Says by reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs.
A Georgia congressmans defense of the hotly debated health care law brought some skepticism from one PolitiFact reader. By reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs, Johnson, a Democrat from DeKalb County, wrote in a letter to Daniel Patterson. Patterson forwarded the letter toPolitiFact Georgia. We hadnt heard this claim before and decided to do some research. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the numbers came from a study done by the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan, economic think tank with offices in Southern California and Washington, D.C. In October 2007, the institute released a widely reported study called An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote about the study. The studys first sentence highlighted the trouble. More than half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases, it read. The seven diseases the 240-page study focused on were cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, mental disorder, pulmonary conditions and strokes. In 2003, there were 162.2 million Americans who suffered from one or more of those conditions, the study found. The productivity losses associated with those seven diseases were about $1.1 trillion. In Georgia, the Milken Institute researchers wrote in their study that the economic impact was $32.8 billion, as Johnson said. The researchers found about 5 million cases of those conditions were reported by Georgians in 2003. Pulmonary conditions and hypertension were easily the highest number of diseases reported. The researchers created an index and determined Georgia had the 31st healthiest population in the country. The healthiest states were largely along or west of the Rocky Mountains. The least healthiest states were along the Eastern Seaboard and the South. Utah was the healthiest state, and West Virginia was the least healthy state. The researchers calculated the number of lost workdays by using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Preventions National Health Interview Survey and matching all individuals who had a particular illness with the number of lost workdays in the last 12 months due to illness or injury. The next step they took was to multiply those days lost times wages per employee. Georgias total was 3 percent of the national cost. Georgia has about 3 percent of the nations population. We wondered since the study was based on 2003 figures how much the numbers have changed since then. Ross DeVol, the lead researcher, said no subsequent work had been done to determine what the total would be, but he guessed it would be greater today. I can say with great certainty that the number is much higher today, DeVol told PolitiFact Georgia via email. Another report released in May, though, found lost productivity from various health problems was much less than the Milken Institutes estimate. The report by Gallup-Healthways calculated the total at $84 billion a year. The conditions the Gallup-Healthways study described as chronic included asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity and various physical pains. The estimated cost for each worker per day was $341. The Gallup-Healthways report based its findings on interviews with 94,000 adults nationwide who worked more than 30 hours a week, asking them how many workdays they missed each month due to poor health. Phone interviews were conducted from January through September 2012. The majority responded they missed about one day every three months. Phelan, the congressmans spokesman, said he had not seen the Gallup-Healthways report beforehand. Phelan said he would reference the Milken report in future correspondence with constituents. While both studies looked at lost productivity due to illnesses and disease, the Gallup study looks at it from the perspective of 14 job types for the entire nation while the Milken study looked at it from the standpoint of the illnesses and diseases people suffer and specifically at each state, including Georgia, Phelan said via email. Theres little additional research on this topic. The CDC looked at the economic impact of some conditions. In 2009, the economic costs of cardiovascular diseases and stroke were estimated at $475.3 billion, including $313.8 billion in direct medical expenses and $161.5 billion in indirect costs ($39.1 billion in lost productivity due to sickness or disability and $122.4 billion in lost productivity due to premature death), the CDC found. The $122.4 billion in lost productivity is more than the Gallup-Healthways conclusion, and that estimate was for just strokes and cardiovascular diseases. A 2001 report from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found 2.5 billion workdays were lost a year due to chronic diseases ranging from cancer to arthritis to substance abuse. To sum up, Rep. Johnson said in a letter that by reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs. The congressmans claim was based on accurate numbers from a Milken Institute study that appeared well-researched. We did find other research that differs from the Milken study. Johnsons claim is based on accurate information, but there is a little context necessary to fully examine his statement. Under our rating system, Johnson gets a Mostly True.
