Delaware Child Support Card
On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention
Claim:  Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone have caused several dogs to fall ill and die. UNPROVEN Example:  [Collected via Facebook, March 2015] I started this Face book page in 2010. I lost my beautiful Black Labrador retriever on 3/8/2010. He ate one of these bones and it broke into sharp shards and punctured his bowel. I took the rest back to Same Club and the manager said he wouldn't sell them anymore. Sad to say not true. The FDA investigation is going on supposedly , but I hear beings its a pet "treat" they won't or can't do nothing. Sad to hear people are still losing there pets , 5 years and counting since I lost Sammie. Hopefully someday these heartless bastards will stop looking at $$$ and cease making them. RIP Sammie.  I purchased a Real Ham Bone made by Dynamic Pet Products, from Wal-Mart on Sunday 3/1/15. I gave it to Fred, our bassett hound, he chewed on it and ingested some. By Monday morning 3/2/15, he was vomiting and having severe diarrhea. By the afternoon, he was bleeding out of his rectum and we rushed him to the vet. He was put in intensive care and we were told he was so sick, the vet recommended we put him to sleep. I am never going to forgive myself for buying him that deadly treat. Please share this so others don't make the same mistake I did. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS (in Missouri) know they've killed dozens of dogs and they still sell them at big retail companies like Sam's Club and Wal-Mart.   Origins:   On 4 March 2015, Facebook user Khristie Collins-Reed published the above-displayed photographs to  Facebook  Facebook following the death of her family's basset hound, Fred. Both on Facebook and in an interview with a local news station, members of her family stated that Fred had received a Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone on 1 March 2015 and died the following day.   The family's story was not the first complaint lodged about Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone. Several negative reviews had been published to consumer complaint sites, spanning several years and alleging problems similar to those reported by Reed's family. (Additional warnings have circulated among animal lovers on social media sites about canine jerky  treats and other forms of pet chew treats.) reviews jerky chew As early as 2010, U.S. the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had investigated Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone following consumer complaints, and at that time a disclaimer about the product displayed on the manufacturer's web site stated that: investigated Not recommended for aggressive chewers  we recommend they eat a Beef Bone. As with all natural bones, we recommend supervision during eating. The FDA did not issue a specific warning about Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone at that time, but the agency did issue a general warning against bones as chew toys in 2010. According to the FDA, rectal bleeding, intestinal blockage, and broken teeth were among the adverse outcomes linked to bones: bones "Some people think it's safe to give dogs large bones, like those from a ham or a roast," says Carmela Stamper, D.V.M., a veterinarian in the Center for Veterinary Medicine at the Food and Drug Administration. "Bones are unsafe no matter what their size. Giving your dog a bone may make your pet a candidate for a trip to your veterinarian's office later, possible emergency surgery, or even death." "Make sure you throw out bones from your own meals in a way that your dog can't get to them," adds Stamper, who suggests taking the trash out right away or putting the bones up high and out of your dog's reach until you have a chance to dispose of them. "And pay attention to where your dog's nose is when you walk him around the neighborhood  steer him away from any objects lying in the grass." Veterinarians who treated Fred before his death in March 2015 said they weren't sure whether Dynamic Pet Products Real Ham Bone was to blame: Fred was in such bad shape when they took him to California Veterinary Specialists in Carlsbad that the family said their goodbyes and put him down. The veterinarians [said] they did not have a definitive answer about what made Fred ill because the family could not afford to run the tests. The family seems certain the bone broke apart and ripped apart Fred's insides. Dynamic Pet Products released a statement in response to the claims advising dog owners to supervise pets with any treats or snacks. According to the FDA, bones are generally unsafe for dogs and should not be given as treats. Last updated:  9 March 2015     Von Lunen, Jacques.  "FDA Looks Into Maker of Real Ham Bones Treats for Dogs After Complaints."   Oregon Live.  15 March 2010. Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 Claim:  Congress supported a bailout of AIG because that company insures the Congressional pension trust.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2009] Politicians!!!! Did you ever wonder? I couldn't figure out why would the Congress let some firms go under and then bend over backwards to help others.This makes sense now!!!!!! This sounds almost too logical...... why hasn't it gotten national press coverage? Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.? Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: "That's strange what does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?" I think I just found the answer. Among other things, AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!! No wonder they got bailed out right away! To hell with the people, let's protect our future, said all our Senators and Congressmen.  Nice to see where their loyalties lie! I'm from the government and I'm here to help myself ! Origins:  As the U.S. government began, in the latter part of 2008, to grapple with growing economic turmoil and the prospect that many large U.S. financial and corporate institutions were on the brink of failure, one of the vexing issues it confronted was which businesses it should attempt to rescue.  Should the government take over or provide direct financial assistance ("bailouts") to mortgage finance  companies (particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), or to the banking industry, or to the auto industry? One of corporate entities "bailed out" by the government was the insurance giant American International Group, commonly known as AIG.  In September 2008 the Federal Reserve (not Congress) provided AIG with an $85 billion loan in exchange for a 79.9% equity stake, and the Federal Reserve also provided another $37.8 billion loan to AIG three weeks later and subsequently gave the company access to another $20.9 billion.  (These loans were restructured in November 2008 to provide a total bailout package of over $150 billion to AIG.) Why did the government decide to assist AIG?  The item reproduced above posits that it was pure self-interest:  Supposedly Congress "bailed out" AIG because that company "insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" while supposedly allowing other financial institutions to wither and die or pushing them into "forced marriages."  (Global financial services firm Bear Stearns didn't "go under"; it was acquired by JPMorgan Chase, with assistance from the Federal Reserve, back in March 2008. In other transactions, Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual.) acquired However, AIG was more than just an ordinary "insurance company."  That firm insured the debt of other financial institutions, and government officials were greatly concerned that AIG's failure could have a cascading effect that would produce catastrophic results among the entire U.S. (and global) financial industry: What frightened Fed and Treasury officials was not simply the prospect of another giant corporate bankruptcy, but A.I.G.'s role as an enormous provider of esoteric financial insurance contracts to investors who bought complex debt securities. They effectively required A.I.G. to cover losses suffered by the buyers in the event the securities defaulted. It meant A.I.G. was potentially on the hook for billions of dollars worth of risky securities that were once considered safe. If A.I.G. had collapsed  and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims  institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of those securities, and that in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt. Small investors, including anyone who owned money market funds with A.I.G. securities, could have been hurt, too. And some insurance policy holders were worried, even though they have some protections. "It would have been a chain reaction," said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University. "The spillover effects could have been incredible." Associated Press economics writer Jeannine Aversa explained the importance of the government's decision in the wake of the AIG bailout: Q: Why is it important to keep AIG afloat? A: AIG is a global colossus, with operations in more than 130 countries. It is so interconnected with other financial firms that its problems have a jolting ripple effect both in the United States and abroad. AIG was pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in September [2008] when its credit rating was downgraded and it could not post the collateral for which it was obligated under the "credit default swap" contracts it had issued. Credit default swaps are a type of corporate debt insurance. The Fed raced to the rescue at that time to prevent AIG's failure, which could have triggered billions of dollars in losses at other banks and financial firms that bought these swaps from AIG  sending them into failure as well. As a final nail in the coffin of the "AIG insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" claim, we reproduce the following response provided to us by Charlie Armstrong, AIG's Senior Director of Advertising & Global Branding: In response to your question as to whether AIG insures the US Congressional Trust, we don't.  In fact, we've been told that no private company insures federal pensions  such a product doesn't exist.  Further, none of our financial services companies provide advisory services to Congress' pension fund.  