglasses during this event. Last updated:  10 April 2009 A video of a large, augmented-reality, fire-breathing dragon flying over a baseball stadium is frequently shared on social media. While viewers were undoubtedly aware that this footage didn't actually show a real mythical creature's visit to a ball game, some social media users seemed a bit confused about what this video actually showed. Is it a hologram? CGI? Virtual reality? At the opening of the South Korean baseball championship they used a 3D hologram using 5G technology. Realistic Dragon flew over the stadium.Just unbelieveble!!! pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB pic.twitter.com/y3jR64aXXB  Godfather IV (@godfatheriv) August 13, 2019 August 13, 2019  This video shows an augmented reality (AR) dragon. AR, which refers to technology that mixes the real world with computer-generated (CGI) images, is different from virtual reality (VR), the use of computer technology to create a simulated environment. Unlike a hologram, the CGI objects can only be seen via some sort of screen: virtual reality According to information from Live Science and The Franklin Institute, respectively:  Live Science The Franklin Institute Augmented reality is the result of using technology to superimpose information  sounds, images and text  on the world we see. Picture the "Minority Report" or "Iron Man" style of interactivity.  Augmented reality (AR) is one of the biggest technology trends right now, and its only going to get bigger as AR ready smartphones and other devices become more accessible around the world. AR let us see the real-life environment right in front of us  trees swaying in the park, dogs chasing balls, kids playing soccer  with a digital augmentation overlaid on it. For example, a pterodactyl might be seen landing in the trees, the dogs could be mingling with their cartoon counterparts, and the kids could be seen kicking past an alien spacecraft on their way to score a goal. In other words, this dragon didn't actually "fly over" this stadium. It was only viewable via a screen.  This video was created by the company SK Telecom for the SK Wyverns' opening day (a wyvern is a "winged two-legged dragon with a barbed tail") of the 2019 Korean Baseball Organization season. The dragon was visible on the stadium's large LED screen and home televisions. While the people at this game couldn't see this dragon with the naked eye, they were able to see this mythical beast via their phones.  Korea.com reported that fans could also interact with the dragon by pressing the "cheer button" on a smartphone app: reported An augmented reality (AR) image of a wyvern, a mythical dragon-like creature, on March 23 suddenly appeared on the opening day of the 2019 Korea Baseball Organization (KBO) season at Incheon's SK Happy Dream Park, home of the defending league champions SK Wyverns. An image of the team's mascot was shown on the world's largest LED baseball scoreboard at the stadium. In addition, the flying creature put on an interactive performance when fans pressed the cheer button on a smartphone app. Fans who watched the event on TV or their smartphones could also see this high-tech spectacle.   For the wyvern's performance, SK used its self-developed AR and virtual reality (VR) technologies such as eSpace, a hyperspace platform for replicating the real world in cyberspace, and T real Platform, which enables AR content to be freely created and shared. The use of the latest 5G wireless technology also allowed large-scale AR streaming. A second video of this augmented reality dragon was posted to the SK Telecom YouTube page. That video shows fans downloading this app and interacting with the dragon via their phones:  In November 2019, a similar video supposedly showing a "hologram" lion roaring at stadium in Argentina went viral on social media: Estudiantes de La Plata celebrated reopening their stadium with the most incredible hologram show ?? pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3 pic.twitter.com/cKCsJAKwD3  ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   Again, this was not a hologram visible to the naked eye, but an augmented reality display that could only be seen on screens. Emspak, Jesse.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Live Science. 1 June 2018. The Franklin Institute.  "What is Augmented Reality?
  Retrieved 15 August 2019. Landers, Chris.  "Korea's SK Wyverns Used Augmented Reality to Bring a Fire-Breathing Dragon to Opening Day."
  MLB.  25 March 2019. Hwaya, Kim.  "Augmented Reality Dragon Wows Baseball Fans on Opening Day."
