Says if Oregon had limited its budget growth to the rate of population growth plus the rate of inflation, the states all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today, not $60 billion.
Fiscally conservative members of the Oregon Legislature never much like the size of the states budget. But once something is funded, its never easy to muster the political willpower to take the cash away.In a recent opinion piece for The Oregonian, Sen. Doug Whitsett, a Republican from Klamath Falls, offered a creative solution: Peg state spending to population growth and inflation.Oregon desperately needs to establish a constitutional limit on the growth of state spending, he wrote. He maintains that the $60 billion all-funds budget is growing out of control.Whitsett noted that the states Legislative Fiscal Office, which keeps a close eye on the budget, had illustrated for purpose of comparisons what Oregons all-funds budget would look like today if his proposal had been implemented 20 years ago.Oregon spent about $20 billion in all-funds budgets 20 years ago, he wrote. With this spending limit in place, the states all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today.Thats a nearly $33 billion difference. A huge amount of money for a state like Oregon. So huge, in fact, that PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know whether Whitsett was right.We spoke with Whitsett, who said that hed gotten this statistic from a presentation that the fiscal office had given at the beginning of the current legislative session. So we called Ken Rocco, the offices director, and asked him if he remembered this.Rocco got back to us via e-mail. He offered two pieces of caution.First: There was no reason in particular that his office chose the budget from 20 years ago to use for their projection.Second: The data the senator had referred to in his opinion piece hadnt been calculated accurately. In looking at this chart, the data presented claimed it was inflating the 1991-93 base year by both inflation and population growth, but when I looked more closely at the data today, it was actually only for inflation.In fact, he noted, if the calculations been done right, the actual 2011-13 budget -- pegged to population growth and inflation -- would be about $36 billion. This was not the Senators mistake, but LFOs, Rocco noted.Nevertheless, the point Whitsett was trying to make -- that spending growth has happened beyond just normal population growth -- remains true, Rocco said. There are a number of other drivers to budget growth than simply inflation and population increases, such as specific caseload growth, additional mandate programs that require funding, etc.Let us point out here that the all-funds budget is just that -- all funds. It includes not only the general fund, which lawmakers can allocate however they choose, but also federal money, bond revenue, gas taxes, fees -- in short, a whole lot of money dedicated for specific purposes.Now, allow us to offer up a slight tangent. Whitsetts idea is not entirely new. Back in 2006, Measure 48 was put on the Oregon ballot. That measure would have limited any increase in state spending to population growth and inflation increases.It turned out, this had nothing to do with what Whitsett was writing about, but we bring it up because it illustrates an important point: Measure 48 didnt apply to things like federal funds. Thats huge given that nearly a fourth of the state budget comes from federal funds.For instance, about $15 billion of the upcoming all-funds budget comes from federal sources -- thats about a quarter of the total. Twenty years ago, federal funds only accounted for about 15 percent of the total. If you were to play by Measure 48s rules and add that chunk of change to the $36 billion that the fiscal office projected, youd get an all-funds budget closer to $42 billion.That, of course would still mean about $18 billion in less budget growth over 20 years. That is no small thing -- but its still a lot closer to the current all-funds budget than the initial $27 billion Whitsett mentioned.Whitsett also pointed out, during an interview, that it would be a mistake to assume the federal government will keep providing a quarter of the states all-funds budget. At some point in time that has to reverse  the current sequester might be a part of that.Whitsett said that if we had curbed budget growth 20 years ago by pegging it to population growth and inflation, our budget would be about $27 billion today instead of $60 billion. He was referring to an inaccurate calculation made by a typically unimpeachable source. The figure is actually closer to $36 billion.We wont hold their error against Whitsett, but we do think its important to note that, if federal funds are a concern at all, our budget wouldnt be quite as slight as Whitsett predicted. We rate this claim Mostly True.
Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 On 4 July 2015, the Facebook page "What the 'F' Facts" shared a photograph along with a claim that a Kentucky man named Larry Rutman had sued himself and won $300,000 (paid by his insurance company) after he hit himself in the head with a boomerang:  The "What the 'F' Facts" post renewed interest in the story of Larry Rutman, which was nothing more than a fictional tale that has been floating around the online world since it was first published in the Weekly World News back in 1996: published "A Kentucky man who threw a boomerang that flew back and clobbered him in the head promptly filed a $300,000 lawsuit against himself  and incredibly, he was awarded the money! But most amazing of all is the fact that the guy will get the money from his insurance company  and he personally won't have to pay a cent. "The accident occurred on my property so my homeowners insurance was liable for it," Rutman said of the April 18 accident. "Some of my neighbors say this is crazy but it's perfectly logical when you think about it. I paid that insurance for a long time just in case something unforseen like this ever happened. And now all those years of paying premiums have turned out to be worthwhile."  The Weekly World News is, of course, a former supermarket tabloid (now operating in online form only) known for its fantastically fictional stories about subjects such as a zookeeper's being killed by elephant feces, a scientist's plot to blow up the sun, and a tree that grows meat. This fake news item received some additional unwarranted credibility when it was reported by the South China Morning Post in August 1996. elephant feces plot tree reported Claim:  Coca-Cola has announced that it will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have heard various rumours about the nature of the relationship between Coca-Cola and the State of Israel.  Today, I received a text message on my cell phone stating:  "NBC states that: the income that Coca-Cola will get in the coming 4 days starting from Monday will be donated to Israel." Origins:  The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East makes for a precarious business climate, one in which any company doing business in both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries is subject to being denounced by one side as a supporter of the other.  Companies dealing in relatively inexpensive, ubiquitous products such as soft drinks or fast food are very visible targets to those who call for boycotts to protest financial support of one side or the other. American-based companies, in particular, are often the focus of such boycotts, since the USA is not only home to many of the world's most well-known brands but has also been one of the few countries to openly support    Israel.  McDonald's and Coca-Cola are frequent subjects of boycott calls, the former becoming a target a few years ago when Saudi Arabian McDonald's outlets donated a portion of their proceeds to Palestinian childrens' hospitals, and the latter a current victim due to false claims that they will be "donating four days' worth of income to Israel."  (Pepsi is also a member of this short list, with claims  sometimes taken literally  that Pepsi is a 'Jewish product' whose name is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.'  As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state.") donated Lately a series of graphics employing Coca-Cola imagery (like the one to the right of this text, which is itself a deception within a deception, as it uses a controversial photograph of a Jewish student who was mistakenly identified as a Palestinian) has been circulated to garner support for an Arab boycott of American companies such as Coca-Cola (at least one such image, which depicts the Dome of the Rock emblazoned with a Coca-Cola logo, has caused an uproar among Muslims who have mistaken it for a bona fide Coca-Cola advertisement), lending support  to the unfounded rumor that Coca-Cola will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. It's hard to imagine that this rumor could be anything but a deliberate lie concocted to smear an American-based company that does business in both Israel and  Middle Eastern countries, as (unlike the case of the McDonald's brouhaha mentioned above) no Coke-related business is currently engaged in any sponsorship that could reasonably be misunderstood as constituting a financial "donation" to the state of Israel.  As The Coca-Cola Company itself has stated: photograph Dome of the Rock The Coca-Cola Company does not support or oppose political or religious causes and does not take a stance on issues that do not directly affect the soft drink industry. The Coca-Cola Company operates worldwide in nearly 200 countries andterritories with different cultures, political systems, religions and histories.  People from all around the world own shares in The Coca-Cola Company, and the company employs people from many different backgrounds and nationalities. Our partners who bottle, distribute and sell our products are local business people. They hire people in their local markets.   We cannot and do not take the side of one country over another in any dispute. It's unfortunate that the incredible power of the Internet is being misused to spread false information. Moreover, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis.   