Did the CDC Allege Anyone Entering a Hospital is ID'ed as a COVID-19 Case?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false.
As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015. In August 2017, rumors began to spread on social media that anti-fascists (a name often shortened to "antifa", which has become shorthand for a subset of protestors, usually clad in black and accessorized with bandannas and who are evidently unnerving bloggers and vloggers enough to be the pet topic of many an angry online rant) were planning extended unrest, riots, killing random citizens, or outright civil war beginning on 4 November 2017: August 2017 rumors began civil war   Depending on the source, "antifa" (always treated as though it is one homogenous, unified group) is purportedly planning extended riots, joint violence alongside Black Lives Matter and the Black Panthers, or a coup of the American government. The rumors seem to have originated from a video originally published on 30 August 2017 by an individual named Jordan Peltz. Peltz was widely (and incorrectly) identified as a "U.S. Marshal" in the video, which shows him wearing what looked like an official badge that is actually simply printed on his shirt. However, he is not actually law enforcement or military  Peltz instead evidently works as some combination of bail bondsman and bounty hunter. published (Claiming to be a United States marshal is very popular among the sovereign citizen set; those involved claim to answer only to their interpretation of common law and maintain they are not subject to other legal conventions, including getting driver's licenses and paying taxes. Local, state, and federal governments tend to disagree.) popular involved driver's licenses taxes On Instagram, Peltz describes his work as "#fugitiverecovery" and "#warrantservice": Instagram   Peltz published a video to "clear the air" on 27 September 2017 after reporter JJ MacNab, whose beat includes anti-government and sovereign citizen groups, wrote a thread on Twitter about how militia groups are being goaded into taking up arms against anti-fascists: JJ MacNab thread   Peltz responded by stating that his video, which gave an impression he was either predicting or calling for a November 2017 civil war, had been edited  although he didn't specify when, by whom, or why, despite millions of views and thousands of comments, he had remained unaware it had been altered until he saw reports: stating Finding out my video meant for me and few friends had been taken and edited. Only site I thought had it. @jjmacnab should have just msg me pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf @jjmacnab pic.twitter.com/G9EGfGjHkf  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 24, 2017 September 24, 2017  https://t.co/JNR3co0QwhFollow-up from my Viral Video and clearing the air. Please, view my IG to see what else was falsely claimed https://t.co/JNR3co0Qwh  Veritas'AequitasUSA (@TacticalPoet84) September 28, 2017 September 28, 2017 On 29 September 2017, InfoWars published an article using Peltz's "civil war" wording: published Antifa is planning a new round of nationwide riots on November 4 as part of a plot to start a civil war that will lead to the overthrow of the Trump administration. Far-left militants plan to gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country in the hope of building momentum for civil unrest that leads to nothing less than domestic regime change. Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power, states a call to action on the RefuseFascism website. A longer screed posted on the Revolutionary Communist website makes it clear that Antifa is not prepared to wait for electoral change from Democrats, and will engage in a ferocious struggle, based on plans outlined in a book written by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which is called The Coming Civil War. The page also cited "antifa" web sites, neither of which threatened violence. One provided a list of Facebook events, and the other read in its entirety: provided list read entirety ON NOVEMBER 4, 2017: We will gather in the streets and public squares of cities and towns across this country, at first many thousands declaring that this whole regime is illegitimate and that we will not stop until our single demand is met: This Nightmare Must End: the Trump/Pence Regime Must Go! Our protest must grow day after day and night after nightthousands becoming hundreds of thousands, and then millionsdetermined to act to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence Regime poses to the world by demanding that this whole regime be removed from power. Our actions will reflect the values of respect for all of humanity and the world we wantin stark contrast to the hate and bigotry of the Trump/Pence fascist regime. Our determination to persist and not back down will compel the whole world to take note. Every force and faction in the power structure would be forced to respond to our demand. The cracks and divisions among the powers already evident today will sharpen and widen. As we draw more and more people forward to stand up, all of this could lead to a situation where this illegitimate regime is removed from power. Spread the word and organize now. Be a part of making history. Dont let it be said that you stood aside when there was still a chance to stop a regime that imperils humanity and the Earth itself. Join in taking to the streets and the public squares day after day and night after night demonstrating that In the Name of Humanity, We REFUSE to Accept a Fascist