  Korea.net.  27 March 2019. On 14 December 2014, photographs were posted by a Facebook user along with accompanying text suggesting the pictures depicted shopping carts full of donated toys that had been returned to a Walmart store in exchange for beer and cigarettes: Ok...As I was leaving Wal-Mart at 6:30am this morning, I asked the returns clerk did someone purchase these? She responded, those were yesterday's return. I then asked the question; were these gifts? She responded that most likely all of them are gifts from organizations or toy runs. I was sick to my stomach with her next response, "folk return them, get a gift card and then buy beer and cigarettes." Be aware of your blessing to others in need. Make sure that the organization or individual is truly getting and keeping the gift, especially children. These pics are from one day of returns and the clerk said; most of time there's more. Be blessed friends...          That claim predictably caused outrage among Facebook users, with many commenters stating the situation as described confirmed their suspicions about the poor and needy. However, a number of factors suggested the claim might not be true and could therefore negatively impact initiatives to ensure children living in poverty had access to much-needed toy donations at Christmastime. First and foremost, the post presented only a single Walmart shopper's account in assessing what the images depicted. The man said he confirmed with the cashier that the items were toy returns, but whether such a conversation even took place is not independently verifiable. Then there's the matter of how retail systems are organized, particularly during the holiday season. Sorting merchandise into carts for restocking on shelves is common practice, and such sorting includes not just returns but also items moved by customers from one part of the store to another or abandoned at check-out aisles.  Such items are generally sorted by department, so busy stores are likely to be stuck with several carts per department at the end of a shift or the start of a day.  Items moved or abandoned at checkout that require refrigeration would be top priority, and items such as clothing and toys would command less urgency. So pictures of carts full of toy department items could create the false impression of a disproportionate number of returns to that department, when it's entirely possible carts full of other departments' items were just as plentiful but were left out of the frame of the photographs or had already been returned to their shelves.   And even if we were to take the tale at face value, it's still a bit hard to buy because for the cashier's claim about beer and cigarettes to be credible, we would have to assume she was in the habit of tracking customers after they returned items, carefully observing what they purchased with  gift cards or store credits.   There is also the matter of the origin of the toys. Although toys received through programs for the needy are certainly returned to stores from time to time, there's simply no way to discern which toys seen in random photographs might have been received as standard gifts from family members or friends, which toys might have been donated via Christmas drives for the needy, and which toys might have been returned simply because they proved to be unwanted or duplicate items. No explanation was provided in the Facebook post as to why the toys in the cart were assumed to have been donated ones rather than purchased or gifted toys. returned In fact, the store in question, a Walmart on Bleachery Boulevard in Asheville, North Carolina, verified that although the photographs were in fact taken at that store, "The claim the toys are all returns is 100 percent not true" and "most of the toys are items left around the store that need to be restocked,"  according to a report by Asheville television station WLOS: report The Facebook post claims donated gifts from organizations or toy runs were being returned to Walmart. The Facebook user says a store clerk told him folks returned the toys to "buy beer and cigarettes." Bill Murdock, CEO of Eblen Charities, has his doubts. "Sometimes these things kind of get out of hand. You know, somebody will make a comment or somebody will assume something and then all of the sudden it becomes the truth, whether it's the truth or not," Murdock said In an effort to reduce the chances someone will return one of the donated toys to a local store, Eblen Charities representatives have started marking over the bar codes.  Whether or not the story were in any way reflective of any factual circumstances, it would be a shame for such a claim to negatively impact much-needed toy drives right before Christmas. The tale closely matches much of the argument against food stamps and other forms of assistance for the needy and has the potential to damage efforts to supply children in need with toys at Christmas. According to Toys for Tots, demand for toys has outpaced supply in recent years, and while the scope of the program is very large, the organization is unable to fulfill all the requests it receives: Many of the gifts they provide, such as books, games and sports equipment, make a significant contribution to the educational, as well as social and recreational interests, of these children.  The program is also of immense assistance to parents who, during the holiday season, are unable to provide needed gifts for their children.  The Marine Corps fulfilled the holiday hopes and dreams of nearly 7 million less fortunate children in each of the past ten years.  While that may be a lot of children, we unfortunately ran out of gifts long before they ran out of children.  To make a credit card contribution or to find out more about the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, please go to their website at www.toysfortots.org or call the foundation at (703) 640-9433. The author urged people to verify whether toys are truly being parceled out to kids in genuine need, but most toy drives are partially or wholly anonymous in order to protect the privacy of recipients, and therefore such endeavors aren't possible without intruding upon those who receive items from those drives. In the absence of stronger evidence, there is little reason to believe the claim presented here was true, accurate, or representative of how toy drives actually operate. Brigman, Lauren.   "REALITY CHECK: Returned Toy Donations?"
