Minimum Rage
FACT CHECK:  Are minimum wage Seattle workers asking for fewer hours in order to retain welfare benefits?  Claim: Minimum wage workers in Seattle are asking for their hours to be cut so they can retain welfare benefits.   : WHAT'S   Five full-time Seattle caregivers may have asked to adjust their hours in order to remain in subsidized housing.     WHAT'S UNPROVEN:  More than five to seven workers have deliberately reduced their working hours to retain subsidized housing, workers are spending fewer hours on the job to retain benefits other than subsidized housing, the Seattle minimum wage law has caused an reduction in overall hours worked by low-wage workers. Examples: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] Workers Now Requesting To Work Less Hours In Order To Still Qualify For Welfare https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c  The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 In Seattle, which now has a $15 minimum wage, workers are now demanding fewer hours to remain eligible for welfare. Obama's America.  Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 <!--Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015-->   Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf #Fightfor15 https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf  el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf  el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015 July 26, 2015 -->   Origins: On 22 July 2015, Fox News published an article titled "Seattle Sees Fallout from $15 Minimum Wage, as Other Cities Follow Suit." Credited to correspondent Dan Springer (who also recently reported that Oregon was providing 15-year-olds with sex change surgeries), the article lamented what it claimed were "unintended consequences" resulting from a Seattle law raising the minimum wage there to $15 per hour. article Oregon The Fox News article and video reported that "evidence is surfacing" to suggest Seattle workers have begun to work less in order to claim a higher hourly wage while still qualifying for government assistance: Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise  in a bid to keep overall income down so they don't lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent. Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less. "If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn't actually help get them out of poverty, all you've done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people," said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM. Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com  video.foxnews.com However, if Springer found "evidence" of such a trend, he did not include it in his 22 July 2015 article (claims from which have since been aggregated to multiple web sites). While Springer pointed to a Seattle home nursing nonprofit (Full Life Care), he only vaguely referenced a statement an unidentified individual there made to a third party, then quoted an opinion provided by a local radio host who speculated upon what might happen if workers opted to cut their hours based on a higher minimum wage in order to retain government assistance. Lacking from this narrative was any actual evidence that such claims were rooted in any measurable labor trend in Seattle. aggregated multiple sites It appears Springer's entire premise was lifted from an 8 June 2015 report by television station KIRO which provided additional context that painted the claim in a slightly different light: report Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority. Gibson told KIRO she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle's phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents. For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organizations 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer's patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. In that same article, Full Life Care's executive directly explicitly stated that the issue was not one of worker laziness or an intent by employees to "game the system" for additional "welfare benefits," but rather one of necessity due to Seattle's exceptionally high market rate for private housing: "This has nothing to do with people's willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life," Gibson said. Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours. "The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge," she said. While two other Seattle residents spoke to KIRO about the specter of being shut out of subsidized housing by earning a slightly higher wage, a Seattle city council member told the outlet that the accounts did not reflect any measurable trend of which he was aware: Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn't heard of purposeful reduction of hours before. "We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal," Licata said. Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing. "We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another," Licata said. "We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem." What has been reported is that several full-time workers at a single Seattle non-profit may have expressed a desire to adjust their hours to retain subsidized housing, but more "evidence" of workers requesting fewer hours on the job after the minimum wage increase hasn't turned up yet. Moreover, the source originally quoted about the issue stated that workers earning the higher hourly rate would likely be unable to afford private housing in Seattle due to market conditions, but they were not seeking other "welfare" benefits nor unwilling to work. Last updated: 28 July 2015 Originally published:  28 July 2015
