Caution regarding the Affordable Care Act
Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013
Gov. Jerry Brown frequently touts Californias overall job growth when telling what hes called the states comeback story. He claimed recently on NBCsMeet the Pressthat California has added 2.1 million jobs in the last six or seven years. We checked the numbers and rated that claimTrue. Later in the same interview, the shows host Chuck Todd asked Brown about inland Californias struggles, leading to another claim that caught our attention: Chuck Todd:But there are parts of your state that are struggling. You have rural counties, ones that dont touch the ocean, struggling. Housing prices are up there, while jobs dont go there. Gov. Brown:The Inland Empire, the Central Valley, they have a harder time. But they, too, are experiencing tremendous job growth. Brown makes his jobs claim at about the 2:05 minute mark in the video above. Californias job growth is normally associated with coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. So, we wondered whether Brown had his facts right when he said these inland regions had really experienced tremendous job growth, too. We set out on a fact-check. Inland Empire Home to about 4.5 million people, Riverside and San Bernardino counties make up whats known as the Inland Empire, a sprawling set of communities east of Los Angeles. The economists we spoke with say Browns case for tremendous job growth here is a strong one. The regions 3.2 percent job growth rate was the fastest among the states large metro areas from February 2016 through February 2017, saidJohnHusing, chief economist for the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. During that year, it added 47,500 jobs, which was more than the 35,700 created in the Santa Clara metro area, considered the heart of Silicon Valley, Husing said. This area is a real growth engine, he added, listing construction, logistics and transportation among the growing sectors. Over the past five years, as the region has recovered from the Great Recession, it added jobs at a rate of 22.3 percent. That trailed only the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metro areas 22.7 percent rate among large metros. A spokesman for the Brown Administration cited the same statistics backing up the governors claim. Colin Strange of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce said San Bernardino is seeing job growth, but mainly in blue-collar jobs that pay about $15 per hour including fork-lift operators and truck drivers. Husing, who has studied the regions wages, said the Inland Empire has a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. He said, however, that the region is outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Central Valley The Central Valley stretches about 450 miles from Bakersfield north to Redding. It includes urban cities like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno, vast farmland and a diverse economy, making job growth trends for the overall region more complex. Areport by Stanislaus State Universityin the Central Valley city of Turlock offers some help. That report shows the 8-county San Joaquin Valley, which makes up the central and southern portions of the Central Valley, experienced a 1.56 percent job growth rate in 2016; a 1.86 percent rate in 2015 and 1.80 percent in 2014. Those averages trailed the states overall job growth average, which measured 3 percent in 2015 and about 2 percent last year. But it beat the 8-county regions 1.23 percent historical average job growth rate. SOURCE: Stanislaus State University, College of Business Administration,2016 Business Forecast Report,Volume VI, Issue 1 Within its own limits, the Valley has consistently grown. But it hasnt been a home run, Gokce Soydemir, an economics professor at Stanislaus State, said of job growth in that portion of the Central Valley. Jeffrey Michael, director of the University of Pacifics Center for Business and Policy Research in Stockton, added by email: Central Valley areas have also done very well in recent years with the exception of Bakersfield, where recent economic fluctuations are tightly connected to the oil industry. Bakersfields job growth rate was flat, at 0.1 percent, over the past year. Meanwhile, Sacramento, the biggest metro area in northern portion of the Central Valley, saw 1.8 percent growth over the past year, close to the statewide average. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. Economists say Brown is right about the Inland Empire. That region experienced the fastest job growth rate among the states large metro areas over the past year, and added more jobs than the Santa Clara metro area, the heart of Silicon Valley, during that period. Job growth in the Central Valley, while its outperformed its historical benchmark in much of the diverse region, hasnt kept up with the overall state average. The governors argument here needs this key clarification. In the end, we rate his overall claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Wisconsin DemocratKathleen Vinehout, who is considering a run for governor in 2018, is sounding alarm bells about the state budget proposed by Republican Gov.Scott Walker-- who appears to be preparing to runfor a third term. In a Feb. 20, 2017interview, the state senator from Alma was asked by Wisconsin Public Radio talk show host Joy Cardin abouta columnshe had written about Walkers 2017-19 spending plan, which was released a couple of weeks earlier. The column highlighted what Vinehout -- who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to run against Walker in the 2012 gubernatorial recall election -- described as little known details about the budget. Cardin wanted to know why there would be a large increase in the number of people working for the Department of Administration. Thats a department, whose secretary is appointed by Walker, that works closely with the governors office. Vinehout replied by saying 485 positions would be added to the department in the category of supervisor and management, although in many cases, they would be people transferred from other departments. It really kind of takes the whole heart of state government -- especially as money flows in and out of agencies, and puts it into the Department of Administration, she added. Leaving aside Vinehouts view of the impact of the move, lets check whether Walker is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. The numbers The major functions of theDepartment of Administrationinclude helping the governor develop and implement the state budget and supporting other state agencies with centralized purchasing and financial management.The department alsocoordinates telecommunications, energy, and land use planning and community development, and it regulates racing, charitable gaming and Indian gaming. Walkers budget, which must be approved by the Legislature, would increase the departments positions in both years of the budget. The new total for the department would be 1,149 positions -- an increase of 485. And those positions are listed under the heading of supervision and management. But Bob Lang, director of the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, gave us some context about the 485: The majority of positions are held by existing employees who work for other agencies; these are not new state government positions. The majority would continue to physically work in those agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources, but would become employees of the Department of Administration. Despite the designation in the budget document as supervision and management, the vast majority would not be supervisors or managers -- rather they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities such as employee recruitment and assistance, training, and payroll and benefits. Walker saysthe primary aim is to assign various administrative functions to a single entity, allowing individual agencies to focus on their core business missions and avoid redundant efforts on services that can be offered most effectively from a central entity. But its also true that if the Legislature goes along with Walkers plan, those employees would be more directly under his control. Our rating In sounding alarms about Walkers budget, Vinehout says the governor is proposing to add 485 positions in the category of supervisor and management to his Department of Administration. Vinehout is correct on the number and, technically, they are in the category of supervisor and management. But while they are involved in the supervision and management of human resource activities, the vast majority are not actually in supervisory or management positions. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Virus:  FDIC notice of bank failure. REAL VIRUS Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] FDIC has officially named your bank a failed bank You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insuredbank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your accountwith as a failed bank, thus, taking control of its assets. You need to visit the official FDIC website and perform the followingsteps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage:  Visit FDIC website: https://www.fdic.gov/  https://www.fdic.gov/  Download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage Origins:  In October 2009, Internet users began receiving e-mails purporting to have come from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that insures deposits in U.S. bank accounts.  These messages claimed that the recipients were holders of FDIC-insured bank accounts in failed banks and instructed them to click on a link to the FDIC web site in order download a file which would allow them to check their "Deposit Insurance Coverage."   However, the link embedded in the e-mail led not to the real FDIC web site, but to a spoof web site.  Attempting to download the proffered file from that site could initiate the installation of malware on the user's computer (presumably to collect sensitive personal information):  The real FDIC  put up an alert to warn consumers about this fraudulent mailing: alert The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has received numerous reports of a fraudulent e-mail that has the appearance of being sent from the FDIC. The subject line of the e-mail states: "check your Bank Deposit Insurance Coverage." The e-mail tells recipients that, "You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insured bank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your account with as a failed bank, thus, taking  control of its assets." The e-mail then asks recipients to "visit the official FDIC website and perform the following steps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage" (a fraudulent link is provided). It then instructs recipients to "download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage." This e-mail and associated Web site are fraudulent. Recipients should consider the intent of this e-mail as an attempt to collect personal or confidential information, some of which may be used to gain unauthorized access to on-line banking services or to conduct identity theft. The FDIC does not issue unsolicited e-mails to consumers. Financial institutions and consumers should NOT follow the link in the fraudulent e-mail. Last updated:  28 October 2009 Claim:  Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Is this video real? GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING: Video shows a suicide by gunshot.  