Small businesses create 70 percent of the jobs in America.
Whats good for small business is good for the U.S.A., House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has long proclaimed.Small businesses are the driving force of the economy and create 70 percent of the jobs in America, Cantor, R-7th, said in a Nov. 25 news release stating his support for legislation that would make it more difficult for Washington to impose regulations on small companies.We wondered if small firms really create more than two-thirds of jobs in the U.S. So we asked Cantors office what his statement was based on.Megan Whittemore, a spokeswoman for Cantor, directed us to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administrations Office of Advocacy. The study said that 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs come from small businesses.Cantors estimate falls midway between that range.What, exactly, is a small business? Federal tax law does not offer a standard definition of the term. The SBA, however, defines a small business as an enterprise with fewer than 500 employees.Brian Headd, an economist with the SBA, said Cantors statement is pretty much on the mark.You can look at different time periods. The numbers will go up and down depending on the year, Headd said. So its a reasonable general statement to make.The SBA research shows small companies typically generate the most net new jobs -- a figure that takes into account job creation from start-ups and expansions as well as job losses from business closings and contractions.In a March 2010 report, Headd said data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that from 1993 through the middle of 2009, small businesses created about 65 percent of the net new jobs in the country.We went in search of a more recent synopsis. The SBA directed us to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the net increase in jobs each quarter broken down by the size of a firm.In the first quarter of 2011, the latest period for which data were available, there were 300,000 net new jobs, about 85 percent of which were created by businesses that have less than 500 employees, according to the BLS data.In 2010, small firms accounted for about 60 percent of the nearly 1.2 million jobs created.We should add a quick qualifier here: The SBA findings only pertain to net new jobs created in the private sector and dont take into account jobs created by local, state and federal governments.Still, when public officials cite the SBAs findings on the percentage of jobs created by small businesses, they often refer to small firms creating 70 percent of all new jobs, or 70 percent of new jobs without noting thats the percentage for private sector jobs created by smaller firms. Thats understandable since the private sector employs the vast majority of workers in the U.S. In September 2011, the private companies provided nearly 110 million -- or about 85 percent -- of the roughly 131 million jobs in the U.S., according to the BLS.One could reasonably expect small businesses to generate the most jobs in the private sector since, according to the SBA, small firms make up 98 percent of the businesses in the U.S. Overall, about half of the private sector jobs that exist in the U.S. are provided by small businesses, according to the SBA.Though they provide a boost to job creation when times are good, the SBA noted in a 2010 report to President Barack Obama that the flip side is that small businesses can lead the way on job losses when the economy is sluggish.In 2009, when the economy was limping out of a recession, small businesses accounted for about 60 percent of the roughly 5.7 million jobs lost, according to BLS figures.Our ruling:Eric Cantor said small business create 70 percent of the jobs in the U.S.Data from the Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that statement is correct when talking about the new jobs created in the private sector, which provides the majority of the jobs in the U.S.We rate the claim True.
In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A photo often shared on social media purportedly shows an electric bus driving into a "charging and power station" in the early 1900s. shared  The picture shows an authentic bus charging station operated by the London Electrobus Company during that company's short existence between 1906 and 1909. A version of this photo appears in the Getty Images archives. version As reported by The Economist in 2007, these charging stations were not plug-in stations as we know them today, but instead were facilities in which old batteries were swapped for fresh ones: reported The electrobus needed 1.5 tonnes of lead-acid batteries to carry its 34 passengers. It could travel 60km (38 miles) on one charge. So at lunchtime the buses went to a garage in Victoria and drove up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones. It all took three minutes.  An ad for the company indicated that they had two charging and power stations for electric buses located at 1 Earl Street and 45 Horseferry Road in London. Here is another close-up photo of one such "electrobus" from 1907: An ad  By several reports, the buses were a hit, thanks to their reduced noise and smoother ride. In debuting their first bus in 1906, the directors of the company said that they "confidently anticipate that the petrol omnibus, young as it is, will shortly be an obsolete vehicle, so far as urban traffic is concerned." reports said It was not to be. The company was beset by allegations of fraud during its effort to go public on the London Stock Exchange in 1908. As described in The Economist, the company had been duped by a team of con artists: described The firm was buying rights to a patent for 20,000 (7.5m, or $15m, in today's money) from the Baron de Martigny. But the patent was old and had nothing to do with battery buses. It was a scam. Investors asked for their money back, and the firm had to return 80,000. The investors would have been even less impressed had they known the true identity of the "Baron", who was a Canadian music-hall artist. Martigny was only the front man. The mastermind behind this and a clutch of subsequent scams was Edward Lehwess, a German lawyer and serial con-artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. After this initial fiasco, the London Electrobus Company struggled to raise money. But Lehwess had set up a network of front companies to siphon off its funds. Chief among these was the Electric Vehicle Company of West Norwood, which built the buses. The company collapsed entirely in 1909. Because, however, the photo is in several archives and the buses and their charging stations are documented in newspaper accounts from that time, the claim is  "Electrobus Makes Debut on Streets of London." The San Francisco Call, 27 May 1906, p. 19. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120381891/electrobus-makes-debut-on-streets-of/. "How Crooks Stalled the Rise of Electric Cars for 100 Years." New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531420-600-how-crooks-stalled-the-rise-of-electric-cars-for-100-years/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023. "The London Electrobus Company Limited." The Guardian, 27 Apr. 1908, p. 9. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120388804/london-electrobus-1908/. "What Is This That Roareth Thus?" The Economist, https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2007/09/08/what-is-this-that-roareth-thus. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023. 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 August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians.  shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!!   Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19.  shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent.  database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness  like COVID-19  is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace.  "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?"
 Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian."
  Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion."
  9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion."
  14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion."
  24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?"
  Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights."
  December 2016. On 5 May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a fisherman holding a furry trout was posted to the web site of a local Wisconsin news station: photograph  Wanted to share a rather remarkable catch I had this afternoon. I was fishing the Menomonee River where some trout were packed into a bottleneck. I caught a few and nothing was out of the ordinary until I reeled this one in. I have never seen anything like it. I contacted a local wildlife official and they referred to it as a rare fur-bearing trout. They went on to explain that this was an extreme case of Saprolegnia, or cotton mold. Apparently old Great Lakes legends spoke of these as a uniquely evolved trout species that existed only in the deepest, coldest parts of the lakes and needed the fur to stay warm. I doubt it will make Cabella's non-traditional mount wall but I'm still excited to reel in a genuine Wisconsin legend! You have my permission to share and use this photo in any form you'd like. You can credit George Weber. Im a 41 year old carpenter and live in Wauwatosa. The image was picked up by several web sites such as Unexplained Mysteries and Cult of Weird and soon prompted an Internet debate about the existence of furry trout.  Unexplained Mysteries Cult of Weird Although there is no species of fish called "furry trout," a genus of freshwater mold (also called cotton mold) known as Saprolegnia does grow on diseased fish and lends them a somewhat furred appearance. But unlike the picture of the fish seen in the above-displayed photograph, this mold typically grows in patches and doesn't resemble fluffy white fur: resemble   So if this fish isn't suffering from Saprolegnia, then is this a real furry trout?   Stories about fur-bearing trout have been circulating for years, but that mythical creature still exists only in the imaginary realm. One common form of the myth is that the species came about as the result of a hair tonic spill in the Arkansas river, while another theory holds that this furry fish evolved to grow a thick coat in order to survive in the cold waters of Alaska: theory Some of those tall tales of the West are partly true, no matter how ridiculous they sound. As noted in the first installment of Roaming Wyoming, jackalope may be fake, but science does support the existence of rabbits that may look like they have horns. Is there a factual basis behind the story of the fur-bearing trout? So far, not one has been found. Just plenty of good-natured humor. The fur-bearing trout, also called the furry fish, beaver trout, or (probably jokingly) the sabled salmon, is said to live wherever water becomes cold enough to warrant a warm winter coat. This includes all of Canada, and most of the far northern states of the United States (including Wyoming). The most publicized encounter with the fur-bearing trout appeared in a 1929 issue of Montana Wildlife magazine, the official publication of the Montana State Fish and Game Department. Mr. J.H. Hicken of Whitefish, Montana, told his story in colorful detail. Mr. Hicken snagged a furry fish at a lake in Glacier National Park where the water was so cold it was below the freezing point. But, "Nature has taken care of her own by providing the fish with a thick coat of fur," Mr. Hicken remarked. He did add that since the fish are so cold, "the change of temperature from this water to atmosphere is so great that the fish explodes upon being taken from the water, and fur and skin come off in one perfect piece, making it available for commercial purposes, and leaving the body of the fish for refrigerator purposes or eating, as desired." Real furry trout do not exist, but these fictional creatures can sometimes be spotted mounted on the walls of hunting lodges and museums. According to The Beasts That Hide from Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals, one of the most famous examples of the furry trout was hanging in the Royal Museum of Scotland until it was revealed to be a hoax. A local taxidermist admitted that he had covered the fish with white rabbit fur: famous  While we can't definitively say if this Wisconsin fisherman covered his fish in rabbit fur, it's clear that this catch has more in common with a widely spread hoax than it does with freshwater mold. Public education advocates gave a collective sigh of relief on April 28. Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 2015 state budget that day, and that action gave them hope that school systems might be able to ease up on the worst of the belt-tightening measures. Unpaid furlough days. Larger class sizes. Shorter school years. State austerity cuts to public education started in 2003 --- well before the Great Recession -- and they are not ending. But this year, they total $746.6 million, and that to educators, who can do the math, looked better than the $1 billion-plus-a-year cuts in each of the five prior years. We have been through tough times since the Great Recession started, Deal said during a candidate forum that was part of the annual meeting of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators foundation on September 15th. But just how tough? The governor told the crowd that it has taken until this year for overall state revenues to return to the levels they were in 2007. (The National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the countrys longest recession since World War II lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, although surveys show many people believe it has lasted much longer.) Given all the debate about state budget cuts through the years -- especially in education  -- we decided to run Deals statement through the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to the Deal campaign as we always do for supporting evidence. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Talaber said Deal was relying on information from the Governors Office of Planning and Budget. OPB reports shows that 2007 was a fiscal high water mark for the state. Taxes on everything from personal and corporate income to gasoline and alcohol hit $17.8 billion that year, up $1.3 billion from 2006. Those same documents show that as the national and Georgia economies sank, so did state revenues. At the low point --- which was the fiscal year that ran from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 -- total tax collection were about $14.5 billion -- or $3.3 billion off the peak. It wasnt until Fiscal 2014, which ended June 30 of this year, that total state tax collections were back to -- and slightly above -- 2007 levels, budget documents show. Tax collections for 2014 were $17.9 billion -- or about $100 million over 2007 levels. The governor is right on the money on this one. We rate Deals statement as True. Less than two weeks into the 2015-16 school year, Milwaukee voucher school Daughters of the Father Christian Academy closed its doors, sending the families of about 150 kids on a scramble to find a new school. In the wake of the closing -- triggered by a state Department of Public Instruction order questioning the qualifications of school administrators -- Democratic opponents of vouchers cited it as evidence that the program needed better oversight. Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) tweeted: GOP voucher school that closed after 9 days this year collected $5.4 million in taxpayer subsidies since first opening. Is she right? About the program Voucher schools are private schools, usually religiously affiliated, that receive taxpayer dollars to pay for the tuition of lower-income students. As part of the 2015-17 state budget, the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker raised the limit on how many students statewide can participate in the program. The program, which began in Milwaukee, had been extended statewide two years earlier. About 26,900 Milwaukee students are enrolled in voucher schools, according to the Department of Public Instruction and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. In addition, there are about 1,700 students in Racine and 1,000 statewide who were part of the program in the 2014-15 school year. The Milwaukee program cost about $191 million. Other schools statewide cost an additional $22 million Supporters say voucher schools give parents a valuable choice of where to send their children, particularly where local public schools may be low-performing. Critics say the voucher program is a drain on public school budgets and the private schools do not always adhere to the same educational standards. What about Daughters of the Father? Shillings claim seems pretty straightforward. But her tweet can read as saying the school had received the money and then quickly closed. In other words, that the school was new and the $5.4 million was immediately lost to taxpayers. But thats not exactly what happened. Daughters of the Father first opened its doors in 2007-08 and had just begun its ninth year. Records show it had 153 students in 2014-15 and through the states voucher program received about $7,200 that year for each student. That tallies out to more than $1.1 million. The school ran into financial trouble that led to canceled bus service at the end of the school year. In aMay 14, 2015 press releaseexecutive director Doris Pinkley blamed lower-than-expected enrollment. After a change in the schools leadership, the state Department of Public Instruction determined the school had failed to comply with statutory and administrative rules governing participation in the voucher program. The department issued an orderAug. 