  WLOS-TV.  18 December 2014. In January 2017, screenshots circulated appearing to show a Facebook dispute which involved a man who both opposed Obamacare and unwittingly relied on it as a health care plan. The image was rather large, and documented a friends-locked Facebook dispute between three individuals: "Red," "Black," and "Blue." It began when "Black" posted a C-SPAN link to their personal timeline, along with the following commentary: image One step closer to fixing this mistake, and only a couple more weeks left of Barry's regime. 2017 is already looking up.   The usual social media debate ensued in the comments. "Black," the original poster, eventually responded: I'm not on Obamacare. My insurance is through the ACA (Affordable Care Act), which is what they had to come up with after Obamacare crashed and burned as bad as it did. So I'm gonna be fine. This is, of course, untrue, as Obamacare is another name for the Affordable Care Act. "Obamacare" was originally intended as a pejorative but quickly was adopted as its informal name. The screenshot quickly went viral. However, it is virtually impossible to authenticate whether or not it is real without anyone party to it stepping forward with additional screenshots. All images we were able to locate obscured the names of all parties, and it does not appear that any friends of the conversation's participants have released alternate screenshots.  Here is the conversation in its entirety: In a high-profile event at the White House on Feb. 27, 2014, President Barack Obama unveiled a new effort called the My Brothers Keeper Initiative, designed to help every boy and young man of color who is willing to do the hard work to get ahead. Obama told the audience -- a mix of African American and Latino youth and such public figures as basketball Hall of Famer Magic Johnson and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- that he understood the challenges facing young people of color. The only difference is that I grew up in an environment that was a little bit more forgiving, Obama said. So when I made a mistake, the consequences were not as severe. I had people who encouraged me, not just my mom and grandparents, but wonderful teachers and community leaders. I firmly believe that every child deserves the same chances that I had. That's why we are here today, to do what we can in this year of action to give more young Americans the support they need to make good choices, and to be resilient and overcome obstacles and achieve their dreams. A group of prominent foundations have pledged $200 million over five years to improve early childhood development, school readiness, parental engagement, literacy, educational opportunity and school discipline. As Obama explained the challenges facing young black and Latino men today, he offered this statistic: Fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. We wondered whether that was accurate, so we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments official repository for employment data. We used as our yardstick the labor force participation rate. This is the percentage of the civilian population that is either employed or unemployed. (Unemployed refers to people who are not employed but who are actively looking for work.) In addition, we assumed that Obama was comparingyouthlabor force participation for black and Latino men to the rate for white youth, even though he didnt explicitly say that. Given the context, this seemed to be the obvious interpretation. Finally, we had to determine a definition for young. The most appropriate age ranges for which BLS offers data, we concluded, are 16 to 19 and 20 to 24. So well look at the data for both of these ranges. Heres a summary of what we found for January 2014, the most recent month for which data on the labor force participation rate is available. 16-19 years old 20-24 years old White men 35.1 percent 74.2 percent Black men 25.3 percent 66.2 percent Hispanic men 27.0 percent 77.1 percent  So for Americans age 16 to 19, Obama is correct that labor force participation among black and Hispanic men trails that of white men. But the data for men age 20 to 24 are more mixed. Labor force participation among whites does exceed that of blacks, but the rates for Latinos actually exceed those of whites. (Latinos also have a higher rate for men age 25-29.) So on this score, Obama is only half-right. We checked with economists to see if they had an explanation for higher labor force participation rates. A big reason appears to be what happens in