A four-line poem, also known as a quatrain, allegedly written by 16th-century philosopher Michel de Nostradamus described predictions of a future plague that would fall upon the world. (Some assumed that this so-called plague referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Snopes has previously debunked here.) here The alleged quatrain went on to describe a feeble man who was set to rule the western world with a jezebel after the plague. According to Snopes readers, renditions of this poem appeared to suggest that this man and jezebel either referred to U.S. President Donald Trump or President-elect Joe Biden, depending on the person sharing the poem. In the end, this fool ruler will cause the great eagle  presumably the United States  to suffer and fall. The below meme circulated in early 2021:   It is unclear where this quatrain originated from or who the original poster was. Nostradamus, who was also a French physician, first published Les Prophties in 1555. It is thought that his collection of poems, which are compiled in 10 sets of verses of 100 quatrains each, contain mythological and astrological predictions for the future world. In the centuries that followed his original publication, he has remained prominent in modern popular culture, often among internet users who share fabricated predictions falsely attributed to him. Les Prophties remained prominent Nostradamus is credited with accurately predicting many historical events, according to Rare Books Digest. And though many of his poems are largely vague and could apply to a number of events, some of his predictions do come eerily close to actual events. Rare Books Digest eerily close But the meme in question does not appear to make that list. A look through The Compleat Works of Nostradamus did not reveal any mention of a jezebel or a feeble man. And though the word plague was mentioned more than 30 times in the Nostradamus text, there is no instance where it occurs alongside the same wording as in the meme. look The Compleat Works of Nostradamus reveal Furthermore, it is also important to note that the quatrains written by Nostradamus do not follow chronological order. So, while they may be broken down into what the author considered to be centuries, these do not directly translate to the century in which any prediction was anticipated to occur. Vice President Joe Biden visited a New Hampshire university Oct. 20, 2011, to promote President Barack Obamas American Jobs Act before an audience whom he called the 9/11 generation.Speaking to a full house inside Plymouth State Universitys lecture hall, Biden talked about the need to restore the middle class and to bring jobs back to America. He said middle-income-earning Americans have been under siege, long before the economic recession hit.In the previous decade, before the current recession, the middle class was getting killed, said Biden. During that period between 2001-07, productivity of American workers was up 20 percent, but median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 during this time.Did the median of middle-income households really take a $2,100 hit before the economy hit the fan? We looked into Bidens claim to find out.First we contacted Bidens staff to find out which figures they were using to come to the $2,100 decrease in the median income for middle-class households.Tobin Marcus, Bidens deputy economic policy adviser, told us the vice president was referring to real median household income for working age households. Were looking at the core wage-earning households as opposed to retirees, Marcus said.Working age households aretypically consideredhouses headed by someone between the ages of 25 and 54, and the median income was chosen to represent middle income wage earners.Bidens office cited the Census Bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Surveys for year-ending data for2000and2007.They said they compared inflation-adjusted numbers, using the annual average increase column of theBureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.We took a look at their numbers, and their calculations checked out.To be sure, we contacted Dennis Delay, an economist with the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and a New Hampshire State Forecast Manager for the New England Economic Partnership.He confirmed the calculations Bidens campaign provided.I looked at the data sources, and they appear to be correct, and the data calculated correctly, Delay said.Delay then pointed us toa report by the Economic Policy Institutewhich used the same data. From 2000-07, the Institute said the real median income of working age households fell from $61,574 in 2000 to $59,460 in 2007a decrease of $2,114.The White House Task Force on the Middle Classcited a weak labor market and anemic job growth of the 2000s among some of the problems that contributed to the approximately 3.4 percent decline in the median of middle class incomes over the seven years leading up to the economic recession.Clearly median inflation adjusted income fell much faster during the recession (2007 to present), Delay said. But the fall in that indicator during a period of economic expansion (2000 to 2007) is very troubling. I dont believe any other period of economic expansion saw a commensurate decline in median inflation adjusted income.Our ruling:Vice President Biden said the median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 from 2001-07, and the numbers check out. We rate Bidens claim True. Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 Its a statement often heard in the Ocean State: Rhode Islands state legislature is the strongest in the nation. And it was recently repeated by Governor Lincoln Chafee as he doled out advice to his successor, Governor-elect Gina Raimondo. Chafee was one of several people who were asked by The Journal what advice they would give to Raimondo as she prepares to take office Jan. 6. Their comments were published Nov. 17 in The Journals Political Scene column. The only [advice] I would add is we all know ... that Rhode Island constitutionally has a very strong legislature, Chafee said. Thats a fact, the strongest in the country  And its critical, to move your agenda forward, to have relationships ... build those relationships. Since this claim has been made so often, we decided to check whether Rhode Islands General Assembly really ranks as the strongest in the