The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do.
On the Feb. 24, 2011, edition of Fox NewsThe OReilly Factor, host Bill OReilly said that the jobs picture is better inright to work states-- that is, states in which workers can refuse to pay dues or fees to the union that represents them in bargaining.The right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do, OReilly said while interviewing Caroline Heldman, a political scientist at Occidental College.We thought wed check to see whether OReilly is correct.First, some background. According to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, 22 states have passed some form of right-to-work law (the exact provisions can vary) -- Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. The other 28 states do not have such laws.To test OReillys claim, we turned to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which is the official source for unemployment statistics in the United States. BLSmost recent state-by state datais for December 2010.We consulted with Gary Burtless, a labor economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, about the fairest way to look at the data. We agreed that it was best to compare right-to-work and non-right-to-work states through data weighted according to state population. That way, Californias unemployment rate would be given more weight than, say, Wyomings.When we did the math, we found that the unemployment rate in the 22 right-to-work states was 9.17 percent, compared to 9.65 in the 28 non-right-to-work states. (The national unemployment rate that month was 9.4 percent that month -- right in the middle.) So OReilly is basically correct.His only shortcoming was his use of the phrase much lower level of unemployment. The difference for December 2010 was only about half a percentage point, which is fairly modest, given that the range of state unemployment figures stretched from 3.8 in North Dakota to 14.5 in Nevada.As always, theres a question about causation -- that is, whether right-to-work status actually produces low unemployment. Of the 11 states with the lowest unemployment (there was a tie for 10th place) eight were right-to-work states. Of those, seven states -- North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma -- are from the Great Plains and the Mountain West, which have in general been less hard-hit during the recent recession.To see whether today is an unusual situation, we asked the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation whether they had historical data on the unemployment gap. They said they did not. James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that numbers hes run suggest that in 2008, before the worst of the recession set in, the gap was slightly larger -- about eight-tenths of a percentage point  -- but was in the same general ballpark.In any case, none of the economists we spoke to thought the gap was especially surprising, either now or historically.So where does that leave us in terms of OReillys claim? He said that right-to-work states have much lower level of unemployment than the union states do. To say its much lower is a stretch, but he's right that it is lower. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True.
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Metro Atlanta cities may do little to ensure government dollars to promote tourism are doing their job, but that doesnt mean that the state should rein in spending, an elected official said recently.Georgia isnt spending enough money in the first place, said state Rep. Ron Stephens, chairman of the House Economic Development and Tourism Committee.We spend less dollars advertising than any other state in the South, Stephens said in an Aug. 6 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about oversight of city tourism funds.Thats exactly the kind of thing wed expect the head of the tourism committee to say. But is it true? We asked the Savannah Republican for more information.We feel obliged to note that Georgia and its cities have a checkered history in tourism marketing.State taxpayers will be paying $1.2 million annually for the next few decades on former Gov. Sonny Perdues Go Fish tourism program.Perdue's vision for the plan was to make Georgia a fisherman's paradise by developing the economy, attracting high-dollar fishing tournaments, improving access to state lakes and increasing angling participation.Critics argue it was a pork project for Perdues hometown, Bonaire, which is near the Go Fish Education Center.And theres Brand Atlanta, a shuttered effort to market Georgias capital city. It raised some $8 million between 2005 and 2006 from corporations and government, including $1 million from the convention and visitors bureau. The campaign featured a widely panned theme song.But the budget went bust during the Great Recession, its staff was laid off in 2008 and Brand Atlanta is no more.State tourism funds shrank as the economy stumbled, and Stephens thinks its a shame.If we advertise the jewels we have, then more people will come here and well get that money back, Stephens said.Stephens said his statement about low spending referred to the amount of money state governments spend to promote tourism, as well as the number of dollars spent per capita. It excludes spending by the city of Atlanta and other localities.Stephens referred us to data collected by the Georgia Department of Economic Development.A department spokeswoman sent us state-by-state figures compiled by the U.S. Travel Association, an industry group that researches and promotes travel to and within the country.Policymakers, other trade organizations and media use