A $5-a-night hotel/motel tax thats part of the transportation bill will hurt Georgias convention business by adding extra costs for large groups coming to the state.
It was clear that everyone would pay a bit more when the Georgia Legislature rammed through a $900 million transportation funding bill that voters and businesses alike said the state needed. State gasoline taxes will increase by almost 35 percent. Electric vehicle drivers, who havent been paying for gas, and truckers both will see new annual fees. And if Gov, Nathan Deal signs the measure as expected, it also will add a $5-a-night fee on hotel and motel stays starting July 1. The hospitality industry opposed that last-minute provision. Michael T. Owens, President and CEO of the Tourism Leadership Council in Savannah, told GPB that the charge would have a serious effect in that tourist hotspot and statewide. We absolutely expect to see cancellations of major, major groups, he said. PolitiFact Georgia cant fact-check predictions. But there is a part of Owens comments that callsout for a ride on the Truth-O-Meter:  claims that the fee would hurt convention business by adding tens of thousands of dollars in costs for large groups. Georgia does not have a statewide hotel tax. Instead state law allows local governments to levy up to a 3 percent excise tax or up to an 8 percent sales tax. Some of the collections have no limits while others must pay for tourism promotion or specific projects or attractions. Atlanta sets its hotel rate at the maximum 8 percent. Savannah charges 6 percent. The new charge is a flat $5 fee, tacked on for every night of a hotel stay. Owens was out of town when PolitiFact called, but Tourism Leadership Council Vice President Molly Swagler said the group is concerned about an increase to the bottom line of a multi-day stay. We would typically have a 500-room convention and that adds up to another $2,500 on their bill, Swagler said. In a larger market like Atlanta, youll see 15,000 room nights, so it could be a $75,000 increase out of a $5 fee. Lawmakers did not discuss any of those figures in committee or public, since the fee was added only after a dramatically revised compromise bill. That means the fee was not part of the fiscal note, or official estimate of the effect a bill will have on tax revenues or public spending. Teresa MacCartney, the states chief financial officer, released the state Senates original fiscal note but said the updated report, with estimates from the bed tax, will not be available until later this week. Senators did request an analysis from the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of West Georgia, that will be part of that updated note. William J. Smith, the universitys economics chair who did the work on the fee, said his research involved collecting information about the average number of hotel rooms and occupancy rate in Georgia, plus the states share of tourism visits relative to the rest of the country. That gave an estimate of room nights per year that, multiplied by $5, showed the fee will generate about $160 million a year for transportation projects. In the most basic economics of supply and demand, that tab appears to back up tourism officials worry. After all, when prices go up, dont people buy less? Sometimes. But there are more complex economic realities to that $5 fee. First, even tourism officials agree that the visitors who are set on seeing the historic squares and other Spanish-moss draped sites will still come. Paying $5 more every night could eat into those visitors budgets for their stay  costing restaurants and shops business. But there is nothing that saysvisitorsmust pay the new fee. Put bluntly, the hotel could eat the cost, if it meant remaining competitive with the likes of, say, Charleston, said Bruce Seaman, an economics professor at Georgia State University who specializes in the impact of projects and attractions. Seaman used 2013 data from the Savannah Area Chamber to see if the citys hotels would be better off absorbing the cost or increasing the cost to guests. His math included sympathy to the idea that some guests would be sensitive to price changes and stay away. In his scenario, the price change could chase away about 7.5 percent of room nights  costing Savannah-areal hotels about $22.5 million a year. And if the hotels eat the $5 per night themselves? With 3.6 million room nights at a 67 percent occupancy rate, the price tag would be $18.7 million. The bottom line is, to whatever extent they pass along any of this cost to their customers, they will pay more in a year, Seaman said. Except, no one is requiring hotels to increase the price paid by customers and in this case, it looks like it would cost them less to eat it than pass it forward. In other words, the overall point from Owens is legitimate. The $5 per-night fee is an increase that will affect business. That is, there are downsides to levying any new tax or fee. But part of that risk can be mitigated by the business eating some of the cost  additional context that shows there is not always a price increase with a new fee. More money is headed to state coffers if the transportation plan becomes reality. But the state is not requiring hotels, which change their rates constantly as a reflection of demand, to raise rates. Considering that caveat, we rate Owens statement Mostly True.
Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. In 2021, the story behind a 120-year-old Icelandic version of the classic novel "Dracula" captured the imaginations of social media users, who enthusiastically shared the following summary, originally posted by the Twitter account @ihmerst: shared "Someone translated Dracula into Icelandic and it took over 100 years for anyone to point out he just made a fanfic-rewrite of what he wanted the story to be."   "Dracula," written by Irish novelist Bram Stoker and first published in 1897, has come to be regarded as a classic work in the genres of horror and Gothic fiction and helped popularize vampire folklore in the English-speaking world. It has also inspired a vibrant field of academic research into the social and cultural themes upon which the novel touches, as well as the life of Stoker and the origins of "Dracula." academic research One particularly fascinating point of interest involves the existence of alternative versions of the novel, published in Icelandic and Swedish around the turn of the 20th century. The description posted by @ihmerst contained a measure of truth, but oversimplified what is a complicated and unfinished area of research. The photograph contained in @ihmerst's tweet showed a snapshot of the introduction to Hans Corneel de Roos' 2017 English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" ("Powers of Darkness"), the Icelandic book in question. It was written by journalist Valdimar smundsson, first serialized in his newspaper Fjallkonan in 1900, and later published as a book which, remarkably, included a preface attributed to Stoker himself.  2017 English translation serialized A more clearly legible version of de Roos' introduction can be viewed below:   Up until the 2010s, "Makt Myrkranna" remained untranslated from Icelandic and was presumed to be simply a shortened translation of Stoker's original English text. However, de Roos discovered that the plot of the book differed drastically from that of "Dracula," including new characters, more explicit sexual themes and imagery, and a significant shift in style away from the epistolary (letter-writing) format of the original. In 2014, de Roos described "Makt Myrkranna" as the first translation of "Dracula" and speculated that, in light of elements contained in Stoker's preface, the Irish writer himself may have endorsed "Makt Myrkranna" or even collaborated with smundsson on it.  described De Roos' findings made waves in the world of "Dracula" scholarship, and when he published the English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" in 2017, it attracted mainstream news coverage around the world. mainstream news coverage However, the publicity surrounding de Roos' findings prompted yet another plot twist, as it were. In 2017, the Swedish fantasy writer Rickard Berghorn recognized in the title of the Icelandic text, "Makt Myrkranna," a clear similarity with the title of a Swedish translation of Stoker's novel  "Mrkrets makter," which also translates as "Powers of Darkness." Berghorn made two startling discoveries: first, that serialized versions of "Mrkrets makter" had been published in Swedish newspapers beginning in 1899 (that is, before the Icelandic text was published); and second, that the Swedish versions also constituted a radical departure from Stoker's 1897 novel, rather than a straightforward translation.  two startling discoveries Since 2017, something of a consensus has emerged that, rather than constituting a modified and embellished version of "Dracula," based on the original English text, smundsson's Icelandic text was in fact a modified translation of earlier Swedish texts. As a result, @ihmerst's claim that "someone translated 'Dracula' into Icelandic" should now be regarded as outdated and inaccurate.  consensus has emerged However, some key questions remain. Who wrote the preface to "Powers of Darkness," which was included in both the Swedish and Icelandic texts and attributed, perhaps fraudulently, to Stoker? Was Stoker even aware in advance of the Swedish text (and subsequent Icelandic text), much less involved in its creation? What was the identity of the unnamed Swedish newspaper editor responsible for "Mrkrets makter"? Was the Swedish text simply "fan fiction"  an unauthorized alternative version of "Dracula" masquerading as a translation  or could it have been based on a much earlier draft of Stoker's own novel? perhaps fraudulently much earlier draft Jarlath Killeen, head of the School of English at Trinity College Dublin (which Stoker himself attended), and an expert in Gothic and Victorian Irish and British literature, has edited and written several books and articles on Stoker and "Dracula." He told Snopes that scholars were continuing to research and debate those questions and others, but the precise origins of the Nordic texts remained "very unclear and very murky," for now.  expert A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012. Californiasworkforce of 19 millionis spread across distinct metro regions, from tech-heavy Silicon Valley to the agricultural powerhouses of Fresno and Bakersfield, to the movie studios of Los Angeles. Less talked about are the nearly two million who work in the states Inland Empire. Its home to more than 4.5 million people in sprawling San Bernardino and Riverside counties east of Los Angeles. Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor, recently claimed this region of high desert and valley communities is among the leaders in California job growth. The Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California, Newsom said in an interview on MSNBCsMorning Joeon July 12, 2017. Its about logistics, warehousing, transportation. Newsom makes his claim at about the 2:00 minute mark above. We took Newsoms statement to mean the Inland Empire has the states second fastest job growth rate because the lieutenant governor went on to talk about statewide job growth immediately after making this claim. Newsoms comments follow Gov. Jerry Browns recent claim on NBCsMeet the Pressthat Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. We examined that claim and rated itMostly True. Still, we wondered whether Newsom was right. We set out on a fact check. Our research Asked for evidence to support the claim, Newsoms spokesman cited research from John Husing, chief economist with the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. The industry group advocates for jobs creation in the region. The spokesman specifically pointed to a section of HusingsApril 2017report that found the Inland Empires 3.47% growth rate in 2016 was second to San Francisco (4.16%). The report went on to say the region added the second most total jobs of any in the state, 47,500, behind Los Angeles 109,000 and ahead of San Franciscos 43,800. These figures back up Newsoms claim. His statement also holds when looking at job growth rates over the past five years. In April 2017, Jeffrey Michael, director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, compiled data showing job growth rates by metro area. The Inland Empire had the fastest job growth rate over the past year at that time, 3.2 percent, and the second fastest rate, 22.3 percent, over the past five years. The economists analyzed data from the California Employment Development Department. Types of jobs Newsoms claim about the rapid pace of job growth appears on the money. But what about the type of jobs he described: logistics, warehousing, transportation ? Husing told us this description was also on the right track. With the explosion of e-commerce, developers have seized on the Inland Empires vast and affordable stretches of land to build warehouses for products shipped through ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach. More than 60,600 distribution and transportation jobs have been added in the Inland Empire since its rebound from the Great Recession in 2010, Husing said. In addition, nearly 46,000 construction jobs; about 25,000 healthcare jobs and 15,000 manufacturing positions have been created. Logistics, transportation and construction are overwhelmingly the sectors that are driving the growth, the economist said. Husing described most of these positions as blue collar jobs. In April, Husing described in more depth the Inland Empires wage picture. He said it had a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. But, he said, the region was outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Our ruling Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently claimed the Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California. We took Newsoms claim to mean it has the second fastest job growth rate. Data compiled by two leading economists back up Newsoms assertion. It shows the Inland Empires nearly 3.5 percent jobs growth rate in 2016 was second only to San Franciscos 4.16 percent. Figures over the past five years show the Inland Empire grew jobs at 22.3 percent, again second only to the San Francisco market. The lieutenant governor was also correct to describe these Inland Empire jobs as based in the transportation and distribution sectors, based on data from the economists. We rate Newsoms claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On Feb. 28, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump gave a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), marking his first major appearance since vacating the White House roughly six weeks earlier. Conservative Political Action Conference Afterwards, some viewers interpreted his remarks to include an announcement of a 2024 presidential campaign following his loss to Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden in 2020. following   Overall, Trump's roughly 95-minute speech in Florida attacked Republicans who strayed from his political agenda, criticized Biden's first few weeks in office, and perpetuated lies about the November 2020 election. 2020 election Specifically, Trump attempted to convince the crowd that his opponents coordinated an illicit scheme to push him out of the White House  when, in reality, Biden secured the job because more Americans in battleground states voted for him instead of Trump. And mixed with the lies and vitriol were remarks that teased the possibility of a 2024 Trump presidential campaign. For example, after about 16 minutes on stage, the former president said, according to CSPAN's video recording and a transcript of the event: CSPAN's video recording transcript "I may even decide to beat [Democrats] for a third time. Okay? For a third time." At other points, he pointed to Biden's track record as alleged evidence of Americans' voting for a Republican candidate next election. And I wonder who that will be, he said. Who, who, who will that be? I wonder. Shortly after the speech, Trump told a reporter with Newsmax, a media outlet popular among his supporters, that while he doubts anyone could beat him if he decided to launch a presidential campaign again, "I haven't decided to do that." with Newsmax   In other words, Trump did not use the CPAC stage -- nor any other platform -- to announce plans to run in 2024, as of this writing. And in at least one interview he confirmed that he had not made up his mind on whether to place another bid for the White House. Furthermore, no