Origins:   Movies and television have planted sensationalized images of certain phenomena into the public consciousness, to the extent that when most of us see the real thing, we're disappointed that it seems so mundane.  In films and television programs, automobile crashes are always slam-bang affairs that inevitably end with one or more cars bursting into flame and exploding; thunder is always a very loud, sharp, and short report which occurs simultaneously with a bolt of lightning (rather  than a slow, distant, gradually increasing rumbling which arrives well after the lightning flash); and gunshots are usually depicted as producing ear-splitting volumes of sound and, when aimed at another human being, resulting in plenty of gore and splatter. It's no wonder, then, that when the above-displayed video of a detainee shooting himself while in police custody began to circulate, many viewers were skeptical of its authenticity  by Hollywood standards, it's so tame as to be almost surreal.   As depicted in the video, an uncuffed suspect enters an interrogation room and sits down in a chair, followed by an officer who dumps some keys and sunglasses on a table, checks his cell phone, and leaves the room momentarily.  The officer returns several seconds later with a bottle of water and a cup of coffee, then hands the water bottle to the suspect, checks his cell phone again, picks up the coffee, and exits the room a second time  leaving the suspect alone and unrestrained, and the door open.  The suspect takes a couple of swigs of water, then calmly reaches into his pants with his other hand, pulls out a large-caliber handgun, and shoots himself in the left temple. But what we see in the video is nothing like what most of us might expect.  The soon-to-be suicide victim is neither visibly nervous nor distraught as he freely pulls out a gun and places it against his head.  (He even replaces the cap on the water bottle before pulling the trigger.)  The weapon does not produce an ear-shattering concussive   sound in the small room, blood and brain matter don't splatter all over the walls, and the victim's body isn't hurtled out of the chair and onto the floor.  The gun makes a sharp popping sound as the suspect shoots himself, blood streams from the victim's head and mouth, his hands drop the gun and water bottle to the floor, and his body slumps but slightly in the chair. Even more unusual to many viewers is the officer's reaction to this event.  He doesn't respond with any of the emotions most of us might feel, such as fear, panic, terror, or disgust.  Nor does he rush to the victim's aid, check him for signs of life, summon help, or otherwise raise an alarm.  "Oh, fuck," he exclaims as he re-enters the room, puts his coffee down on the table, and surveys the scene for a second or two, then adds "Holy fuck."  When a second (unseen) officer inquires  "What did he do?" he responds with, "Nobody shook him" (i.e., nobody searched the suspect for weapons), then calmly retrieves the keys and sunglasses and leaves the room.  Throughout the short video, the officer's actions seem almost nonchalant: he doesn't act the least bit shocked or horrified that a human being has just died a violent death right in front of him. Instead, the foremost thought on his mind seems to be concern that someone's going to get into big trouble for the oversight of allowing a detainee to retain a weapon. (We realize, of course, that all of this would be viewed quite differently from a police perspective.  Officers undergo thorough instruction in the handling and use of firearms, they generally see far more blood and violence on the job than most of us will experience in our lifetimes, and they're trained to respond to emergency situations by following proper procedure rather than reacting with fear or panic.  We're simply presenting the average person's reaction to this video, as reflected in the e-mail we've received from readers who have viewed it.) The circumstances behind this video took place on 19 December 2003, when 47-year-old Ricardo Alfonso Cerna was stopped for a traffic violation at about 9:30 A.M. in Muscoy (a residential suburb of San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles).  Cerna fled the scene (in his car and then on foot) before shooting the pursuing officer, sheriff's deputy Michael Parham, twice in the abdomen.  (Deputy Parham survived the shooting.)   Cerna was soon arrested by San Bernardino police and taken to sheriff's headquarters on Third Street, where he was placed in an interview room just before 11 A.M. in preparation for questioning by Bobby Dean, head of the San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide unit.   When Dean stepped out of the room briefly to speak with a detective in the hallway, Cerna pulled the .45-caliber handgun out of his pants and shot himself in the head.  Evidently a chain of mistakes led to Cerna, a shooting suspect, being taken into custody without either the arresting officers or the booking officers discovering he had a large, heavy handgun concealed on his person: [Sheriff Gary] Penrod said deputies failed to adequately search Cerna before he was put in a car, and again when he was transferred to the homicide division office. Each receiving deputy may have wrongly assumed the previous officer adequately searched the man, he said.  