Hotline Ping
Claim:Veterans can dial 877-424-3838 to secure immediate shelter for any homeless veteran. [dot-mixture][/dot-mixture] WHAT'S : The phone number for the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans is877-424-3838. WHAT'S /UNDETERMINED: Calls to this number will result in immediate housing arrangements for homeless vets. Example:[Collected via e-mail and Facebook, December2015]Is this real?   Let's make this go viral!   Origins: On 20 November 2015 a Facebook user shared the above-reproduced graphic, urging fellow users to make it "go viral" and indicating that calls to the phone number877-424-3838 would get "any homeless veteran a place to live." shared With winter approaching (and renewed interest in homelessness among veterans due to an ongoing refugee crisis) the image and its claims became popular among Facebook users. The phone number877-424-3838 indeed belongedto theNational Call Center for Homeless Veterans (operated by theU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs), and the hotline's page described its range of services:The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA)has founded a National Call Center for Homeless Veterans hotline to ensure that homeless Veterans or Veterans at-risk for homelessness have free, 24/7 access to trained counselors.The hotline is intended to assist homeless Veterans and their families, VA Medical Centers, federal, state and local partners,community agencies, service providers and others in the community. refugee crisis National Call Center   Clearly,disseminating information about the hotline and its purposesserved topotentially benefit some homeless veterans. However, the wording of the graphicpotentially led readers to believe that a call placed to the line wouldensure a homeless vet would receive immediate housing services; however, particularly in winter, it was important to understand the scope of the hotline and its limitations. While the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans provided access to counselors 24 hours a day and seven days a week, its primary function wasn't to directly provide housing for at-risk veterans. Counselors on the line possessed the ability to possibly connect veterans with local resources, but did not appear capable of directly arranging those resources. Local law enforcement agencies often engage homeless protection protocols during severe weather, such as New York City's Code Blue:Implemented when the temperature drops to 32 degrees or lower, or during times of sustained winds and precipitation, Code Blue calls for increased street outreach efforts - thereby doubling the number of vans in the field and enabling teams to check on individuals more frequently. In addition, when Code Blue is in effect, individuals experiencing homelessness may access any of the agency's adult facilities, including shelters and drop-in centers, without going through the usual intake process.  Code Blue "Code Blue is a procedure that, above all else, aims to save lives," said DHS Commissioner Michele Ovesey. "As we strengthen and maximize agency outreach efforts, we do so knowing the great importance, and urgency, of reaching as many vulnerable individuals as possible, Citywide."  It's possible that a call placed to the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans would result in eventual help for a homeless vet, but 877-424-3838 might not be the best number to call for immediate assistance. In addition to the hotline, concernsabout the immediate welfare of a homeless veteran directed tolocal law enforcement agencies could help determine ifdirectservices wereavailable.  Last updated: 2December 2015 Originally published: 2December 2015
In February 2022, a picture showing a curious piece of currency, a $1,000 bill featuring the face of 22nd and 24th U.S. President Grover Cleveland, was circulated on social media: While thousand-dollar bills may not be a familiar sight to modern audiences, the United States truly produced a $1,000 bill featuring Cleveland in 1928 and 1934. As for this specific bill, this photo was first posted to Reddit in August 2020 by a banker in a post explaining that the bill was brought in to be deposited by a customer. The bank teller, according to the post, informed the man that this bill was likely worth much more than $1,000 and encouraged them to sell it to a collector:  Reddit in August 2020 Customer brought in a 1934 thousand dollar bill. After ten years in banking finally got to see one in person ... told him I could accept the bill but only at face value. Really tried to steer him to find a collector or someone else because he could get more for it, even in that condition. Cleveland first appeared on the $1,000 bill in 1928. Here's a newspaper clipping from 1928 announcing the new currency, including two larger denominations, a $5,000 bill featuring President James Madison and a $10,000 bill featuring Salmon P. Chase, a former governor, senator, Supreme Court justice, and secretary of the treasury.  15 Jan 1929, Tue The Democrat-Argus (Caruthersville, Missouri) Newspapers.com  15 Jan 1929, Tue The Democrat-Argus (Caruthersville, Missouri) Newspapers.com Side note: While the $10,000 bill was real, it did not feature the words "HAIL SATAN" in small print around its edges, as online rumors claimed in 2017.  online rumors claimed in 2017 Cleveland wasn't the first person to be featured on a piece of American currency worth $1,000. The National Museum of American History's Numismatic Collection features a few other legal tender notes in that denomination. For example, a $1,000 note featuring Robert Morris, a financier and founding father known as "Financier of the Revolution," was produced in 1863. Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. secretary of the treasury, was also the face of a $1,000 note in 1918.  Robert Morris The Cleveland bills were last printed in 1945, and officially discontinued in 1969 due to a "lack of use," according to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing. While we can't say for sure why these bills fell out of favor, a newspaper article from 1946 described the air of suspicion that surrounded people who paid for things with $1,000 bills. U.S. Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing  27 Feb 1946, Wed The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) Newspapers.com  27 Feb 1946, Wed The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts) Newspapers.com While the reporter in the above-displayed story found that these suspicions were largely exaggerated (he was able to use $1,000 bills without a problem), the $1,000 bill's connection to nefarious activities, justified or not, stretches back to the early 1900s:  25 Nov 1911, Sat St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri) Newspapers.com  25 Nov 1911, Sat St. Louis Post-Dispatch (St. Louis, Missouri) Newspapers.com A Man With a $1000 Bill Is Little Better Than Penniless. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 Nov. 1911, p. 2. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94583897/st-louis-post-dispatch/. Passing $1000 Bills In Boston Is Cinch, Globe Reporter Finds. The Boston Globe, 27 Feb. 1946, p. 11. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94583750/the-boston-globe/. Rare $1,000 Bill Expected to Fetch $1M at Baltimore Auction. Baltimoresun.Com, https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-rare-money-auction-20180321-story.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. Robert Morris Deserves His Place on This $1,000 Bill  The Intelligent Collector Magazine | Blog. https://intelligentcollector.com/blog/robert-morris-deserves-his-place-on-this-1000-bill/. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. The National Numismatic Collection. National Museum of American History, 21 July 2016, https://americanhistory.si.edu/national-numismatic-collection. U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - $1,000 Note (Green Seal). https://www.moneyfactory.gov/1000greendenom.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - Denominations Greater Than $100. https://www.moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/denomsabove100.html. Accessed 9 Feb. 2022. On 26 November 2015, YouTube user BlackFriday Fight uploaded a video ("lady steals from KID! black friday 2015")and comments as shown below:  lady steals from KID! black friday 2015 Im posting anonymous because I don want 2b fired, but I work at this store in saginaw and this lady stole a veggie steamer from a KID on black friday! Shame.  According to the uploader (who conveniently wished to remain anonymous) the footage was captured at an unnamed retail location in Saginaw, Michigan on Black Friday. The video was uploaded on 26 November 2015 (one day prior to Black Friday, which fell on 27 November 2015), but could conceivably have depicted a midnight "doorbuster" sale scenario. The clip depicts a crowd of shoppers descending upon a stack of what appear to be vegetable steamers, which (while possibly attractively priced) weren't on par with Cabbage Patch Kids or Furbys in the genre of "Christmas crazes." We searched for major chain store deals on vegetable steamers in 2015, but were unable to locate any incredible deals matching vegetable steaming gadgetsin any big box stores. As commenters immediately pointed out, the short clip itself featured a number of indicators it was staged. In addition to plausibility (even most vegans have not nearly that much interest in acquiring a vegetable steamer) the "victims" in the clip were first spotted in a frame away from the fracas, walking into the area of the frenzy carrying identical boxes. The clip opened with a rush of shoppers, all of whom appeared to fall to the ground in a dramatic and entirely unnecessary fashion:   The woman whose child was targeted by the box-snatcher didn't appear to enter with other customers, instead appearing far off in a visible aisle already carrying the boxes:   Finally, the purported altercation in which the woman swiped a vegetable steamer box from the hands of a small child occurred while several boxes remained unclaimed nearby. Both shoppers were just inches from the uncontested vegetable steamers, providing no reason for a heartless shopper to target a small child. The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. (Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested the clip was his work.) Jimmy Kimmel On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life  Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate.  Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937.  The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995.  pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published  in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market.  However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus  frozen, dried or concentrated  for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed  and quickly  to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers.  Jackson, Paul W.  "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality."
  Michigan Farm News.  29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith.  "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten."
  Detroit Free Press.  29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella.  "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change."
  WPBN.  27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty.  "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste."