USTAs numbers widely. We were unable to find another organization that collects similar data.We started our analysis by separating out USTA data for Southern states. This is more difficult than you might think.Government agencies disagree on what counts as the South. Born and bred Southerners do, too.Even some newcomers get the vapors when Yankees lump South Florida in with the rest of us.Whats worse, the official U.S. census definition includes Oklahoma.Really? We thought. Do they even sell sweet tea there?We struck a Great Compromise and focused on the 11 states that formally seceded from the Union during the Civil War, plus Kentucky. (What would the South be without Kentucky or its bourbon? )Then we crunched the numbers for fiscal year 2011-2012.Georgia was second only to Kentucky in the lowest amount spent on tourism. Our fiscal year 2011-2012 provisional budget stood at $2,551,516, according to USTA data. Kentuckys was $1,888,300.The Peach State fared worse in other measures of state tourism spending.The population and budgets of Southern states vary widely, so we considered two additional pieces of data that take these differences into account: The amount of state tourism funding allocated per capita, which Stephens also said was the lowest in the South; and tourism allocations as a portion of a states budget.Georgia ranked last on a per capita basis at $0.26 per person. Arkansas placed first at $3.05 per person.Georgia also ranked last on tourism advertising as a portion of the state budget. During fiscal year 2012, Georgia set aside 0.014 percent of its general fund budget toward tourism advertising.Kentucky was the second-lowest on our list. Once again, Arkansas placed first.Our ruling:Stephens said that Georgias state government spends fewer tourism advertising dollars than any other in the South. He was right in the metrics that matter most: per capita spending, and spending as a percentage of state budget.In dollars, Stephens was close. Only Kentucky spends less.Stephens earns a True. On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the final months of 2020, scientists around the world raced to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus, which at that point had reached more than 50 million cases and resulted in the deaths of at least 1.2 million people. reached On Nov. 9, the biopharmaceutical company Pfizer announced in a news release  not a peer-reviewed journal that interim results testing the efficacy of vaccine candidate BNT162b2 showed a 90% success rate in protecting against COVID-19 infection, making it one of the first and most promising immunization potentials to date. news release And politicians were quick to weigh in. U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said in a tweet that the public-private partnership between U.S. President Donald Trump's administration and Pfizer led to the success of the vaccine:  While former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, whose policies closely align with Trump, furthered the notion that the vaccine was a part of the presidents Operation Warp Speed (OWS), an effort led by the Trump Administration to accelerate the testing of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics:  These claims are half-truths and misrepresent the role that OWS played in developing this particular vaccine candidate. Although the very preliminary findings of the vaccine look promising, a detailed look at the reported findings revealed that there is cause to be cautious about its availability and timeliness. A deal between OWS and Pfizer was announced in a July news release that outlined a bid by the U.S. government to receive 100 million doses (with the option to acquire up to 500 million more doses) of a vaccine  pending approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  for $1.95 billion. news release Today is a great day for science and humanity. The first set of results from our Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine trial provides the initial evidence of our vaccines ability to prevent COVID-19, said Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer Chairman and CEO. We are reaching this critical milestone in our vaccine development program at a time when the world needs it most with infection rates setting new records, hospitals nearing over-capacity and economies struggling to reopen. With todays news, we are a significant step closer to providing people around the world with a much-needed breakthrough to help bring an end to this global health crisis." OWS is a joint effort by the Trump administration and the U.S. departments of Defense (DOD) and Health and Human Services (HHS) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, launched on May 15 to accelerate the testing, supply, development, and distribution of safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics by January 2021. Part of its mission is to also accelerate the vaccine approval process from the typical 73 months to just 13 months. Generally, receiving approval for a new drug or therapy is a long and tenuous process that can sometimes last years.  