America. On November 4, 2017, we will stand together with conviction and courage, overcoming fear and uncertainty, to insist that: This Nightmare Must End: The Trump/Pence Regime Must GO! @AntifaChecker, a Twitter feed devoted to sniffing out phony "antifa" accounts, said it was not even aware of the call to action: yeah, we haven't heard anything about november 4  Antifa Checker (@AntifaChecker) October 1, 2017 October 1, 2017  An article in L.A. Weekly reported on both the freeway protest and upcoming events: article Their placards bore letters that spelled out "NOV 4 IT BEGINS." But they couldn't get enough volunteers to hold all 12 letters, so the tallest among them, the ones with the broadest wingspans, held up two letters each. The eight people weren't enough to block the on-ramp, so some motorists were able to swerve around. [Organizer and USC film professor Perry] Hoberman says the protest was conceived in part to get the word out about a Nov. 4 demonstration the group is planning. He says it's being modeled on the Women's March held in January at Pershing Square and that organizers hope the action will include an encampment in a public place,  la Occupy Wall Street, or at least a prolonged series of protests over several days. At one point on Tuesday they knelt on the freeway, which organizer Michelle Xai says was to acknowledge "black and Latino people who have been and continue to be murdered by police." A video of the protest uploaded to the group's Facebook page has more than 700,000 views. Many of the 24,000-plus commenters ask for more information about Nov. 4. Plenty of others object to the group's inconveniencing motorists, and some appear to endorse running them over. It is true that some groups linked to the antifa movement planned co-ordinated protests on 4 November 2017, but that had nothing to do with Peltz's video expressing disdain for the group in August 2017, nor did he appear to have any insider law enforcement knowledge, as he does not work as law enforcement himself. When a wave of rumors about 4 November anti-fascist protests began, his clip became part of the claim as "evidence" that a "federal officer" warned of coming violence. In reality, a list of apparently peaceful protests were paired with an older, unrelated video to create the impression of a looming threat. Peltz himself walked the claims far back after his video brought him unwanted attention and scrutiny. There was an uptick in the rumor's spread on 1 November 2017, when the groups advertised the 4 November 2017 demonstrations in the New York Times.  advertised Smith IV, Jack.  "The Far-Right Thinks A Violent Antifa Overthrow Is Coming Nov. 4, But The Truth Is Far Stranger."
  Mic.  2 November 2017. [Updated] 3 November 2017: Added information about advertisements for the planned protests which appeared on 1 November 2017 in the New York Times. Addressing supporters in an airport hangar in Addison, Perry said that on his watch, companies in Texas created almost one third of all new American jobs. And, he said,  in the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. Sounded familiar. In May 2013,we found Truea Perry claim about Texas accounting for 33 percent of the countrys net new jobs over the last 10 years. That conclusion was supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government. Later, in January 2015, werated Mostly TruePerrys statement that starting in December 2007, 1.4 million jobs were created in Texas. In that same period, the rest of the country lost 400,000 jobs. His figures mostly held up according to household surveys by the federal government looking into civilian employment including self-employment, though at the time positions not yet recovered outside Texas totaled closer to 350,000, according to the latest available data when Perry spoke to lawmakers Jan. 22, 2015. When we looked at the earlier Texas-nation comparison by Perry, his spokesman encouraged us to consultMark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan campus in Flint. Professor Perry wrote in a November 2014online commentarythat from December 2007, the start of the national recession, through October 2014, Texas saw civilian employment balloon by 1.36 million jobs. In contrast, he wrote, civilian employment in the other 49 states without Texas is still 0.26% and more than 350,000 jobs below the December 2007 level  there were 134.9 million non-Texas jobs in October vs. 135.26 million in December 2007. To our query, the scholar emailed a chart showing that based on what the government calls total employment, covering all jobs including self-employed posts, Texas had 1,410,400 more jobs in November 2014 than it had in December 2007 while the rest of the country had 352,440 fewer jobs. Total employment, he said, serves as a comprehensive indicator and is used to calculate unemployment rates. A little more: The BLSsays the definition of employment in the federal household survey, which the governor relied on for his comparisons, comprises wage and salary workers (including domestics and other private household workers), self-employed persons and unpaid workers who worked 15 hours or more during the reference week in family-operated enterprises. Employment in both agricultural and nonagricultural industries is included. In contrast, the federal government's oft-quoted payroll survey of employers covers only wage and salary employees on the payrolls of nonfarm establishments. By this other metric, Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the bureau, told us, Texas netted 1.2 million additional