  WXMI.  29 July 2016. Americas economy cant get a proper foothold to start growing quickly again, in part because the country is losing businesses faster than it creates them, Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina said. Talking to George Stephanopoulos onABCsThis Weekon July 12, 2015, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said her GOP rival Jeb Bushs talk of 4 percent economic growth is a good goal. But Fiorina said a dearth of new small businesses is preventing more than anemic growth at the moment. In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history, she said. PolitiFacthas looked atthis claim before, and when we asked Fiorinas campaign where they found their statistic, they pointed to the same source -- the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statistics data. Fiorina is accurate to say that more business firms are closing than are opening, but the data cant say for sure whether this is the first time thats happened in the 239-year history of the United States. A Fiorina spokeswoman sent us aSeptember 2014 articlefrom Gallup that examined the data, which showed that the startup rate for new businesses first dipped below the closure rate in 2008. The trend has remained through 2011, the latest year of available data. Heres a chart illustrating Fiorinas point, from aMay 2014 Brookings Institution studyof the same data:  As you might notice, the chart only goes back to 1978. Why? Because the Business Dynamics Statistics database only goes back to the 1970s. Before then, there was no official metric recorded -- by the federal government or anyone else -- for business startups and deaths. Economists say that really limits the ability to judge claims like Fiorina's, who talked about the entire history of the country. Business failures may have exceeded startups at other points, such as during the Great Depression, but its impossible to say without reliable data. Claims like Fiorinas are somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, Robert Litman, a Brookings economics fellowwho has studiedthe number of business openings and closings, told PolitiFact. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts. The reasons for this trend are harder to determine. Despite all this research, there has been no definitive answer as to why the rate of U.S. startups has declined so precipitously, the Gallup story concedes. Fiorina told Stephanopoulos the problem was crony capitalism and a very large, powerful, complicated government that made it difficult for smaller businesses to survive while bigger, established business have thrived. Litman, in his research, noted that it is clear that these trends fit into a larger narrative of business consolidation occurring in the U.S. economy -- whatever the reason, older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. As HPs CEO, Fiorina oversaw a controversial$25 billion acquisitionof Compaq in 2001. The move resulted in30,000 layoffsas the two companies merged operations. HPs board of directors fired Fiorina in 2005 for poor stock performance and missed earnings targets. Our ruling Fiorina said, In fact, we're destroying more businesses in the United States now than are being created for the first time in our history. The data shes relying on, however, only looks back to 1978, and economists say its going a bit too far to say this is the first time such a trend has occurred in all of U.S. history. The fact is we simply dont have definitive data to prove it either way. Fiorinas statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. After signing a coronavirus and economic relief plan into law, President Joe Biden turned to an infrastructure proposal as his next legislative priority. Cabinet members, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have fanned out to promote the presidents $2 trillion-plus package, while critics of the plan are complaining about the cost. In an interview on NBCs Meet the Press April 4, Buttigieg emphasized that the expenditures would be covered by revenue increases. The vision the president has put forward (in the infrastructure bill) is fully paid for,he said. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. The president himself re-emphasized the importance of this point in a speech touting the plan on April 7. Weve got to pay for this, he said. Buttigieg is largely correct, though there are some important caveats to note. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on NBCs Meet the Press on April 4, 2021. (Screenshot) Bidens proposal, called the American Jobs Plan, would provide funding for highways, bridges, ports, airports and transit systems, as well as infrastructure for water, the electric grid, and expanded high-speed Internet access. It would also support retrofitting and upgrading homes, commercial and federal buildings, schools, child care facilities and veterans hospitals, and it would invest in research and development. The proposal also includes items not traditionally considered infrastructure, such as funding to support home health care workers and job training, and pro-union provisions. In all, the proposal comes with a price tag of more than $2 trillion over a decade. To pay for it, Biden would lean heavily on new or higher taxes on corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, preventing U.S. corporations from claiming an offshore tax haven as their place of business, eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels, tightening tax enforcement by adding employees to the Internal Revenue Service, and changing other taxes that hit corporations. Republicans have attacked both the spending and revenue sides of Bidens proposal, arguing that some of the items in it are not really infrastructure, and that raising corporate tax rates could lead businesses to leave the United States. Biden said in his April 7 remarks that hes open to compromise on what a bill ultimately includes. For this article, well focus on whether the spending portions of the plan are equaled by the revenue-raising portions, as Buttigieg said. The White House pointed us to thefact sheetit has released on the plan, which makes that claim, but doesnt get into details. However, at least two independent groups have analyzed the plan and found that Buttigiegs formulation checks out. One was published by theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It found that the plan has approximately $2.65 trillion in new costs over eight years. Over the first 10 years, the group found, the plan would increase the deficit by about $900 billion. However, over a longer, 15-year period the one Buttigieg cited  the plans revenues would match its expenses and would actually reduce deficits beyond that. The other analysis, published by the University of PennsylvaniasPenn Wharton Budget Model, came to a similar conclusion. The Penn group said the Biden plan would spend $2.7 trillion over 10 years and raise $2.1 trillion in that period, expanding the deficit by about $600 billion. However, the group found that over 15 years, it would generate more than $3.6 billion, which would be more than enough to cover its costs. Projections are always just that  projections. Rght now, there is not even a formal bill, so the spending and revenue provisions could shift in either direction before theyre signed into law. For instance, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.  