Ramallah Unfortunately, the maxim that the first casualty in war is truth still holds sway. Last updated:  2 December 2007 Republicans havemade it clearthat between now and the November 2014 gubernatorial election, they will bereminding votersabout Democratic former Gov. Jim Doyle -- who has been out of office, and largely out of sight, for more than three years. They are casting Doyle as an ineffectual, or worse, chief executive and tying him to Gov. Scott Walker's main challenger, Democrat Mary Burke. On Feb. 4, 2014, the state Republican Party issued anews releaseattacking Burke, who served as state commerce secretary during part of Doyle's tenure, for not having proposed a jobs plan. Among other things, the party said Doyle-Burke policies led to the loss of 133,000 jobs, a claim previously made by Walker that we ratedMostly False. Walker had said Burke implemented the policies of Doyle and those policies saw the state lose more than 133,000 jobs. The number was right but other factors, namely the Great Recession, were primarily to blame. Another line in the state GOP's news release also referenced Burke, albeit more benignly, in making this claim: The only time over the last 25 years when the states unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. average was when Burke was commerce secretary. Lets take a look. The numbers Asked for evidence to back its claim, the Republican Party referred us to monthly unemployment rates forWisconsinandthe U.S.from 1988 through 2013. They are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government's official job counter. More specifically, the party cited 15 months in 2006 and 2007 when Wisconsins unemployment rate exceeded the national rate. That was in May, June, September, October, November and December of 2006; and the first nine months of 2007. Burke was commerce secretary during all 15 months, having served in the post from Feb. 7, 2005 to Nov. 2, 2007. And BLS statistics confirmed that the only times since 1988 that the Wisconsin unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. rate were those 15 months. It's worth noting that although state unemployment rates exceeded U.S. rates during that period, the rates were under 5 percent whereas they are now above 6 percent. And the difference between the Wisconsin and U.S. unemployment rates was relatively small in the period cited by the GOP. For example, in May 2006, the state unemployment rate was 4.7 percent and the national rate was 4.6 percent. The largest difference was 0.4 percent -- the state rate was 4.8 percent in May 2007, while the national rate was 4.4 percent. The Republican Party did not have evidence to back the other part of its claim, which links the higher state unemployment rates to Burke. Other factors Marquette University economist Abdur Chowdhury told us that state government policies, such as providing business incentives, can affect unemployment and that Burke clearly was part of the team that developed policies in the Doyle administration. But many factors, particularly trends in the national economy, affect unemployment rates in the states. I wouldn't give Mary Burke full credit for any job that was created and she should not be solely blamed for the loss of any job, Chowdhury said. Indeed, when Burke cited her work as commerce secretary and said in October 2013 that when she left the job in 2007, Wisconsin had 84,000 more jobs than it does today, we rated her statementHalf True. The numerical part was on target, but Burke overstated the credit that she and Doyle deserved. In this case, the state GOP notes higher unemployment rates while Burke was in the commerce job, but doesnt directly blame her or her policies for the higher rates. Our rating The Wisconsin GOP said: The only time over the last 25 years when the states unemployment rate exceeded the U.S. average was when Burke was state commerce secretary. The statistic is accurate and the claim only indirectly blames Burke. We rate it Mostly True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelsweb page. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. The day before Gov.Scott Walkermade his re-election run official, Matt Flynn issued a pre-emptive strike, comparing the two-term Republican unfavorably to another two-term Wisconsin governor, DemocratJim Doyle. Scott Walkers time is up, was how Flynn, a Democrat running in the 2018 race for governor, began his Nov. 4, 2017news release. Average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Walker, who has been governor since 2011, hasusedanumberof economicstatisticsto argue that things are better than they were underDoyle, who served from 2003 through 2010. So, lets see how the claim from Flynn, a lawyer and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, stands up. Under Walker, are average wages lower in Wisconsin than they were under Doyle? The claim alludes to Walker bearing some responsibility, but doesnt directly blame him. And governors play an important but limited role in wages. Flynns evidence To back Flynns claim, his campaign cited two sets of statistics, both adjusted for inflation. 1.Under Walker in 2016, the median hourly wage was$17.43-- 5 cents lower than in 2009 under Doyle, before the full effects of the Great Recession set in. The figures are from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, which are estimates based on data collected from employers in all industry sectors in Wisconsin. But Doyle served another full year. The figure for 2010 was $17.37 -- 6 cents lower than in 2016 under Walker. More importantly, the Bureau of Labor Statisticswarns againstusing this particular set of data to make comparisons over time. So, were discounting this point. 2.The median hourly wageeclipsed $18in 2003, 2005 and 2010 under Doyle -- but through 2016, had not reached that level under Walker. The figure in 2010, Doyles last full year in office, was $18.10, higher than the latest inflation-adjusted figure for Walker, $17.96 in 2016. Thats according to a 2017 report by COWS, formerly known as the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The report cites statistics produced by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based institute says it usedCurrent Population Surveydata, produced jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, that are good for comparisons over time. So, the second statistic tends to support Flynns claim -- although both statistics he cites are formedianwages, rather thanaverage. While average is the term Flynn used, many people use that word even when referring to median. Some economists recommend using the median, since it is a midpoint -- half of people earned wages below that point and half were above. In contrast, the average can be greatly influenced by extremes; for example, it will be pulled higher if there are many people earning very high incomes. Our numbers We produced our own inflation-adjusted numbers foraveragewages, the term Flynn