jobs from December 2007 to December 2014. In the period, she said, 24 states had net decreases in total civilian employment. But again, those figures werent total employment, the indicator chosen by Perry. After Perry declared for president, we circled back to Abbot, who emailed us data indicating that from December 2007 to December 2014, Texas saw an increase in total employment of 1,572,694; the nation as a whole had a surge of 1,169,000. Put another way, but for Texas, the nation would have experienced a total employment decrease of 403,694. When we looked into Perrys seven-year contrast before, analystDavid Cooperof the liberal Economic Policy Institute commented that the timeframe singled out by Perry may deliver a more glowing contrast for Texas than other periods. According to the governments payroll surveys, he said, the country had added 9.1 million jobs since June 2009, the acknowledged end of the national recession, with Texas accounting for 1.5 million of the additions. Significantly, he said, the rest of the country as a whole lost jobs from June 2009 until February 2010. Since then, he said, the U.S. had added more than 10 million jobs with Texas (again) accounting for more than 1 million of them. At the time, Professor Perry said that in his view, the best comparison of Texas to the rest of the nation starts in December 2007. His point: Texas never experienced significant job losses during the Great Recession, while the rest of the country did, he emailed. Therefore, comparing job gains since June 2009 or Feb. 2010 really wont make much sense. Of course the non-Texas US gained a lot of jobs since June 2009, and more than Texas, but thats because Texas never lost any (very many) jobs in 2008 and 2009 like the rest of the country. Texas is a great economic success story, and an anomaly vs. the rest of the country regarding job losses/gains, he wrote. Also at the time, Abbot said by email Perrys claim could have been precise by referring to total civilian employment rather than jobs. That said, as of November 2014, Abbot said, 24 other states had yet to reach pre-recession employment levels. On a statewide basis, Texas by far leads all states, with total civilian employment growth of 1,410,440. California is a distant second with civilian (household) employment growth of 452,763, Abbot wrote. Our ruling  Perry said: In the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. These figures hold up though Perry cherry-picked a time period arguably giving Texas more of a gloss than it might get with other periods. More generally, no governor determines job gains or losses in a state; outside factors tend to prevail. In Texas, the fracking boom comes to mind. Governors dont create oil and gas fields. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. CORRECTION, 12:40 p.m., June 18, 2015:This fact check was revised to correct our error in quoting an email from Cheryl Abbot of the BLS. This change, clarifying that 24 states had net decreases in civilian employment in the period singled out by Perry, did not affect our rating. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 New Jersey often ranks high on lists in categories ranging from beach quality to education.Unfortunately, according to Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, the state tops another list  one with a particularly dubious ranking.New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation and not by a little, Greenwald (D-Camden) said in an April 1 interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record. They are the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average.New Jersey having high property taxes isnt new. But are they more than double the national average? Greenwalds statement is largely on the money, PolitiFact New Jersey found.Lets first explain the source of Greenwalds data and how tax rankings are reviewed.Greenwald got his data from a 2009 list compiled by the business-backed Tax Foundation in Washington, DC. The 2009 data shows that New Jersey ranked number one in three key tax metrics: median property taxes paid on homes; taxes as a percentage of home value; and taxes as a percentage of income.Nick Kasprak, a Tax Foundation analyst and programmer, said taxes as a percentage of home value is the most relevant statistic of the three because it can apply to most people, ranging from those who own condominiums to those in McMansions.Its a good way of comparing apples to apples across the states, Kasprak said of the metric, adding that the Tax Foundations numbers are estimates and come from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey.So how long has New Jersey worn the highest property taxes banner?That depends on the metric. We found that New Jersey property taxes have topped the rest of the nations at least back to 2004 when looking at median property taxes paid on homes and taxes paid as a percentage of income.When looking at all three Tax Foundation metrics for years 2004 through 2009, New Jerseys median property taxes paid on homes was more than triple the national average; more than double the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of income; and at least one and-a-half times the national average for taxes paid as a percentage of home value.Brigid Callahan Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said comparing states by property taxes alone is disingenuous because states fund certain needs differently. For example, some states use property taxes to fund education, others do not.In reality, we need to look in total at the entire tax