4, 2015banning the school from participating in the voucher program because the school did not have a qualified administrator on staff. The principal had only an expired substitute teacher's license. The $5.4 million represents the total the school has received since its inception. In all, the state has terminated 57 schools from the voucher program since the 2003-04 academic year, although some of them were schools that ceased operating on their own. Those schools had been paid a total of $176 million. Our rating Shilling tweeted that the Daughters of the Father Christian Academy closed after 9 days this year collected $5.4 million in taxpayer subsidies since first opening. The school did not just open its doors, receive $5.4 million and quickly close. The school had operated for eight years. The money represents the amount received since it opened. We rate the claim Mostly True. Both sides have launched attack ads in the race for Georgias 6th Congressional District. Recently, Democrats accused Republican Karen Handel of wallowing in administrative bloat. (We rated thatMostly False). Now, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan,has an adthat paints Democrat Jon Ossoff as beholden more to people in California than voters in Georgia. It is running in the Atlanta area as part of the super PACs $6.7 million independent expenditure. Shot against iconic backdrops of San Francisco, actors, each one the most stereotypical of left coast stereotypes, speak cheerfully about Ossoff. A young woman with a floppy hat and a big Cut the military now button says, Theres a reason Bay Area liberals have contributed more to Jon Ossoffs campaign than people in Georgia. Hes one of us. Another young woman stands in front of the Golden Gate Bridge and says San Francisco hearts Ossoff. With a coy toss of her ponytails, she makes a heart with her hands and presses them to her chest. Set aside the political snark and you have this factual claim: San Francisco Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia. Is it so? The Congressional Leadership Fund said they got their information from theMercury News, a prominent local paper. AnApril 12article said, Ossoff reported 2,628 individual donations from people living in the nine Bay Area counties, significantly more than from all of Georgia  although of a smaller total value. Heres how the numbers shook out at the end of March when the data behind the article was collected. (The dollar total for Bay Area residents wasnt in the article. We calculated it based on the same data.) State Number of donors Dollars (through March 31, 2017) Georgia 1,578 $600,141 California 5,822 $547,857 Bay Area 2,628 $290,229 (PolitiFact calculation) So first off, the article doesnt back up what the ad said, that people in the Bay Area gave more to Ossoff than people in Georgia. In fact, as the original article noted, Georgians gave more money to Ossoff than people from California. As for people in the Bay Area, we found that they gave half as much compared to voters in Georgia. (More people from the Bay Area contributed than from Georgia, but thats not what the ad claimed.) Of course, its also important to note that the ad relies on information that is now nearly two months old. In truth, theres only so much more to learn. The last public report was on April 16. With help from staff at the Center for Responsive Politics, we updated the totals. Georgia remained in the lead, by about $640,000 compared to about $321,000 from the Bay area. Its also worth noting that donations under $200 are not required to be itemized under Federal Election Commission rules, meaning we dont know where those donors live. That accounts for about two-thirds of Ossoffs donations through the end of March. The Conservative Leadership Fund is running an ad that says Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia. In fact, based on data available through mid April, people in Georgia have given Ossoff twice as much money as people in the Bay Area. The one trace of accuracy is that Bay Area donors outnumber Ossoffs Georgia donors, but the ad failed to describe the donations in those terms. We rate this claim False. In November 2019, a scam was spread via Facebook purporting to offer free 24-packs of Bud Light brand beer in celebration of the company's anniversary to users who clicked particular links and then followed the instructions found there:  The scam provided links which led to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Bud Light) displaying a Bud Light logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing the pages and writing "thank you" in the comments field:  The free Bud Light offer is a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in the amount of $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar dollar figure. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term, "mortgage refinance stimulus."  Examples of some of the Facebook ads.  The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. economic impact payments child tax credit payments However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. GovHomePrograms.com We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could help future homeowners to buy a house or current homeowners to refinance a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. terms of service privacy policy RateMarketplace.com One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. EnhancedRefiNow.com As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. American Savings Tips Wise American Solution Clever American Choices New American Community US Relief StraightFix Homeowners of America Our Best American Life spent In other words, at least millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram.  The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.  The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Helpers Today Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. advertising information advertising violations After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." at the bottom We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: 5. "Government" , "Biden" , "New Administration" , "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at. Homeowners Assistance Fund still being given out One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" read A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check.  Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress.  Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist.  These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.  Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, its hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and thats a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. study government grant scams a scam alert about stimulus checks We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." AARP In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.