Did Trump receive a military that was weakened by the previous administration of Obama?
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020.
Claim:  The plastic strip embedded in U.S. bank notes enable the Feds to tell how much money you have on you.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This past weekend, a friend visiting our house told us that the anti-counterfeiting strip put in newly printed paper money can be used to determine how much cash you are carrying.  She said that the ever-present "they" at the airport have a machine that can determine how much cash you have on your person or in your luggage, and if you are carrying a sufficiently large amount of cash, you will be detained by the police and interrogated until you confess your guilt as a drug smuggler.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I did not get this in an e-mail but my bank teller in Kirksville, MO told me this one.  Evidently there is an urban legend floating around that the new "security strip" in the new $20's can be read by satellites with the implication being the Govt. can beam a satellite on you and eventually, when all the bills in circ. will have these, be able to tell how much $ you are carrying around.  This teller told me that she has had customers come in requesting "no new $20s" for this reason! We had a good laugh about it and we both agreed that the Govt. is going to be sorely disappointed if they turned this hypothetical satellite on us! Origins:  The ongoing effort to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters has led to the inclusion of a number of security features in U.S. currency. One countermeasure in particular has come to be the focus of a widely-believed bit lore: the embedded inscribed security thread. According to scuttlebutt, the purpose of the thread isn't really to make it more difficult for the ill-intentioned to introduce   worthless currency into circulation by fooling its recipients into thinking it genuine, but instead to allow the government to know exactly how much money anyone is carrying at any particular moment. With the use of special scanners, or possibly a beam from a distant satellite, the Feds can quickly count the value of all bank notes being carried on or about one's person and thus track how much money is entering or leaving the country, and with whom. This knowledge, says the behind-the-hand whisperings, is used to finger drug dealers and smugglers. The rumor is bunk. The strip's sole purpose is the foiling of counterfeiters. It, along with a number of other security features worked into the nation's bank notes, make it far harder on the criminal element to produce phony bills that will be mistaken for the real thing. Other features include the microprinting of "The United States of America" within the rim surrounding the portraits on bills, a watermark displayed elsewhere on the bill of the figure in the portrait, and optically variable ink (OVI) which changes from green to black in the number in the lower right-hand corner of the bill when viewed from different angles. As for the suspect strip, it is made of polyester and is inscribed with the denomination of the bill. Nothing about the composition of these strips renders them detectable by scanner or satellite. In 2004, the false belief attaching to this security feature was enhanced by the claim of these bands containing RFID tags. As technology advanced, so did the rumor, leading many to microwave their $20 bills into ashen submission by falling for the canard that nuking their currency would disable these  RFID tags transmitters. Yet the belief about governmental detection of concealed sums via a subterfuge worked into the currency even predates the polyester security threads. In the 1980s, those similarly worried about being tracked by Big Brother fretted over the ink with which bank notes were printed, muttering to themselves that the "magnetic ink" they believed to have been used rendered the bills somehow magnetic and thus detectable by machine. Back then, the concern was more that this magnetic money would serve to pinpoint the location of the person carrying it rather than it give away how much of it was being ported, but it is another form of the same belief. One confirmation that nothing in and of itself is detectable about the polyester strips embedded in bank notes arises out of the news about security technologies now used at some U.S. airports, including Chicago's O'Hare. Were caches of greenbacks already being ferreted out via their embedded threads, descriptions of the BodySearch scanner, a device that uses special "backscatter" X-rays to produce images of items that might be concealed under passengers' clothing, would not always impart the glad tidings that this gizmo reveals the presence of currency as well as narcotics, plastic explosives, and plastic weapons.  While in the main, the "sneakily embedded technology allows for the surreptitious tracking of people or their assets" rumor attaches to currency and blames the government for the supposed spying, the belief also carries to other items and points fingers at other parties.  [Kamradt, 2003] Some students have not picked up their new ID cards through the re-carding project, which ends today, because of a rumor that there is a locator chip inside the IDs so Purdue can track their whereabouts. "To dispel the transponder rumors, I was closely involved in developing the requirements for production of the ID cards and I can ensure students that no secret electronic devices were embedded in these cards," said Terry Schroeder, project manager for the Purdue ID Re-carding Project. "From my understanding, most of the group that met to discuss this issue (as a result of distributed flyers) were wearing aluminum foil beanies."  [Mulkins, 2000] I heard that a person carrying a large number of $100 bills, going through the PikePass readers, could be detected and the exact amount of money determined. The authorities are using PikePass to detect drug dealers and then confiscating the money, even confiscating the money of innocent persons. (PikePass is a prepaid toll device containing a battery and a radio-frequency modulator placed on the windshield of a vehicle.  As a car bearing one travels under a transmitter overhanging a turnpike lane, the device intercepts the signal being broadcast and returns a signal exclusive to that particular PikePass customer. The signal is read, and the toll is subtracted from the customer's account.) PikePass Whereas student ID cards and prepaid toll signalers do at least have a whiff of the enigmatic to their technology, which works to encourage belief that some of that incomprehensibility might be of nefarious intent (we mistrust what we don't understand, after all), this next expression of the rumor is even farther afield: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I recently received an email telling me that I need to take the labels off my canned good and mark the bare cans with a marker, or at least black out the UPCs. Why? Well, it seems the government has helicopters equipped with scanners that can read the UPCs of the food you have stored. Ostensibly, the government is doing this so they can confiscate food for redistribution in the up coming Y2K breakdown of society. When asked to verify, the poster informed me she was told this by a 'family friend" who flies one of these scanner-equipped helicopters. Of course he doesn't want to be named for his own safety, but he risked telling his dear friends because he loves them. While most folks will laugh off the thought of their soup cans spying on them, the same cannot be said of the belief that their long green is being counted by surveillance satellites sent into orbit by a government intent upon keeping tabs on its citizens  a great many appear to believe that.  Barbara "watch your money, don't worry about your money watching you" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a first-season episode of television's The X Files ("E.B.E.," original air date 18 February 1994), a member of a group that believes the government is up to any number of monstrous conspiracies takes a $20 bill from Agent Scully, holds it up to the light, rips the left side off, and pulls out its security strip, saying, "They use this magnetic strip to track you. Whenever you go through a metal detector at an airport, they know exactly how much you're carrying." Additional information:        Inscribed Security Thread   (Secret Service)        Money Design Features   (Secret Service)        The Redesigned $20 Note   (Bureau of Engraving)   Last updated:  19 May 2011   Garber, Andrew.  "New Airport Gadgets Strip, Sniff, Scan."  The Seattle Times.  23 October 2001  (p. A1).   Kamradt, Kori.  "Officials Dismiss Rumors About New IDs."  The [Purdue University] Exponent .  14 November 2003.   Mulkins, Phil.  "PikePass Can't Count Dope Dealers' Money."  Tulsa World.  28 July 2000.   Webb, Tom.  "U.S. Currency to Get Makeover."  The Denver Post.  14 July 1994  (p. A4).   Zane, Maitland.  "Counterfeit-Proof Cash Makes Its Debut."  The San Francisco Chronicle.  26 July 1991  (p. A1).   The Associated Press.  "O'Hare Officials Install Scanner, Hoping to Replace Body Searches."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  23 November 1999  (p. B2). New Jersey has long held the title of most densely populated state in the country.But the Garden State has an even more prestigious ranking, according to a recent advertisement placed by Choose: New Jersey in the Wall Street Journal.The July 30 ad reads in part: New Jersey has a rich tradition of bringing the world some very big thinking. In fact, we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world, making ours one of the most highly skilled and educated workforces available.Thats quite a claim for any state to make so for this fact check, we are focusing only on the statistic about scientists and engineers. And it seems Choose: New Jerseys calculations add up.Lets look at how Choose: New Jersey, a nonprofit group that markets the state to attract businesses and jobs, came up with their statistic. Choose: New Jersey is part of the Partnership For Action, the Business Action Center and state Economic Development Authority.Melissa Hensley, chief marketing officer for the group, said the group compared geographic and employment data from four organizations: the Census Bureaus American Community Survey, the CIAs World Fact Book 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the National Science Board.All of it came down to an apples-to-apples comparison to the extent possible between a state and country, Hensley said.The Census Bureaus Population Reference Bureau listed New Jersey as having 260,655 scientists and engineers in 2010. That number divided by New Jerseys total land area of 8,722.58 square miles equals 29.88 scientists and engineers  the highest number among all states and a list of 37 countries.I read somewhere that