We've explored this issue at length with our business units and have found no connection whatsoever to the fund. This rumor surfaced recently on a blog.  We're not sure who started the rumor, or why, but the rumor is baseless. The OpenSecrets web site lists Barack Obama among the many politicians from both parties who have previously received campaign contributions (not "bonus payments" or "bailout money," as is frequently reported) from AIG. campaign contributions Last updated:  18 March 2009    Aversa, Jeannine.  "Meltdown 101: Why Did the AIG Bailout Get Bigger?"   The Guardian.  12 November 2008.    Bawden, Tom.  "Citigroup Buys Debt-Hit Wachovia."   The [London] Times.  30 September 2008.    Gordon, Marcy.  "JPMorgan's WaMu Purchase Stands  Bailout or No."   The Seattle Times.  29 September 2008.    Montia, Gil.  "Bear Stearns Acquired by JPMorgan Chase for $240 Million."   Banking Times.  17 March 2008.    Ventura County Star.  "Bear Stearns Acquisition Sends Tremors Through Markets."   Banking Times.  23 March 2008. It sounds like something from a horror flick. A small, parasitic creature swims into the mouth of a fish and attaches itself to the organisms tongue  yes, fish have tongues  causing it to slowly degrade before latching onto the stub leftover, thus becoming a parasitic pseudo tongue. Over time, the host loses its ability to eat and slowly succumbs to starvation.   So claims a now-viral Instagram post that was shared in March 2021 by the Smithsonian Institute in appreciation of #ParasiteWeek2021. And if the photo was enough to give you the heebie-jeebies, then you may not want to continue reading. Because both the photograph in question and the supposed parasite featured in it are, in fact, real. The picture featured an organism known as a cymothoid isopod and was originally shared on Aug. 3, 2020, by marine biologist Jimmy Bernot, a post-doctoral scholar with the National Science Foundation and Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History specializing in crustacean phylogeny and parasite evolution. In an email to Snopes, Bernot said that he captured the photo during a 2016 survey of fish parasites of Moreton Bay, Australia.   The host fish is known scientifically as Mugil cephalus or the Flathead mullet.  "Not to be confused with the business in the front, party in the back haircut," said Bernot.  And the parasite seen inside the mullet's mouth is what is known as a cymothoid isopod that measured about an inch long. According to the scientist, it appeared that the fish did use the creepy-crawly as a "pseudo tongue."  The fact that you can see imprints of the fish's teeth on the back of the isopod indicates the fish is crushing items against the isopod similar to how the fish would use its tongue, he said.  Jimmy Bernot  Isopods are marine invertebrates, or animals without backbones, that belong to a greater group of animals called crustaceans. Only a handful of the at least 95 known families of isopods are parasitic, one of which being cymothoid, according to research published in a 2014 issue of the International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife. The cymothoidae family in particular is made up of 350 species of aquatic parasitic isopods. Widely distributed around the world in both oceanic and freshwater habitats, cymothoids are on the larger side of parasites and can reach lengths upwards of a quarter of an inch, with the largest reaching lengths of up to 3 inches. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife "Cymothoids superficially look like free-living isopods, such as terrestrial rolly-pollies or pillbugs that people may be familiar with, except for their powerful hooked legs that they use to attach to their host," explained Bernot. "As adults, they are not good swimmers and typically stay permanently attached to their host." Equipped with a long, slender body that tapers at the end and sharply curved hooks at the end of its limbs, the cymothoid can attach to its host fish at the gills or mouth as well as externally or inside the host flesh, depending on the species. Cymothoids are generally host-specific, meaning each cymothoid typically attaches to a single host species or a small group of related fish. On a parasitized fish, Bernot said that there will often be a single large female and a few small males attached nearby on the same fish.  Various types of parasitic attachment strategies of cymothoid isopods. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife  International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife   Only a few species attach specifically to the tongue, and these are commonly called "tongue-biters." Other species attach to the skin or gills, but all have detrimental effects on their hosts including blood loss due to the parasite feeding, skin and tissue damage, deformities, and overall stunted growth and reproductive issues.  