Penrod said confusion among the three agencies involved  the Highway Patrol, San Bernardino police and the Sheriff's Department  may have contributed to the oversight. "Obviously there was a mistake made," Penrod said by phone. "It was hectic and it was a guy who was cuffed by somebody other than the transporting officer. (This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it  the completely implausible scenario of officers' deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.) executed returned As to how the video of Cerna's suicide made it onto the Internet, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said:  [A] ranking official at the department was authorized to show the video during a presentation on officer safety at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Va., several months ago. Following the presentation, dozens of copies of the video were made at the request of law-enforcement agencies across the country. Officials of those agencies wanted the copies for training purposes. Sheriff's officials do not know who might have leaked the video to the public.  Some of the officers involved in Cerna's arrest and handling were subjected to disciplinary action, but sheriff's officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of that action or identify the officers involved.  Last updated:  19 January 2014    Nelson, Joe.  "Sheriff's Detainee's Suicide Put on Web."   San Bernardino County Sun.  21 December 2004.    Associated Press.  "Arrestee Pulls Hidden Gun, Kills Self."    CNN.com.  20 December 2003. Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera rolls without a security detail, a fact he likes to bring up as he campaigns to replace U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio. Its an example of penny-pinching that he uses to set himself apart from the field of five Republicans vying for Rubios seat, as well as some predecessors whodrewscrutinyover transportation spending. I've actually cut the budget of the office by more than half, reduced the staff, he said in aninterviewwith Fox 13sMoney, Power, Politicsshow in Tampa which ran on air April 30. I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not ever take a security detail. Lopez-Cantera had dropped this tidbit at a speech earlier that month with theHillsborough County GOP, explaining, Its a waste of your money, and Im protected by the Second Amendment. (He has a concealed weapons permit.) With Lopez-Cantera playing up this factoid as an accomplishment, we wanted to know if he was really the first No. 2 guy to say nah, Ive got this, to taxpayer-paid protection. How he declined his security detail According tostate law, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall assign one patrol officer to the Office of the Governor  it does not mention the lieutenant governor. In practice, the right to a security detail for protection and transportation has been extended to recent lieutenant governors. But after Gov. Rick Scott plucked him for the office in 2014, Lopez-Cantera verbally declined that protection. In March, the Legislature approved a budget thatadded some languageto state that the security patrol is at the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems that Lopez-Cantera had that discretion anyway, but the new language in law makes that clear. The Legislature also added language to give the right to security for the attorney general, chief financial officer and agriculture commissioner. That appears to stem from a credible threat onAttorney General Pam Bondiin 2015, which prompted law enforcement to provide around-the-clock security for her for six weeks at a cost of $216,000. Scotts press office re-emphasized that it was Lopez-Canteras choice  and not, asrumor had it, the decision of former Scott chief of staff Adam Hollingsworth to downplay the role  in response to our inquiry. Still, there appeared to be a push to reduce expenses in that position after multiple news reports cited the amount of money spent on security and travel for Jeff Kottkamp under Gov. Charlie Crist and Jennifer Carroll, Scotts first lieutenant governor. The state spent$1.1 millionover four years for security and transportation for Kottkamp. In Carroll's first year in office, the Florida Highway Patrol spent $288,000 on travel and security. But after spending restrictions were put in place, that total dropped to$89,000in 2012. Lopez-Cantera garners even less attention as lieutenant governor than Carroll, hardly ever appearing alongside Scott at public events and keeping a sparse public calendar of events, theMiami Herald/Tampa Bay TimesTallahassee bureau noted inJuly 2015. Lopez-Cantera had six days of security  at a cost of $27,000  in May 2014 following a threat against him, according to a Florida Department of Law Enforcementreport. Past lieutenant governors and security The lieutenant governor role was revived in 1968 after a century without one. We tried to contact Lopez-Canteras predecessors (who are still alive today) for the low-down. The Florida Highway Patrol said that the following lieutenant governors had a security detail: Wayne Mixson (1979-87), Bobby Brantley (1987-1991), Buddy MacKay (1991-1998), Frank Brogan (1999-2003), Toni Jennings (2003-07), Kottkamp (2007-11) and Carroll (2011-13.) We attempted to reach all of those former lieutenant governors and