college. Among the youngsters who complete high school, Latinos and non-Hispanic whites are now about equally likely to attend college, but a higher proportion of Hispanic youngsters drop out of high school before obtaining a diploma, said Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution. In addition, Hispanic college enrollees are less likely to enroll in four-year colleges and less likely to be enrolled as full-time students. Generally, full-time students are less likely to work for pay or be looking for a job compared with non-students and part-time students. What this means, Burtless said, is that more young Hispanics are free to become part of the labor force. Another possible factor, Burtless suggested: A higher percentage of Hispanic young adults are not legal residents, so they may be ineligible for the student assistance and public aid that would permit them to be students and remain outside the workforce. If you cannot legally obtain college aid or public assistance, or are afraid to ask for it, you are probably more likely to support yourself through work, he said. In the meantime, we also wondered whether having a higher labor force participation rate for those age 16 to 19, as whites do, is unquestionably a good thing, since it could reward high school dropouts who took low-wage jobs. Participating in the labor force at this age would not seem to be an unmitigated good, said George Washington University economist Tara Sinclair. Even at older ages, I wouldn't be against seeing more stay-at-home dads. Burtless said that among economists, the jury is still out on this question. Many students can combine paid employment with satisfactory progress toward a high school or college degree, but obviously this would be a challenge for some young people who need to apply themselves hard in school in order to complete a degree, he said, adding that his own research suggests that the earlier in life that Americans start to work, the more money they earn later on. Whats less clear is whether late entry into the job market causes lower earnings, or whether people who go on to earn a lot of money simply love to work and start doing so earlier in their lives. Our ruling Obama said that fewer black and Latino men participate in the labor force, compared to young white men. Thats true for black men age 16-19 and 20-24 and for Hispanic men age 16-19, but its not correct for Hispanic men age 20-24. We rate the claim Mostly True. On 21 May 2019, in the midst of House Judiciary Committee hearings during which chairman Jerrold Nadler threatened to cite former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn for contempt over the latter's defiance of a congressional subpoena -- just a few days after Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin had rejected a House subpoena demanding President Trumps tax returns -- a graphic related to those events was circulated via social media.   defiance rejected That graphic purported to be a screenshot from the Fox News Channel, documenting that the president had phoned in to the Fox & Friends morning program and "gone ballistic," declaring that Democrats could "subpoena me and my administration for the next 10, 15, 20 years and we will never capitulate." "I am in charge, this is my country, and I will do as I please," Trump supposedly threw in for good measure:  But President Trump made no such pronouncement on Fox & Friends. And many sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the screenshot allegedly documenting the claim did not match the standard Fox News Channel fonts and rendering used for on-screen text and chyrons: The Trump quote going around today is a poorly done Photoshop. I found the original image that was manipulated. Note that the crawl at the bottom of the screen matches. Also, the "Trump goes ballistic" line is the wrong font on the fake version. pic.twitter.com/GTkpp2LXg1 pic.twitter.com/GTkpp2LXg1  David Finster (@d_finster) May 21, 2019 May 21, 2019  The screen crawl seen at the bottom of the image displaying a statement about something that threatens to suppress unpopular ideas and manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion references a 25 April 2019 federal court decision which blocked enforcement of a Texas law requiring state contractors to certify they dont boycott Israel. enforcement Reuters.  "Our Subpoenas Are Not Optional, Nadler Warns McGahn."
  The New York Times.  21 May 2019. Associated Press.  "Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of Anti-Israel Boycott Law."