Department of Defense  Department of Defense   OWS offered $456 million to vaccine research and development projects by Johnson & Johnson for its Phase 1 clinical trials, as well as a total of $955 million to Moderna for late-stage clinical testing. However, the $1.95 billion allocated to Pfizer was for large-scale manufacturing and nationwide distribution. In short, the government intended to buy doses of a vaccine from Pfizer once an effective vaccine was made available, but it did not fund the research and development of Pfizer's vaccine. offered Johnson & Johnson Moderna Pfizer is proud to be one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine, Sharon Castillo, a Pfizer spokesperson, told Snopes in an email. While Pfizer did reach an advanced purchase agreement with the U.S. government, the company did not accept the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) funding for the research and development process. All the investment for R&D and manufacturing has been made by Pfizer at risk. Technically, the work conducted by Pfizer and its partner, German drugmaker BioNTech, is an expansion of OWS and was operating under an agreement to meet the goal of OWS to deliver 300 million doses of a vaccine in 2021. As part of the agreement, the U.S. government would receive 100 million doses after the successful manufacturing of the vaccine and its approval by the FDA. However, that is not to say that the government had any hand in the research or development of the vaccine. Rather, it just agreed to buy the vaccines from the companies once they had gone through final approval. We made the early decision to begin clinical work and large-scale manufacturing at our own risk to ensure that product would be available immediately if our clinical trials prove successful and an Emergency Use Authorization is granted. We are honored to be a part of this effort to provide Americans access to protection from this deadly virus, said Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer chairman and CEO, at the time. Pfizer and BioNTech have similar agreements with the European Union. European Union The specific details about the Pfizer vaccine are not readily available. What we do know is that BNT162b2 is an mRNA-based vaccine that contained SARS-CoV-2 spike protein  the same protein that nearly all vaccination studies are targeting  that allows the virus to enter human cells and elicits an immune response from its host. The first doses administered to U.S. study participants, half of whom received the vaccine and the other half a placebo, were done so in May via intramuscular injection, which is similar to the flu shot. As part of a randomized placebo trial, two doses were each given three weeks apart with the vaccine not taking full effect until at least a week after the final dose. That means that a person couldnt expect protection until about a month after they were immunized. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein administered  A three-dimensional simulation of the coronavirus spike protein just before binding to the human cell receptor. University of Arkansas  University of Arkansas   An analysis of the interim results suggested that the vaccine is 90% effective in preventing the disease in study volunteers who did not have evidence of a prior COVID-19 infection  a rate that is similar to the measles vaccine administered in early childhood. No safety concerns were observed, but as the trial continues those findings could change. measles vaccine Thats because the results are based on limited data from an early clinical trial, and its unclear whether the vaccine prevents infection or just reduces symptoms. This is a very timely and encouraging development in the race to get an effective vaccine. It is difficult to fully evaluate the interim data without more information but it appears that the vaccine is able to protect against COVID-19 disease, said Lawrence Young, a professor of molecular oncology at Warwick Medical School. The big question is whether the vaccine can block virus infection and subsequent transmission. This additional data will be generated as further confirmed cases are identified and analyzed. said The promising results were met with both encouragement and skepticism by the broader scientific community, which by and large said that it remains cautiously optimistic. First and foremost, the results are interim and still await full trial results, meaning that these are non-peer-reviewed findings that were published midway through the clinical trial. Releasing the findings in the middle of a trial may further influence the integrity of the study, potentially biasing how future study participants respond or how their observations are reported. That could in turn make long-term follow-up with adequate randomization more challenging. There are other important limitations to the research that must be considered. Snopes read through the a 123-page study protocol document and found that while researchers describe the more than 43,000 participants as ethnically diverse," they do not specify other characteristics that may make an individuals infection more extreme, such as age or co-morbidities. And while it is written that study participants were between the ages of 18 and 85, their exact demographics were not known. Furthermore, individuals with a high risk of severe infection were excluded from the first phase of testing and the preliminary findings did not determine how long the vaccination lasts. protocol document  NurPhoto / Contributor  NurPhoto / Contributor Even after addressing the limitations, the results of an effective vaccine will not be felt immediately. With the best will in the world, this vaccine  or any other vaccine currently in trials  isnt going to change things for the majority of us this winter, said Elenor Riley, a professor of immunology and infectious disease at the University of Edinburgh. said So, we all need to accept that the current public health measures are going to remain in place at least until the end of the winter, possibly longer. But if this vaccine lives up to this early promise, and other vaccines work equally well, we may be able to look forward