were able to interview all but Brogan, Jennings and MacKay. Four confirmed they used the security detail. The only one who said he didnt use a security detail was Jim Williams, who was the lieutenant governor 1975-79. I didnt have security, Williams, 93, told PolitiFact Florida. Anita Oneida Darley, his aide at the time, also said he didnt have a security detail. The Florida Highway Patrol could not confirm. Mixson said that he used a security detail when he traveled within Florida, but he did not when he was in the office or when he traveled to foreign countries. The Florida Highway Patrol had traditionally supplied a security individual and they did, Mixson said. Brantley said he had a state trooper who traveled with him sometimes, including on a trip to Canada. He said the trooper served mostly as a driver. He had a desk inside my office, Brantley said. If I didnt have a need for him Id have him go and do patrol duty. He would actually go on the street and stop speeders. Brantley said that Brogan was the first one he recalled with an actual plainclothes security detailing talking in their sleeve and all that stuff. Kottkamp, now a lawyer in Tallahassee, said the security detail came with the job. On the night Gov. Crist and I were elected  they showed up at the hotel, he said. Someone was with me and the governor from that point on. It was a responsibility the FHP took very seriously. FHP leadership viewed it as a legal obligation to insure continuity of government. Carroll said troopers would pick her up to provide security when she traveled to other parts of the state. Our ruling Lopez-Cantera said, I'm also the only lieutenant governor to not take a security detail. He went without a security detail when he started in 2014  a break from most lieutenant governors in recent memory who have used state security. The only one we could find who said he did not have security detail was Jim Williams, lieutenant governor from 1975-79. The state could not confirm one way or another. That was about 40 years ago, so to us Lopez-Canteras point still holds water. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f3425ea7-664c-4d1c-9bc5-bb771765d290 In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements.  Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker       A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis.  "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents."   WXYZ.  26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy.  "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam."   CBS News.  26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady.  "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa."   WTSP.  26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.  "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?"   18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Tracker."   Accessed 27 January 2017. Since the Inflation Reduction Act passed with only Democratic support in Congress, Republicans have criticized the bill, saying it will saddle ordinary Americans with increased audits by the Internal Revenue Service. The legislation, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16,includesprovisions that would lower drug costs, address climate change, reduce the deficit, and impose higher taxes on the largest corporations. But much of the Republican criticism has focused on the laws allocation of about $80 billion over 10 years to strengthen the Internal Revenue Service. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that the Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you  with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sought to counter these attacks in an Aug. 28tweet, saying, The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like #WV families & small businesses. WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. The Inflation Reduction Act will ensure the wealthiest & most fortunate among us pay their fair share in taxes just like#WVfamilies & small businesses.WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS because they are already paying taxes. Manchin has a point. His argument is roughly the inverse of McCarthys, which PolitiFact ratedMostly False. We concluded that McCarthys 710,000-audit estimate runs counter to the IRS stated policy and was based on a flawed use of a Congressional Budget Office estimate that assumed much higher spending on enforcement than is in the legislation that passed. (We also found that McCarthys 87,000 figure was exaggerated because not all of those employees would be enforcement agents.) Here, well zero in on Manchins statement that WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. The 710,000 figure stems from an exaggerated calculation by U.S.Rep. Kevin Bradyof Texas, the House Ways and Means Committees top Republican. He arrived at the number by bringing together two pieces of data. In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office said that $80 billion more for the IRS would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago. Brady took 2010s audit rates and applied them to the number of tax returns in 2018, broken down by income groups. Using his approach, there would be about 710,000 more audits for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income. However, this approach ignores several key details about what the CBO report says elsewhere and what the bill  and the Treasury  have made clear: This effort aims to increase audits of corporations and high-net-worth individuals. The full sentence in the CBO report that Brady was