email to supporters soliciting donations, merchandise on TrumpStore.com, or page on his official website said he was running again or advertised "Trump 2024" products. (Other retailers are selling such items, similarly to how his supporters are sporting "Patriot Party" memorabilia even though the Trump campaign attempted to distance itself from the name.) official website retailers Patriot Party distance In sum, while his statements at the conference purposefully left the door open to the possibility of a 2024 Trump campaign, Trump did not officially announce one. For that reason, we rate this claim In June 2016, a message reporting that GOP candidate Donald Trump was planning on shutting down the Library of Congress as a cost-saving measure if elected president began circulating via Facebook:  Such messages linked to a story that was originally posted on The Retroset web site: As reported early this morning by CNN and HuffPost, Donald Trump, in a phone interview with Fox News Steve Doocy, claimed as President of the United States, he would seek to cut-out all unnecessary spending. When pressed for specifics, the GOP frontrunner dismissively quipped, Well, I think we spend way too much on organizations and departments that just save stuff. For instance, Id make a move to get rid of the Library of Congress. Trump continued, Yknow what? Old books, decomposing newspapers, pansy artwork and a bunch of black and white movies about women and illegal immigrants have no business being protected with our hard-earned tax dollars. My first act as President would be to dissolve wasteful branches of government like the Library and that Kennedy Center for Peforming Arts stuff, and sell the material to China for huge profits. The publication date of the Retroset article wasn't obvious to those who encountered it via Facebook, but readers who clicked through to the original discovered that it appeared on 1 April 2016, otherwise known as April Fool's Day. original The Retroset didn't specifically state that the article was a springtime ruse, but the text incorporated several clues to its fictional nature. For instance, while The Retroset reported that CNN and the Huffington Post had both reported on Trump's plan to shutter the Library of Congress, the embedded links they provided led to irrelevant articles on those sites. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. President-elect Donald Trump put General Motors on notice for tariff-free imports of vehicles from Mexico, warning of heavy taxes if vehicles are not instead manufactured in the United States. General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border, TrumptweetedJan. 3. Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax! General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Make in U.S.A.or pay big border tax! Imposing hefty tariffson foreign goods was a staple of Trumps pro-manufacturing agenda. He suggested on day one of his campaign that ifFordchose to open a factory in Mexico and then tried to sell those vehicles in the United States, he would tell Fords CEO that were going to charge you a 35 percent tax. In the same speech, he bemoaned Chevys slight presence in foreign countries,particularly in Japan. We wanted to look at Trumps most recent beef with Chevy. The key to our review is that the president-elect singled out the Mexican-made model of the Chevy Cruze. The Cruze made in Mexico is a hatchback that does not sell widely in the United States. Chevy Cruze sedans are more popular in the United States  and they are produced in Ohio. Trump has a point, however, that the Mexican Cruze has made its way to the United States free of taxes, based on provisions under theNorth American Free Trade Agreement. General Motors: We make Cruzes in Ohio, too General Motors, whose portfolio includes Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC,saidin a brief statement that all Chevrolet Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in the companys assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In 2016, it sold 185,500 of this body type in the United States. But the company builds the Chevrolet Cruze hatchback for global markets in Mexico, with a small number sold in the U.S., the statementsaid. Production of the hatchback model began in mid 2016, said Patrick Morrissey, a General Motors spokesperson, in an email. Out of 29,000 hatchbacks made in Mexico in 2016 for global markets, 4,500 were sold in the United States, Morrissey said. (Chevy Cruze photos courtesy of General Motors) Free trade provisions under international agreement TheNorth American Free Trade Agreement, effective since January 1994, lifted trade tariffs and restrictions among Canada, the United States and Mexico. NAFTA has beenpraisedfor expanding and facilitating trade among the three countries, but Trump andlabor unionsfrom the United States havecriticizedthe deal for outsourcing jobs and lowering wages. Trump called it the worst trade deal ever, blaming it for the loss ofmanufacturing jobs. But nonpartisan research said NAFTA has had a more subtle effect on the U.S. economy. NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters, a 2015 Congressional Research Service reportsaid. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. NAFTA allows the tariffs-free import of autos, light trucks, engines and transmissions from Mexico as long as62.5 percentof their value is from North America, the 2015 report said. The rules of origin requirement for other vehicles and automotive parts is 60 percent, according to the report. The Chevy Cruze hatchback would be covered under NAFTAs duty-free provision, experts told PolitiFact. NAFTA allowed each participating country to specialize in different stages of production, said Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. Parts can go back and forth in the production of a vehicle, so a car thats imported from Mexico can actually include components from companies in the United States, Freund said. As for the logistics of Trumps plan to impose high tariffs, trade experts introduced a number of concerns about it for ourJune analysis. They cited potential rising production costs and an increased cost burden on consumers, as well as a possible trade war and broken international agreements. Our ruling Trump tweeted, General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border. Thats accurate for 4,500 Chevy Cruze hatchbacks made in Mexico and sold in the United States in 2016. That was about 15 percent of all Cruze hatchbacks produced in Mexico last year for global markets. NAFTA provisions allow the tax-free imports of autos from Mexico. Its worth pointing out extra context that Chevy Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in GMs assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. The sedan is more than 40 times as popular among American buyers as the hatchback. Trumps statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. After the Fact After publishing this check, readers reached out telling us some Chevy Cruze sedans have also been imported from Mexico to sell in the United States. We asked General Motors about it, since their statement in response to Trump's tweet said all Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in General Motors' assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In a follow-up email, a General Motors spokesperson said, In the fourth quarter of 2016 we built some sedans in Mexico (and shipped to the U.S) to help support the launch of the Lordstown plant with the new Cruze (that was announced and reported on last summer)  about 8,000 total. So some of those are still in inventory in the U.S., but the only Chevrolet Cruze models being built in Mexico now for the U.S. market are the hatchbacks. The approximate 8,000 sedans were sold to dealers in 2016 and most were probably sold to consumers, General Motors spokesperson Patrick Morrissey said. In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read: read General Electric is being sold to a Chinese company for 5.4 billion dollars. Americans are you concerned yet???     The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China. conspiracy theories Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory. owned calamity colluding In reality, we found no record of any announcement, or reliable news report, of a deal to sell General Electric (GE) to any Chinese company in 2021. Rather, the figure of "5.4 billion dollars" refers to the sale of GE's appliances division to the China-based company Haier. That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016  before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later. announced completed That sequence of events fatally undermines the broader suggestion that Biden's presidency will "open the floodgates" for aggressive Chinese involvement in the American economy, as part of an underlying, sinister relationship between Biden and the Communist Chinese regime.  Furthermore, the Chinese company in question bought one of GE's divisions, not the entire entity  an additional, highly significant inaccuracy in the widely shared meme. On Dec. 16, 2019, the night before the U.S. House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on two articles of impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump, people gathered around the United States to hold impeachment rallies: impeachment rallies Hours before the House votes on whether to impeach President Donald Trump, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Times Square Tuesday night chanting "Tell me who's above the law? Nobody is above the law!" They weren't alone. Rallies sprang up from Oregon to Florida on the eve of the vote on two articles of impeachment against Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats say Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals in exchange for security aid and that he obstructed a congressional investigation by refusing to allow key officials to testify. Trump has asserted that Democrats' attempt to impeach him is part of a larger effort to avenge the results of the 2016 election. As photographs of these crowds started to circulate on social media, some people started to share a picture that supposedly showed an impeachment rally held in Toronto, Canada: share This is a genuine photograph of a large crowd gathered in Toronto, but it has nothing to do with the impeachment of Trump.   The picture comes from a video taken on June 17, 2019, by 680 News reporter Momin Qureshi, and shows thousands of people at a parade in honor of the recent NBA champions, the Toronto Raptors: reporter  That said, a rally in support of the impeachment of Trump was indeed held in Toronto, Canada, but it was nowhere near as large as the crowd pictured above. The group Democrats Abroad held a small protest in the Canadian city to call for the president's impeachment: Democrats Abroad  Rush, Curtis.  "Toronto Raptors Draw Massive Crowds to Victory Parade and Rally."   Forbes.  17 June 2019. Holcombe, Madeline.  "Pro-Impeachment Protests Span the Country Ahead of Historic Vote."
  CNN.  18 December 2019.