Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years.
Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.
In June 2014 Facebook users began seeing posts pointing to a purported video clip entitled "You Will Not Use Head & Shoulders Shampoo After Watching This Video," which supposedly graphically illustrated the deleterious effects of using that popular  brand of shampoo.  (Later versions substituted Dove brand shampoo for Head & Shoulders.)  The static image accompanying the posts was the one displayed above, which allegedly pictures some form of bizarre injury or infection that befall a user of that brand of shampoo. The image itself is a hoax, a fabrication that imitates a notorious fake photograph of a supposed 'breast rash caused by South American larvae' (created by merging a picture of a lotus seed pod with a picture of a human shoulder) which has been circulating on the Internet since 2003 and that was earlier used as the subject of a Twitter jape: breast rash lotus seed pod  The referenced video does not exist, and the purpose of the hoax was to serve as a lure in leading users to yet another survey scam: those who clicked through on the teaser link hoping to view the Head & Shoulders video were instead taken to a screen that forced them to first share the link with others on Facebook and/or verify their age by completing a survey that promised a $100 VISA Gift Card for its completion: survey   Of course, getting that "free" $100 gift card required  as explained in tiny type at the bottom of the survey page  that participants first sign up for several different offers, each of which required them to purchase something, subscribe to something, or apply (and be accepted for) a credit card or loan: Purchase Requirements. Incentives are split into two tiers: Tier 1 incentives with a value of $100 or less and Tier 2 incentives with a value more than $100. To qualify for a Tier 1 incentive you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold and 1 Platinum offer. To qualify for a Tier 2 incentive, you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold, and 6 Platinum offers. You must complete all offers within 30 days from when you complete your first offer. Completion of offers usually requires a purchase, subscription or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The best way to handle such scamming come-ons is to give them a wide berth: do not click through on associated links, don't share those links on Facebook, and do not participate in any related surveys. Claim:  Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets.   Origins:  The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes  that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for  him).  Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income.  Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers  (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns.  After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend  made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics  that the  year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children  children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms  vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents.  For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989.  Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number  possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation.  "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated:  15 April 2014 Freakonomics    Lewin, Tamar.  "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care"   The New York Times.  6 January 1991.    Liebman, Jeffrey B.  "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?"   National Tax Journal.  December 2000  (pp. 1165-1186). Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, after U.S. Democrat Joe Biden secured the majority of the country's electoral votes in the presidential race against President Donald Trump, an email from the sitting president's campaign to supporters implied that the country's constitutionally mandated elections process allowed time for Trump to defy the outcome of the popular vote. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Joe Biden Donald Trump here "Joe Biden has NOT been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or any states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor," read a Nov. 13 Trump fundraising email obtained by Snopes.   The email alleged that states had not certified results of the 2020 election and Trump's political enemies were wrongfully trying to convince Americans that a Biden presidency was inevitable when it wasn't. when it wasn't The claim was two-pronged: Key battleground states had not certified results of the popular vote, and because of that Trump had a chance to defy its outcome. First, let's define what step in the country's election process  which functions under the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws  to which the campaign was referring. step Every four years in America, people submit ballots in a popular vote for the president. Most states grant counties the authority to administer those elections via a board of electors, an election official or officials, or both. Those local jurisdictions operate under varying timelines for processing votes. As they begin to publish unofficial voter tallies via secretary of state websites or other government-run databases on election night, statisticians compare the sum of votes counted to the difference in totals between the losing and winning candidate. When there appears to be no statistical chance for a losing candidate to overcome the competitor in a state, journalists "call" the race and project a winner there. As a result, that candidate receives that state's total number of electoral votes. electoral votes In the Trump-Biden contest, the news media did not announce a winner in several states until days after polls closed, in part, due to an unprecedented surge in mail-in voting and states' varying rules for when they can start processing those ballots. See National Public Radio's graphic showing deadlines below, based on data from state elections offices, the National League for State Legislatures, and Ballotpedia: National Public Radio's   On Nov. 7, however, Biden secured the majority of the country's electoral votes (again, based on unofficial voter tallies), and was announced