And when it comes to the cymothoid featured on social media posts, the Smithsonian Institute wrote that the crustaceans sever the host fishs tongue"  a claim that is only partly true. wrote "The cymothoids feed on blood and perhaps some of the tongue and surrounding tissue in the host's mouth, but the loss and degradation of the tongue are at least partially, if not mostly, due to atrophy of the tongue from mechanical damage caused by the strong, hooked legs that the isopod uses to attach to the base of the tongue," said Bernot. In short, cymothoids do not snip straight through the tongue of the fish, but rather cause such damage that a portion of the tongue can eventually fall off.  And according to the research institution, Bernot's photograph is the only known instance in the animal kingdom where a parasite has been observed as fully replacing its hosts organ. In a reply to his original post, Bernot said that the pictured cymothoid isopod holding caused its host to atrophy  a fancy word for wasting away. Studying parasites like cymothoids helps researchers to better understand evolutionary biology and the unique adaptations that individual species obtain in order to survive.  "It appears different groups of parasitic isopods have independently evolved strongly clawed legs through a process called convergent evolution," said Bernot. "Convergent evolution is of interest to evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists since it gives us insights into how evolution can shape the morphology of animals."  And cymothoids also impact human health and economies because of their effect on fish, which Bernot said could sometimes infect more than 90% of fish on a single farm, including commercially farmed sea bass, bream, and salmon. As gross as it may sound, eating a fish with a parasite is "definitely still safe for humans," but the fish might be smaller or have scars, and Bernot said that means it can't be sold at its highest market value. New Jerseys just about gone to economic hell under Chris Christies leadership, a Democratic group suggests ina new TV ad. Things are so bad here that the state ranks at the top nationwide for unemployment, at the bottom for economic growth and isnt doing a thing to help the middle class, the ad claims. Under Republican Chris Christie, New Jersey had the highest increase in unemployment in the country last year, a narrator states in the ad by One New Jersey. Nearly 1 in 10 jobless. The worst unemployment in the region. Near the bottom in economic growth, yet Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires but vetoed a minimum wage hike. The ad, which is also running on NJ.com, the online home of The Star-Ledger, is largely accurate. Let's review each claim. New Jersey having the worst increase in unemployment is based on the period from December 2011 to December 2012. Lets note that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment data by unemployment rates and the number of unemployed. For that period, New Jersey and New Hampshire had the highest rate increase, at 0.3 percent. New Jerseys rate ticked upward to 9.5 percent from 9.2 percent. New Jersey wasnt the worst, though, when looking at the number of unemployed, said Joseph J. Seneca, an economics professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Pennsylvania had 24,761 unemployed. New Jersey had 21,932. New Jerseys unemployment rate increase was the 10th highest nationwide for the period from February 2012 to this past February, Seneca said. And with New Jerseys unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent since June 2009  the end of the recession  its accurate to claim the state has nearly 1 in 10 people jobless. The state, however, has added more than 120,000 private-sector jobs, according to BLS data, Seneca and the state Republican Party. Next, did we have the worst unemployment in the region? One New Jersey didnt define region specifically so we compared New Jersey with New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. New Jerseys unemployment rate was the highest among the five states from December 2011 to December 2012, according to BLS data. The ad also claims New Jersey is near the bottom for economic growth. We previously checked a similar claim by Assemblyman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden). From 2010 to 2011, New Jerseys real gross domestic product  an inflation-adjusted measure of a states economy -- dropped by a half percent, placing us 47th among all states, according to data fromThe Bureau of Economic Analysis. So we were near the bottom, but economic experts told us for the Greenwald claim that national and regional economic conditions  not just Christie -- were factors. Now lets look at whether Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires and vetoed a minimum wage increase. Democrats approved a bill in May 2010 renewing a one-year tax rate increase of 10.75 percent for those with taxable income above $1 million. The rate had expired before Christie became governor.. Christie, who campaigned that he wouldnt raise taxes, vetoed the surcharge -- protecting the rich, some claim -- and Democrats couldnt override it. As for the minimum wage claim, Christie in January vetoed a Democratic proposal raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 an hour, with future increases tied to inflation. He instead proposed phasing in a $1 increase over three years and eliminating automatic hikes. The sad truth is New Jersey is falling