Every year, more than $40 million are leaving Missouri for the Lone Star State.
Do dollars slip from state to state? Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested as much in aradio adaired in Missouri as he framed his case for businesses there to slip away to Texas. In the ad, posted online Aug. 21, 2013, Perry said: Every year, more than $40 million are leaving Missouri for the Lone Star State. (He failed to say, 'Show Me' the money.) To our inquiry, Perry spokesman Josh Havens said the $40 million traces toan online application created byTravis H. Brown, CEO of a St. Louis public affairs and advocacy firm and author of the 2013 book,How Money Walks.Havens said clicking on Missouri on the app shows that between 1992 and 2010, more than $791 million was lost to the state of Texas. That equates to more than $40 million each year. We confirmed his figures on the Wealth Migration app, which indicates that Missouri lost an average of $1.38 billion in adjusted gross income from 1992 through 2010--with the net loss to Texas alone totaling $791.3 million.As definedby the Internal Revenue Service, adjusted gross income is a persons gross income minus adjustments. For most people, according to the app, adjusted gross income is the starting point in calculating their taxable income for federal tax purposes. At a glance, then, Perry's math seems to work. But is it accurate to say all those dollars annually leave Missouri for Texas? We failed to connect with Brown, but an analyst with the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which researches state and federal tax policy, told us the IRS annually makes available its data tallying changes in adjusted gross income across the country and state to state--also taking into account how many taxpayers have moved from one state to another since the previous years filings. For instance, the foundationsNick Kaspraksaid by phone, if a taxpayer in Missouri had adjusted gross income of $30,000 one year and then the next year filed a return from Texas showing $65,000 in such income, the IRS would record that as $30,000 moving to Texas--basing that on the adjusted gross income reported in Missouri in the first tax year. A foundation web page breaks down such IRS data for 1993 through 2010, the latest year of available data. Adjusted for inflation, according to the foundation, Texas netted $862 million in adjusted gross income from Missouri over the 17 years, or nearly $51 million a year on average. By email, Kasprak told us the net difference in raw dollars over the 17 years was $710 million, or an annual average of $42 million. This net shift in Texass favor exceeded $40 million in 11 of the 17 years, including every year from 2006 through 2010, as shown on a chart we generated. The year 2005 was the latest one in which there was less than a $40 million difference, according to the chart. The low point:  In 2001, the difference was less than $7.4 million. Source: Web interactive,State to State Migration Data,the Tax Foundation (accessed Aug. 29, 2013) Per Perrys statement, Kasprak said it would be helpful to clarify that the cited adjusted gross income figures refer to how much money was made by residents of Texas in their previous year living in Missouri. That is not the same, he said, as saying that those exact earnings moved to Texas. Its not as if these people are literally carrying sacks of money over the border, Kasprak said. The only thing that is literally true is that if you add up all income of people who moved from Missouri to Texas versus people who moved from Texas to Missouri, this is the net difference in the tax year prior to their moves. Another expert, Art Hall, director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, agreed by phone that Perrys statement reflects only what individuals earned in the state they departed, either Missouri or Texas. We dont know if they got a wage increase or wage cut when they moved to Texas or vice versa, Hall said. Regardless, Hall said he considers Perrys statement in line with the IRS data as adjusted for inflation by the foundation. Our ruling Perry said: Every year, more than $40 million are leaving Missouri for the Lone Star State. That assessment ties to IRS data on adjusted gross income for 1992 through 2010, but the results are more complex and admittedly clunky than this claim acknowledges. That is, Missouri residents who moved to Texas through those years earned more the year before they moved than all income-tax-filing Texas residents who moved to Missouri in those years. Still, adjusted for inflation, the annual difference averages about $50 million--more than Perrys unadjusted figure. Then again, this did not hold for every year. In six years--most recently 2005--there was less than a $40 million difference. On balance, we rate this claim as Half True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
The M-16, a rapid-fire, 5.56 mm assault rifle carried by thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War, grew out of efforts to develop a replacement for the standard M-1 Carbine used during World War II. The M-16 (originally designed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite as the AR-15) was constructed using plastics and alloys and was a much smaller and lighter weapon than its predecessors, one that fit in with the developing Vietnam-era strategy of less emphasis on long-range accuracy in favor of more easily-carried weapons with rapid rates of fire. M-16, Hundreds of thousands of M-16s were supplied to U.S. troops in the mid-1960s as US Army made the M-16 their standard rifle: Example:  [Morgan and Tucker, 1987] The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, soldiers noticed the toy company's logo embossed on the handgrip and complained. Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. However, the M-16, manufactured by the Colt Firearms Corporation (who bought the rights from Armalite in 1959), soon developed a reputation for unreliability, frequently jamming and fouling (especially when not kept clean, a next-to-impossible task in the dust and mud of Vietnam battlefields). Problems with the M-16 eventually achieved such prominence that a congressional inquiry was ordered, resulting in design changes, additional troop training, and other modifications that ameliorated many of the reliability issues U.S. troops were experiencing with the weapon: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered. This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam. The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment  including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles. A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. To the troops in the field, the original M-16 was new, it was small, it was light, it was made of plastic rather than wood, and it often performed poorly to boot. It was no surprise that many of them started expressing their dissatisfaction by referring to it derisively as a cheaply-made "toy," and that they associated it with the most prominent toy company of the time: Mattel, the Hawthorne, California, toy manufacturer famous for introducing the Barbie doll to the world: Mattel One of the sayings soldiers had about the M16 was, "You can tell it's Mattel" which was a toy company's slogan at the time  the gun had a lot of plastic parts, which can't stand up to the vibrations like wood can but it is cheap. The Mattel legend was undoubtedly fed by the fact that Mattel really did sell an  M-16 Marauder toy gun in the mid-1960s, a quite good reproduction of the actual weapon, complete with "realistic" sound effects:  M-16 Marauder     The sardonic joke about problem-plagued M-16s being toys morphed into a legend about their really having been produced by a toy company, with "proof" offered in the additional detail of soldier's spotting M-16 handgrips embossed with the Mattel logo. The redesign that improved the M-16's reliability was then attributed to a switch in manufacturers (to a "real" gun company) prompted by soldier complaints. Chivers, C.J. "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?"
The New York Times. 2 November 2009. Morgan, Hal and Tucker, Kerry. More Rumor!
New York: Penguin Books, 1987. ISBN 0-14-009720-1 (pp. 175-176). In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com  The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam. Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman questioned Democrats who want to raise the federal minimum wage and offered a flurry of statistics to help make his point. Speaking Sunday on ABC'sThis Week, Portman suggested that raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage could force employers to cut jobs. If you want to deal with income inequality, the No. 1 way to do it is to get people to work. That's what all the statistics show. About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. Of that group, by the way, less than .3 of 1 percent of Americans are both under poverty -- under the line of poverty and on minimum wage. So it's a lot of young people. About 50 percent of them are between 16 and 24 years old. For a lot of them, it's a part-time job. So what you don't want to do is raise the minimum wage to the point that you're actually losing jobs. That exchange includes a bunch of different statistics, but here well be checking this one: About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. We wont get into the question of what this means for minimum-wage policy here; for now, well just look at the numbers. To do so, we turned to a study published by Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the federal governments official chronicler of employment and wage data -- titled, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012. It was released on Feb. 26, 2013. The study found that a little under 3.6 million workers were paid either at or below the federal minimum wage. (The study did not look at whether workers were paid higher minimum wage rates set by their state, as many states have done.) To determine the percentage,we looked at the number of Americans employed. That number ranged between about 133 million and 134 million during 2012. If you divide the two numbers, it turns out that, by the official statistics, roughly 2.6 percent of all American workers were earning the minimum wage in 2012. Thats slightly higher than Portman indicated, but his estimate was definitely in the ballpark. That said, we do see a few caveats, none of which strike us as particularly troublesome for the accuracy of his comment. Portman said 2 percent of Americans, but to be entirely accurate, he really should have said 2 percent ofworkers. To figure out the percentage of Americans earning the minimum wage, we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau, whichestimatedthat the U.S. population in 2012 was 313,914,040. That would mean that minimum-wage workers accounted for just over 1 percent of Americans. That said, dividing by the number of Americans would not be a very useful number -- it includes a lot of people who arent old enough to work or who have retired. Portman referred to people who get paid the minimum wage. Actually, the numbers he cited refer to Americans who either get paid the minimum wage or get paidless thanthe minimum wage. How can you get paid less than the minimum wage? The minimum-wage law actuallyexempts whole classes of workersfrom the $7.25 standard -- vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability. This is not a trivial population -- for 2012 at least, the number earning less