to a much better summer and autumn in 2021. If the vaccine is proven to be robustly effective at the wider community level, experts warn that there must still be public trust and buy-in  a challenge given some political leaders have been quick to dismiss the severity of the outbreak. Then there is the logistical challenge of manufacturing and distributing vaccines globally. First doses must be prioritized for health care workers and vulnerable populations. And a logistical challenge lies in manufacturing and rolling out a vaccine that needs to be stored and maintained at very low temperatures (-94 to -112 degrees Fahrenheit). As the world waits, experts warn that the promise of a vaccine cannot allow the findings to seed complacency and cause people to shy away from public health guidance. On the cusp of the vaccine candidate announcement, most nations in the world saw massive upticks in new coronavirus cases reported each day in October and November, according to data published by Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. On Nov. 4, 5, and 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported over 100,000 new coronavirus cases each day data reported Pfizer applied for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of the two-dose vaccine with the FDA on Nov. 20. At this point, researchers had collected two months of safety data required to use the drug in some cases. However, that does not constitute full approval of the drug. At the time of this writing, just 94 of the nearly 44,000 trial participants had contracted COVID-19 and the study is expected to continue until at least 164 people test positive. applied EUA Though the long-term safety and efficacy data remains to be seen, it is estimated that the manufacturers could produce globally up to 50 million vaccine doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021 to be distributed on an as-needed basis if a EUA is granted. The Pfizer study is estimated to be completed by Dec. 11, 2022. estimated Update [Nov. 20, 2020]: This article was updated to reflect Pfizers official filing of a EUA on Nov. 20. During an Oct. 4, 2011, interview on MSNBC, host Ed Schultz and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., discussed the Occupy Wall Street protests, which are targeting the financial services sector. Sanders offered a statistic designed to demonstrate the power of American banks.Sanders suggested that many of the protesters have not seen the president be as strong as he should be on Wall Street, saying they want the federal government to take tougher measures against financial-services companies.Ed, today, you have six financial institutions, the largest six, that have assets that are the equivalent of 60 percent of the GDP of the United States of America, Sanders said. (GDP stands for gross domestic product. )We wondered whether Sanders math was correct.When we contacted Sanders office, a spokesman providedtestimonyto a congressional oversight panel by Simon Johnson, a professor of entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School ofManagement. Our six largest bank holding companies currently have assets valued at just over 63 percent of GDP, Johnson testified, citing figures for the fourth quarter of 2010. This is up from around 55 percent of GDP before the crisis (e.g., 2006) and no more than 17 percent of GDP in 1995.We wanted to find the original statistics, and we located them in achartposted by the National Information Center, the federal repository of data about banks and other institutions for which the Federal Reserve has a supervisory, regulatory or research interest. The chart lists the 50 biggest bank holding companies as of June 30, 2011.Here are the top six and their total assets:1.Bank of America Corp., $2.264 trillion2.J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., $2.246 trillion3.Citigroup Inc., $1.957 trillion4.Wells Fargo & Co., $1.260 trillion5.Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $937 billion6.Morgan Stanley, $831 billionTogether, the top six companies assets were $9.495 trillion.For the second part of the equation -- gross domestic product -- we turned to the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis.Though the time spans dont line up perfectly, we decided to use the GDP figure for 2010, the most recent full year. That figure is $14.527 trillion.Dividing these top banks assets by the national GDP produces a result of 65 percent -- which is actually a slightly larger percentage than Sanders had indicated, but certainly in the ballpark.To make sure we werent missing something, we contacted a few experts on financial services issues. They offered a few caveats:The comparison is a bit of apples vs. oranges.The banks asset figures are an aggregation measured at a single point in time, whereas the GDP figure is an aggregation of goods and services measured over time. This distinction is the equivalent to a comparison of your net worth with your personal income, said Lawrence White, an economist at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. Economists generally don't find these sorts of comparisons very useful or interesting. So the best that can be said is that these comparisons provide a rough sense of comparative magnitudes.The data are constantly moving.Several of these banks, especially Bank of America, have lost significant value since the figures were published in June 2011, said Satya Thallam, director of the Financial Markets Working Group at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The denominator, GDP, is always changing, as well. So, any estimate is true for a specific point in time, but