New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S., so I guess you could extrapolate from that that there are more scientists per square mile than anywhere else, Brian Bell, a spokesman for the California Institute of Technology said in an e-mail. Although Massachusetts might give N.J. a run for its money. California has lots of smart people, but we have huge deserts and lots of empty space too.Bells guess is accurate.Massachusetts has the second highest number of scientists and engineers, at 23.47 per square mile, followed by Maryland, at 20.97. California is 10th on the list.A similar calculation was used for other countries by measuring the number of researchers  a more broad term that includes scientists and engineers  per 1,000 of employed people. Breaking that figure down and comparing it against country size, we determined that Israel tops the international list, with 5.10 scientists and engineers per square mile (Choose: New Jerseys calculations were adjusted to consider countries in square miles instead of kilometers). Rounding out the top three are Japan, at 4.46, and Belgium, at 3.16.If both lists are put together, New Jersey and 11 other U.S. states lead the world in number of engineers and scientists per square mile before Israel joins the rankings.The numbers reflect what we regularly hear from businesses considering locating or expanding in New Jersey  that if a company is looking to benefit from a high concentration of very skilled talent, New Jersey is a prime location, Hensley said in response to our findings.Our rulingChoose: New Jersey said in an advertisement that we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world, making the states workforce one of the most skilled and highly educated.Choose: New Jersey used a variety of data to reach its conclusion, from the U.S. Census Bureau to the CIA World Fact Book and more. PolitiFact New Jersey vetted the calculations and found that the Garden State does top the world in number of scientists and engineers per square mile: 29.8.We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 11, 2020, a Twitter user posted a new permutation of a conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems, the technology firm that provided voting systems in multiple U.S. jurisdictions in the November 2020 election, and which has also been the target of a disinformation campaign falsely claiming its systems were used to perpetrate widespread voter fraud. technology firm falsely claiming One of the narratives in the election fraud conspiracy theory holds that voting machines provided by Dominion switched votes from ballots cast for U.S. President Donald Trump to his challenger, Joe Biden, who is now president-elect. Trump has refused to accept his electoral loss, and has perpetuated the lie that Dominion machines were used en masse to flip votes. perpetuated Hence, more than a month after Biden was declared winner of the election, conspiracy theories continued to flourish. In this case, a Twitter user falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by a member of Biden family, namely his nephew. But the tweet in question is nothing but a patchwork of misleading screenshots and assumptions, based on people sharing a common surname. We cropped the user's name out below: falsely claimed   The screenshots in the meme above contain what appear to be the professional biographies of two men, Stephen Owens and R. Kevin Owens, neither of which mentions Dominion. The meme included in the tweet points to President-elect Biden's sister and campaign manager Valerie Biden Owens, with the alleged clincher being that Stephen Owens, a co-founder of Staple Street Capital, an investment firm that owns 75% stake in Dominion, shares a surname. However, "Owens" is a common last name, so that hardly serves as proof at all. co-founder owns Valerie and her husband, John T. Owens, have three children, none named Stephen. A spokesperson for Staple Street confirmed in an email to Snopes that Stephen Owens has no relation to the Biden family. three children And although the meme includes mention of R. Kevin Owens, an attorney who is related to Valerie's husband, we see no connection between this person and Dominion. related In other iterations of this conspiracy theory, the voting systems company has been falsely linked to deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as various Democratic politicians, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the Clinton Foundation, the charitable foundation run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hugo Chavez including Trump's own administration has undermined his post-election disinformation blitz by stating the November 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." undermined "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a Nov. 12, 2020, statement. statement Updated to note that a Staples Street representative confirmed Stephen Owens isn't related to the Bidens. In late August 2020, readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed falsely that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rigged legislation to help her husband benefit financially from selling off property belonging to the U.S. Postal Service.   