In the first round of repayments from financial institutions that received TARP money, the government has actually turned a profit.
Admit it: When the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone. Not so, President Barack Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009. Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers, he said. And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit. A quick summary of how we got to this point: As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock. A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program. On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road. To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program. Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us. There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends. David John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while it's accurate to say the government is turning a profit on these specific transactions, it was so costly to create the TARP that you can't say the overall program is a moneymaker. And, John said, the 10 financial institutions that will be repaying the Treasury are among the strongest. It remains to be seen how the others will fare, he said. It's way too soon to judge the entire program, John said. I'd be surprised if it ends up anything better than break-even. Still, the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks, Hall said. It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some. Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit. The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable. People think the government gave banks money, Ely said. They made investments in banks. As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True.
In 2014 and 2015, two people associated with an anti-abortion organization called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, posed as fetal researchers for a fake company called Biomax in order to gain entry to National Abortion Federation conventions. The pair's goal was to gather evidence that Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, were selling tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. (Although it is unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it is legal for patients to donate extracted material for medical research, and for providers to receive reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue as part of the donation process.) The CMP subsequently posted videos online which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussion related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures. videos sell fetal tissue A text meme circulated during the 2020 presidential campaign held that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (who by 2020 was a U.S. senator and a Democratic vice presidential candidate) had unfairly prosecuted the CMP "journalists," while taking no action against Planned Parenthood for "selling aborted baby parts":   That meme was both inaccurate and misleading. It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California  for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states  but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. (Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations.) reported On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood, but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification. indict In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others, to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent. lawsuit In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020. added remain current Although then-Attorney General Harris was involved with the initial investigation of Daleiden and Merritt, she had left that office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate two months before charges were first brought against the pair by her successor, Xavier Becerra. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. The [Davis] Vanguard.  "Criminal Case against Anti-Abortion Activists David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt to Move Forward."
  31 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "Case To Go Forward Against Two Antiabortion Activists Who Recorded Conversations."
  San Francisco Chronicle.  29 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "California Files More Charges Against Antiabortion Activists."
  SFGate.  7 July 2017. Fernandez, Manny,  "Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video."
  The New York Times.  26 July 2016. Williams, Juliet.  "Planned Parenthood Awarded $2.3 Million for Secret Videos."