further behind, and no amount of hype can hide the reality that the middle-class and working families are hurting, One New Jersey spokesman Joshua Henne said in an e-mail. The facts clearly show New Jersey has consistently trailed the rest of America when it comes to jobs and the economy. NJGOP spokesman Ben Sparks pointed to the state's private-sector job growth under Christie. Despite the predictably misleading claims from Barbara Buono's campaign operatives, New Jersey has created over 120,000 private-sector jobs since Governor Christie took office, which stands in stark contrast to the failed two years Barbara Buono spent as Jon Corzine's budget chair, when our state lost 240,000 private-sector jobs, Sparks said in an e-mail. Buono, (D-Middlesex), is challenging Christie in the November gubernatorial election. Our ruling One New Jerseys new ad claims, Under Republican Chris Christie, New Jersey had the highest increase in unemployment in the country last year. Nearly 1 in 10 jobless. The worst unemployment in the region. Near the bottom in economic growth, yet Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires but vetoed a minimum wage hike. Each claim had varying degrees of accuracy. New Jersey and New Hampshire tied for the highest increase in unemployment last year. Nearly 1 in 10 New Jerseyans are jobless, and our states unemployment rate is the worst in a five-state region. The state has been near the bottom in economic growth, even though experts have said thats not entirely Christies fault, and the governor vetoed a minimum wage hike. Christie technically didnt cut the millionaires tax since it expired before he took office, but opinions vary wildly on that claim. We rate the ad Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. In his latestTV ad, released on the first anniversary of hisinauguration, Wisconsin Gov.Scott Walkermakes a case for why he should not beonly the thirdU.S. governor ever recalled from office.The Republican takes credit for erasing Wisconsins $3.6 billion budget deficit and for saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by making government employees pay more for pension and health benefits.Walker closes the ad, released Jan. 3, 2012, by drawing a contrast with his Democratic predecessor.In the three years before I took office, he says, without namingJim Doyle, Wisconsin lost 150,000 jobs. But now, well, employer confidence is up, and since the start of the year, Wisconsin has added thousands of new jobs. Instead of going back to the days of billion-dollar budget deficits, double-digit tax increases and record job loss, lets keep moving Wisconsin forward.Thats some broad language.So broad, some would think the double-digit increases were a fact of life for most residents. While widespread jobs losses in therecessionand the deficit Walker inherited are well known, we wondered what Walker meant by double-digit tax increases.Walkerrepeatedthe double-digit tax increases claim on Rush Limbaughs national radio talk show on Jan. 17, 2012, the day before petitions seeking the recall election weresubmitted. And he did it again the next day,claimingDemocratic recall candidateKathleenFalkintends to take Wisconsin back to the days of double-digit tax increases.Lets see if thats what state Democrats did.Democrats did boost taxes with the 2009-2011 state budget and a 2009 budget adjustment bill. We found, when rating a $5 billion claim by Walker running mateRebecca KleefischasFalse, that the two measures raised taxes and fees by just over $3 billion over the two-year period.Ben Sparks, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, said Walkers double-digit claim refers to the same two budget measures. In adocumentSparks provided, Walker cites three sets of tax changes to back his claim.School property taxesWalker said that, because of the Democrats 2009-2011 budget, school property tax levies would have increased an estimated17.3percentin 2011 had he not taken the steps he did with his 2011-2013 budget.Hmmm.In the ad, Walker flatly claimed that Democrats raised taxes by double-digits. Now hes talking about a hypothetical -- indeed, one that didnt occur.Like any governor, Walker had the opportunity to fashion his own budget. And with a Republican-controlled Legislature, he cut state aid to schools and school districts ability to raise property tax revenues. The result: 2011 school levies dropped1 percent.What about the other two tax changes Walker cites?Business taxesWalker contends Democrats raised business taxes by $456 million, or 28 percent, over two years.Among other things, he cited the Democratic adoption of combined reporting, which taxes a relatively small number of Wisconsin-based businesses on income from subsidiaries outside the state, rather than only those within Wisconsin. That tax is estimated to raise $187 million over two years. He also cited elimination of a tax deduction fordomestic production, which is estimated to increase corporate income tax payments by nearly $72 million.Dale Knapp, research director of the nonprofitWisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said there isnt a good base on which to calculate the $450 million