The meme's text reads: This is Paul Pelosi (aka, Nancys Husband). He owns Financial Leasing Services LLC, a San Francisco based Real Estate and Venture Capitalist Firm. His net worth is 120 million. Why is this important? His wife sits on the House Appropriations committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service ( and others). Why is this important? Easy. She passed a bill to sell off 9 billion dollars ( yes 9 BILLION WITH a [smile emoji] worth of FEDERALLY OWNED POST OFFICE PROPERTY AND AWARDED THE THE CONTRACT TO, none other, Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husbands firm. Why is this important? The commissions rate was set at 9%. That is almost a 1 BILLION dollar contract. If thats not enough, lets look at the new stimulus package. Nancy wants 25 billion in the stimulus package for the postal service where only 1.25 billion goes to making sure voting ballots are legit. The other 23.5 billion is going to upgrading the facilities so they are more attractive to potential buyers for her husbands firm. Corrupt to the core. It's true that Speaker Pelosi's husband Paul Pelosi owns and operates Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment company. Financial disclosures in 2018, the most recent available, show Speaker Pelosi's estimated net worth to be $114 million. owns estimated But Speaker Pelosi doesn't sit on the House Appropriations Committee. Her spokesman Drew Hammill told us by email she hasn't been on the committee since 2002. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a bill to sell off $9 billion-worth of federally-owned U.S. Postal Service property exists. doesn't sit It's true that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would, if signed into law, provide $25 billion to shore up the Postal Service and rectify delays in mail delivery service, but it doesn't allocate $1.25 billion toward "making sure voting ballots are legit." The funding was originally on the table during negotiations over a coronavirus stimulus package, but those negotiations broke down. Whether the stand-alone Postal Service funding bill will be signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely. bill originally unlikely The meme seems to be a rehash of a similar one that dates back to 2013  except in that case the subject of the claim was Richard Blum, the husband of U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who like Pelosi hails from San Francisco. similar one Mikkelson, David.  "Did Dianne Feinstein Get Her Husbands Company a USPS Contract?"   Snopes. 23 April 2013. Rayome, Alison DeNisco.  "What the New USPS Bill Means for the Next Stimulus Package."   CNET.  24 August 2020. Pramuk, Jacob.  "House Passes Bill to Put $25 Billion Into USPS and Reverse Changes Amid Uproar."   CNBC.  22 August 2020. Henney, Megan.  "How Much Money is Nancy Pelosi Worth?"   Yahoo! News.  17 July 2020. Wildermuth, John.  "Pelosi's Husband Prefers a Low Profile."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 January 2007. Ronda Storms isNO Fiscal Conservative, claims a simple flier pushed by Storms opponent in the Republican primary for Hillsborough County property appraiser.The mailer from incumbent Rob Turner highlights property tax increases over Storms six-year tenure as a county commissioner as well as a notorious courthouse project that occurred during her time in the state Senate.As a Senator she voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. We Cant Afford Any More Storms.Ah, the Taj. The not-too-distant origins of Floridas finest courthouse serve as a cautionary tale about last-minute lawmaking and unscrutinized government spending.Is it fair to say Storms voted to fund the new courthouse of the 1st District Court of Appeal?Lets dive in.In her 2010investigative storyabout the facility,Tampa Bay Timessenior correspondent Lucy Morgan characterized the courthouse as a $48 million behemoth in which each judge will get a 60-inch LCD flat screen television in chambers (trimmed in mahogany), a private bathroom (featuring granite countertops) and a kitchen (complete with microwave and refrigerator).In a year of layoffs and cutbacks across the state, these touches of elegance were not appreciated.So how did the project eke past officials and watchdogs (press corps included)?Morgan compiled adetailed timelinestretching from a May 2004 meeting of the 1st DCA judges, in which they said they had outgrown their 23-year-old building, to December 2010, when the fresh, controversial structure was ready for move-in.A key moment in the story happened on the last day of the 2007 legislative session, a typically hectic time ripe for last-minute, undetected budget maneuvering. Tampa Sen. Victor Cristintroduced an amendmentto a 142-page transportation bill that contained a bond issue for $33.5 million for the courthouses construction. No senators asked about the bond issue, and it passed on a voice vote.The bill itself,HB 985, passed by a vote of 37-2. Storms, like most everyone,voted yes. It passed the House, then led by Marco Rubio, and was signed into law by Gov. Charlie Crist.Storms, interviewed by PolitiFact Florida, said she thought she was voting to refurbish a dilapidated courthouse.It certainly wasnt to build mahogany, she said. Anybody who was voting at that time was not voting for the Taj Mahal. What we were voting to do was taking care of the 1st DCA.Storms and Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, became two of theprojects most vocal criticsin the months following theTimesstory. At one point in a committee hearing, Storms quipped, We should insist on our pound of flesh and make them put the air at 80 in the summer and at 50 in the winter.As an aside, Storms said she probably voted against Crists amendment, which contained the bonding language, on an unrecorded