  Associated Press.  15 November 2019. On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.,took to Twitterrecently to tout her support for a $15 minimum wage. In the tweet, Smith wrote that one of the proudest things I did as lieutenant governor serving under Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton was helping to raise Minnesotas state minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Now, Im proud to back a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024, she wrote, referring to a measure introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patty Murray, D-Wash. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, though states can set higher levels if they wish  anda majority do, from a small amount more than the federal level to $11.50 in Washington state. In a threadedtweet, Smith gave some historical perspective on the minimum wage: The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. We wondered if Smith was correct, so we looked at the data. Back in 1968, the minimum wage was set at $1.60. That is equivalent to $11.76 in todays dollars, which is well above todays minimum wage level and an all-time high when adjusted for inflation. (We used the Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorfor this purpose.) Over the last 50 years, the situation in 1968  greater purchasing power for the minimum wage than today  has been common, though not universal. By contrast, we only found seven years in which todays minimum wage is able to buy more than a previous minimum wage could. (Those years were 1989, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.) Heres the full chart, with the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage shown in red: All told, then, the minimum wage has been worth more than it is today for 86 percent of the time over the past 50 years, and less than todays during 14 percent of that time. Smith said, Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. Smiths strict comparison with 50 years ago is accurate, and her comparison even holds for most years out of the past 50, suggesting that the year she picked is not an unreasonable choice. We rate the statement True. In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. House Speaker Armond Budish kicked off what he called his rhetoric reality tour last month in Columbus hoping to fight back against House Republicans who have painted Democrats with the usual tax and spend brush.At a news conference, Budish got uncharacteristically lathered up, saying that Democrats have made the cuts that Republicans wouldnt in slicing almost $2 billion from the current $50.5 billion general revenue fund budget.The mild-mannered Beachwood Democrat then attacked the House Republican record from 1994 to 2006 when the GOP controlled the 99-member lower chamber (as well as the governors office and the Ohio Senate).Never once did they actually cut spending or reduce the state budget. Even when they cut taxes in 2005, they increased spending, Budish said. They never paid for their tax cuts.Instead, they put off the bills until last year using budget gimmicks, he said.Those are fairly inflammatory claims, and just the kind of thing that PolitiFact Ohio likes to check out, so we did some digging to see if Budish was right.First, we pored over the state budget details dating back to 1994. We quickly saw that the first part of his statement is true, as long as Budish is talking about the entire budget and not individual programs that may have seen cuts at one time or another.From 1994 to 2006, the seven state budgets approved while Republicans were in complete  control increased spending an average of 9.39 percent from one budget to the next. The closest thing to a cut under Republican control was the 2005-06 budget, which went up only slightly, but included a 21 percent across-the-board income tax reduction spread over five years  which is the tax cut Budish is referring to in his comment.So far, so good.But to evaluate the second portion of Budishs statement where he says Republicans never paid for their tax cuts, you need a brief education in the numerous changes made to the states tax structure in 2005 by lawmakers. In a nutshell, a number of taxes of business and individual taxes were adjusted at the same time  some were increased by lawmakers in 2005 while others were cut or phased out entirely.A pair of business taxes that were phased out slowly by the budget that was passed in 2005 were the tangible personal property tax and the corporation franchise tax. They were replaced by a new tax on businesses called the Commercial Activities Tax, or CAT, which was phased in as the duo was ramped down.While those changes affected businesses, individual taxpayers were also affected by tax changes, including a sales tax hike and a 21 percent cut in the personal income tax rates for everyone in Ohio spread across five years.That was the plan anyway. But last year Gov. Ted Strickland proposed, and lawmakers approved, pushing the fifth year of that tax cut back a year to fill a hole in the state budget.But Budish isnt totally correct when he says that the Republicans never paid for the tax cuts contained in the 2005 state budget. In fact, the 2007 state budget passed by a Republican-controlled legislature and signed by Strickland had about $1.8 billion less in revenue because of the tax cuts of 2005, according to a 2009 state budget document. That, by law, required adjustments to the budget in other places to keep the state budget balanced.Still, the impact in 2007 of the tax cuts was fairly light compared to the impact that had been projected for the current budget -- $4.2 billion. But when lawmakers adopted  Stricklands proposal to push back the final year of the income tax cuts that pushed back some of the effect. The state actually ended up with $3.4 billion less to spend in the current budget than if the tax changes of 2005 never happened.So lets get to the grading card and see what we got:   Budishs statement is largely accurate but needs additional information to see the full picture. Thats why we rate Budishs statement as Mostly True. Claim:  The CDC has recommended mothers stop breastfeeding in order to increase the efficacy of vaccines.