than the minimum wage (about 2 million) actually exceeded the number who earned the minimum wage exactly (about 1.6 million). In addition, its worth noting that workers in tipped professions, such as wait staff, get a legal minimum wage thatswell below $7.25. By factoring in tips earned, the employer only has to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour. One other note: The BLS offers some words of caution about its data. It counted only minimum-wage workers who are actually paid by the hour. Salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded from the BLS analysis. BLS says the number of salaried workers earning at or below the minimum wage is probably modest, but the data is sufficiently opaque that the agency warns that the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. BLS also warns that this study is based on a sample, and samples are imperfect. Our ruling Portman said that about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. He didnt word the statement with complete accuracy; he would have been better off saying that, according to official statistics, about 2 percent of American workers get paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Still, his number is close to accurate, and his general point -- that workers who are paid the federal minimum-wage represent a small percentage of the entire working population -- is backed up by official data. We rate his claim Mostly True. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. Claim:  Item presents information about the "real" Mitt Romney. true Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] The Real Mitt Romney! After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney. As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. Romney or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the "Bain Way") would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others. Got your calculators handy? Let's recap. Volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. Unpaid intern in Governor's office 8 years. Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years. Unpaid bishop and stake president for his church 10 years. No salary as president of the Olympics 3 years. No salary as MA governor 4 years. That's a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to his country, his community and his church. Why? Because that's the kind of man Mitt Romney is! And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income ... Obama gave 1% Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013% This is real character vs ... well you know what!   Origins:  This item about former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney first hit our inbox in June 2012.  Most of the information contained therein is verifiable, as described below: After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar, but never worked as an attorney.   In the 1970s, Mitt Romney attended Harvard University and earned a degree from the school's then-new joint business and law degree program.  According to a 2007 Boston Globe profile: George Romney loomed large in his son's decision to earn business and law degrees simultaneously. Intent on following in the professional footsteps of his father, who had been chairman of American Motors Corp., Romney expressed an interest in business school. George Romney believed a law degree was a valuable commodity. So his son pursued both. Harvard's joint MBA/JD program was relatively new at the time  it had been launched two years earlier  and was intensely rigorous. Typically, business school is completed in two years and law school in three; dual-degree students earn both degrees in four years, spending their first year at one of the schools, their second at the other, and their final two shuttling between both. Out of Romney's 800 business school classmates and 550 law school classmates, only 15 earned degrees through the dual program. Romney excelled at both schools, graduating with honors from the law school; becoming a Baker Scholar at the business school, a distinction reserved for the top 5 percent of the class; and impressing many of his peers with his quick mind and skill at building consensus. The biography The Real Romney notes that: Shortly after Romney left Harvard, he began working at BCG [Boston Consulting Group], a fitting first job for a freshly minted Ivy League graduate. Romney was hedging his bets, though, not wholly confident that he would make it in the business world. He passed the Michigan bar exam in July 1975 and was admitted to practice law there the next year.  He figured it would provide him a landing place if he didn't cut it in business. But the safety valve wouldn't be necessary. As a venture-capitalist, Romney's first major business deal involved investing in a start-up office supply company with one store in Massachusetts that sold office supplies. That company, called Staples, now has over 2,000 stores and employs over 90,000 people. Romney or his company Bain Capital (using what became known as the "Bain Way") would go on to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others. The long-term effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the so-called "Bain Way" remains a subject of debate.  In January 2012, the Wall Street Journal published an analysis of the business investments made by Bain Capital during Mitt Romney's tenure there and reported the following: The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward. Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors  yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains. Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court. (Full details of the Wall Street Journal's analysis can be viewed here.) here Volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.   