possibly out of date not long after its made.Banks overseas holdings significantly complicate the comparison.For starters, the comparison Sanders is making doesnt mean that these banks own 60 percent of the U.S. wealth, because some of these banks assets are in overseas holdings. However, Sanders appears to be on safe ground with his phrasing, since all he said was that the two dollar figures were equivalent.Potentially more problematic for Sanders is that the assets-to-GDP ratio for the top six bank companies in the U.S. are actually quite modest when compared to the biggest banks in other nations.A2010 study by J.P. Morganlisted the 25 biggest banks internationally in 2008, along with the percentages of their home countrys GDP. The highest was UBS, with 376 percent of Switzerlands GDP. And six other banks all had assets as large as their home countrys GDP -- Credit Suisse Group of Switzerland (218 percent), Dexia of Belgium (180 percent), Fortis of the Netherlands (155 percent), Royal Bank of Scotland of the United Kingdom (131 percent), Barclays of the United Kingdom (112 percent) and BNP Paribas of France (101 percent).All of these dwarf the combined holdings of the top six banks in the U.S., in part because Americas GDP is so much larger than the GDP of these other nations.The significance of this fact for Sanders assertion, however, is less clear.This doesn't tell us what is a proper or appropriate number, Thallam said. One might reply that other countries are much more concentrated, but that only means they're worse -- not that we're in a good position. Some scholars, he added, have said that even at current concentration levels, U.S. banks should be broken up because they create a too big to fail problem. On the other hand, people for years said that banking exhibited economies of scale, so consolidation was natural, Thallam said.Our rulingSanders math is correct -- in fact, the percentage he offers is actually a little low. And hes careful to say only that the banks assets are only equivalent to 60 percent of the United States GDP, not that the banks own 60 percent of the United States. Sanders doesnt note that big banks in other countries are far bigger, compared to their nations GDP, than the U.S. banks are. Still, on balance, we rate his statement True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. In the summer of 2020, readers sent Snopes multiple inquiries about widely shared social media posts claiming that PepsiCo, the company that makes Pepsi, had donated $100 million to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations.  targeted During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that: Social media posts BankofAmerica Gave them $1 BILLIONPepsiCo - $400 MILLIONWalmart - $100 MILLIONApple - $100 MILLIONComcast - $100 MILLION Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter:  pointed firearms writing "In America if terrorists show up to your home, you get charged for showing that you own a weapon after they tear down your gate. And the thugs who entered on to your property get $400 million from PepsiCo. as a reward." In August 2020, social media users focused on PepsiCo, and the amount of the company's purported donation to BLM shifted from $400 million to $100 million, for reasons that are unclear, but may have resulted from a misreading of earlier posts that claimed Walmart, Apple, and Comcast had each donated $100 million to BLM.  A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!" typical version post claimed   The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote: wrote "Today, I am announcing the next step in PepsiCos journey for racial equality: a more than $400 million set of initiatives over five years to lift up Black communities and increase Black representation at PepsiCo. These initiatives comprise a holistic effort for PepsiCo to walk the talk of a leading corporation and help address the need for systemic change." Specifically, the company pledged to spend, over the course of five years: We asked PepsiCo whether it, or any charitable entities associated with the company, had donated to groups or projects associated with BLM, including the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the movement. We also requested a list of any recipients of charitable disbursements from the $400 million investment announced in June. We did not receive a response in time for publication. However, since $415 million was reserved for supporting Black-owned suppliers, restaurants, and small businesses, as well as starting a fellowship program, it was therefore mathematically impossible for $100 million to have been pledged for BLM. The only component of that spending that appears to leave room for any involvement with BLM is the $6.5 million reserved for "community impact grants to address systemic issues." So even if that entire portion of funding went to BLM, it would still constitute only a small fraction of the $100 million and $400 million claimed in social media posts in the summer of 2020. None of those who promoted those claims presented any evidence that linked PepsiCo's pledged investment with specific, named organizations or projects associated with the broader BLM movement or the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The claim that PepsiCo had donated $100 million (or $400 million) to BLM appeared to be based on a basic misunderstanding of the company's June 2020 announcement  or the false assumption that any investment associated with the Black community or rectifying racial injustice must be directly connected to BLM.  Laguarta, Ramon.  "Pepsico's Journey to Racial Equality: A Message from Our CEO."