burden, Harrison said. The implication is that New Jerseyans pay the highest taxes in the country, right? Thats what people think. What Im saying is that New Jersey pays a very high tax burden. What we need to do is look at the total tax burden: gas tax, sales tax, security, user fees, certainly property taxes and sales taxes as well.Jon Bramnick, leader of the Assembly Republicans, agreed property taxes are high but credited a slowing of their growth to Gov. Chris Christies implementation of a 2-percent property tax cap, changing arbitration procedures for police and firefighters, and other measures.We obviously have to have mergers, shared services and consolidations across New Jersey, Bramnick said, adding that a bipartisan effort is key. These are the factors that you have to have to continue down that road. If you do, you will see a slowing of property taxes.Our rulingGreenwald said in a TV interview that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation, more than double the national average. He was referring to 2009 statistics from the Tax Foundation. Statistics from 2004 through 2008 show the state leads the nation in two of three key metrics, according to the Tax Foundation. New Jersey led in all three metrics in 2009. Greenwalds overall point is clear: when it comes to property taxes, New Jersey is king. We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Claim:  Forger steals money by manipulating ABA symbols on checks. LEGEND Origins:  One of the ways paperhangers were supposedly able to pass bad checks easily once upon a time was by manipulating the American Bankers Association (ABA) numbers encoded on nearly all checks with magnetic ink.  Although the American banking system relies heavily upon this information for the automated sorting and routing of checks, many bank personnel are unfamiliar with or pay little attention to these numbers. ABA The system has changed a little bit over the years, but nowadays checks typically bear a nine-digit ABA routing number printed in the bottom left-hand corner (indicated as #5 in the above diagram).  In general, the first four digits are a Federal Reserve routing symbol,  identifying which of the twelve Federal Reserve districts the check was printed in (and a city within that district).  The next four digits are an ABA institution identifier which designates the bank on which the check is drawn, and the last number is a check digit. Federal Reserve Check forgers manipulated the banking system by altering the ABA routing numbers on the bad checks they passed so that the numbers identified different banks than the ones whose information was printed on the face of those checks.  For example, a forger attempting to pass a bad check in Boston might present a check whose printed information indicated it was drawn on a Philadelphia bank, but whose  routing number had been altered to indicate that it came from a bank in the 12th Federal Reserve district (which encompasses the western United States).  The Boston bank would expect a check drawn on a Philadelphia bank to clear within two or three days and assume that if it hadn't been kicked back to them by the end of the third day, it was good.  However, the altered routing number would cause the automated sorting machinery to send the check on to a San Francisco clearing house for processing.  Once the check arrived in San Francisco, a computer there would kick it out because the routing number didn't match the other information encoded on the check, and the check would be mailed back to the Philadelphia bank for processing.  This whole process could take several days, but because the Boston bank assumed the check was good after the third day, the forger could withdraw his funds and leave town long before they discovered his check was phony. Con man Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) claims in his memoirs that he "was the first check swindler to use the routing numbers racket" in the late 1960s.  One of Thomas Whiteside's 1977 New Yorker articles included an example of what supposedly happened when a forger altered checks drawn on the Chemical Bank in New York so that their routing numbers identified them as coming from a Los Angeles bank: Although the check bore the name and address of the Chemical Bank in New York, the Federal Reserve data-processing system scanned only the magnetic-ink code on it, identified it as a Bank of America check, and routed it to Los Angeles.  The check remained in transit for perhaps two days. At the end of that time, it was run through the computer mechanism at the Bank of America.  The computer, instantly searching its memory for a Bank of America account number matching that of the magnetic-ink strip on the check, rejected the check, which then went into a clerical pool for manual handling. Since the printed logotype on the check clearly identified it as a check that belonged in the Chemical Bank in New York, the clerk handling the machine-rejected check sent it back to the Chemical Bank by mail, assuming that a simple routing error had been made.  The check was then in transit for another two days. Back at the Chemical Bank, the check was put into the computerized sorting system for final clearance. But instead of that, it went into motion again: the Chemical Bank computing system passed it on to the Federal Reserve System, which routed it out to the Los Angeles bank again, which routinely sent it back to New York, and so on. The fraud was uncovered only when checks issued by the depositor became so frayed from mechanical handling in the computer system that they could no longer be read automatically ... [b]y that time, according to an auditor who told me of the affair, the depositor had disappeared with more than $1 million in cash. Last updated:  1 July 2014    Whiteside, Thomas.  