increase. But roughly $350 million of that increase is to be paid in corporate income taxes, which is roughly an increase of 21 percent, he said.So, that material is generally on point.Whats left?Miscellaneous taxesWalker cites a number of double-digit tax increases the Democrats made, including a 42 percent hike in the tax oncigarettesto $2.52 per pack; more than doubling the $75 per-bed per-month assessment paid bynursing homes; and more than doubling thetipping feecharged to landfills, which is ultimately passed on to garbage generators such as families.Our own research turned up one Walker didnt cite.The Democrats raised the top income tax rate from 6.75 percent to 7.75 percent. That 1-percentage-point increase amounts to a 15 percent boost in the rate itself. The change caused a 13.5 percent increase in the actual tax paid by people with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more,accordingto the taxpayers alliance.Our ratingIn a TV ad, Walker said the Democratic administration and Legislature that preceded him approved double-digit tax increases. There certainly were not widespread double-digit increases in the taxes most people directly pay -- income taxes and the sales tax. But there are a variety of other tax increases that rose by double digits.We rate Walkers statement Mostly True. In June and July 2020, ahead of the presidential elections, Democratic candidate Joe Bidens various policy platforms were picked apart and in some cases misrepresented by critics, including U.S. President Donald Trump. One particular statement Biden made about health care for so-called "undocumented" immigrants was misreported and presented without context as his policy. picked apart Snopes readers asked us if Biden had ever said that U.S. taxpayers had an obligation to pay for the health care of 11 million "illegal immigrants." We found that Biden was misquoted, and his actual platform said something very different.   The quote appeared to originate from a clip shared by right-wing media organization BlazeTV, in May 2019. The video carried the title, "Joe Biden Says U.S. Obligated to Give Free Healthcare to 'Undocumented' Immigrants."  In the clip, a reporter asked Biden, Do you think the undocumented immigrants[that] are law abiding, should be entitled to federal benefits, Medicare, Medicaid for example? Biden responded: "Look I think that anyone who is in a situation where theyre in need of healthcare, regardless of whether theyre documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that theyre cared for. Thats why I think we need more clinics around the country." Biden echoed this in the June 2019 Democratic presidential debates. And in a December 2019 interview with Telemundo, he laid out the caveats in his plan: "They can buy into the system like everyone else" under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  June 2019 December 2019 On July 14, 2020, in a rambling speech, Trump misrepresented Biden's policy after it was presented by the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Forces. Trump said: They want government health care for all illegal aliens. speech misrepresented presented But here's what the task force actually recommended: task force "To ensure that people living and working across the country have health care access, the Task Force recommends extending Affordable Care Act coverage to DACA recipients, allowing undocumented immigrants to purchase unsubsidized coverage in the ACA marketplaces ..." Under this proposal, taxpayers would not be paying for undocumented immigrants health care, rather undocumented immigrants could have the option to pay out-of-pocket for health coverage through the ACA exchange marketplace, but without access to the government subsidies that are available to others. In 2019 Brookings estimated that there are 10.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Currently, they cannot enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace. Some state-funded or locally-funded health programs provide coverage regardless of immigration status. Emergency health services and safety-net clinics are already available to undocumented immigrants, which Biden had advocated for before.  Brookings estimated cannot state-funded available before In summary, even though Biden did state that the U.S. had an obligation to ensure immigrants received health care, his views were largely misrepresented and did not reflect his current policy. While he would extend health care access to undocumented immigrants through the marketplace, it was far from the government-subsidized, taxpayer-funded plan it was made out to be by Trump. We thus rate this claim as false. Dale, Daniel.  "Fact check: Trump Deceives About Sanders-Biden Task Force Proposals to Make Biden Sound 'Extreme.'"
 CNN. 15 July 2020. JoeBiden.com. "Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations."
 July 2020. Japsen, Bruce.  "Bidens Healthcare Idea For Undocumented Immigrants Already Exists."
 Forbes. 6 July 2019. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
 18 March 2020. Kamarck, Elaine and Christine Stenglein. "How Many Undocumented Immigrants are in the United States and Who are They?"