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2015]There's a rumor going around that the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) ADVISES DELAYED BREASTFEEDING TO BOOST VACCINEEFFICACY.   Origins:  In January 2015, a long-circulating rumor about purported recommendations made by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) about breastfeeding and vaccines  began to spread anew. According to claims made on blogs and social media sites, the CDC recommended mothers stop breastfeeding in order to ensure vaccines dispensed to newborn babies were fully effective. The rumor touched upon two often controversial baby care issues, vaccines and breastfeeding, and also tacitly suggested the CDC's focus was profit rather than what's best for babies. The claim referenced an October 2010 study published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal titled "Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines." At issue was the "Interpretation" portion on the study's abstract, which stated: study The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated. As stated in the quoted portion above, the research pertained to studying the effect of breastfeeding in the direct aftermath of the administration of a single vaccine. The text clearly addressed the immediate effect of breastmilk on that one vaccine's efficacy, not an overall recommendation that mothers "stop breastfeeding" completely in order to increase the efficacy of all vaccines. The study inexplicably became the focus of scrutiny in January 2015, with one blogger claiming: claiming And now the authorities are recommending halting breastfeeding so their vaccines work more effectively! Despicable. Breastmilk alternatives such as infant formula contain synthetic nutrients, are full of sugar, GMO products, allergens, cow's milk products, have been shown to contain toxins melamine and BPA, and when combined with fluoridated tap water, and a microwaved plastic bottle, does not make for a great choice for any baby. On a more positive note, the study illustrates just how effective mother's  milk is at killing viruses. Several blogs amplified the misinterpretation, entrenching the belief the "authorities" at the CDC had recommended a cessation of breastfeeding in order to ensure vaccine efficacy. Earlier iterations of the claim conflated the findings of a study with recommendations made based on those findings, exacerbating the confusion: Ten researchers from the CDC's National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released the ridiculous paper, entitled Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines, which claims the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk are a detriment to the efficacy of vaccines. The paper goes on to say that, rather than remove vaccines so that breastmilk can do its job, women should instead remove the breastmilk to allow vaccines to do their job. The quoted portion directly above illustrated a key fallacy in understanding the context of the study. The "ridiculous paper" in question simply produced data gathered in the study of a single vaccine's efficacy. Its findings neither constituted an agenda nor a recommendation; they simply provided an example of ways in which the observed effect might potentially be countered.  Putting aside confusion about the role and intent of medical science and its published findings, the claim can be proved false simply by reviewing the CDC's own published guidelines regarding breastfeeding, which largely defer to guidelines issued by the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP): guidelines Exclusive breastfeeding is ideal nutrition and sufficient to support optimal growth and development for approximately the first 6 months after birth. Infants weaned before 12 months of age should not receive cow's milk feedings but should receive iron-fortified infant formula. Gradual introduction of iron-enriched solid foods in the second half of the first year should complement the breast milk diet. It is recommended that breastfeeding continue for at least 12 months, and thereafter for as long as mutually desired. The CDC has also stated breastmilk is the preferred source of infant nutrition in all but a handful of instances: stated Health professionals agree that human milk provides the most complete form of nutrition for infants, including premature and sick newborns. However, there are rare exceptions when human milk is not recommended. Under certain circumstances, a physician will need to make a case-by-case assessment to determine whether a woman's environmental exposure or her own medical condition warrants her to interrupt or stop breastfeeding. The CDC has issued no guidelines whatsoever suggesting that breastfeeding should be delayed, either temporarily or at length, for any reason related to vaccine efficacy. Not only does the CDC not recommend mothers stop breastfeeding, that agency actively encourages nursing based on AAP guidance. The claim the CDC "recommended that mothers stop breastfeeding in order to increase the efficacy of vaccines" is a misleading one based on a 2010 study that simply observed the effects of breast milk on a single vaccine and neither made recommendations nor created guidelines about the cessation of breastfeeding in order to increase vaccine efficacy. Last updated:  19 January 2015 Claim:  Food stamps can now be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is the following true? I am pretty sure it isn't, but can't find any other information other than this website. "President Obama signs SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 Into Law: Alcohol & Tobacco Products No Longer Prohibited from Food Stamps."   