nation. We asked Chafees office what facts he had to support his statement. It took awhile for his office to get back to us. Meanwhile, we reached out to nearly a dozen political science professors nationwide, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and others to get their views. All who responded generally shared the view that Rhode Islands governor has relatively limited power compared with governors in many other states We were referred to Governors and the Executive Branch, a chapter in the book Politics In The American States: A Comparative Analysis. Its author, Margaret R. Ferguson, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, measured the institutional power of governors in each of the 50 states, based on various factors. Those included  term limits; power to appoint without the involvement of the legislature; control over the budget; veto power; and whether the governor is the same political affiliation that controls the state legislature. Rhode Island placed dead last overall in Fergusons list for executive power, while Massachusetts placed at the top. The book also noted that Chafee was the only governor in the country in 2011 to face a legislature controlled by an opposing party. At the time, Chafee was registered as an independent; he changed his affiliation to Democrat in May 2013. We also looked to Rhode Islands Constitution. It limits governors to two terms and specifies that the governors appointments of state officers be subject to Senate advice and consent. Pardons, too, need Senate approval. A veto by the governor can be overridden  by a vote of three-fifths of members present in the House and Senate. One of the key provisions limiting a Rhode Island governors power concerns the state budget. Governors are required to submit budgets, but the documents are then subject to legislative cuts and additions, before the General Assembly passes its own version. In 44 other states, governors have so-called line-item veto authority, the power to reject individual items, while keeping the rest of the budget intact. In Rhode Island, the governor can only approve or veto the final budget, which usually prompts the Assembly to override a veto. When Chafees office got back to us, it shared emails sent to the governors staff by Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri political science professor who is widely known for his study of state legislatures. The email exchanges were part of the preparations for last years 350th anniversary of the Rhode Island Colonial Charter of 1663. We can always quibble about rankings, but every accounting puts the power of Rhode Islands governor at or near the bottom in terms of institutional powers, Squire said in an email to Jonathan Stevens, Chafees director of special projects. Rhode Islands governor enjoys only moderate appointment powers. The governor also has a weak veto and relatively little ability to influence the budget. A line-item veto and greater control over appointments would greatly strengthen the governor. On a constitutional power metric, Rhode Island is among the most powerful state legislatures,  Squires wrote. Squire confirmed the statements to PolitiFact Rhode Island via email and cited his book The Evolution of American Legislatures, Colonies, Territories and States, 1619-2009,  as well as an earlier book, 101 Chambers. We also heard from Jay S. Goodman, a political science professor at Wheaton College, who noted that the Rhode Island legislature had given up a certain degree of power over the past 20 years, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the revolving door limitations on jobs, ethics rules, and the separation of powers amendment. Voters approved the separation  of  powers constitutional amendment in 2004 to curb legislative powers and remove lawmakers from state boards and commissions. Those changes certainly strengthened the governorship, Goodman said via email. But the overwhelming one-party rule coupled with iron discipline still makes the Speaker [of the House] the most powerful single person [in Rhode Island]. While the strength of the governorship might appear to be inversely proportional to the General Assemblys power, Maureen Moakley, a political science professor at the University of Rhode Island, observed that a governors force of personality also factors in. She used the late Governor Bruce Sundlun, a Democrat, as an example. He was a very forceful personality. The day he took office he faced a crisis. [The collapse of Rhode Islands credit unions.] That gave him a lot of leverage through his administration, especially his first administration, Moakley said. If a governor has the political savvy to be able to take the bully pulpit and turn [it] into a political force, it can go a long way to mitigating the limitations of the office, Moakley said. Their initial presentation of their agenda is critical, she said. Our ruling Governor Chafee said the Rhode Island state legislature is the strongest in the country  Our research found that Rhode Islands governor has the least institutional power in the nation under the state Constitution. That would make the Rhode Island General Assembly the most powerful, supporting the governors point. We rule his claimTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent  the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose daily press briefings on the states battle against the coronavirus have drawn wide coverage, has extended his rhetorical reach through social media. On April 12, Cuomo took to Twitter to spotlight what he saw as a disparity in federal funding between New York and states that had fewer coronavirus cases. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, Cuomotweeted. Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case.New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case.We need a fair federal stimulus bill that is distributed by need. We found that the statement relies on a credible study of how one part of the federal funding is being divided among the states, though it glosses over the fact that its counting money going to health care providers directly, rather than to the states themselves. The number of coronavirus cases changes by day, and even by the hour. But at the time he made his claim, Cuomo was correct to say the difference between New York and the other two states was lopsided. New York has been hardest hit by the coronavirus.On April 12, the state reported a cumulative 195,031 known cases of the virus. Montana and Nebraska, which have far smaller populations, saw much smaller outbreaks of the virus at the time:Montana had 394reported cases, whileNebraska reported 792. The money Cuomo is referencing comes from the $2.2 trillion federal coronavirus aid package passed in March, known as the CARES Act. While that bill earmarked $150 billion directly for state, local and tribal governments, the breakdown Cuomo is referring to comes from a different provision that provides funds directly to hospitals and other health care providers. This portion of the CARES Act allocates up to $100 billion to health care providers. When Cuomo sent his tweet, $30 billion of that total had been distributed. According to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, providers have received money from the stimulus bill based on a formula that involves how much money they received from Medicare reimbursements in 2019 (excluding payments under Medicare Advantage, which works through private insurers). HHS estimated that these Medicare reimbursements amounted to $484 billion in 2019. Because HHS wanted to push the first $30 billion of coronavirus aid out the door quickly, it allocated the money based on providers share of these reimbursements from 2019. In other words, the formula for this first stage of funding had nothing to do with the number of coronavirus cases a state was facing. Using these guidelines, Kaiser Health News, a PolitiFact fact-checking partner,calculated how much money providers in each state had received from the $30 billion. The publication based these numbers on a House Ways and Means Committee funds breakdown andNew York Times daily coronavirus numbers. The analysis was originally published two days before Cuomos tweet. According to Kaiser Health News published analysis, hospitals and providers in New York state were due to receive stimulus money amounting to $12,000 per coronavirus case at the time. Providers in states with fewer cases, such as Montana and Nebraska, had received over $300,000 per case, according to the analysis. So Cuomos tweet tracks what the Kaiser Health News analysis found, though its worth noting that the total amount given to New York providers in this initial round, nearly $1.9 billion, was significantly more than what went to the other states: about $111 million for Montana and $225 million for Nebraska, according to the authors of the analysis. Jack Hoadley, an emeritus professor at Georgetown Universitys Health Policy Institute, told PolitiFact New York that the Kaiser studys methodology was sound. He added that later rounds should address this imbalance. HHS has said that the next wave of the $100 billion will take into account how many coronavirus cases each state has. This should respond at least in part to the concern raised by Gov. Cuomo, he said, though more information is needed before we can assess the dollars-per-patient metric down the road. Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of the Budget, told PolitiFact that the tweet relied on information from a Kaiser Health News article and quoted it nearly word for word. Theres no question that the facts are accurate and there is a disparity in the federal funding structure among states in this regard. Cuomo tweeted, Some states, like Montana and Nebraska, are getting more than $300,000 in federal stimulus money per reported COVID-19 case. New York is the hardest-hit state and yet we are getting only about $12,000 per case, In the first round of funding for health care providers, New York states providers received far less money per coronavirus case than other, less-affected states, according to a credible analysis. However, Cuomos tweet addressed only one part of the federal funding, and it glossed over the distinction between states and health care providers in those states. The funding source Cuomo tweeted about sends money to providers, not the state. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed   Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021. On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Donald Trump Mike Pence Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris  the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. George Floyd For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Factba.se transcription Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund  do you know that is?  which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office.  Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: "Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage." Sen. Tom Cotton tweet   Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. one conservative website Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.  