A 2007 Time magazine article touched on a teenaged Mitt Romney's working for his father's Michigan gubernatorial campaign in 1962: He was 15 when his father ran for Governor in a state in which no Republican had held the job in 14 years. Mitt worked the campaign switchboard and traveled the county-fair circuit in a Ford microvan. George put Mitt to work at the "Romney for Governor" booths, shouting over a microphone and loudspeaker system, "You should vote for my father for Governor. He's a truly great person. You've got to support him. He's going to make things better." Mitt realizes now that his dad had something in mind beyond his own political career: "He was teaching me how to get out there." Unpaid intern in Governor's office 8 years.   Mitt Romney did work as an intern in the Michigan governor's office while his father held that position, but not for anything close to eight years. George Romney served as Michigan's governor for only six years (January 1963 to January 1969), and for most of that time Mitt Romney was living outside of the state: first as a student at Stanford University in California from 1965-66, then as a Mormon missionary in France from mid-1966 through the end of 1968. Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years.   Mitt Romney served as a Mormon missionary in France for a thirty-month period from July 1966 to December 1968.  In 2007 the New York Times France was a humbling experience for Mr. Romney, who recalled it as the only time in his life when most of what I was trying to do was rejected. Missionary work is a rite of passage for Mormon men, who are encouraged to volunteer when they turn 19. Mitt Romneys grandfather, father and older brother had all served in Britain, so his assignment to France came as a surprise, he recalled. The son of a car company chief executive who later became governor of Michigan, Mitt Romney called his mission an instructive first experience of deprivation. He lived on about $100 a month, sleeping on cast-off mattresses and crowding into small apartments in groups of four. The only toilet was often down the hall and the only shower in a public bathhouse.  The 175 missionaries in France all rose at 6 a.m. each day, rang doorbells from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and turned in by 10.  Mr. Romney quickly stood out. His father was perhaps the best known Mormon public official of his day, and Mitts three years of French at the exclusive Cranbrook school in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., had made him more fluent than his peers.  Like most missionaries, he did not win many converts. After reading Mitts demoralized letters, his father sent back a favorite motto: Despair not, but if you despair, work on in your despair. Mr. Romneys companions, though, recall only his zeal. In newsletters, he often led the lists recording contacts made or tracts distributed. He chafed at the door-to-door entreaties, pushing for new ways to market their creed, like an exhibition baseball game or staging an American night in a youth center. Unpaid bishop and stake president for his church 10 years.   The authors of The Real Romney described Mitt's service as a bishop and stake president in his church: Mormon congregations, typically groups of 400 to 500 people, are known as wards, and their boundaries are determined by geography. Wards, along with smaller congregations known as branches, are organized into stakes. Thus a stake, akin to a Catholic diocese, is a collection of wards and branches in a city or region. Unlike Protestants or Catholics, Mormons do not choose the congregations to which they belong. It depends entirely on where they live. In another departure from many other faiths, Mormons do not have paid full-time clergy. Members in good standing take turns serving in leadership roles. They are expected to perform their ecclesiastical duties on top of career and family responsibilities. Those called to serve as stake presidents and bishops, or leaders of local wards, are fully empowered as agents of the church, and they carry great authority over their domains. Mitt Romney first took on a major church role around 1977, when he was called to be a counselor to Gordon Williams, then the president of the Boston stake. Romney was essentially an adviser and deputy to Williams, helping oversee area congregations. His appointment was somewhat unusual in that counselors at that level have typically been bishops of their local wards first. But Romney, who was only about 30 years old, was deemed to possess leadership qualities beyond his years. Romneys responsibilities only grew from there; he would go on to serve as bishop and then as stake president, overseeing about a dozen congregations with close to 4,000 members altogether. Those positions in the church amounted to his biggest leadership test yet, exposing him to personal and institutional crises, human tragedies, immigrant cultures, social forces, and organizational challenges that he had never before encountered. No salary as president of the Olympics 3 years.   Mitt Romney served as the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002. According to his spokesman, Romney donated the salary and severance pay he received for that effort to charity: In Romney's case, he signed an offer letter in 1999 acknowledging he would be paid $280,000 annually for the Olympic job and receive up to one year in severance pay after the Games. Romney announced the day he started the job that he would not accept any wages unless the organizing committee completed the Games with a profit. He also told the Salt Lake Tribune one of his "absolutes" was that he would "not accept any severance pay when his three-year term is complete." He also cited his pledge to forgo any severance pay in his book, "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games." When the organizing committee posted a surplus of nearly $100 million after the Games, Romney accepted $922,980 in total salary as well as the $476,000 severance package. [His spokesman, Eric] Fehrnstrom said Romney gave his salary as well as the severance pay to charity. Romney and his wife, Ann, also donated $1 million to the organizing committee during his tenure. Asked what charities received the money, Fehrnstrom said Romney does not discuss publicly his charitable giving. No salary as MA governor 4 years.   