Computer Capers.   New York: Mentor, 1978.  ISBN 0-451-62173-5  (pp. 31-33). Both Republican and Democratic voters have little love for prescription drug makers. When asked,four out of five Americanssay the cost of drugs is unreasonable. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has signed on to a bevy of plans to bring prices down. There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers, Booker said at thefirst Democratic debatein Miami. The Trump campaign fired off a reminder that Booker has history with the drug makers. Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career, @TrumpWarRoomtweeted June 26, the night of the first Democratic debate. FACT: Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.pic.twitter.com/1HUfFVBGVU By one measure, that number is correct. But a more granular look at drug maker political money delivers a lower number, and the tweet gives no hint that Booker stopped taking pharmaceutical money in 2017. The Trump campaign sent us toBookers career summary pageon the Open Secrets website, a reliable source of federal political money data. Booker first ran for Senate in 2013. Since then, people and groups tied to the pharmaceutical/health products industry have given Booker $411,948. The number is actually higher. Booker runs a leadership PAC, a common device on Capitol Hill to raise money for a variety of uses, from travel expenses to helping other candidates fund their campaigns.Bookers PACgot $56,000 since 2014, for a grand total of $468,000. Theres an important caveat: That industry group includes much more than drug makers. Drug wholesalers, medical equipment makers and dietary supplement companies all fall under this category. The wholesalers would have a stake in bills aimed at lowering prescription drug costs, but many other companies, such as Nestl, which owns several dietary supplement brands, and Medtronic, maker of insulin pumps and much more, would go untouched by such legislation. Boiled down to drug makers alone, according to data pulled by the Open Secrets staff, Bookers total is $327,000. That includes both donations to his campaign committee and his leadership PAC. One last wrinkle would add some money back in. The Trump campaign tweet was based solely on Bookers federal receipts. But as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013, Bookerraised millions. Some of that came from people tied to drug makers. A notable example is Jonathan Sackler, a member of the family behindPurdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In 2009,Sackler gave $26,000 to Booker Team for Newark, a joint campaign committee to help elect Booker and a slate of city councilors. At the end of the day, we found that drug makers gave Bookers campaigns upwards of $350,000. Thats less than the tweet claimed, but still a hefty amount. And if drug wholesalers are added in, the gap largely disappears. In June 2017, Booker told NPR he had stopped taking industry donations. We put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism,Booker said. Recently, hetweeted, Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives  they are part of this problem. Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives  they are part of this problem.Its time to work on a solution. Chip in to help us run a people-powered campaign As far as his PAC money, that revenue stream has died for Booker. Up through 2016, drug makers had given him $202,000. Since then, as the chart below shows, the amount from drug makers directly is zero, with some ongoing donations from individuals who work for drug makers. New Jersey is home tomany large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Individuals who work for them have continued to give to Booker, but since 2016, that has fallen from nearly $100,000 to about $26,000. Bookers campaign noted that he joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on adrug importation bill. Booker also put forward legislation that would allow the Medicare program tonegotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. These and other measures have drawn strong opposition from the drug industry. The Trump campaign said that in the course of his career, Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. The number is close. What the tweet ignores is that Booker stopped taking money from pharmaceutical industry PACs and top executives. Since 2016, Booker received zero dollars from drug makers and individual contributions have fallen by 75%. The average reader of the tweet would have no idea that Booker has shunned pharmaceutical money for the past two years. Thats additional context, but Booker did accept the money in years past. That meets our definition of Mostly True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. With October marking Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S., readers contacted us regarding a graphic circulating online sharing an alarming statistic regarding homicide rates for partners who obtained restraining orders.  The graphic, which was unattributed but bore the hashtag #DVAM2018, read as follows: 1/5 of homicide victims with restraining orders are murdered within two days of obtaining the order, 1/3 within the first month.   The figures were taken from a 2008 study regarding intimate partner homicides (IPH).  