Were Pearl Harbor Photographs Recently Found in an Old Camera?
PHOTOS STORED IN AN OLD BROWNIE CAMERA Thought you might find these photo's very interesting, what quality from 1941.Pearl Harbor Photos found in an old Brownie stored in a foot locker.  THESE PHOTOS ARE FROM A SAILOR WHO WAS ON THE USS QUAPAW ATF-11O. INTERESTING, I THINK THEY'RE SPECTACULAR.                    On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese empire launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. By planning his attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island, where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States.)  In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack. Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneohe and Ewa. The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets.  At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 "Kate" torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor Within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.When it was over, the U.S. losses were:  CasualtiesUSA : 218 KIA, 364 WIA..USN: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.USMC: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.-------------------------------------------------   BattleshipsUSS Arizona (BB-39) - total loss whe n a bomb hit her magazine.USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.-------------------------------------------------CruisersUSS New Orleans (CA-32) - Light Damage.USS San Francisco (CA38) - Light Damage.USS Detroit (CL-8) - Light Damage.USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.USS Helena (CL-50) - Light Damage.USS Honolulu (CL-48) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------DestroyersUSS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.-------------------------------------------------MinelayerUSS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.-------------------------------------------------Seaplane TenderUSS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Repair ShipUSS Vestal (AR-4) - Sever ely damaged but later repaired.-------------------------------------------------Harbor TugUSS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aircraft188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.) The images seen above are genuine photographs of the Japanese attack on American military forces at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on 7 December 1941, but not  as claimed in the accompanying text  all of them pictures taken by a sailor with a Brownie camera that remained undiscovered in a footlocker for many decades.   Brownie For a "sailor" to have snapped pictures from all the perspectives shown above, he would had to have been in the harbor aboard his ship, on the ground, and aloft in an airplane  all while the attack was in progress.  Moreover, the ship on which this wide-ranging sailor supposedly served, the first USS Quapaw, wasn't even built until well after the attack on Pearl Harbor. USS Quapaw Most (if not all) of these images are readily identifiable as archival U.S. Navy photos that have been available since the early 1940s and have appeared in countless articles and books about the Pearl Harbor attack. archival
The Dow Jones Industrial Average hasrisen by 32 percentsince President Donald Trump took office. But are Americans overall benefiting? U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna. D-Calif., suggested that they are not ina Facebook postspotted by a PolitiFact reader. Khannas post featured the headline, Most Americans dont own stocks. He repeated that point in his message, which accompanied a bar graph: FACT: Most Americans dont own any stocks. Instead of celebrating whenever the Dow Jones goes up, we need to focus on bringing investment and good jobs to the areas of this country that havent been part of the economic recovery. The accompanying graph details the distribution of stock ownership by wealth percentile, specifically 84 percent for the top 10 percent, 9.3 percent for the next 10 percent and 6.7 percent for the bottom 80 percent. The data in the graph stems from a peer-reviewed academic paper. However, when we took a closer look, we found the data in the graph doesnt directly support the claim that most Americans dont own stocks. In fact, the actual data on that question shows that a small majority of Americans do have a stake in the stock market. The data in the graph comes from apaperpublished in November 2017 by New York University professor Edward N. Wolff. One of the papersfindingswas that despite the fact that almost half of all households owned stock shares either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts, the richest 10 percent of households controlled 84 percent of the total value of these stocks in 2016. This line by Wolff presents a key contrast that Khannas post glosses over: While about half of households own stocks in one way or another, the richest Americans hold the lions share of the value. Khanna uses a bar graph that highlights the imbalance in thevalueof stock holdings, but his headline claim is about thereachof stock ownership throughout the population. Those are two different things. When we contacted Wolff, he agreed that Khannas headline was wrong. So what does the data show on the reach of stock ownership? Its a bit wider than Khanna suggests. Even if you dont own or trade individual stocks, theres a decent chance you have a 401(k) account or an Individual Retirement Account or belong to a pension fund that is invested in stocks. Many individuals have an indirect interest in the stock market by means of their claims on pension funds that own stocks and use these stock positions to fund pension payments, said Hendrik Bessembinder, a professor at Arizona State Universitys W.P. Carey School