Just prior to his swearing-in as Massachusetts' governor in 2003, Mitt Romney's transition team announced that he and his lieutenant governor would not take salaries ($135,000 and $120,000 per year, respectively) while in office. And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income.  Obama gave 1% Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%   According to an in-process federal income tax return made available by the Romney campaign, in 2011 Mitt and Ann Romney declared a gross income of $20,908,880 and charitable contributions of $4,020,572, the latter figure comprising 19.2% of the former.   tax return The additional information about the charitable donations of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden is incorrect, however.  In 2011 the Obamas reported agross income of $844,585 and charitable contributions totaling $172,130, the latter figure comprising 20.4% of the former (a rate higher than the Romneys' 19.2%).  The Bidens reported a gross income of $379,035 for 2011 and claimed $5,540 in charitable contributions, the latter figure comprising 1.5% of the former. reported reported Last updated:  2 July 2012    Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "President Obama and Vice President Biden Release 2011 Tax Returns."   Forbes.  13 April 2012.    Hohler, Bob.  "Romney's Olympic Ties Helped Him Reap Campaign Funds."   The Boston Globe.  28 June 2007.    Khan, Huma.  "Mitt Romney Made Nearly $22 Million in 2010, Paid Less Than 14% in Taxes."   ABCNews.com.  24 January 2012.    Kirkpatrick, David D.  "Romney, Searching and Earnest, Set His Path in 60s."   The New York Times.  15 November 2007.    Kranish, Michael and Scott Helman.  The Real Romney.   New York: Harper, 2012.  ISBN 0-062-12327-0.    Maremont, Mark.  "Romney at Bain: Big Gains, Some Busts."   The Wall Street Journal.  9 January 2012.    Pfeiffer, Sacha.  "Romney's Harvard Classmates Recall His Quick Mind, Positive Attitude."   The Boston Globe.  26 June 2007.    Rubin, Jennifer.  "Romney Paid 42 Percent of 2011 Income in Taxes and Charity."   The Washington Post.  24 January 2012.    Boston Business Journal.  "Romney Passes Up $135K Governor Salary."   31 December 2002. In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes.  Joe Biden  This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny.  remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College  instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes."  repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign   This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech. A central part of the stalemate between the White House and Democrats in Congress over a new coronavirus relief bill is what to do about enhanced federal unemployment benefits. Democrats want to extend the $600 weekly payment, which expired at the end of July. President Donald Trumpsigned an executive orderthat would create a new $400 payment  but only if states set up a new system and kick in a quarter of the cost. And some Republican lawmakers are balking at extending the benefit at all. That includes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 2, 2020interview on WISN-TVs UPFRONT programcharacterized the $600 in federal bonus money as a perverse incentive to keep people out of the economy. Depending on which study you look at, he said, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals according to (the Congressional Budget Office) are making more on unemployment than they did on the job. Is Johnson right about the stats? And what about the underlying point, that the benefit is disincentivizing people from going back to work? When asked to back up the claim, Johnsons office cited a May 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private nonprofit that does economic research, for the 68% statistic and a June 2020 letter from the Congressional Budget Offices director to U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate Finance Committee chair. TheNational Bureau of Economic Researchstudy indicates 68% of unemployed workers eligible for unemployment payments received benefits that exceed lost earnings, with 20% able to receive benefits that are double lost earnings. The study noted that the $600 benefit, when combined with state unemployment, is meant to replace the mean U.S. wage. Most U.S. workers have weekly earnings below the national average. In contrast, most states base unemployment benefits on a percentage of previous earnings, rather than a fixed amount, the study noted. Meanwhile, the CBO letter to Grassley said roughly five of every six recipients would receive benefits that exceeded the weekly amounts they would expect to earn from work during those six months. So, Johnson is on the mark with the numbers in his claim. Now, lets look at the disincentive question, which is the essence of his point. Lets start with the same CBO letter Johnson cited. It indicated the nations economic output would be higher in the short term with the $600 benefit. Thats because in the near term, Americans on unemployment would spend the additional money, increasing consumer demand. To meet that higher demand, suppliers would increase production