including many celebrities more than $30 million accounts "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota," she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. @MNFreedomFund   In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media  or via any other public statement  that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed "Minnesota Freedom Fund"  debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Federal Election Commission Center for Responsive Politics Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: "No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris." We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) has pledged Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case  or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest  they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: inequities states Weve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge  and we wont now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness  People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice  Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyds death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings  whether chaotic or peaceful  did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail  and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. American Bail Coalition The Washington Post "We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way," the MFF website said. "[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising werent detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail." said However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. AK-47-style mini Draco pistol woman The Washington Post news reports Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July  a case that was unrelated to the protests  was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to "strengthen our internal procedures" to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. news reports statement In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters "get out of jail and do more damage," like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." Claim:  Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH.  Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years.  HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ????    Origins:  This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not."   graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities.  The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated:  11 August 2011    Fader, Carole.  "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story."   Jacksonville.com.  7 August 2011. The 2015-16 academic year ended withpomp,circumstance-- and skirmishes between Gov.Scott Walkerand professors in the University of Wisconsin System. Walker, irked byno-confidence votesfaculty are taking against the systems leadership, fired attacks on University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors (including one we ratedPants on Fire). Several days later, on May 16, 2016, Walker kept up the offensive inan interviewon WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. We have some of the best schools in the country, no doubt about it, Walker told conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes. But weve got to stop feeding into this national perception that how much you pay in tuition suddenly is a correlation to what the value is. Yeah, you want to have a reasonable level of support for the system; and we do. In fact, by the way, Walker continued, the University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The amount of money they get from state government is only a fraction of what they have overall. So, for all this hysteria out there, they have never had more money to spend in the UW System. With the 2015-17 state budget, Walker and his fellow Republicans in the Legislaturecut $250 millionover the two years from the UW System. That was an 11 percent reduction in state support and a big reason for the no-confidence votes. So, we wondered about Walkers claim that UW Systems budget is the biggest its ever been. Hes essentially correct, but with some caveats. Walker was referring to the systems all-funds budget -- which, as the name suggests, is comprehensive. It includes state tax dollars, but also an array of other funds, such as tuition, revenue from enterprises such as dormitories and athletics, federal research dollars and gifts. We asked for budget figures from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau for the entire history of theUW System, which began in 1973-'74. Heres a look at the last six years, when the figures were highest. Year All-funds budget -- actual All-funds budget -- adjusted for inflation 2010-11 $5.591 billion $6.077 billion 2011-12 $5.589 billion $5.889 billion 2012-13 $5.901 billion $6.092 billion 2013-14 $5.997 billion $6.101 billion 2014-15 $6.098 billion $6.105 billion 2015-16 $6.194 billion* $6.059 billion As you might expect, the current all-funds budget (2015-16) is the largest on record. But with an asterisk. Thats because in 2015-16, for the first time, the UW System included unspent tuition money carried over from the previous year in its all-funds budget. If that money wasnt included, the 2015-16 all-funds budget would have been $6.059 billion -- the second-highest ever, behind 2014-15, rather than $6.194 billion. Adjusted for inflation -- a better measure for comparing figures over time -- the 2015-16 all funds budget is slightly smaller than in four of the five previous years, but still near the top. State support Walker made it clear his claim was about total funding for the UW System, and that state money covers only a portion of the systems budget. But its worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, state support of the system -- known as general purpose revenue -- is in a historic decline, according to figures from the fiscal bureau. The highest state support, adjusted for inflation, was in the first year of the system, 1973-74 -- at just under $1.52 billion. That figure hit an all-time low of $1.03 billion in 2015-16. UW System officials often cite the reduction in state support because they have generally have more flexibility in spending state tax dollars than with revenues that are designated for certain purposes. Our rating Walker said: The University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The systems 2015-16 all-funds budget -- which includes not only state tax dollars but federal funds, tuition and other income -- is $6.194 billion, the biggest since the system was created in 1973-74. But adjusted for inflation, the 2015-16 all-funds budget is among the biggest, though not the biggest. And the 2015-16 figure includes unspent tuition revenue that hadnt been counted in the all-funds budget in previous years. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True.