of Business. A once-every-three-yearsstudyby the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund. And in 2017,Gallupfound that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund. Those findings show a majority owning stocks  a modest majority, but still a majority. In an email interview, Khanna told PolitiFact that he still feels the essence of the post is accurate but added that a better headline would have been, Most Americans Dont Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market. Khanna has a point that a households affluence does help determine how vested they are in the stock market. The Federal Reserve Board study found that about one-third of families in the lower half of the income scale had stock holdings. In the next 40 percent of the income scale, about 70 percent of households held stocks, while households in the top 10 percent of the income scale had stock ownership rates above 90 percent. Here's a chart from the Fed's report, showing how stock ownership rates vary depending on income level. Gallup, meanwhile, found that certain subgroups were notably less likely to own stocks, including those without a college education, younger Americans, unmarried Americans, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Khanna wrote that most Americans dont own stocks. To be precise, a narrow majority of Americans does own stocks, according to credible recent studies. But Khanna has a point that Americans of modest incomes are significantly less invested in the stock market than wealthier Americans are. Other large groups, including minorities and those without a college education, also lag in stock ownership, meaning that the stock rally is largely passing them by. We rate the statement Half True. A new Trump administration directive targeting international students at U.S. colleges is beingchallenged by universitiesin court  and by pundits on the cable news channels. Thenew Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidancewould bar foreign college students from staying in the country if they take all their courses online. International students enrolled atHarvard Universityandother U.S. collegesthat have moved fall-semester classes entirely online due to the coronavirus pandemic will have to leave the U.S. or transfer to a school with in-person teaching, according to the new rule. The rule, if put into effect, could trim the number of foreign students in the U.S. and at specific universities. It could also deal a blow to the U.S. economy, said MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who argued on his primetime TV show that the policy has no upside. Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors, Hayes said, while displaying achart on U.S. education exports. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, (in the) 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Hayes statistics are accurate. In 2019, U.S. service exports from education totaled roughly $44 billion, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. That made education the sixth largest service export for the year, behind services such as personal travel and professional and management consulting, a spokesperson for the International Trade Administration said. Academic experts and representatives from nonprofits focused on international education also backed Hayes claims. An ICE spokesperson said Hayes statement was accurate but declined to comment further due topending litigation. Higher education is one of the few areas in which we have a big surplus of exports over imports, said Dick Startz, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who wrote about the economics of education in a2017 article for the Brookings Institution. All three of the statistics Hayes cited are correct. More than 1 million international students studied at U.S. institutions during the 2018-19 academic year, according to theInstitute of International EducationandNAFSA: Association of International Educators, two nonprofits dedicated to international education. The two organizations reported that those international students contributed more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy during the year. Experts said higher education can be considered an export because international students pay their tuition and living expenses to colleges and universities using money from abroad. International students are buying an American education, Startz said. Hence its an export. Exports from education amounted to roughly $44 billion in 2019, up from about $42.6 billion in 2018, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. Thats more than the U.S. made from exporting manyother goodsand services in the same timeframe. Education ranked sixth among service exports in 2019, the International Trade Administration spokesperson told us. It wasfifth in 2018. Those numbers make sense when you factor in thecost of college, said Judith Scott-Clayton, professor of economics and education at Columbia Universitys Teachers College. If there are 1.1 million international students in the country, and each of them spends about $40,000 on U.S. tuition and living expenses, that gets you to $44 billion, she said. In an email to PolitiFact, Hayes also cited theInternational Trade Administrationand anarticle in the New York Times Magazinein which an Institute of International Education adviser was quoted saying higher education is one of Americas biggest exports. But the article said U.S. schools were losing their international appeal for a number of reasons, including rising tuition costs and various policies enacted under President Donald Trump. Rachel Banks, NAFSAs senior director for public policy and legislative strategy, said in a statement that new international student enrollment is down over 10% since the fall of 2016, a trend NAFSAestimateshas cost the U.S. economy $11.8 billion. Thats before the impacts of a global pandemic and related travel restrictions, several presidential proclamations targeting immigrants and nonimmigrants, and this guidance, Banks said. Therefore, we dont anticipate this downward trajectory to reverse itself anytime soon. Hayes said, Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Government agencies, academic experts and nonprofit organizations said Hayes statistics are correct. The money the U.S. gets from foreign students studying at its colleges and universities makes education one of the countrys top service exports. We rate this statement True. In September 2021, British health officials announced the launch of the worlds largest trial of a blood test capable of detecting more than 50 types of cancer before symptoms appear.  