drawing from said the audit rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. Brady also failed to note a key difference between the budget offices assessment from a year ago and the bill that was passed in 2022. The CBO assumed in its report that $60 billion of the $80 billion would go toward enforcement. But the current bill would result in substantially less than that  $46 billion  for enforcement, according to aCongressional Research Serviceanalysis. With nearly one-third less money for enforcement, the resulting number of audits would likely be smaller. Perhaps the biggest problem with assuming there will be a big increase in audits for middle- to low-income Americans, however, is that it runs directly counter to the IRS stated policy, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen laid out in a letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. I direct that any additional resources  including any new personnel or auditors that are hired  shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels, Yellen wroteAug. 10. Rettig had said much the same in anAug. 4letter to Congress. Audit rates for filers reporting less than $75,000 in income have held steady over thepast several yearsat about 0.4%. Thats lower than the audit rate in 2011, when it was 1%. Yellen said enforcement will focus on corporations and people with high net worth. Auditing them requires staff with special skills. Today, she said, the agency is able to audit only about 7,500 out of 4 million such returns each year. Focusing on higher earners, as the IRS plans to do, would go a long way toward reversing the agencys historical focus on auditingsome of the lowest earners, largely households that file for the earned income tax credit. The only caveat to Manchins statement is that theres no guarantee the agency will adhere to the new policy it has announced. The pledge not to use the Inflation Reduction Act funds to increase audits of those making less than $400,000 is not built into law, John Buhl, senior communications manager at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, told PolitiFact West Virginia. Although its not written in law, its a policy that has been stated publicly on several occasions. Both the IRS and Treasury are committed to that policy decision, as outlined in recent letters, said Erin Heeter, Manchins press secretary. Both the IRS and Treasury also outlined in their recent letters that audit rates for families making under $400k will not change. Buhl agreed that its unlikely that the IRS will perform audits on lower-income families when they already have documentation through W-2 wage pay stubs and other statements. And audits of high earners arewhere the money is, anyway. The top 1% of earners account for about 30% of the $600 billion each year that is owed but goes uncollected, Natasha Sarin, counselor for Tax Policy and Implementation at the Treasury Department, told PolitiFact. Manchin said, WV families making less than $400K & small businesses will NOT be targeted by the IRS. This limitation wasnt written into the Inflation Reduction Act. However, top Treasury and IRS officials have consistently confirmed that the new resources allocated to the IRS by the law will be focused on audits of the highest-paying Americans, making it stated policy. We rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  Berkshire Hathaway, the legendary business concern headed by Warren Buffett and new owner of Pampered Chef, supports pro-choice causes.  Status:  Sort of. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Dear Friend: I am a Pampered Chef consultant who has recently learned that, due to the sale of The Pampered Chef toBerkshire Hathaway (www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/oct3102.html), Pampered Chef profits are now supporting the population control and abortion industries. These industries trade in the death of countless pre-born children, endanger the health of women, and deny the human rights of women in third world countries through forced sterilizations and abortions. Not only does Berkshire Hathaway contribute to these industries, but Warren Buffett, chief shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway, has pledged to bequeath the majority of his personal fortune (28 billion) to The Buffett Foundation, positioning him to become the largest financier of abortion and population control in the history of the world. www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/oct3102.html As a result of this information, I have ceased to sell or recruit for The Pampered Chef. I have also launched an e-mail campaign to (1) educate Pampered Chef consultants, hosts and customers of the connection between The Pampered Chef and the population control and abortion industries; and (2) petition Warren Buffett to cease his personal and corporate financial support of these same industries. Origins:  In October 2002, Berkshire Hathaway acquired The Pampered Chef, a kitchen products company which vends items atin-home cooking demonstrations known as Kitchen Shows and is run by kitchen consultants (its name for the members of its sale force). More than one million of these events were held in the United States in 2002, and Pampered Chef has annual sales in excess of $700 million. Berkshire Hathaway The Pampered Chef kitchen consultants Besides Pampered Chef, Berkshire Hathaway owns a number of businesses outright (including Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Geico Insurance, and See's Candies) and also has significant holdings in some very