used, with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that can be used for comparisons over time. The average weekly wage in Wisconsin in 2016 was $885 -- higher than every year under Doyle -- according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The QCEW figurescome from quarterly countsof employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs. By another measure, for only the private sector, the average weekly wage in August 2017 was $827 -- higher than the August figure for every year under Doyle dating back to 2007 -- according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics figures. (Figures before 2007 are not available). So, the average wage under Walker is higher than when Doyle left office in 2010. Our rating Flynn says that under Walker, average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Adjusting for inflation, theaveragewage is higher under Walker than it was when Doyle left office in 2010. But sometimes people use the more common term average when theyre actually referring to themedian-- which some economists say is a better measure for wages because an average can be distorted by people who earn very high wages. The median wage was higher when Doyle left office than it is under Walker. Flynns statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True. During the tour to promote his presidential memoir,Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC'sToday Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents.Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average.Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of modern presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent),George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures. )You can do the same with spending and tax receipts.For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent),George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4).For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson andGeorge W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent).Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider modern. If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts.But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures.And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower.The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller.This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the modern presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the modern presidents to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the modern presidents to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True. One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In July 2020, social media posts and news reports claimed that a Missouri school district asked parents to sign COVID-19 death waivers in advance of the academic school year. news reports The waiver went viral after a Twitter user shared it. shared   The focus on the word death came from an article published by online tabloid Raw Story that extrapolated language from the waiver meant to release Hazelwood School District (HSD) in Missouri from legal liabilities in the event a child dies in any way related to COVID-19. Raw Story While it is true that HSD issued a waiver related to COVID-19, Anthony Kiekow, HSD director of communication and public relations, told Snopes that parents would only be required to sign if their child planned on participating in summer athletic programs. The waiver asked that a parent confirm their acknowledgment of the public health crisis related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and confirmed that they would not allow a child to participate in programs if they showed any symptoms of COVID-19 or had been exposed to anyone diagnosed with the disease or awaiting test results. It further notes: Anthony Kiekow waiver The undersigned agrees to release, discharge, hold harmless and indemnify the Hazelwood School District, its agents, employees, officers, Board of Education members, insurers and others acting on the Districts behalf (the Releasees), of and from any and all claims, demands, causes of action and/or legal liabilities for injuries to or death of my child occurring during, or resulting from, or participation in the above-mentioned program or activity and related in any way to COVID-19, even if the cause, damages or injuries are alleged to be the fault of or alleged to be caused by the negligence or carelessness of the Releasees. Such verbiage is not uncommon in school athletic waivers and headlines referring to the document as a COVID-19 death waiver were sensationalizing and largely misleading, added Kiekow. The waiver was created by the Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC), a non-profit program that provides insurance coverage for Missouri public schools and community colleges. Snopes spoke with MUSIC Executive Director Mark Stockwell who said that the organization supplied all member school districts with two waiver templates recommended for summer athletic programs and not necessarily for those that take place during the academic school year. Kiekow confirmed that the waiver was sent in late June 2020 and was intended for parents whose students typically participate in summer athletics. He noted that required athletic waivers and documents from the previous school year were very different from this waiver, but that language related to COVID-19 is likely to be the new norm for sports. MUSIC Mark Stockwell two waiver templates For the 2020-21 school year, the district announced that it would be offering families the option of selecting 100% virtual school or a blended option that includes both virtual and in-person learning. A statement issued by HSD further reads that: statement Parents who want their child to participate in athletics are asked to sign a waiver. This years waiver includes language about COVID-19 to ensure that parents can make an informed decision Our district has implemented unprecedented safety precautions in all of our buildings; however, it is important for parents to understand that school districts can only mitigate the risk of COVID-19. No district, organization, or business