Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago.
Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.,took to Twitterrecently to tout her support for a $15 minimum wage. In the tweet, Smith wrote that one of the proudest things I did as lieutenant governor serving under Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton was helping to raise Minnesotas state minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Now, Im proud to back a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024, she wrote, referring to a measure introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patty Murray, D-Wash. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, though states can set higher levels if they wish  anda majority do, from a small amount more than the federal level to $11.50 in Washington state. In a threadedtweet, Smith gave some historical perspective on the minimum wage: The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. We wondered if Smith was correct, so we looked at the data. Back in 1968, the minimum wage was set at $1.60. That is equivalent to $11.76 in todays dollars, which is well above todays minimum wage level and an all-time high when adjusted for inflation. (We used the Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorfor this purpose.) Over the last 50 years, the situation in 1968  greater purchasing power for the minimum wage than today  has been common, though not universal. By contrast, we only found seven years in which todays minimum wage is able to buy more than a previous minimum wage could. (Those years were 1989, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.) Heres the full chart, with the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage shown in red: All told, then, the minimum wage has been worth more than it is today for 86 percent of the time over the past 50 years, and less than todays during 14 percent of that time. Smith said, Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. Smiths strict comparison with 50 years ago is accurate, and her comparison even holds for most years out of the past 50, suggesting that the year she picked is not an unreasonable choice. We rate the statement True.
Claim:  Wal-Mart is trying out products embedded with RFID tracking chips.  Example:  [Starrett, 2003] BIG BROTHER COMES TO WAL-MART  Starting this week, the nation's largest discount retailer will quietly begin selling tracking-chipped products to clueless shoppers. The first volley in their war against our privacy is set to start at their Brockton, Massachusetts store.  Wal-Mart will put Radio Frequency I.D. sensors on shelves stocked with RFID-tagged Gillette products, but they'd rather you didn't know about it, because, hey, you might not like it, and then you might make noise and then they'd have a big PR mess on their hands.  You might even stop buying Gillette products or, say, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart.  These chips, researched at M.I.T.'s Auto-ID Center are about the size of a grain of sand. Chipsters say the technology will only be used to help retailers keep track of inventory  like bar codes. But privacy-loving consumers question the very concept of a device that sends out radio waves to "readers" that not only identify the article, but where and with whom it's going.  [Click here to view rest of article] here Origins:  One of the keys to the success of giant retailing chains such as Wal-Mart has been the advancement of information technology which allows for tight control of inventory.  The ability to quickly and accurately track the movement of product through their stores enables retailers to ensure that customers don't find a wanted item out of stock, while avoiding the spoilage and costly inefficiencies that come with keeping too much unsold inventory on hand.  These improvements lower retailers' operating costs, and the savings are (theoretically) passed along to consumers in the form of lower  prices. The adoption of the Universal Product Code, or UPC (more commonly known as the "bar code"), in the 1970s was one of the most significant steps in automating the tracking of inventory.  With every product assigned a unique code (encoded in bar form on the packaging) which could be read by a scanner and matched up with information stored in a database, retailers could eliminate the costly and time-consuming processes of individually price-tagging every single item and manually counting items to determine the amount of inventory on hand; instead, prices could be read by scanners at the point of sale, and purchases could be tracked automatically and the number of items sold subtracted from stock-on-hand to calculate current inventory levels. UPC A more recent advance in inventory control has been the development of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology.  Described as "bar codes on steroids," tiny RFID chips are being embedded in products (or their packaging) to assist retailers with Automatic Identification and Data Capture (AIDC).  The RFID chips, when triggered by sensors, emit short bursts of identifying data streamed via radio waves; this system is a significant improvement over bar coding system for a number of reasons, including: RFID  RFID chips can store much more information than bar codes.  RFID chips are a read/write technology, so more information can be added to them as needed.  RFID chips don't require line-of-sight proximity (i.e., the information they store can be read even when products are still encased in boxes or crates).  RFID chips are more robust (i.e., not subject to problems caused by tearing, creasing, or alteration) than bar coding. Most important, perhaps, RFID chips can enable the tracking of individual pieces of merchandise.  That is, rather than simply identifying an item as a box of Cheerios (as bar codes do), an RFID chip can uniquely identify a particular box of Cheerios and enable it to be tracked all the way through the sales chain, from the warehouse to a consumer's shopping cart.  This level of uniqueness in tracking can, for example, aid in the removal of expired merchandise from store shelves or assist in locating items designated as part of a product recall. The announcement in June 2003 that Gillette would be trying out some of their RFID-tagged products (such as batteries, razors, oral care products) in cooperation with a Brockton, Massachusetts, Wal-Mart prompted the article by Mary Starrett quoted above, a dire "Big Brother" warning insinuating that RFID tags would not necessarily be disabled at the point of purchase and could be used to track items even after consumers had purchased them and taken them home.  