50 types of cancer Headed by The Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and Kings College London, the so-named Galleri trial aims to recruit 140,000 volunteers across eight areas of England. Galleri checks for the earliest signs of cancer. If it's successful, its ability to catch cancer during its earliest stages could be a game-changer in the fight against the disease.  NHS Kings College London This quick and simple blood test could mark the beginning of a revolution in cancer detection and treatment here and around the world, said NHS Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard in a news release. By finding cancer before signs and symptoms even appear, we have the best chance of treating it and we can give people the best possible chance of survival. news release While its early cancer detection ability holds promise, Galleri does not diagnose cancer and does not detect all forms of the disease. Blood drawn from a participant is tested for chemical changes in fragments of the bloods genetic code known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which leaks from tumors into the bloodstream. Previous research conducted by Galleri founding company Grail showed that the test was effective at finding cancers that are difficult to identify early on, like head and neck, bowel, lung, pancreatic, and throat cancers.  As of this writing, Galleri is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but was granted a breakthrough device designation in 2019 under a government-led voluntary program for certain medical devices "that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions." The test joins two other similar tumor-testing tests that were approved in the U.S., according to the consumer publication Evaluate. Galleri is available in the U.S. for $949, and is available for prescription only. Because it is new to the market and does not have FDA approval, the test is not covered by health insurance.  Galleri granted breakthrough device Evaluate prescription only  Galleri is designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer. Grail  Grail   Galleri doesnt rule out cancer, but instead helps providers to evaluate and confirm whether and where cancer may exist. It is intended to be used in coordination with other screening practices and is not a replacement but rather a method to inform the next steps of diagnosis.  For the British trial, tens of thousands of recruitments between the ages of 50 and 77  those most at risk for cancer  will be asked to give blood samples at mobile testing clinics across the country. Regardless of their results, the test is designed to detect cancer signals such as cfDNA and predict where in the body those signals exist. Half of the participants in the randomized control trial will have blood samples screened with the test right away, while the other half will have their sample stored and tested in the future. This will allow researchers to compare the stage at which cancer is detected between the two groups. Regardless, study participants will be notified if their test signals potential cancer.  Early cancer detection during stage one or two allows for more treatment options, some of which can be less aggressive and harmful. Patients whose cancer is identified at the earliest stage may see up to ten times the survival rate compared to a person who learned of cancer at stage four.  Those who give blood as part of the British trial will be invited to participate in later stages of the trial one and two years later. Initial results are expected by 2021 and if successful, researchers plan to extend the rollout to 1 million people by 2025.  Sources GRAIL Announces Significant Progress with Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Including FDA Breakthrough Device Designation. GRAIL, https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-announces-significant-progress-with-multi-cancer-early-detection-test-including-fda-breakthrough-device-designation/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Grail Launches Pan-Cancer Screen  for Those Who Can Pay out of Pocket. Evaluate.Com, 4 June 2021, https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/grail-launches-pan-cancer-screen-those-who-can-pay-out-pocket. Health, Center for Devices and Radiological. Breakthrough Devices Program. FDA, Jan. 2021. www.fda.gov, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program. Kings Leads the Worlds Largest Trial of Cancer Blood Test. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/kings-leads-the-worlds-largest-trial-of-cancer-blood-test. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. NHS England NHS Launches World First Trial for New Cancer Test. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Our Products. GRAIL, https://grail.com/our-products/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Echoing Gov.