can offer 100% protection against exposure to a global pandemic. Visit the Centers for Disease Control website for more information about COVID-19. Parents of HSD students who choose to allow their children to attend in-person class would not be required to sign a COVID-19 waiver. When asked why HSD adopted this policy, Keikow replied via text message that athletics are optional and that a waiver for in-person instruction is just not something that were requiring. EdCounsel, a Missouri-based law firm that represents over 200 public school districts, wrote in a blog post that state law is not clear on whether school districts can require that families sign a COVID-19 waiver for students attending in-person instruction, but liability waivers for extracurricular activities are largely exempt. EdCounsel blog post While liability waivers for normal classes may be suspect, extracurricular activities are a different matter, wrote EdCounsel attorney Tom Smith. (Snopes attempted to contact Smith for comment but did not hear back at the time of publication.) Extracurricular activities are a privilege, not a right; and districts have the legal authority to place certain restrictions on participation in these activities so long as the restrictions are uniformly applied and do not target a protected class. Tom Smith Under Missouri law, eligible students have a legal right to free public education and requiring that a parent or guardian sign a waiver as a condition of attendance would arguably interfere with that right. Even so, some schools and facilities around the United States have adopted similar waivers in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, particularly as many states have seen a spike in cases during the 2020 summer. Turlock Unified School District in California issued a similar waiver asking all persons participating in its activities during this pandemic sign an assumption of risk and waiver of liability. The YMCA of Minnesotas Greater Twin Cities also issued a waiver for adults and children who use its services and programs. spike in cases similar waiver waiver The HSD waiver was just one of many documents that come in a summer athletic packet and the school district said that it would continue to follow guidance from state and public health officials for the upcoming 2020-21 academic year. In mid-July 2020, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education released guidelines for reopening schools across the state but did not issue statewide mandates. released guidelines I want to thank all of the medical experts across the state who contributed to this guidance. We are confident that if schools implement this guidance, they CAN safely reopen this fall, wrote Gov. Mike Parson in a Facebook post. Facebook post Ultimately, individual school districts and jurisdictions have the authority to implement their own preventative measures. Edwards, David.  "Missouri School District Asks Parents to Sign COVID-19 Death Waiver for Children."
  Raw Story.  14 July 2020. Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service, Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education. "Missouri School Reopening Guidance Frequently Asked Health-Related COVID-19 Questions."
  9 July 2020. Smith, Tom.  "Liability Waivers in the Wake of COVID-19."
  EdCounsel School Attorneys.  6 July 2020. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill On April 3, 2023, former U.S. President Donald Trump traveled from his Mar-a-Lago estate to New York City to face historic criminal charges related to alleged hush-money payments to a woman with whom he allegedly had a sexual encounter. face historic criminal charges alleged hush-money payments With his booking andarraignment set for the following afternoon at the Manhattan criminal courthouse, a Twitter user posted the below-displayed photo of the former president supposedly making his New York arrival.The photo showed Trump flanked by people in suits, presumably Secret Service agents, leading a massive crowd of people down a city street lined with American flags. following afternoon "President Trump returns to New York," tweeted @Brick_Suit, with the photo. tweeted  The photo was fake; it was not a genuinedocumentationof Trump arriving to New York for his booking and arraignment. The Twitter user acknowledged that fact,writing in a reply tweet, "I didn't find this [photo]. I generated it via prompts." writing in a reply tweet The photo was generated by artificial intelligence (AI), with several telltale signs of computer-generated manipulation. For examples, an area near Trump's lower lip showed another trace of lip; the faces of the presumed Secret Service agents and many crowd members were disfigured; some heads looked more like skulls, and the flags' coloring wasn't consistent. Additionally, the man immediately behind Trump not only had signs of digital doctoring in his face but also his right hand. This was not the first digitally created photo supposedly documenting the aftermath of theManhattan District Attorney Office's move toindict Trump on March 30, 2023. Fakephotos of U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris celebrating the indictment, Trump clashing with law enforcement officers who were supposedly makinghis arrest, and the former president posing forhisjail mugshotalsospread on social media. indict Trump photos clashing his arrest jail mugshot Given that the photo of Trump leading a crowd was AI-generated  it did not authentically show him arriving in New York on April 3, 2023  we rate this claim  Getty Image's database of photojournalism included several authentic images of Trump's arrival to New York on April 3, including the one displayed below. database Trump arrived in New York City on April 3, 2023 for his arraignment. (Gotham/GettyImages) "Trump Is Heading to Court. Here's What to Expect." AP NEWS, 4 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-arrest-indictment-hush-money-97caa163d876d8c9ac2aad7ca6fd1f3d. "Trump Returns to New York to Face Historic Criminal Charges." AP NEWS, 3 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-new-york-florida-hush-money-election-764309dce49f81a50bf9f610ffd5ceb6.