voice vote out of a personal philosophy to protest unvetted, vendor-driven language affixed to bills in sessions closing days. (There is no record of voice votes, so we can't tell how Storms voted. )Fasano told us Turners attack is just not honest despite Storms' technical support of the transportation bill.You might as well blame every legislator that voted for it, he said, which would total 105 members.Thats the point, says Warren Weathers, who works for Turner. He recalled Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, saying legislators share blame with the judges who pushed for the fine finishes.We didnt say she built it, Weathers said.Crist (of no relation to Floridas former governor) defended Storms in an interview.Ronda approving the budget for the court system and the construction budget for a new courthouse has nothing to do with the courts design, engineering and building, he said. It would be like saying her approval of the DMV budget holds her accountable for somebodys else driving record.Crists position is understandable. He says groups aligned with the tea party are using the Taj Mahal -- a moniker he hates -- against him in his re-election campaign for Hillsborough County Commission.Our rulingTurner says in a mailer that Storms voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. She indeed cast a vote for a transportation bill that included funding for the courthouse, that much is true. But there is some additional information we find missing from this attack.Namely, the courthouse money was inserted at the last minute into a larger bill without much explanation. The money, as far as most lawmakers knew, was to build a courthouse, not an opulent one. Once details of the Taj became known, Storms openly criticized the plan.We rate this claim Mostly True. The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text:  In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates  The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216  a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009. In May 2019, Delta Air Lines came under scrutiny after a photograph emerged on social media that appeared to show a poster encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on video game consoles rather than union dues. Eoin Higgins, an editor and writer at the left-leaning web site Common Dreams, tweeted the photograph on 9 May. The poster contained the following text: "Union dues cost around $700 a year. A new video game system with the latest hits sounds like fun. Put your money towards that instead of paying dues to the union." The poster featured the Delta logo and the URL of the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com: lol fuck off @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG @Delta pic.twitter.com/fMNOeW9uFG  Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019   The union in question, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), posted photographs of similar fliers encouraging Delta employees to spend their money on watching baseball and football instead of becoming union members: Oh wow. Theres another one. And its just as bad. Really, @Delta? #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/JsSMg1aBRb  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 9, 2019 May 9, 2019  Safe to say @Delta didnt hit a home run with this one either. Three strikes and youre out. Let em have it, Twitter. #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY @Delta #GameOverDelta pic.twitter.com/veEk8rvtXY  Machinists Union (@MachinistsUnion) May 10, 2019 May 10, 2019  These photographs prompted multiple inquiries from Snopes readers about whether the fliers were authentic and whether Delta was itself responsible for producing them. A spokesperson for Delta confirmed to Snopes that the airline had indeed created all of the flyers mentioned above, including the "video game" one, and that Delta was also behind the website Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com, which discourages employees  at times in provocative terms  from becoming IAM members: Don'tRiskItDon'tSignIt.com   In a statement, the Delta spokesperson wrote: "The direct relationship we have with our employees is at the very core of our strong culture and it has enabled continuous investments in Delta people. Our employees have the best total compensation in the industry, including the most lucrative profit sharing program in the world. They want and deserve the facts and we respect our employees right to decide if a union is right for them. Delta has shared many communications, which on the whole make clear that deciding whether or not to unionize should not be taken lightly." In a press release on 9 May, the IAM criticized what it called Delta's "union-busting propaganda," writing: press release "Delta Air Lines all-out assault on their employees legally-protected right to unionize with the Machinists Union is confirmation that our campaign to bring the benefits of IAM-representation to more than 40,000 Delta ground workers and flight attendants is succeeding ... Delta has resorted to defaming and spewing lies and misrepresentations about the IAM. They also continually display anti-IAM propaganda in the workplace. These are all hallmark signs of how well the IAM campaigns are doing and how scared Delta is of their employees having a voice in their careers." International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  "Press Release -- IAM Campaigns Strike a Nerve With Delta Bosses."