In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP or food stamps, has been declining for the past several years largely due to an improving economy. President Donald Trump referred to the decline in a July 9 tweet, mentioning a right-wing media outlet that published anarticleabout the 10-year low hours before. Food Stamp participation hits 10 year low. Wow! @OANN, Trumpwrote. The White House and Trump campaign did not provide a comment. SNAP benefits are food vouchers issued by the government to eligible participants and families with no or low income. While the federal government oversees the program, benefits are administered monthly on the state level. When it comes to comparing SNAP participation over the past 10 years, the best way to do so is to examine the percentage of the U.S. population that is participating in the program, said Lauren Bauer, fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Its preferable to take the percentage of the population instead of a regular count because the U.S. population is growing. She pointed us to data from theU.S. Department of Agricultureand theU.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Since April 2009, the only month that had a lower participation percentage was February 2019. As well see, there were unusual circumstances  a government shutdown  that affected the February numbers. The general decline in SNAP benefits is likely due to the consequences of the very low level of unemployment and gradually rising wages, said Michael Wiseman, professor of public policy at George Washington University. Due to agovernment shutdown, February 2019 had the lowest participation percentage  only 2.22% of people received SNAP benefits. As the record-breaking shutdown lasted from Dec. 22, 2018, to Jan. 25, 2019, most February benefits were distributed in January to ensure SNAP recipients would receive their February 2019 benefits in a timely manner, according to the USDA. The number of SNAP participants largely depends on the economy, said Brynne Keith-Jennings, senior research analyst of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And experts noted that policy changes havent had significant long-term effects on the decline in participation  thats how strongly tied SNAP is to the economy. Because of the Great Recession, SNAP benefits were expanded at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009 as a counter-recession effort, Wiseman said. The expansion was eliminated in 2013, so the 2009 Recovery Act had short-term if any effects, Keith-Jennings added. Another part of the 2009 stimulus was suspending a three-month limit to SNAP participation for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents. States with high unemployment rates have the ability to waive the limit, at least for now. The Trump administration has proposed tightening standards for permitting relief from time limits, Wiseman said. In my judgment, time limits on (Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents), while questionable policy, are not the driving factor behind slowdown of SNAP enrollment. Aproposalby the U.S. Department of Agriculture would make it more difficult for states to waive the three-month limit. If the USDA rule is approved, an estimated 755,000 people would no longer be eligible for SNAP benefits, according to a USDA estimate thats part of theproposed rule. However, even if its approved, the economy would still have a larger effect on overall trends in SNAP participation due to the relatively small size of this population among SNAP participants, Keith-Jennings said. Our ruling Trump tweeted, Food Stamp participation hits 10 year low. Hes correct. The abnormally low SNAP participation in February 2019 was due to benefits for that month being distributed in January 2019 because of a government shutdown. We rate this True. In a 75-minute rally speech that revisited his response to the Charlottesville, Va., unrest and scolded the national media, President Donald Trump slid in a note of pride about the United States balance of trade in energy. We're going to do an infrastructure bill, Trump said. We will build gleaming new roads, bridges, highways, railways, waterways, all across our beautiful land. Our greatest creations, our most incredible buildings, our most beautiful works of art are just waiting to be brought to life. American hands will build this future. American energy will power this future. We have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. Was he correct to say that the United States has become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently? Short answer: No. But to get to the short answer, you have to wade through several possible interpretations of what Trump meant. (The White House did not clarify his meaning for us.) One way to read Trumps statement is to take it literally -- that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong. We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time, said Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University who specializes in energy security issues. We were once, during the time of JD Rockefeller, the world's near monopoly on kerosene. Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time. Piped gas to Mexico and Canada are normal events. We have a massive electricity trade with Canada. Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become anetexporter of energy -- meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. This is less wrong, but still not accurate. This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer, said Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia Universitys Center on Global Energy Policy. In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administrationconcludedthat the United States would become a net energy exporteraround 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing. Whats clear is that the United States has not yet become a net exporter of energy, as Trumps past-tense remark indicated. If that day comes in 2026 -- and it may or may not -- that would be two years after Trump finishes a possible second term. Perhaps rather than energy, Trump meant to say crude oil. If this is what Trump meant, the statement would still be problematic. It wouldnt be the first time ever. And the relevant change was signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama. On Dec. 18, 2015, the United Statesenacted legislationto repeal a ban on most crude-oil exports that had been in place since the energy-crisis days of 1975. (Exports of refined petroleum were not blocked by the law, just crude.) Heres a chart showing U.S. crude-oil exports going back to the 1980s. (The years between 1975 and 2015 show some export activity because trade with some countries, such as Canada, was exempt from the law.) The rapid rise in crude-oil exports near the end of the chart reflects the lifting of the export-restriction law. Its possible to substitute any number of energy subcategories into Trumps remark to see whether they make the statement more accurate. Some do, some dont. The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products sincearound 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct. Natural gas is a more promising option. The United States is not yet a net exporter of natural gas, but the difference between imports and exports has narrowed for nine consecutive years,according to EIA, falling to its smallest gap ever in 2016. And the agencyprojectsthat the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas once the 2017 numbers are tallied up. Energy experts say that this is a significant development, though one that Trump can take little credit for. It has been a trend that was activated by the U.S. shale boom and made possible by the Obama administration's policy on liquefied natural gas exports, said Anna Mikulska, a fellow with Rice Universitys Center for Energy Studies. Ironically, Bordoff added, a different Trump policy goal --reviewing Obama-era increases in fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles-- could make it harder for the United States to become a net exporter of energy, the very thing he applauded in Phoenix. Trumps stated intention to ease fuel economy standards actually undermines the goal of becoming a net energy exporter, because it means the U.S. will be consuming more oil than we would otherwise, he said. The EIA projections assume the planned increases in fuel economy go into effect, so the EIA projection of when we become a net exporter of energy would be pushed further out if we weaken fuel economy standards. Trump said that we have become an energy exporter for the first time ever just recently. This statement is problematic regardless of how you interpret his statement -- gross energy exports, net energy exports, gross crude-oil exports, and net natural gas exports. The closest he would come to being accurate is if he were referring to net natural gas exports, but even there, it hasnt happened yet, contrary to what his past-tense statement indicates. We rate the statement False. When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars. Tesla Roadster Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement: advertisement Elon Musk pulled off a double marketing coup with the first successful test launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket, the flagship of his private space-flight company SpaceX, and the subsequent debut of its payloada Tesla Roadster driven by a dummy nicknamed Starmanas the first car in space. While the launch was clearly one of the most dramatic moments of livestreaming in recent memory, its the live YouTube feed of Musks own cherry-red Roadster circling the Earth that will perhaps generate the biggest publicity boost for Musks emerging electric-car company. With a famously nonexistent ad budget, Tesla just secured a place in auto marketing history. In the wake of this monumental achievement of space travel advertising, a photograph purportedly showing a disapproving Carl Sagan holding a "No Billboards in Space" sign started recirculating on the internet:   This image isn't real. This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest.  2010 claimed created Regardless, this has image has been doctored. The original image showed Sagan holding one of the "Pioneer Plaques," not a sign reading "No Billboards in Space."  The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: message   It seemed to us appropriate that this spacecraft, the first man-made object to leave the solar system, should carry some indication of the locale, epoch, and nature of its builders. We do not know the likelihood of the Galaxy being filled with advanced technological societies capable of and interested in intercepting such a spacecraft. It is clear, however, that such interception is a very long term proposition.  Griner, David.  "With a $0 Ad Budget, Tesla Just Pulled Off One of the Greatest Marketing Stunts Ever"
  Adweek.  7 February 2018. Sagan, Carl.  "A Message from Earth."