Origins:  On 7 December 2014, the Salty Badger web site published an article claiming President Obama had signed legislation called "The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law, making it legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco (items that have long been excluded from the food stamps program) with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) electronic benefit (EBT) cards: article President Obama signed the "SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law today, 12/7/14, thirty-four days after both houses of Congress narrowly passed the controversial bill overcoming strong Republican resistance both in the Senate and House. All SNAP-eligible Americans will be enjoying a late Christmas present this year courtesy of Uncle Sam. Wrapped inside with a red, white and blue bow will be increased food stamp funds and the right to use their EBT card to buy alcohol and tobacco products.   Hakeem Jeffries of New York's 8th Congressional District stated, "For too long, American citizens have been discriminated against at the grocery store. There is no reason my constituents should be barred from purchasing a 6-pack of Coors Light with their EBT card to go along with their steak dinner, also purchased with their EBT card. To expect low-income hardworking Americans to go out of pocket for essentials such as cigarettes and beer is not only racist, but cruel. I am proud to stand with my president today in this historical signing for food stamp fairness." The article uses the names of real politicians, like President Obama and Hakeem Jeffries, but that's the only factual element of the story. The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 does not exist, President Obama didn't sign any bills into law on 7 December 2014, and SNAP benefit cards cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products.  sign purchase The photo used to illustrate this fictitious article shows President Obama sitting at his desk in August 2013 signing the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, not the SNAP Fairness Act, into law.  August 2013 The Salty Badger may not be as well known as fake news sites such as Huzlers or World News Daily Report, but the web site's mission is the same: To spread misinformation. The Salty Badger, which prides itself on being "not always right, but always first," notes in their mission statement that: mission statement When the Salty Badger was conceived and born from two genius minds, literally minutes prior to writing this statement, we had three major goals in our minds: Bring our brand of comedy to the forefront, have beautiful women throwing themselves at us, and get Scrooge McDuck rich.  We will settle for any one of the three.  We will sneak our humor into the minds of the world one individual at a time     Last updated:  10 December 2014 In April 2018, the right-leaning Turning Point USA posted a Facebook meme which attacked Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for once supporting a proposal to "dump nuclear waste" in a "poor Latino community in Texas": meme In the 90's, Trump supported a bill to dump nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, a poor Latino community in Texas where the average yearly income was $8,000. When asked if he would visit the site, he said "Absolutely not."  Oh wait! Never mind, that was Bernie Sanders! And he actually co-sponsored the bill! The meme was re-posted by the "Capitalism" Facebook page: re-posted   In 1997 and 1998, Sanders did indeed support a measure that gave Congressional approval to an arrangement that would have allowed the states of Maine and Vermont to transport and dispose of nuclear waste at a proposed site in the sparsely populated town of Sierra Blanca in Hudspeth County, close to the Mexican border in West Texas. As the meme suggests, Sierra Blanca was (and is) a predominantly Latino community. U.S. Census Bureau records show that in 2000, two years after the proposal, 73 percent of the town's 533 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino, and almost all of those as Mexican. In 2016, some 69 percent of Sierra Blanca's 557 residents identified as Hispanic or Latino.  records In 1999, the annual per capita income of Sierra Blanca residents was $10,768, which was 45 percent lower than that of Texans at large ($19,617). In 2016, the median household income in Sierra Blanca was estimated to be $41,875 as compared to $54,727 in the state of Texas.  income income As an Independent member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Vermont, Sanders was one of 23 co-sponsors of House Resolution 629, which called for Congress to give its consent to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact  an agreement between the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont.  629 Speaking on the floor of the house in October 1997, Sanders said he was in "strong support" of the resolution for environmental reasons, and stressed that he personally was opposed to the use of nuclear power, but that the waste it produces had to be disposed of as safely as possible. It is worth reading a relatively extensive excerpt from his remarks in order to get a good sense of Sanders' stated reasoning: remarks Let me touch, for a moment, upon the environmental aspects of this issue. And let me address it from the perspective of someone who is an opponent of nuclear power, opposes the construction of nuclear power plants and if he had his way, would shut down the existing nuclear power plants as quickly and as safely as we could.  