  Brookings Institute. 12 November 2019. Kelley, Alan and Renuka Tipirneni. "An Ironic Health Care Twist for Undocumented Immigrants."
 Institute for Healthcare Policy & Innovation, University of Michigan. 2 May 2018. Whitehouse.gov. "Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference."
 14 July 2020. On Nov. 3, 2023, thousands of detained Gazan laborers were deported from Israel into Gaza after spending weeks in Israeli prisons. A video went viral showing numbered plastic ID tags on released workers ankles, with many online decrying Israeli authorities for treating the Gazans like animals by doing so. deported viral decrying The workers were detained soon after the Israel-Hamas conflict began. On Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel from Gaza, followed by Israel declaring war and attacking and blockading Gaza, actions that resulted in the deaths of 1,400 Israelis and almost 10,000 Palestinians, as of this writing. Hamas' attacks came after months of surges in violence against Palestinians by the Israeli military. launched followed attacking deaths months  A number of independent news organizations spoke to multiple Gazan workers and laborers who made similar claims of being tagged, as well as witnessed the laborers leaving Israel with numbered ID tags on their ankles and wrists. As such, we rate this claim as  The above video was taken from an NPR report that showed Gazan workers leaving Israel from the Kerem Shalom crossing  also known as Karem Abu Salem  and workers at the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. NPR producers witnessed throngs of these laborers returning from detentions at these border crossings and saw the blue numbered tags on their ankles and wrists. NPR known  NPRs producer in Gaza, Anas Baba, spoke to one worker who said the Israeli police "treated us like livestock and showed a tag with an identification number on his ankle. The same could be seen on many of the detained workers released that day. spoke Photographs taken by Baba for NPR, and by Said Khatib for the AFP, also show workers with the tags on their ankles. Photographs AFP show (Screenshot via NPR) Al Jazeera and The Washington Post detailed similar claims from workers as well as their own reporters witnessing the numbered tags on the wrists and ankles of detained workers. Al Jazeera The Washington Post The Washington Post described the scenes at the border crossing thus: In tattered clothes, the men passing through the Kerem Shalom crossing on Friday were among 10,000 Gazan workers ordered deported after spending weeks in Israeli prisons. Some still wore plastic tags around their wrists with numbers from their detention. The Washington Post Al Jazeera spoke to Zaki Salameh, a builder from Gaza who was working in an Israeli town when the war broke out on Oct. 7, 2023. He described being arrested and tagged by Israeli authorities and taken to a prison in which he was tortured and interrogated for several days, he said. Al Jazeera Before the war, Israel had given an estimated 18,500 Palestinians permits to work in Israel  a coveted ticket out of Gazas crushing unemployment, which was made worse by Israels 17-year blockade that devastated the economy. Gazan workers often took low-wage jobs on Israeli farms, construction sites, and in restaurants and malls. Within days of Hamas attack on Israel, the government canceled all work permits and erased the workers information on the phone app that Palestinians from Gaza used to prove their legal standing, according to the The Washington Post. Israel blockade restaurants The Washington Post When Israel decided to release some of the workers, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, Israel is cutting off all contact with Gaza. There will be no more Palestinian workers from Gaza and the workers who were in Israel when the war broke out will be returned to Gaza. said Thousands of Gazan workers also sought refuge in Palestinian-run parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, according to the Post, and are presently unable to return to their families in Gaza. Berger, Miriam, and Loveday Morris. At Gate to Gaza, Deported Workers Mark End of Rare Exchange with Israel. Washington Post, 4 Nov. 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/04/gaza-israel-workers-expelled/. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Inskeep, Steve, and Daniel Estrin. A Lucky Few Are Leaving Gaza. Others Are Forced to Return. NPR, 3 Nov. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210390398/a-lucky-few-are-leaving-gaza-ohers-are-forced-to-return.Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. One of the Palestinian Workers Who Were Stranded in Israel since the... Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/one-of-the-palestinian-workers-who-were-stranded-in-israel-news-photo/1760625981. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Palestinian Workers from Gaza Describe Torture and Abuse in Israeli Detention. Middle East Eye, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-gaza-workers-torture-abuse-detention. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Palestinian Workers Who Were Stranded in Israel since the October 7... Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/palestinian-workers-who-were-stranded-in-israel-since-the-news-photo/1760626023. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Photos: Israel Sends Thousands of Cross-Border Palestinian Workers to Gaza. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/11/3/photos-israel-sends-thousands-of-palestinian-workers-back-to-gaza. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. These Numbers Show the Staggering Toll of the Israel-Hamas War. AP News, 27 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-death-toll-numbers-injured-5c9dc40bec95a8408c83f3c2fb759da0.Accessed 6 Nov. 2023. Former President Barack Obama has maintained a low profile since leaving the White House, but recently he took to Facebook to blast a Senate health care bill that threatens to dismantle much of the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative achievement. The Senate bill hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else, Obama wrote in a Facebookpost. We decided to look into the former presidents claim about the budgetary effects of the Senate Republican plan that repeals or reworks much of the ACA, also known as Obamacare. Obama is right that the Senate bill contains a tax cut for wealthy Americans and medical-related businesses. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to put a number on the Senate bills tax cut. But the amount will likely be in the same ballpark as its scoring of the House bill, which cut taxes by about $1 trillion over 10 years, with high-income households and the health care industry gaining most of those benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Senate bill repeals Affordable Care Act taxes that levy a 3.8 percent fee on investment income, as well as a tax on individuals making $200,000 or more ($250,000 for couples). The bill also eliminates ACA taxes that target health insurers, and makers of prescription drugs and medical devices. We should also note that middle- and lower-income consumers would likely see benefits from tax cuts in the form of lower prices and reduced fees on health savings accounts, as we pointed out inan earlier check of a House version of the bill. Obama is correct that tax cuts would be offset by cutting spending on health care. But its a stretch to sayeverybodyshealth care would suffer, when whats on the chopping block is federal funding for lower-income Americans. In the individual market, the Senate bill changes the formula for calculating how much help the federal government gives lower-income Americans to buy insurance. Compared with the Obamacare formula, the Senate GOP version would amount to a15 percent across-the-board cutin premium subsidies, andresult inlow-income people paying higher premiums for bigger deductibles, according to Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care think tank. Starting in 2020, the Senate bill also repeals Obamacares cost-sharing subsidies that help lower-income Americans defray the cost of deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. But the biggest cut in federal spending comes out of Medicaid, by changing the share carried by the federal government, relative to states. The Senate bill converts federal Medicaid funding to a per capita cap starting in 2020, placing a ceiling on the amount of funding a state gets per enrollee. Alternatively, states could opt for a block grant, a fixed amount of federal funds. Under either approach, the federal government would provide less to states than under Obamacare. Separately, starting in 2021, the Senate bill begins a three-year phase out of enhanced funding given to the 31 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. As we noted in aprevious check of the House bill, reducing this funding would likely cause states to end expansion. This graphic from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a side-by-side illustration of Obamas claim that Republicans are rewarding wealthy Americans through a health care cut. The yellow bar shows $33 billion going to the top 400 highest-income households as a result of repealing the Obamacare tax cuts. The red bar shows how removing $33 billion in revenue translates to cutting off funding for Medicaid expansion population of four statesAlaska, Arkansas, West Virginia and Nevada. (Note: This graphic is based on the CBOs earlier score of the House version, which will likely differ from its score of the Senate). Obama said that the Senate bill hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. The Senate bill does give a tax cut to wealthy Americans and medical-related industry. Assuming a budget analysis of the Senate bill is similar to that of the House version, the tax cut will be to the tune of $1 trillion. Its a bit hyperbolic to say everybodys health care would be cut to finance the tax cut; its mostly lower-income people who lose out as a direct result of the bill. Hes right that the Senate bill would deliver a tax cut as it reduces the amount of federal funding lower-income Americans would get to help buy insurance. The bill would also repeal funding to defray deductibles and out-of-pocket costs for those eligible. It also lessens the share of Medicaid funding carried by the federal government, relative to states. We rate Obamas statement Mostly True. Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2).