  Science Magazine.  25 February 1972. Claim:  A school district in Lincoln, Nebraska has banned the use of gender pronouns and ordered teachers to use neutral terms such as "purple penguins" instead. : : Lincoln Public Schools have provided educators with materials to help them better understand gender identity issues.     : The Lincoln school district has banned all reference to gender in favor of calling students "purple penguins."  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] A Nebraska school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students by "gendered expressions" such as "boys and girls," and use "gender inclusive" ones such as "purple penguins" instead. "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen,' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at Lincoln Public Schools.  I just read an article saying that Nebraska will now start requiring that all students be called "Purple Penguins" instead of boys and girls. Is this true? It was on Foxnews.com, so I'm skeptical. Origins:  On 8 October 2014, the National Review published an article concerning gender identity and inclusiveness training at Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) in Lincoln, Nebraska. According to that article, educators within the school district had been ordered to refrain from using specifically gendered terms when speaking or referring to students in favor of gender neutral terms such as "purple penguins."  article The article made specific reference to materials provided by Gender Spectrum, an organization whose website states a goal of fostering "gender sensitive and inclusive environment for all children and teens." National Review cited paraphrased materials purportedly provided to educators that painted a picture of a full-scale ban on genders in the Lincoln school district: Gender Spectrum "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen,' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at the Lincoln Public Schools. "Create classroom names and then ask all of the 'purple penguins' to meet on the rug," it advises. The document also warns against asking students to "line up as boys or girls," and suggests asking them to line up by whether they prefer "skateboards or bikes/milk or juice/dogs or cats/summer or winter/talking or listening." "Always ask yourself ... 'Will this configuration create a gendered space?'" the document says." Word of Lincoln Public Schools' gender inclusivity training quickly spread across blogs and on Twitter, morphing into a cautionary tale of political correctness run rampant: Teachers are encouraged to hang signs on their classroom doors insisting that "all genders" are welcome while discontinuing the time-tested practice of lining boys and girls up separately before leaving class. "Instead," the guidelines dictate, "use things like 'odd and even birth date ...' Educators should prominently display photographs of gender-benders in the classroom, the new policy insists, and give students at least four choices when it is imperative that gender be determined. Much of the airtime given to the matter of gender sensitivity training in Lincoln framed the materials supplied as mandates or rules imposed on all schools within the district. However, as Brenda Leggiardo, LPS coordinator of social workers and counselors clarified to the Lincoln Journal Star after the issue gained widespread attention, the materials were provided as guidelines for educators to better understand gender identity issues and were not intended to impose rules mandating how those issues should be addressed: The handouts, provided by a staff member on a district equity team, were meant only for teachers, not for students or parents, she said. And they were not meant as rules staff had to follow, but as suggestions for how teachers can make students feel comfortable. It also stresses the impact words can have on others, Leggiardo said. "If there's a staff member that's uninformed and unsupportive, that can be pretty scary for a family maybe struggling to understand transgender issues themselves," she said.   LPS Superintendent Steve Joel also held a press conference to assert that the district had made no changes to their policies and imposed no mandates; the material in question consisted only of suggestions for "how teachers could reach all students in their classroom": Lincoln Public Schools Superintendent Steve Joel pushed back against what he said was misinformed reaction to the district's gender identity training by national commentators and news outlets. "It's indeed regrettable that for the last week and a half we've had to dedicate as much staff time and resources to address an issue that is not founded in fact," he said at a news conference. "Never once has anyone inside our system mandated that a teacher take (the words) 'boys' and 'girls' or 'ladies' and 'gentlemen' out of their interactions with children or interaction with adults. There's no policy, there's no procedure, there's no changes being made to bathrooms in schools." Fox News and other national outlets picked up on local news reports about the district's gender identity training, specifically handouts used with teachers at Irving Middle School that included one from the nonprofit organization Gender Spectrum entitled "12 easy steps to gender inclusiveness." Joel said the handouts were suggestions and strategies, not mandates, about how teachers could reach all students in their classrooms. The training occurred at the request of an Irving teacher looking for guidance dealing with students. "This was about adults, professional educators, who care deeply about trying to reach and establish relationships with children," Joel said. "They are looking for strategies about how to be more effective in the classroom." During administrative leadership days prior to the beginning of the school year, LPS officials shared several recent news stories about transgender persons to help administrators better understand the issues that face some students, so they feel comfortable and welcome at school.   Last updated:  13 October 2014     Reist, Margaret.  "LPS Staff's Transgender Training Concerns Parents."   Lincoln Journal Star.  1 October 2014.    Reist, Margaret.  "Superintendent Reacts to National Attention Directed at District's Gender Identity Training."   