One of the reasons that many of us oppose nuclear power plants is that when this technology was developed, there was not a lot of thought given as to how we dispose of the nuclear waste. But...the reality, as others have already pointed out, is that the waste is here. We can't wish it away. It exists in power plants in Maine and Vermont, it exists in hospitals, it is here...So the real environmental issue here is not to wish it away, but to make the judgement, the important environmental judgement as to what is the safest way of disposing of the nuclear waste that has been created.  ...Leaving the radioactive waste at the site where it was produced -- despite the fact that that site might be extremely unsafe in terms of long-term isolation of the waste, and was never intended to be a long-term depository of low-level waste -- is horrendous environmental policy...No reputable scientist of environmentalist believes that the geology of Vermont or Maine would be a good place for this waste. In the humid climate of Vermont and Maine, it is more likely that ground water will come in contact with that waste and carry off radioactive elements to the accessible environment.  There is widespread scientific evidence to suggest, on the other hand, that locations in Texas -- some of which receive less than 12 inches of rainfall a year, a region where the groundwater table is more than 700 feet below the surface -- is a far better location for this waste. This is not a political assertion, it is a geological and environmental reality.  A video clip of his comments can be viewed here. here Congress passed the resolution comfortably by 305 votes to 117, as did the Senate, by 78 votes to 15. passed Senate The proposal had much stronger support among Republicans than among Democrats. GOP members of the House voted 197-26 in favor, while Democrats were more evenly split, voting 107-91 in favor. In the Senate, not a single Republican opposed H.R. 629, while 51 of them voted for it. Fifteen Democratic Senators opposed the bill, while 27 of them voted in support. At that time, five out six Senators from Texas, Vermont, and Maine were Republicans. All five of them voted in favor of the proposal. Both of Maine's Representatives voted for the disposal site, as did 10 out of the 13 Republican Congress members from Texas. In the House, the proposal had 23 co-sponsors. Eleven were Republicans, eleven were Democrats, and one was Sanders himself, an Independent. The author of the resolution was Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas.  Despite Congressional approval for the agreement, authorities in Texas ultimately rejected the proposal to establish a disposal site at Sierra Blanca. In October 1998, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission voted 3-0 against issuing a permit for the construction of a nuclear waste dump there. According to the Associated Press, commission chairman Barry McBee said the disposal site could have provided a much-needed economic boost to the area, but commission members were sufficiently concerned about safety issues to deny the permit.  Associated Press According to a September 1998 article in the Texas Observer, a group of activists opposed to the Sierra Blanca waste site approached Sanders at an anti-nuclear weapons rally in Vermont that year:  article Sanders left the stage, which surprised no one in the small Texas delegation. Earlier, he had told them, "My position is unchanged, and you're not gonna like it." When they asked if they would visit the site in Sierra Blanca, he said, "Absolutely not. I'm gonna be running for re-election in the state of Vermont." We contacted Bill Addison, a leading opponent of the Sierra Blanca proposal, who was identified in the Texas Tribune article as having attended that Springfield rally. He confirmed that he was present and corroborated the article's account of the activists' interaction with Sanders. We asked a spokesperson for Sanders whether he agrees that this exchange took place, but we did not receive a response to that specific question. Instead, the spokesperson offered a broader explanation and defense of the Senator's support of H.R. 629: The only reason Senator Sanders was ever involved is because the constitution requires Congress to approve interstate compacts. Texas Representative Joe Barton introduced such legislation in 1998, and twenty-three members of the Vermont, Texas and Maine congressional delegations cosponsored it.  The bill did not endorse a specific site  in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked. The compact, much less the site selection were never Sen. Sanders idea. He disagrees with the very premise of the 1980 law that led to the Texas-Vermont-Maine compact, since it put the burden of disposing of low-level waste on the states, rather the nuclear energy companies that produced much of the waste. In fact, he has long been an opponent of nuclear power precisely it produces waste for which we still have no solution (the Texas site is just for low-level contamination  there is still no plan for all of the high-level nuclear waste all across the country).  