  9 May 2019. Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun.  highest paid activist actually an actress firing a machine gun In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media: participate  Thunberg did not ask China to "give up" chopsticks.  This rumor has been circulating since at least January 2020. Although it has taken several forms, we've yet to encounter any social media posts pointing to when or where Thunberg allegedly made this request.  One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks.  Geoloong no mention Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg. If this was a genuine quote, you'd expect this story would have been shared (at least initially) by Thunberg's supporters.  Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees. Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year adverse environmental impact If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com. Joe.ks.com. Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation.  implemented a 5% tax BBC News reported: reported The Chinese government is introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests. It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of trees and bamboo plants. The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks. estimated NPR.  "Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit."
  23 September 2019. BBC.  "China Introduces Chopsticks Tax."
  22 March 2006. Lee, Don.  "Chinas Chopstick Tax Seems Dim to Some."
  Los Angeles Times.  24 March 2006. Nuwer, Rachel.  "Disposable Chopsticks Strip Asian Forests."
  The New York Times.  24 October 2011. Claim:   An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides. Status:  Multiple:  The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children:  False.  The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round:  True.  The proposed study was canceled in April 2005:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs to Test Toxic Chemicals Dear friend, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to launch an outrageous new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. The study entitled CHEERS (Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Please take a moment to follow this link and join tens of thousands of citizens in petitioning the EPA to terminate this study prior to its proposed launch in early 2005. More information, related newspaper headlines and petition here:  https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Please also forward this message. Origins:  Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth. While the proposed investigation was real, the nature of the test subjects was misunderstood, leading to those who heard of to arrive at some erroneous  conclusions. Through a research project known as the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to gather data about pesticide and household chemical exposure in very young children. The study was set to begin in the summer of 2005 in Jacksonville, Florida, and would have entailed monitoring 60 infants (newborn to just shy of 13 months old) for a period of two years. However, while the e-mail left readers with the impression that poverty-stricken families were for the price of a camcorder and $970 heartlessly offering up their tots as lab rats, the little ones to be deliberately sickened by cruel scientists intent upon advancing human knowledge even at the price of 60 babies potentially dealt life-long serious physical ailments by exposure to dreadful chemicals, the truth was quite different. One of the reasons the EPA chose Duval County, Florida, as the site of this research had to do with year-round pesticide use in that area. The children who would have been the subjects of the study live there. In other words, if all the clipboard-wielding EPA people stayed home and the project were canceled before it began, these same children would be exposed to these same pesticides and in the same amounts, due to nothing more sinister than where their parents chose to settle and raise their families. The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA. Given that these youngsters were coming into contact with noxious chemicals because of where they lived, the EPA saw a good opportunity to examine the effects of such compounds on small children by studying subjects drawn from this particular group. CHEERS would have tracked 60 of these little ones over the course of two years, measuring not only their exposure to pesticides but also to ordinary household chemicals (cleaning products and the like). The parents of kids taking part in the study would have had to keep very careful logs on which products were used and in which amounts in their homes. They would also have been required to videotape their tykes being studied and maintain logs of the little ones' activities. For this, and for allowing researchers into the family domicile every few months to assess the children being observed and to examine the homes, these parents would have received a $970 stipend and would have been allowed at the end of the two years to keep the video cameras. Update: On 8 April 2005, the proposed study was canceled. As to why, Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said: Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study. I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. Additional information:       Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study  (EPA)        CHEERS Fact Sheet  (EPA)  Last updated:  31 August 2005    Sources:   Allison, Wes.  "Nelson Vows EPA Delay Over Pesticide Study."   St. Petersburg Times.  8 April 2005  (p. A6).    Eilperin, Juliet.  "Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study."   The Washington Post.  26 October 2004  (p. A3).    Kirkpatrick, David D.  "E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides."   The New York Times.  9 April 2005  (p. A15).   Associated Press.  "Pesticide Study with Children Delayed."  CNN.  12 November 2004. 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.