Lincoln Journal Star.  10 October 2014.    Timpf, Katherine. "School Told to Call Kids 'Purple Penguins' Because 'Boys and Girls' Is Not Inclusive ..."   National Review.  8 October 2014. In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information. On April 29, 2020, a large asteroid is expected to fly by earth at a distance of approximately 4 million miles. That may be of interest to stargazers, but the previous sentence isn't very alarming or attention-grabbing. Yet many media outlets wrote headlines about this incoming asteroid as if it posed an immediate and catastrophic threat to the planet. An article in the Daily Express, for instance, was headlined: "Asteroid warning: NASA tracks a 4KM asteroid approach - Could end civilisation if it hits." The site used a similar message when promoting this article on Twitter:  headlined   While these headlines may bring clicks, they also may lead readers to falsely believe that this asteroid poses an immediate threat to life on Earth. That isn't the case. While Asteroid 52768 (1998 OR2) will approach Earth in April 2020, the asteroid is not expected to come within 3.9 million miles of the planet.  NASA is constantly monitoring the skies for asteroids and meteors that pose a potential threat to Earth. When these near-Earth objects (NEOs) are discovered, NASA monitors them to find out when they will approach Earth, how fast they will be traveling, how large they are, and how close they will get. All of this data is publicly available on the Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) website.  Center for Near Earth Object Studies Asteroid 52768 (1998 OR2) was first discovered (as its name implies) in 1998, so this asteroid isn't making a sudden and scary appearance above Earth. NASA has been monitoring it for more than two decades and has learned quite a bit. For instance, the asteroid is relatively large with a diameter between 1.1 and 2.5 miles, and it will be traveling at just under 20,000 mph when it makes its closest approach to Earth.  discovered While an asteroid of this size would cause catastrophic damage if it hit Earth, there's practically no chance that will happen in April 2020. According to NASA, this asteroid won't come within 3.9 million miles of Earth. In other words, it will approach no closer than about 16 times the distance between us and the moon. Asteroid Watch, the official Twitter account of the CNEOS, attempted to quell fears about this asteroid, writing that it will "safely pass" Earth and that NASA did not issue a "warning" about a possible catastrophic collision. Asteroid 52768 (1998 OR2) is not currently listed on NASA's list of potential future Earth impact events.  Twitter account  potential future Earth impact events CNEOS writes (emphasis ours):  CNEOS  On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earths surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earths surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earths surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earths surface and cause local disasters or produce the tidal waves that can inundate low lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earths atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earths surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions and structures and to keep an eye upon their future trajectories. [...] No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA is currently tracking about 20,000 NEOs. While these objects routinely pass by Earth without incident, every now and again a media outlet will write an outlandish story about how one of these objects is posed to wipe out life on earth. While we've seen several of these fear-mongering rumors over the years, these "doomsday" asteroids never seem to arrive.  fear-mongering rumors years Kettley, Sebastian.  "Asteroid Warning: NASA Tracks a 4KM Asteroid Approach - Could End Civilisation if it Hits."
  Daily Express.  4 March 2020. Strickland, Ashley.  "Large Asteroid Will Fly by the Earth Next Month, But Won't Hit Us, Reassures NASA."
  CNN.  3 March 2020. In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package for dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, one several-year-old, check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media:  Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences in misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account:  A little common sense would be relevant here: If your simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check  and clearly that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks: deposited checks The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank, or the victim, discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works: check-clearance Unfortunately, the term clear sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writers bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your banks computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly -- usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000 -- and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writers bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account -- even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and youre the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: o Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. o Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. o Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit (counterfeit) checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. o Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. o Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. o Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: describes Fake checks drive many types of scams  like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you dont know asks you to deposit a check  sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed  and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment  theyre stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers youve deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and youre stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank.  The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared. Brunelli, Laureen Miles.  "How to Recognize a Fake Check Scam."