and hire more people  or call them back to work  to do so. So, extending the $600 could boost employment, at least to a degree. But the letter also noted the effects from reduced incentives to work would be larger than the boost to employment from increased overall demand for goods and services. But other reports tie people not looking for work more closely to the availability of jobs, not to the extra money through the benefit. A July 14, 2020Yale University studyon the effect of the $600 benefit found that  when it went into effect  workers who received bigger increases in overall payments were not less likely to leave unemployment and find a job. Yale also found that workers with expanded benefits returned to their previous jobs at similar rates than those who did not get the extra money. Moreover, aJune 2020 analysis by the Chicago Federal Reservesays those who receive unemployment benefits are more likely to look for another job more intensively than those who have used up their unemployment benefits. Indeed, researchers found in this analysis once unemployed individuals exhaust their benefits, their search effort decreases. The analysis noted that, before the COVID enhancements, unemployment insurance  on average across the country  paid individuals 35% of their previous earnings. The analysis said there is evidence that when the government extended the unemployment eligibility period in the past, the length of time people spent unemployed increased. However, researchers found those collecting unemployment now are looking for work more intensively than unemployed people not receiving benefits. The intensity of the job search was measured in terms of hours spent searching and the number of applications submitted. In a television interview, Johnson said Depending on which study you look at, either 68% or 5 out of 6 individuals ... are making more on unemployment than they did on the job. He gets the numbers right, and the CBO acknowledges a disincentive to work. That said, other studies found that those who are unemployed and getting the extra money are looking harder for work than those without it. In other words, those studies downplay the idea that the extra money is encouraging people to remain unemployed. Our definition for Mostly True is The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. John Robitaille, Republican candidate for governor, believes that one reason more Rhode Islanders aren't back at work is that the state pays too much to people who have lost their jobs.During an Oct. 4 appearance on The Helen Glover Show, Robitaille asserted that unemployment compensation and welfare payments can discourage people from accepting jobs that are available, which is why the system needs to be changed to wean them from such programs.One contractor who's a friend of mine told me that he had two people turn him down flat [for a job] because they were making more money on unemployment than wanting to go to work for $15, $17 an hour. That's wrong, he said. Rhode Island has a very generous unemployment compensation rate compared to most other states and, couple that with our very generous welfare programs, and there's not really an incentive for people to go back to work.As of August, 37,298 Rhode Islanders who had lost a full-time or part-time job were receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Whether those payments discourage people from accepting jobs is a matter of opinion. We were interested in the question ofwhether the unemployment benefits are truly generous compared to other states.According to the latest numbers from the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (RIDLT),duringthe first quarter of 2010, the average unemployment insurance payment was $390.53 per week, the fifth highest in the nation. Only Hawaii ($419.27), Washington state ($401.95), Massachusetts ($400.57) and New Jersey ($400.55) paid out more per person.Another way to look at the question is the maximum benefit you can receive. In July 2010, thecapfor a single Rhode Islander was $551 per week. Five other states had a higher ceiling. Massachusetts was tops at $629 weekly.When dependents are factored in, Rhode Island ranks second, at $688 per week. (Massachusetts was the highest, at $943.) But that ranking is misleading because, according to RIDLT spokeswoman Laura Hart, different states have different limits on how many dependents you can claim. In Rhode Island, the limit is five.And that's not the whole story.Living expenses vary from state to state, and New England is noted for having a higher cost of living than many other regions.It's an important consideration, but not an easy one to gauge. The federal government puts outacost of living index for different regions, but not on a state-by-state basis.Instead, RIDLT compared the average weekly benefits in each state with the average weekly wage in those states, using data from the U.S. Department of Labor.By the latest measurement, during the first quarter of 2010 Rhode Island ranked second in the nation. The state paid the typical recipient 47.8 percent of the average weekly wage of $816.71. (Hawaii topped the list, at 54.8 percent. Massachusetts, by that measure, was at 37.3 percent, ranking it 29th. )Put another way, the average hourly wage in Rhode Island during the first quarter of 2010 was $20.42. The average person receiving unemployment insurance got the equivalent of $9.76 per hour. The benefit could be as much as $13.76 an hour for an individual or $17.20 per hour for someone with five or more dependents.By all these measures, Rhode Islanders receiving unemployment benefits are doing better than out-of-work people in most other states, so we rank Robitaille's statement True. In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information.