Although the data presented in the meme was accurate, it lacked some context provided by the original source and therefore could be potentially misleading when taken in isolation. study According to that study: About 11% of 231 women killed by male intimates had been issued a restraining order. About one-fifth of the female IPH victims who had a restraining order were killed within 2 days of the order being issued; about one-third were killed within a month. Nearly half of those with a restraining order had been protected by multiple orders. Victims killed in a shared residence (versus elsewhere) had lower odds of having a restraining order, whereas victims from rural (versus urban) counties, married (versus dating) victims, and Latino (versus non-Latino) victim-offender dyads had higher odds of having a restraining order. The type of weapon used was not associated with whether the victim had been under the protection of a restraining order. While the numbers used in the meme were quoted accurately, we are rating this item as a Mixture because it doesn't mention that the overwhelming majority of IPH victims reported by the survey who were killed by intimates (89%) did not have restraining orders in place.  Omitting this piece of information could create a false impression regarding the effectiveness of restraining or protective orders, and more recent data supports their use as a deterrent against intimate partner violence.  A 2011 study published by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire found that the quality of life improved for the 213 women they surveyed who had received civil protective orders.  Half the women reported that the orders were not violated, and the majority of respondents reported declines in "days of distress and sleep loss" after obtaining those orders. published The report concluded by noting: Not only are civil protective orders effective, but they are relatively low cost, especially when compared with the social and personal costs of partner violence. The effectiveness is particularly relevant for low-income rural women. These women had more personal and social barriers to stopping the violence including higher unemployment and tighter connections to the violent partner. Rural women also had fewer community resources or alternatives available to help them. Therefore, increasing access to civil protective orders should be an important goal in helping victims and their children and in lowering societal costs of partner violence. We contacted Katherine Vittes, the lead researcher for the 2008 study cited in the meme, seeking comment but did not receive a response prior to publication. Vittes, K.A. and S.B. Sorenson. "Restraining Orders Among Victims of Intimate Partner Homicide."
  U.S. National Library of Medicine.  June 2008. Logan, T.K. and Robert Walker.  "Civil Protective Orders Effective in Stopping or Reducing Partner Violence."
  Carsey School of Public Policy.  Spring 2011. In mid-January 2019, a meme spread on social media that led some users to believe furloughed federal government employees could be fired if the government remains in an ongoing shutdown for 30 days.   But that scenario of hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs in the current shutdown won't happen. hundreds of thousands Federal statute requires agencies to take reduction-in-force (RiF) action against employees who have been furloughed for 30 days or more, but that only applies in administrative furloughs, "a planned event by an agency which is designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced funding, lack of work, or any budget situation other than a lapse in appropriations." statute Furloughs of federal workers as a result of lapses in appropriation are called emergency furloughs." According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, reduction-in-force regulations don't apply in such events: emergency furloughs don't apply "Reductions in force (RIF) furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements are not applicable to emergency shutdown furloughs because the ultimate duration of an emergency shutdown furlough is unknown at the outset and is dependent entirely on Congressional action, rather than agency action. The RIF furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements, on the other hand, contemplate planned, foreseeable, money-saving furloughs that, at the outset, are planned to exceed 30 days." As of this writing on 17 January 2019, the federal government is entering its 27th day of partial shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, and the result of an impasse reached between President Donald Trump and Democratic members of Congress over Trump's demand to include $5.7 billion in appropriations for new U.S.-Mexico border-wall construction. The shutdown has resulted in 800,000 federal employees going without pay, thousands of whom who have been ordered back to work anyway. thousands Haslett, Cheyenne."On Day 25 of Longest-Ever Government Shutdown, 800,000 Federal Employees Are Without Pay."
ABC News.15 January 2019. Haslett, Cheyenne."Tens of Thousands More Federal Employees Called Back to Work as Government Shutdown Reaches Day 27."
ABC News.17 January 2019. Pengelly, Martin, and Laughland, Oliver."Trump Rejects Lindsey Graham's Proposal to Reopen Government."
The Guardian.14 January 2019. U.S. Office of Personnel Management."Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs."
September 2015. U.S. Office of Personnel Management."Pay & Leave; Furlough Guidance." U.S. Office of Personnel Management."Workforce Restructuring; Reduction in Force."