whose support would be required for any Democratic bill  has already said he wont support a corporate tax hike to anything higher than 25%. And under a 25% corporate tax, a lot of revenue would disappear. Similarly, some of the bills spending items could also disappear during lawmaker negotiations. Another asterisk is that these analyses are based on eight years worth of spending and 15 years of revenue increases, which is an unusual method. Typically, congressional legislation is judged based on what happens during a 10-year window. Buttigieg wouldnt have been able to say the plan paid for itself over the standard, 10-year budget window, so his focus on the 15-year time frame is a bit of cherry-picking. And the revenue impacts 15 years down the road are going to be harder to predict than the impacts in 10 years. That said, theres nothing economically significant about the 10-year window, said Marcos Dinerstein, an economist with the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Its just a convention. Just looking at a 10-year window can miss the benefits of policies like infrastructure and research and development that often take a while to start generating returns. Buttigieg said Bidens infrastructure proposal is fully paid for. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. Two independent analyses back up the notion that the new spending will be evened out by the new revenue raised in the plan after 15 years. But long-term projections like this are always tricky, and a 15-year time frame is unusual for evaluating the budget impact of legislation; under the typical 10-year time frame, the plan would not be fully paid for. We rate the statement Mostly True. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent,  State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it 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. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trumps business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J.. Earlier this year, many of Trumps GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warners communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trumps business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trumps business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Lets take a look. 1991 bankruptcy Trumps first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story. 1992 bankruptcies Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the companys largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News. The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trumps Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers The next question: Is Trump personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warners statement says? Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying theyve allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that hes rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement. ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgement that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. Theyve all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged, Viscount told Forbes. What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it. Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote. And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies? Levitin wrote. I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name. Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid. The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space, Levitin said. These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him. Our ruling Warner said Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warners statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and thats harder to parse out. Theres no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasnt acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. Theres also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warners statement Mostly True. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who testified before Congress in September 2018 that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while they were both in high school in the 1980s, was the focus of a number of baseless and false rumors spread in an attempt to tarnish her credibility.  number baseless false rumors spread attempt tarnish credibility One of the more disturbing smear campaigns centered an alleged photograph of Ford from 1982 that was shared along with comments insinuating that she was too physically unattractive for a handsome young man such as Brett Kavanaugh to target for sexual assault: A number of individuals also shared this fake photograph alongside a genuine image of Brett Kavanaugh from his high school yearbook in order to strengthen their flawed argument that "handsome" Brett would never assault "ugly" Ford: shared yearbook   This comparison did not a use a real photograph of Christine Blasey Ford, but nonetheless it was widely shared on Twitter, Facebook, internet forums and web sites along with comments claiming that it was "proof" of Kavanaugh's innocence as he would never sexually assault someone who was "ugly": comments claiming proof innocence sexually assault This is Dr. Ford in 1982. I am going to go ahead and say this proves that she is lying. Christine Blasey ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! Im pretty sure no one was banging this chick in 1982. #justsaying #christineblaseyford #kavanaugh #metoo Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. She must have been fending off men with a stick. ??????? This was Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Theres NOT enough beer on the planet.... Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! This is Christine Blasey Ford in 1982 , I think she was delusional, " some thing did happen to her ! But not with who she dreamed up ! These pictures are of Christine Blasey Ford the paid accuser and Judge Brett Kavanaugh from 1982, is confirmation of his innocence ... I don't think Brett would have been 1000 miles close to where Christine Blasey Ford was. What say you all? This picture was also shared by Lanny Lancaster, the Cabarrus County (North Carolina) GOP chairman, with the caption:  This is the alleged sexual assault victim. Wow. Lancaster defended his decision to share the photograph to the News Observer, arguing that he was simply trying to show that the media's portrayal of Ford was inaccurate: caption News Observer I didnt say anything. I just said this is her picture. Basically, the media is distorting the facts on this lady. Everything shes said is made up. She has no evidence whatsoever. I support that theory, Lancaster said. Lancaster said he takes issue with how the news media is portraying Fords early life. The media wants you to think she was a beautiful young lady who was on her way home from the tennis courts ...  Lancaster said. I just wanted you to see the real person. I wanted people to see that this is really her. The problem with the argument implied here is twofold. First, sexual assaulters targets victims based on factors other than physical appearance. The notion that physical attractiveness of the victim is a primary criterion in such attacks is a myth that perpetuates the harmful notion that it is a woman's fault for being assaulted: myth Myth: Only certain kinds of people get raped. It cannot happen to me. FACT: Rapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has worked with victims from infancy to ninety-two years of age and from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Myth: Women incite men to rape. FACT: Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape. Second, this photograph does not show Christine Blasey Ford, in 1982 or in any other year. This picture is one of an as-yet unidentified person which has been used for various memes ever since it first appeared on the internet in "Bad Yearbook" and "Bad Family Photo" galleries around 2011. Blasey Ford's name was never attached to this photograph until September 2018, when internet trolls began to claim so without evidence in order to tarnish her credibility. Bad Yearbook Bad Family Photo Here are genuine images of Christine Blasey Ford taken from her 1982 and 1984 yearbooks:    WorldWideInterweb.com.  "The 100 Worst Yearbook Photos of All Time."