  25 April 2019. Claim:  A 2010 calendar distributed by Publix supermarkets identifies December 7 as "Islamic New Year."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Dear Fellow Americans, Publix is giving away free calendars at their stores. This calendar is a disgrace and an insult to every American. This Publix calendar displays December 7th, ("A day that will live in infamy") with a notation "Islamic New Year" marked for that day. No mention of "Pearl Harbor Day," which commemorates the death of over 2500 American Service Men and an untold death toll of civilians on that fretful day. I have attached a copy of the December 2010 page for your review. Please go to https://publix.com. On top of the page is a link to "Contact us", click on this and on the next page under the Consumer Relations paragraph is the link for "e-mail. Write to them and inform them of your feelings about Publix recognizing the Muslim New Year over Pearl Harbor Day. Let Publix know that you will not tolerate this un-American attitude and boycott their stores. You can inform them that your shopping will be done at Walmart, Target and Winn Dixie, who recognize Americans and their fighting men and women. And, they are also cheaper than Publix.  Origins:  Muslims observe the Islamic New Year on the first day of Muharram, which is the first month in the Islamic calendar.  However, since the Islamic calendar is based on a lunar calendar of 354 days, its notable dates move around  relative to the Gregorian calendar from year to year: the Islamic New Year fell on December 29 in 2008, and on December 18 in 2009. In 2010, the Islamic New Year corresponds to December 7 on the Gregorian calendar, a coincidence which has caused something of a brouhaha  for Publix, a Florida-based supermarket chain.  Publix, like many businesses, offers calendars to its customers at the beginning of each year, and those calendars include legends identifying days of particular interest, such as federal holidays and religious holidays.  Publix's 2010 calendar bears a legend for December 7 marking that date as the "Islamic New Year," which it is  however, that day also has a special significance for Americans, as the passage of public law 103-308 in 1994 officially designated that date as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, a day to remember and honor all those who died in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.  (December 7 had also been observed as an annual day of remembrance for those killed at Pearl Harbor long before it was officially designated as such in 1994.) 103-308 That Publix's calendars included mention of the Islamic New Year but not Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day was a source of some controversy (although Publix pointed out that the Islamic New Year had been noted on their calendars since 2006, while Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day had never  been listed). The company responded by stating it would add a notation for the latter to the next year's calendars: For several years, Publix has given away calendars with valuable coupons inside. Traditionally, our calendars have solely noted holidays. Due to the number of holidays in a calendar year, days of remembrance have not been noted. This year, Islamic New Year happens to fall on Dec. 7. Like Chinese New Year, which is also a holiday, Islamic New Year rotates dates, is a holiday, and is noted on the calendar as such. We regret that the day of remembrance  Pearl Harbor  is not noted, and as a result of customer feedback, we will add Pearl Harbor to our next year's calendar. The calendars are no longer available at retail. Last updated:  9 January 2010    Ortega, Juan.  "Complaints Prompt Publix to Remove Calendar That Omitted Pearl Harbor."   [South Florida] Sun-Sentinel.  8 January 2010.    UPI.  "Pearl Harbor Omission Plagues Calendar."   9 January 2010. The day of financial reckoning is near, says U.S. Rep. Dave Brat. In just 17 years, spending for Social Security, federal health care and interest on the debt will exceed ALL tax revenue! Brat, R-7th, wrote in a May 29Facebook post. That would mean no money for defense or domestic programs unless Uncle Sam wanted to put these items on his already overburdened credit card. Continuing down this path of rampant federal spending and debt expansion is not an option, Brat wrote. It will push us ever closer to fiscal crisis. Getting our spending under control and working to balance our budget must begin now. We wondered whether the 17-year warning -- also being sounded by the Republican leadership on the House Budget Committee, on which Brat serves -- is accurate. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for Brat, said the claim is based on figures published by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in its 2014 Long-Term Budget Outlook, issued last July. It contains two scenarios that could happen if Congress doesnt take strong action to reduce deficits. The first one assumes that all the major U.S. budget laws in July 2014 will remain in effect. That means Congress will continue sequestration which sets limits on defense and domestic spending, allows a buffet of popular tax cuts to expire as scheduled and doesnt adjust tax brackets to soften inflationary increases in workers earnings. Under these assumptions, the CBO says spending on Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and debt interest will top tax revenues in 2044. As bleak as that might seem, theres an alternative scenario thats even gloomier. This is the one Brat embraces. It essentially assumes that Congress will lack the courage to continue unpopular budget policies and, as a result, spending