  PepsiCo. 16 June 2020. Social media users love to share words of inspiration and wisdom  if you can pair a profound (or at least vague) life lesson with a striking photo of a celebrity, all the better.  That was the case in early 2018, when a photograph of California's former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared along with an elaborate, but false, back story. A photograph of Schwarzenegger in a sleeping bag in front of a statue of himself bore the following caption: caption Famed actor Arnold Schwarzenegger posted a photo of himself sleeping on the street under his famous bronze statue, and sadly wrote "How times have changed"... The reason he wrote the phrase was not only because he was old, but because when he was governor of California he inaugurated a hotel with his statue. Hotel staff told Arnold, "at any moment you can come and have a room reserved for you." when Arnold stepped down as governor and went to the hotel, the administration refused to give him a room arguing that he should pay for it, since they were in great demand. He brought a sleeping bag and stood underneath the statue and explained what he wanted to convey: "When I was in an important position, they always complimented me, and when I lost this position, they forgot about me and did not keep their promise. Do not trust your position or the amount of money you have, nor your power, nor your intelligence, it will not last. " Trying to teach everyone that when you're "Important" in the people's eyes , everyone is your "Friend " But once you don't benefit their interests , you won't matter. " You are not always who you think you will always be, nothing lasts forever."    The story is riddled with falsehoods, and its primary claim  that Schwarzenegger slept outside a hotel after being refused a free room is a fabrication.  In reality, the photograph (which is legitimate) was taken in January 2016, while the Hollywood star was shooting a film in Columbus, Ohio. Schwarzenegger posted it to his Instagram account on 15 January 2016, apparently as a joke: shooting account   The statue is located outside the city's convention center and has never been situated in front of a hotel, despite the false claims in the Facebook post.  located Schwarzenegger first helped unveil the statue in 2012, outside the Franklin County Veterans Memorial, and then took part in its rededication in 2014, after it was moved to its current location. The former bodybuilder has longstanding ties to Columbus, which is host to an annual bodybuilding competition called the Arnold Sports Festival.  2012 competition Finn, Natalie.  "Here Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Sleeping Next to a Statue of His Bodybuilder Self in Ohio."
  E! Online.  15 January 2016. Associated Press.  "Arnold Schwarzenegger Statue Rededicated in Downtown Columbus."
  WBNS-TV.  6 October 2014. Audi, Tamara.  "Hello, Columbus: Arnold Schwarzenegger Is Back, Bigger Than Ever in Ohio."
  The Wall Street Journal.  2 March 2012. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president. Status:  False. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. It's been more than three decades since the original "Home Alone" film was released. However, fans of the 1990 movie were still noticing details they may have missed in past viewings, like the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. details We previously reported that the black-and-white gangster films depicted in "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" were not real classics. We also published a story about the fact that Catherine O'Hara was the same actress who played both Kate McCallister (Kevin's mother in "Home Alone") as well as Moira Rose on the TV series "Schitt's Creek." The news may not have shocked some of O'Hara's fans, but the number of likes, comments, and shares on various TikTok videos showed that not everyone realized she played both characters. were not real classics story Speaking of the McCallisters, we decided to take another closer look at "Home Alone" after a TikTok video purported to shine a light on an obscure detail: the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. TikTok video In the plot for "Home Alone," the young Kevin McCallister is accidentally left at home while the rest of his family flies to Paris for a Christmas vacation. A series of events allows the mishap to occur, and one of those was the loss of his airplane ticket:   The TikTok video was posted by @scouseblu on Dec. 17, 2020. The Twitter account @FilmEasterEggs considered the moment to be an Easter egg: posted @FilmEasterEggs  Some responded saying they already knew about the ticket being thrown into the garbage, while others expressed surprise:     One Twitter user claimed that the airplane ticket going into the trash was an "integral plot point," which was potentially questionable:  In "Home Alone," the McCallister family runs through the airport and hands their stack of tickets to a gate agent. However, the gate agent did not appear to look at the tickets, but she did conduct a headcount as they walked to the airplane. While the videos from TikTok and Twitter showed the ticket going in the trash, preceding shots showed a row of cups in front of the tickets and passports:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  After Kevin attacks his older brother Buzz for eating all of the cheese pizza, the stack of tickets and passports are briefly visible for a split second before several cups of milk all come crashing down:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  Milk was mentioned in the scene by Kate and was likely chosen by writers because of its ability for the white color to obscure the ticket during cleanup. The stack of tickets and passports all got soaked, but only Kevin's ticket made it in the trash. Freeform aired double features of "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" multiple times in December 2020. Some of the showings included interesting tidbits about the films, in what the Disney-owned channel called its "Pop'n Knowledge Edition." One of those tidbits popped onscreen the moment that Kevin's ticket was thrown in the trash. Freeform also partially edited a sceneout of the sequel "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." partially edited a scene