  22 August 2012. Fallon, Brian.  "Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing.'"
  Politico.  1 October 2018. Specht, Paul.  "NC Republican Leader Uses Photo to Mock Christine Blasey Ford. Its Not Her."
  News Observer.  3 October 2018. The day before Gov.Scott Walkermade his re-election run official, Matt Flynn issued a pre-emptive strike, comparing the two-term Republican unfavorably to another two-term Wisconsin governor, DemocratJim Doyle. Scott Walkers time is up, was how Flynn, a Democrat running in the 2018 race for governor, began his Nov. 4, 2017news release. Average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Walker, who has been governor since 2011, hasusedanumberof economicstatisticsto argue that things are better than they were underDoyle, who served from 2003 through 2010. So, lets see how the claim from Flynn, a lawyer and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, stands up. Under Walker, are average wages lower in Wisconsin than they were under Doyle? The claim alludes to Walker bearing some responsibility, but doesnt directly blame him. And governors play an important but limited role in wages. Flynns evidence To back Flynns claim, his campaign cited two sets of statistics, both adjusted for inflation. 1.Under Walker in 2016, the median hourly wage was$17.43-- 5 cents lower than in 2009 under Doyle, before the full effects of the Great Recession set in. The figures are from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, which are estimates based on data collected from employers in all industry sectors in Wisconsin. But Doyle served another full year. The figure for 2010 was $17.37 -- 6 cents lower than in 2016 under Walker. More importantly, the Bureau of Labor Statisticswarns againstusing this particular set of data to make comparisons over time. So, were discounting this point. 2.The median hourly wageeclipsed $18in 2003, 2005 and 2010 under Doyle -- but through 2016, had not reached that level under Walker. The figure in 2010, Doyles last full year in office, was $18.10, higher than the latest inflation-adjusted figure for Walker, $17.96 in 2016. Thats according to a 2017 report by COWS, formerly known as the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The report cites statistics produced by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based institute says it usedCurrent Population Surveydata, produced jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, that are good for comparisons over time. So, the second statistic tends to support Flynns claim -- although both statistics he cites are formedianwages, rather thanaverage. While average is the term Flynn used, many people use that word even when referring to median. Some economists recommend using the median, since it is a midpoint -- half of people earned wages below that point and half were above. In contrast, the average can be greatly influenced by extremes; for example, it will be pulled higher if there are many people earning very high incomes. Our numbers We produced our own inflation-adjusted numbers foraveragewages, the term Flynn used, with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that can be used for comparisons over time. The average weekly wage in Wisconsin in 2016 was $885 -- higher than every year under Doyle -- according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The QCEW figurescome from quarterly countsof employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs. By another measure, for only the private sector, the average weekly wage in August 2017 was $827 -- higher than the August figure for every year under Doyle dating back to 2007 -- according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics figures. (Figures before 2007 are not available). So, the average wage under Walker is higher than when Doyle left office in 2010. Our rating Flynn says that under Walker, average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Adjusting for inflation, theaveragewage is higher under Walker than it was when Doyle left office in 2010. But sometimes people use the more common term average when theyre actually referring to themedian-- which some economists say is a better measure for wages because an average can be distorted by people who earn very high wages. The median wage was higher when Doyle left office than it is under Walker. Flynns statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True.