the 46th President of the United States. Historically, it is that point in the election process  when ballots haven't been certified at the county or state level  that a losing candidate concedes defeat. That acknowledgment, while not constitutionally required, has come to represent a losing candidates' willingness to help the winner transition's into the White House. It also serves to help the losing candidate's supporters accept the election's outcome. concedes defeat Cue the above-mentioned claim about Trump having a chance at another term and that the election's "ultimate victor" was yet to be decided. The Associated Press reported: reported Certifying results is a routine yet important step after local election officials have tallied votes, reviewed procedures, checked to ensure votes were counted correctly and investigated discrepancies. Typically, this certification is done by a local board of elections and then, later, the results are certified at the state level. But as Trump has refused to concede to Biden and continues to spread false claims of victory, this mundane process is taking on new significance. Under state and federal laws, the process of cementing voter tallies continues regardless of a candidate's acceptance of the popular vote. First, local election boards certify ballots at a precinct level. After that, state executive authorities seal state's results via a "Certificate of Ascertainment"  a document that lists the names of the state's chosen electors who will cast official votes for president through the Electoral College. (State legislatures decide how to appoint electors and their necessary qualifications.) appoint electors Deadlines for completing certifications vary state by state under local laws. According to MIT Technology Review, such dates for battleground states were: MIT Technology Review, Georgias certification deadline is November 20. Pennsylvania counties must submit certification by November 23. Michigans certification deadline is November 23.Nevadas certification deadline is November 24. Arizonas certification deadline is November 30.Wisconsins certification deadline is December 1. Once completed, governors submit their "Certificate of Ascertainment" to the U.S. Archivist. The electors listed on the document then meet at state capitals to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, per guidelines outlined in the Constitution. In 2020, thats Dec. 14. formally cast their votes In other words, it was accurate to state, as of mid-November, several battleground states had not certified results of the popular vote, including Georgia, where the state's Republican secretary of state ordered a manual recount of ballots and Biden led by a slim margin of 0.3 percentage points. Georgia However, less clear was whether that fact meant Trump had a chance to overturn Biden's victory. Via lawsuits and campaign messages to supporters, like the above-displayed fundraising email, the Trump campaign was trying to convince Americans that governments should hold off on certifying ballots because widespread voter fraud tainted the numbers, even though no evidence showed that was true. voter fraud Matt Morgan, the Trump campaigns general counsel, said the push to try to delay or stop voter certification in battleground states aimed to give the campaign more time to get a handle on voter tallies and whether it would have the right to automatic recounts, according to The Associated Press. battleground states Additionally, some Trump allies wanted to slow down the process to give GOP-controlled legislatures an opportunity to pick a slate of electors who would overturn Biden's victory through the Electoral College or send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. (Read here for how Congress would decide the outcome of the 2020 election, pending what happens with the Electoral College.) here As of this writing, two Republican election officials in Michigan's Wayne County had refused to certify results of the popular vote, citing the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, and then reversed course on Nov. 17. GOP officials in Arizona were also trying to pressure county officials to delay the process, per news reports. Simultaneously, Trump allies in Michigan and Nevada pushed lawsuits attempting to stop voter certification. Michigan's Wayne County per news reports University of Kentucky Law Professor Joshua Douglas told The Associated Press there was no precedent for such an effort to delay or undermine the typically sleepy step in the country's presidential elections. It would be the end of democracy as we know it, Douglas said. This is just not a thing that can happen. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign about states certifying voting results asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. Rather, people were giving their money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are divided between Trump's committees and the Republican National Committee.  Brendan Fischer Republican National Committee "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, while it was true to claim states had not certified results of the popular vote, the resulting success of the Trump campaign's efforts to intervene in that typically procedural step remained unknown at the time of this writing, and it was erroneous to claim that a winner of the election had not been named. For those reasons, we rate the allegation in the fundraising email a "mixture" of accurate, undetermined, and false information. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In October 2020, messages started to circulate on social media claiming that the three red stripes on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's logo were a reference to the so-called "three red banners" that outlined the socialist policies of Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China in the 1950s:   This is a genuine image of one of the logos the Biden-Harris ticket has used in their campaign as well as a genuine screenshot (to the right) from a Wikipedia page about the three red banners. However, the logic used to connect these two dots  Mao described a portion of his socialist policies as "three red banners," therefore, items with three red stripes are about socialism  does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny. three red banners For starters, "three red banners" is a reference to an ideological philosophy, not a specific visual design. In other words, China did not have a physical flag representing the three red banners in a similar fashion displayed on Biden's logo. This claim is attempting to connect a textual description of a 1950s policy with a visual representation of the letter "E" in the campaign logo.  