Sanders' spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill. For example, in April 1998 (three months before Sanders and others in the House voted in favor of H.R. 629) the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone condemned the proposed Sierra Blanca site from the floor of the Senate: condemned What has troubled me from the very beginning is that this legislation would result in the dumping of low-level radioactive waste in a small, poor, majority-Latino community in rural West Texas  a town called Sierra Blanca. The Texas legislation in 1991 identified the area where the dump will be located. The Texas Waste Authority designated the site near Sierra Blanca in 1992. A draft license was issued in 1996. Whether we like it or not, this knowledge makes us responsible for what happens to Sierra Blanca.  The Turning Point USA meme is accurate in claiming that Sanders supported and co-sponsored a proposal that would have seen nuclear waste from Maine, Vermont and (principally) Texas disposed of at a site in Sierra Blanca, and that Sierra Blanca was (and still is) a predominately Latino and relatively poor community. The meme leaves out important and relevant context by failing to mention the key role that Republicans played in crafting and passing that proposal; instead, it singles out Sanders and does not offer the reader any inkling of his environmentalist rationale. Sanders stood to gain politically from supporting a plan that would remove nuclear waste from his constituency, but this does not necessarily mean he wasn't motivated by a sincere desire to dispose of the waste in a manner and location that he genuinely believed to be safer. However, whether or not you believe his stated rationale was sincere, no proper analysis of a particular politician's policy position or Congressional vote should leave out the reasons put forward by that politician. Finally, we were not able to corroborate the "Absolutely not" quotation attributed to Sanders, and his spokesperson did not address our question about it.  Hershey, Olive. "Sanders to Sierra Blanca: 'Drop Dead!'"
 The Texas Observer. 11 September 1998. Barton, Joe. "House Resolution 629 -- Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 U.S. House of Representatives/Congressional Record. 20 September 1998 U.S. House of Representatives. "Debate Transcript --Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Consent Act."
 Congressional Record. 7 October 1997. Associated Press. "Texas Agency Denies Permit for Waste Site."
 New York Times/Associated Press. 23 October 1998. U.S. Senate. "Debate Transcript --The Texas/Maine/Vermont Compact."
 Congressional Record. 3 April 1998. Updated [16 June 2018]: Added comment from Bill Addison. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald formally announced his candidacy for governor last month, kicking off his campaign with speeches in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The Democrat, taking aim at the man he hopes to unseat next year, portrayed Republican Gov. John Kasich as a politician whose policies hurt middle-class Ohioans. Just about everyone everywhere is spending more hours on the job, less time with their families, bringing home smaller and smaller paychecks, while they're paying more and more at the gas pump and the grocery stores, FitzGerald told supporters. PolitiFact Ohio wondered about the basis for the statement and asked for sources. For the claim about more hours on the job, less time with their families, FitzGerald's staff cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to its American Time Use Survey, the average employed American spent an average of 7.6 hours per day working on days that theyworked in 2011, the most recent year available. That's an increase from 7.48 hours in2010. They also cited an article from the news serviceThe Fiscal Timesthat reported Americans are logging in more time at work, skipping vacation time and increasingly handling work-related email on vacation and weekend time. As for the smaller paychecks, FitzGerald's camp said that the real hourly wages of Ohio workers have failed to keep pace with inflation since 2010, decreasing the salaries of workers in inflation-adjusted dollars. Their source was the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its data show that the mean and median hourly wages of Ohioans rose from $19.66 and $15.45 in2010to $20.52 and $16.03 in2012. Whenadjusted for inflationand measured in current dollars, however, using the CPI inflation calculator, mean and median hourly wages fell from $20.99 and $16.49 in 2010 to $20.52 and $16.25 in 2012. PolitiFact has always stipulated that the ability of an individual governor to influence the economy is limited. Determining how credit or blame should be apportioned is seldom clear. We did not assign credit toKasich for his statementin March that Ohioans' wages have risen by more than $10 billion since 2010. But we rated the statement as True. We can't rate FitzGerald's linking of Kasich to his statement about people spending more hours on the job and bringing home smaller paychecks. But his statement is accurate, with the point of clarification that smaller paychecks are in inflation-adjusted current dollars. Because that additional information is needed, we rate the statement as Mostly True.