large corporations, including  Coca-Cola. The motive force behind Berkshire Hathaway is its chairman and chief executive, Warren Buffett. Although Buffett is reckoned to be the second wealthiest man in the world, he still lives in the Omaha, Nebraska, home he purchased for $31,500 in 1958. His charitable organization, the Buffett Foundation, currently has $25.3 million in assets, and these holdings are expected to swell to $36 billion when Buffett and his wife die and their shares in Berkshire Hathaway go to the Buffett Foundation, which will make it the richest charitable foundation in the world. About 60 percent of the $33.4 million bestowed by the Buffett Foundation in fiscal year 2001 went toward family planning, reproductive rights, and population control programs operated by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Johns Hopkins University, and the United Nations in accordance with Warren Buffett's beliefs that population growth must be checked before exceeding a level sustainable by the earth's resources. The Buffett Foundation also funds a number of college scholarships and awards in recognition of exemplary teachers. In July 2003 Berkshire Hathaway announced the end of its shareholder-designated contribution program, through which holders of A shares in Berkshire Hathaway could select the charities to which Berkshire Hathaway would donate funds.  It noted the shareholders' choices of certain charities (including some of Buffett's choices) had caused "harmful criticism" to be directed at Pampered Chef and cited that criticism as the reason for ending the donations program.  Berkshire said all its subsidiaries will continue to support local charities under direction of their local managers. What all this means is that Berkshire Hathaway itself no longer contributes money directly to various charities (controversial or otherwise) designated by its shareholders.  However, since Warren Buffett (as a private individual) holds shares in Berkshire Hathaway and is free to contribute the profit he derives from those holdings to The Buffett Foundation, the businesses owned by Berkshire Hathaway (such as The Pampered Chef) are indirectly providing money to the causes Buffett supports through his foundation. Barbara "missed hathaway" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Berkshire Hathaway holdings      Berkshire Hathaway press release  Last updated:  28 November 2007    Sources:   Jordon, Steve.  "Introductory Lesson on Warren Buffett."   Omaha World Herald.  3 May 2003  (p. D5).     Kawar, Mark.  "Touched by a Billionaire."   Omaha World Herald.  4 May 2003  (p. D1).     Shim, Grace.  "Berkshire Pantry Adds Pampered Chef."   Omaha World Herald.  24 September 2003  (p. D1).     Shim, Grace.  "Lasting Legacy."   Omaha World Herald.  27 April 2003  (p. D1).     The Associated Press.  "Berkshire Hathaway Ends Charity Program Over Criticism."   3 July 2003. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare "martial law"  the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. faced deadly Capitol Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: other platforms I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently  and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days  we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government "are going to be brought down" in some "house cleaning" and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. supposedly stop "It's the president's last effort," McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. "We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country." 2020 presidential election the Capitol insurrection   In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. use military force First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases  people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities  such as those provided in the Insurrection Act  give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. Insurrection Act like in Hawaii during World War II The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: said It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Insurrection Act encouraged Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. warned But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim On 5 December 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article reporting that President-elect Donald Trump had officially announced former Alaska governor (and 2008 vice presidential candidate) Sarah Palin was in line to become his new Science and Technology Adviser: World News Daily Report article Critics of the administration have already voiced their concerns over the choice of the former Alaska governor, known to be a fierce climate change denier, to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology of the United States. Far too long has the Chinese narrative over climate change kept our economy in a rut. Its time to open the pumps and as I like to say: Drill, baby, drill!   Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor  This tweet did not appear in Twitter's history of Trump's account, and no other news outlet reported what would have been an undoubtedly highly newsworthy appointment.  history That lack of additional coverage is because this report originated with World News Daily Report, a fake news site. The site used an old and unrelated image of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin together (which dated to 2011) to suggest that the pair had met during the President-elect's transition period in late 2016. image 2011