-elect John Kasichs pledge to cut taxes, Ohios incoming agriculture chief recently called for the elimination of the states estate tax.The tax has contributed to the declining number of family farms in Ohio, said State Rep. Jim Zehringer, a Republican from Northwest Ohio whom Kasich recently picked to lead the states Department of Agriculture.Ohio is losing over 700 family farms a year, some of them just to pay the inheritance tax, Zehringer said at a Nov. 16 news conference at which Kasich introduced him as the new agriculture director.Kasich, a Republican who defeated Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in November,has specifically called for the elimination of the tax, which Zehringer referred to as the inheritance tax, because he believes it punishes success. An estate tax is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else.PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look, given the farming remains one of Ohios key industries.First we looked to see if the number of family farms actually is decreasing at the rate Zehringer claims.Rob Nichols, a spokesman for John Kasich, said Zehringer based his claim on the United States Department of Agricultures statistics, specifically, an agricultural census the department conducts every five years.For his assessment, Zehringer compared figures for one classification of family farms. The USDA, however, also counts family-held corporations within its definition of family farms, according to Amanda Pomicter of the USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service. Family-held corporations represent only a fraction of family farms in Ohio, but their inclusion does color the picture of how fast the number of family farms are shrinking in the state.Here is a comparison over the last 15 years of the figures Zehringer used and statistics that include family-held corporations.Year         Family farms only     Family farms and corps1992         60,936                         62,5381997         69,123                         71,0992002         70,890                         72,5792007         66,382                         69,131Nichols told us that Zehringer used the most recent of these five-year stretches for his assertion. Ohio lost 4,508 family farms in that span for an average of about 902 farms a year. If the statistics Zehringer used showed a 900-farm-per-year decline, why did he ballpark the annual losses at 700? He was being conservative, Nichols said.Had Zehringer also included in his analysis farms owned by family-held corporations, he might have reduced the annual decline even further.In the same five year stretch, using the figures the USDA prefers, Ohio lost 3,448 family farms for an average of 690 lost farms per year.The U.S. Department of Agriculture wont begin counting farms for its 2012 census until the end of that year, so the figures for 2007 represent the most recent available data.Another point of clarity is needed for Zehringers assertion that the states inheritance tax is causing the state to lose family farms.John Kohlstrand, a spokesman for the Department of Taxation, said the state does not have an inheritance tax. He said inheritance taxes apply to each individual who receives property from an estate.Ohio has an estate tax, which is levied on the net value of an estate before its assets are transferred to anyone else. In e-mails, Nichols told us that was what Zehringer was referring to and that it is universally known that some family farms are sold because the estate tax could not be paid.In Ohio, estates worth $338,333 or less are effectively exempt from the state estate tax due to a tax credit, which is available to all estates, of up to $13,900. A 6 percent tax rate applies to estates worth between $338,334 and $500,000. For estates worth more than $500,000, the tax is $9,700 plus 7 percent of the estates value. A federal estate tax also exists. It was phased out in 2010 as part of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, pending an extension by Congress. The U.S. Agriculture Department does not track how many family farms are lost due to estate taxes, said James Ramey, director of the Ohio field office of the USDAs National Agriculture Statistics Service.Neither does the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. But Joe Cornely, the bureaus spokesman, said Zehringer is absolutely right that the Ohio estate tax contributes to the decline in family farms. Sometimes a chunk of a farm is sold to pay federal and state estate taxes and, as a result, the farm is no longer commercially viable, Cornely said.The federal estate tax is more burdensome, but inheritance taxes, regardless whether its state or federal, can have negative consequences on the heirs, he saidThe food and agriculture industries are a $98 billion business in Ohio. The loss of family farms, particularly in light of Kasichs commitment to job creation, is sure to be something the incoming Agriculture chief will monitor.Zehringers data is somewhat dated, and he didnt include all types of family farms in his analysis. His statement is not far off the annual decline found in Ohio using statistics the USDA prefers. And ultimately, the differences in numbers dont impact his underlying point.As for the estate taxs role in the decline, its difficult to say exactly how many family farms were lost for that reason. But Cornely, an authority on Ohio agriculture, said his is sure some of the loses would be due to taxes.We rate the statement True. Public education advocates gave a collective sigh of relief on April 28. Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 2015 state budget that day, and that action gave them hope that school systems might be able to ease up on the worst of the belt-tightening measures. Unpaid furlough days. Larger class sizes. Shorter school years. State austerity cuts to public education started in 2003 --- well before the Great Recession -- and they are not ending. But this year, they total $746.6 million, and that to educators, who can do the math, looked better than the $1 billion-plus-a-year cuts in each of the five prior years. We have been through tough times since the Great Recession started, Deal said during a candidate forum that was part of the annual meeting of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators foundation on September 15th. But just how tough? The governor told the crowd that it has taken until this year for overall state revenues to return to the levels they were in 2007. (The National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the countrys longest recession since World War II lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, although surveys show many people believe it has lasted much longer.) Given all the debate about state budget cuts through the years -- especially in education  -- we decided to run Deals statement through the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to the Deal campaign as we always do for supporting evidence. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Talaber said Deal was relying on information from the Governors Office of Planning and Budget. OPB reports shows that 2007 was a fiscal high water mark for the state. Taxes on everything from personal and corporate income to gasoline and alcohol hit $17.8 billion that year, up $1.3 billion from 2006. Those same documents show that as the national and Georgia economies sank, so did state revenues. At the low point --- which was the fiscal year that ran from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 -- total tax collection were about $14.5 billion -- or $3.3 billion off the peak. It wasnt until Fiscal 2014, which ended June 30 of this year, that total state tax collections were back to -- and slightly above -- 2007 levels, budget documents show. Tax collections for 2014 were $17.9 billion -- or about $100 million over 2007 levels. The governor is right on the money on this one. We rate Deals statement as True. Claim:  Matt Patterson wrote "The Affirmative Action President," an opinion piece critical of Barack Obama, for the Washington Post. MIXED ATTRIBUTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November  2011] Amazing that the Wash. Post would actually print this. Amazing! The Washington Post August 18, 2011 Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson (columnist  Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner) Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? [Rest of article here.] here  Origins:  The opinion piece referenced above was penned by Matt Patterson and was published (under the title "Obama: The Affirmative Action President") on the American Thinker web site on 18 August 2011.  Although the important "who" of the attribution is correct, however, the "where" is incorrect: despite the mention of the Washington Post in the example cited above,  this item was never published in either the print or online version of that newspaper (nor, as claimed in later versions, was it published in Newsweek magazine).   A possible explanation for the confusion is that someone viewed the list of publications in which Matt Patterson's work has appeared and mistakenly assumed this piece was syndicated to all of them.  (Mr. Patterson isn't a "columnist" for any of the newspapers mentioned, but rather an occasional contributor of opinion pieces.) Matt Patterson published list Last updated:  20 December 2011 <!-- In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected.  In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL:  Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions.  Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly 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 Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. A new political mailer from the Committee to Protect Florida attacks State House District 45 candidate Kathryn Starkey of New Port Richey for her record on taxes, citing her role on a water district board and her support of the Penny for Pasco, a 2004 increase in the county sales tax.The committee is headed up by Rockie Pennington, a political consultant for Richard Corcoran, one of Starkeys two opponents in the Aug. 24 Republican primary. (Fabian Calvo is also on the ballot. )Taxin Kathryn, says the mailer sent in early August 2010. With Kathryn Starkeys record on taxes here at home, how can we trust her -- or afford her -- in Tallahassee?We wondered, can you trust the mailers claims? We looked at three claims, and this Truth-O-Meter item tackles her attendance at meetings. Other items arehereon her voting record for river board tax rates, andhereon her actions involving the Pasco sales tax.We looked at the claim that As a member of the Pinellas-Anclote River Basin Board, Kathryn Starkey had the opportunity to fight for lower taxes in 14 separate budget meetings between 2002 and 2008. But ... She only attended half of those meetings!Pennington said he based that claim on minutes from the basin boards meetings. We took a look, too.We looked at two budget meetings each year: June, when the basin board typically sets its preliminary tax rate, and August, when it takes a final vote. (In 2007, the final vote was taken in July. )Starkey served on the board from June 2002 through April 2008, so we looked only at the 12 budget-related meetings that fell within that period. (Pennington, who put together his mailer a month ago, said he wasnt sure why we came up with different counts for the meetings. )Of 12 budget meetings she could have attended, Starkey attended seven (five of those seven were the final votes). That attendance record is more than half  by a hair.We rate this claim Mostly True.