  The Balance.  11 November 2019. Pritchard, Justin.  "Did That Check Really Clear?"
  The Balance.  24 February 2019. Tressler, Colleen.  "Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam."
  Federal Trade Commission.  5 September 2018. Loftsgordon, Amy.  "Fake Check Scams Target Job Seekers."
  Lawyers.com.  Accessed 2 April 2020. In May 2018, survivors of the Parkland school shooting massacre, and many others both on and off social media, responded with horror at reports of a video game in which players could assume the role of a school shooter. Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, called the game (which is titled Active Shooter) "disgusting" in a tweet and urged others to sign a petition calling for the game not to be released. (The online petition garnered almost 100,000 signatures within four days.) tweet petition Ryan Petty, whose 14-year-old daughter Alaina was killed in the shooting rampage, accused Valve Corporation (the Bellevue, Washington, company that runs the Steam platform on which the game would be distributed and run) of "trying to profit from the glamorization of tragedies affecting our schools across the country" and also called the game "disgusting." accused Steam The game was indeed real: it was published by a Russian company called Acid and developed by Revived Games (featuring games such as Furry, Tyde Pod Challenge, and White Power: Pure Voltage. which carries the following description: "The Underworld is an alternate dimension existing in parallel to the human species world. It contains the same parts of the Universe as humanity does, but much more in a darker, colder and hostile manner.") Acid Revived Games Furry  Tyde Pod Challenge  White Power: Pure Voltage Active Shooter' s descriptive entry on Steam's web site read as follows: entry Pick your role, gear up and fight or destroy! Be the good guy or the bad guy. The choice is yours! Only in "Active Shooter", you will be able to pick the role of an Elite S.W.A.T member or the actual shooter. A video preview of the game showed a shooter armed with a rifle, handgun, and knife stalking the classrooms and corridors of a school, shooting at both police and civilians while a "kill counter" shows the number of "cops" and "civ" (civilians) the player had murdered. Every civilian shown in the preview video appeared to be female:   In a difficult-to-follow post on May 23, 2018, the game's publisher claimed that Active Shooter "does not promote any sort of violence, especially any soft [sic] of a mass shooting." The publisher went on to note that the game will probably not allow players to assume the role of the shooter by the time the game is released: post After receiving such high amount of critics and hate, I will more likely remove the shooters role in this game by the release, unless if it can be kept as it is right now. We asked Valve Corporation whether Active Shooter would still be released on June 6, 2018, and if so, whether it would still feature the shooter mode. We did not receive a response to our query, but shortly afterwards we noticed that Acid's games were no longer listed among Steam's offerings. listed Subsequently, the gaming news web site PC Gamer reported that both the publisher and developer of the game -- Acid and Revived Games -- had been removed from the Steam platform. PC Gamer quoted what it called a "Valve rep" as saying that the publisher and developer were the same person: reported This developer and publisher is, in fact, a person calling himself Ata Berdiyev, who had previously been removed last fall when he was operating as '[bc]Interactive' and 'Elusive Team'. Ata is a troll, with a history of customer abuse, publishing copyrighted material, and user review manipulation. His subsequent return under new business names was a fact that came to light as we investigated the controversy around his upcoming title. We are not going to do business with people who act like this towards our customers or Valve. In mid-June, Acid announced plans to offer Active Shooter for purchase via its own platform. On June 26, they posted a notice to that effect on the Steam community board, noting that Active Shooter had been renamed Standoff. As of September 2019, Active Shooter was still listed among Acid's offerings and a sequel, Standoff: Lockdown, was also available for sale. announced notice listed sequel Collins, Dan. ""Active Shooter" Developer Plans to Continue Selling Video Game Despite Victim Complaints."
 Associated Press. 14 June 2018. Stuart, Keith. "Active Shooter Video Game Condemned by Parents of Parkland Victims."
 The Guardian. 29 May 2018. Updated [30 September 2019]: Added information about the game's developer offering it for purchase on its own platform under a new name ("Standoff"), and a sequel being produced in 2019. Status revised from "Outdated" to