Here's how QZ described Mao's "three red banners": described The long history of Chinas obsession with numbered policies starts with Mao. The Three Red Bannersthe General Line for socialist construction, the Great Leap Forward and the peoples communeslaid out how Maos socialist policies would transform China. But they are the de facto culprits of the Great Famine, Yang said. The first banner is an ideological slogan that calls on Chinese people to build a socialist state. The Great Leap Forward, initiated by Mao in 1958, aims to transfer China into an industrialized country. And the peoples communes put households together in rural areas where they shared everything from food to farm tools  a way to discount individuality and centralize more manpower and resources for agricultural and industrial production. The claim that Biden's logo is a reference to the socialist policies of Mao in China during the 1950s is based solely on the fact that Biden's logo contains three red lines.  As the "three red banners" does not refer to any specific visual design, one could connect these socialist policies to any item adorned with three red stripes. By this logic, anybody living in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Ohio, or working for the New York City Fire Department could be labeled a communist as these entities all use flags containing three red stripes.  Hawaii Puerto Rico Ohio New York City Fire Department  In addition to the logical flaws of this comparison, Mekanism, the ad agency that created Biden's logo, has already explained what this logo is supposed to symbolize. explained Aimee Brodbeck, the company's designer and art director who led the team that created the logo, said that the stripes and the colors of the logo were nods to the American flag. More specifically, Brodbeck explained that the three stripes represent the three branches of the U.S. government.  explained "The logo is approachable and strong, just like the Biden name. By incorporating nods to the American flag, the logo is a representation of Biden's investment in America. The 3 stripes represent the branches of government and the strength of unity with Biden. The logo also nods to the familiarity of the Obama "O" logo where 3 stripes are seen. Smith, Lilly.  "Experts Weigh in on the Biden-Harris Logo: 'It Could be Scribbled on a Napkin and I'd be Happy."
  Fast Company.  12 August 2020. Hofford, Alex.  "Charted: Chinas Great Famine, According to Yang Jisheng, a Journalist Who Lived Through It."
  QZ.  10 March 2016. On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. In late July 2020, Snopes readers asked for verification of numerous social media posts that stated Target had canceled its annual "Shop with a Cop" program, which is officially known as "Heroes & Helpers," in an effort to "distance themselves from Police Officers." Here is an example of one such post circulating on Facebook:   Similar posts also made the rounds on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were talking about the rumor on Twitter but didn't offer any evidence for the claim. posts website We reached out to the source itself, asking Target Corporate whether it had ended the long-standing program that pairs children from low-income backgrounds with local law enforcement officers for holiday shopping trips funded by charitable donations. A spokesperson for Target told us that the program will continue, although details about how it will move forward amid the COVID-19 pandemic are still pending. In response to our question asking whether the program had been canceled, the company sent the following statement: We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season. Like many of our holiday programs, were carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season. The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, per Target. program The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and conversation about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded. George Floyd However, Target, as of this writing, doesn't plan to cancel the program as a result of the racial justice protests. With the information currently available, we rate this claim  A Bullseye View.  "Target Teams Up with Donnie Wahlberg to Celebrate 10 Years of Heroes & Helpers."
  4 December 2019. Trujillo, Damian.  "Shop With a Cop Foundation Considers Name Change to Reconnect with Community."
  KNTV.  2 July 2020. Hill, Evan, et al.  "How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody."
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 In her new book,Going Rogue, Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's support for a cap and trade plan was misguided. The president has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' Sadly, those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet, she wrote. Here, we're looking at Obama's comments on electricity bills. First, though, here's a quick summary of cap and trade for those who aren't famliar with it: To slow climate change, the government would set a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. To comply, companies such as electric utilities must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or buy credits  also known as allowances  to continue polluting. Companies can buy and sell the credits as necessary to conduct their business. We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicleeditorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, Obama told theChronicle. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, Obama said. Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say. There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned ourPants on Firerating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower  between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income. So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with theChroniclenearly two years ago.Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True. On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0.