will go up and many taxes will do down. The alternative scenario supposes that Congress will abandon sequestration and continue to extend tax cuts that are scheduled to expire -- most notably tax breaks on research and development, first-year capital investments costs and income gained through foreign corporations in nations with high tax rates. Under these assumptions, the CBO says spending on Social Security, federal health care and debt interest would exceed taxes in 2031. Thats 16 years from now. Is it fair for Brat to focus on the worst scenario? Two analysts told us yes, noting Congress already has a history of relenting on deficit-reducing policies. For example, Congress voted in 2013 to permanently extend the bulk of income tax cuts that were approved during the presidency of George W. Bush. The cuts were originally slated to expire in 2010. The alternative fiscal scenario understands how some of the tough choices Congress needs to make conflict with promises members have made to their constituents, said Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute. Most people who would have to pick between the two scenarios would say Congress would most likely use the alternative one. Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called Brats statement credible. A major point in the CBO report is that the day of reckoning is avoidable if Congress can break its standoff between Republicans, including Brat, who oppose tax increases, and Democrats who oppose cuts to entitlement programs. The report says, To put the federal budget on a sustainable path for the long term, lawmakers would have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies: reducing spending for large benefit programs below the projected levels, letting revenues rise more than they would under current law, or adopting some combination of those approaches. Our ruling  Brat says that under the current U.S. path, In just 17 years, spending for Social Security, federal health care and interest on the federal debt will exceed all tax revenue. A CBO report concludes that, in a worst-case scenario in which Congress resumes its old habits of cutting taxes and raising spending, this could happen in 2031 -- 16 years from now. Under a somewhat rosier scenario, in which current budget policies are kept in effect, the U.S. would hit bottom in 2044. Brats focus on the bleaker outlook is defensible because Congress this century has not shown great fiscal discipline. Were dealing with scenarios, however, and Brats statement would have been more accurate if he acknowledged from the outset that the U.S. could run out of tax money for many major programs instead of saying it will. No doubt, however, the U.S. is on a risky fiscal path. We rate Brats statement Mostly True. It's a political fact of life: Incumbency has its perks. You're already in a position of power. Name recognition is not a problem. And, if you're president, your arrival at a venue  whether for campaign reasons or not  is bound to generate headlines. That's the underlying complaint of a tweet presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent out July 5 as his presumptive Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, was preparing to join President Barack Obama aboard Air Force One for a campaign trip to North Carolina. Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by President Obama and Hillary Clinton, Trump said. We wondered if it was true that the trip was going to be made at taxpayer expense. To some degree, it is. And that's out of necessity. The president doesn't stop being president just because he's campaigning for himself or someone else. Even if he flew to a campaign stop on a commercial jet, he would need a host of support services and personnel to keep him connected and in charge. And that doesn't include the requirements for security. Thus, the president always uses Air Force One, which is one of two specially designed Boeing 747s built in 1986 to include a command center, a medical suite, bedroom, office, two food preparation galleys, and plenty of room for staff and reporters. It's not cheap to operate. According to CNN, the Air Force was reporting two years ago it cost $206,337 an hour to operate the jet. It's not clear what that covers. A General Accounting Officeanalysisof three overseas presidential trips in 1998 reported an hourly cost of $34,400, which would be $50,700 per hourin 2016 dollars. Technically, if the president makes a campaign trip, the campaign or the political party is supposed to reimburse the government for use of the plane to some degree. (The full cost is not reimbursed because some of the costs are directly connected to the responsibilities of being president.) These days,the amountis the price of chartering a 737, which is a bit over $11,000 an hour, according to theWashington Post.Prior to 2010, the required reimbursement was nothing more than the cost of a first-class ticket on a commercial airline. When you have someone traveling on behalf of a campaign, such as Clinton and any staffers who might be accompanying her, the accounting can get even more complicated. But how it's calculated by the White House Airlift Operations office isn't known. The government does not release details of how it figures such costs, and that's been a secret going back to the 1970s,according to CNN. The amount is even more complicated when the president mixes business with politics, such as flying somewhere to give a policy speech or performing another official act but also spending time attending a purely political event, such as a fundraiser. (The North Carolina appearance, in contrast, was purely political.) How much taxpayers end up paying when business is mixed with politics isn't clear because, once again, the formula for calculating the share paid by the campaign and the government is secret. The White House Counsel's office makes a determination on how political a trip is,according to Time magazine. Mark Knoller, the CBS News White House correspondent who has been tracking presidential trips for years, noted in a tweet that presidents have repeatedly told the press that such costs will not be revealed. > Prior administrations also refused, he noted in a followup tweet. But they didn't claim to be most transparent Admins ever. The closest you can get to getting an estimate is to see what the campaigns pay the government. For his re-election in 2004, George W. Bush's campaign paid just under $1 million, according to thePost. But that was when the cost was based on a first-class commercial airline ticket. By 2012, after the rules were changed to be based on chartering a 737, Obama spent just over $3 million. In this case, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin said the campaign will cover its portion of the costs, although he indicated those costs had not been determined. The Trump campaign didn't respond to an email, but Trump is well aware that campaigns are required, by federal law, to reimburse for expenses. During his trip to Scotland last month, Trump went to great lengths to repeatedly state that federal law requires his campaign to pay for everything, even if it's the use of a conference room in Trump Towers, which he said he would gladly let his campaign use for free. I'm forced, you know, legally, I have to pay myself back,he said. If I use one of my resorts in the United States and we have a press conference or something, by law I have to pay myself back. Our ruling Trump said, Taxpayers are paying a fortune for the use of Air Force One on the campaign trail by Obama and Clinton. How people define a fortune is somewhat subjective, and details about how the costs of using the presidential plane are determined are secret. But based on the information available, it's clear that the campaign is only going to be picking up a small fraction of the $200,000-plus hourly costs of using the plane, with taxpayers footing the bill for the rest. Because Trump's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa60cf08-a414-40d2-b91a-70999d4188a2 July 2016 saw a week of high-profile shootings involving police the United States: On 5 July 2016, Alton Sterling was shot and killed by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the following day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in Minnesota; and the day after that a sniper shot and killed five police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas.  Alton Sterling Philando Castile police officers On 8 July 2016, the streaming music service Pandora posted a message on social media expressing a feeling of pain and a gesture of support related to those events: posted  Although Pandora's post stated that their "hearts ache for all of those who unfairly lost their lives" and included the hashtag #LoveAboveAll, their use of the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to represent the victims of police shootings but not an equivalent hashtag to represent the policemen killed in Dallas (such as  #BlueLivesMatter) generated controversy along with calls for boycotts of the music service.  That reaction then prompted social media calls for people to subscribe to Pandora as a gesture of support: @pandora_radio and I'm deleting now @pandora_radio  Big_Blue_Nate123 (@BlueNate123) July 9, 2016 July 9, 2016 @pandora_radio took a stand, and ppl are pissed....let's support and subscribe! #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd @pandora_radio #LoveAboveAll #BlackLivesMatter https://t.co/McvsxAgoAd  Olivia X (@EsSeNCeofaDiVa) July 11, 2016 July 11, 2016 Social media messages expressing anger over Pandora's message often asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement is anti-police, or that the movement was responsible for the shooting of police in Dallas. Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza attempted to dispel these rumors during an appearance on All in with Chris Hayes: attempted Black Lives Matter has never, ever called for the murder of police officers, Garza told Hayes. What we have said over and over again is that it is time in this country for policing to be accountable, transparent and responsible. Thats not rhetoric. That is what communities in the United States want to see from the people who protect and serve them. And so quite frankly, we can, at the same time as we grieve the loss of life of several officers who were killed last night, we can also push to demand that there be accountable, responsive, transparent policing that has oversight form communities and that is accountable to the communities they are supposed to protect and serve. Garza added that Black Lives Matter isnt concerned with inciting more violence  in fact, the movement condemns it  but with tearing down the assumption that black people are criminals. We are not anti-police, she declared. We are anti our people being murdered in the streets. What happened to Alton Sterling, what happened to Philando, what happens to so many black people in our communities is absolutely unacceptable, and I think thats something that we can all agree on. Ironically, those upset over Pandora's message announced that they would be boycotting the streaming music service on Facebook, even though Facebook openly expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement by erecting a Black Lives Matter sign outside their headquarters in Menlo Park, California: support