Ms. Starrett also suggested that the Brockton store was chosen for this experiment because "the store's customers are typically lower income minorities who'd be less likely to be aware of the tracking devices, and even less likely to make a fuss about them." (RFID tags have no built-in batteries or power supplies; they're activated by radio waves sent out from RFID readers which emit just enough power to trigger the tags and have a limited range limit, so Orwellian nightmare scenarios involving avaricious corporations tracking the locations of every one of their products all over the globe are not yet a reality.) The wireless inventory control system trial referenced in this particular 2003 warning did not take place.  On 9 July 2003, CNET news reported that Wal-Mart had canceled it: canceled "The shelf was never completely installed," Wal-Mart spokesman Tom Williams said. "We didn't want it. Any materials that were there (in Brockton) were removed. We never had products with chips in them." In July 2010, news accounts stated that Wal-Mart would soon be placing removable RFID "smart tags" on individual garments such as jeans and underwear in order to optimize stocking and inventory control procedures (and, if the results were promising, the company would eventually roll out RFID-tagging with other products as well).  Privacy advocates responded by again raising concerns that the RFID technology could be used not just for inventory purposes, but for intrusive customer-tracking activities: While the tags can be removed from clothing and packages, they can't be turned off, and they are trackable. Some privacy advocates hypothesize that unscrupulous marketers or criminals will be able to drive by consumers' homes and scan their garbage to discover what they have recently bought. They also worry that retailers will be able to scan customers who carry new types of personal ID cards as they walk through a store, without their knowledge. Several states, including Washington and New York, have begun issuing enhanced driver's licenses that contain radio- frequency tags with unique ID numbers, to make border crossings easier for frequent travelers. Some privacy advocates contend that retailers could theoretically scan people with such licenses as they make purchases, combine the info with their credit card data, and then know the person's identity the next time they stepped into the store. Wal-Mart tried to allay fears by noting that it was notifying customers about the RFID tags, that the tags would be easily removable, and that the tags themselves contain no personally identifying information: Wal-Mart is demanding that suppliers add the tags to removable labels or packaging instead of embedding them in clothes, to minimize fears that they could be used to track people's movements. It also is posting signs informing customers about the tags. "Concerns about privacy are valid, but in this instance, the benefits far outweigh any concerns," says Sanjay Sarma, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The tags don't have any personal information. They are essentially barcodes with serial numbers attached. And you can easily remove them." Additional Information: Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering  (CASPIAN)  Last updated:  25 July 2010    Gaither, Chris.  "Tiny Tracking Chips Surface in Retail Use."   The Boston Globe.  9 June 2003.     Shim, Richard.  "Wal-Mart to Throw Its Weight Behind RFID."   CNET News.com.  5 June 2003.     Shim, Richard and Alorie Gilbert.  "Wal-Mart Cancels 'Smart Shelf' Trial."   CNET News.com.  9 July 2003. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president. Status:  False. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. If you're strapped for cash, as Rhode Island certainly is, you're always looking for a way to cut expenses.One area often targeted by pundits, because it makes up such a large share of the state budget, is spending on human services such as Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income people.In April, we looked at one aspect of that portion of the budget, giving aHalf Trueto a statement by Rhode Island Tea Party founder Colleen Conley that Rhode Island has the most generous welfare benefits in New England. (We found that every New England state, except Maine, pays more to its welfare recipients. )During the June 26 broadcast of10 News Conference, Gary Sasse, former director of the Rhode Island Department of Administration and the business-backed Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council, made a related comparison, saying that the state gives out far more benefits than the national average.Speaking of what is now the 2012 state budget, Sasse said that of the $200-million increase [in overall spending], 90 percent is to support human service programs. We spend 52 percent more per capita on human service programs than the national average.When reporter Bill Rappleye asked for specific numbers, Sasse said, Well, we spend about $9,300 per capita on Medicaid programs, and that's soup to nuts, that's everything from RIte Care to nursing homes. The average for the country is about $6,100. There's a $3,000 difference.So the question on human services is not necessarily cutting back on eligibility, but looking at what optional services we provide. We provide about $60 [million] -- probably more than that, probably about $70 million -- in optional Medicaid services that many other states don't provide.We asked Sasse for the source of his assertion that Rhode Island spends $1.52 for every $1 spent nationally.He gave us two.The first is aFeb. 10 presentation developed by the House Finance Committee, which reported that in 2008, a total of $294 billion was spent nationally on Medicaid recipients. That averages out to $6,120 per recipient (19.4 percent of the money went to children, 13.5 percent went to adults, 43 percent was for the disabled and 24.1 percent was spent on the aged).In Rhode Island that year, the state spent $1.7 billion (about 52 percent of it federal funds) or $9,341 per recipient, with children and adults getting less (13.5 percent and 10.1 percent respectively) and the disabled getting a lot more (51.4 percent). House spokesman Larry Berman said the source of those numbers was theHenry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which collects state and federal spending data.The per-enrollee spending is 52.6 percent higher in Rhode Island than the United States. Sasse said that's where his 52 percent statement came from.But what about the per capita spending?Sasse said in an interview that when he said per capita, the population he was referring to was enrollees. However, we believe most people who hear the term will think it's based on the population in Rhode Island.Would the number be different if calculated using the general population?As a second source, he referred us to RIPEC's 2010 How Rhode Island Compares report. It's based onU.S. Census datafrom 2008 and looks at the cost of public welfare -- Medicaid and cash payments to the poor -- on the basis of state population. That report says public welfare costs were $2,036 per Rhode Island resident, which is 51.8 percent more than the $1,341 spent per capita nationally.If you just look at RIPEC's Medicaid numbers, as the House Finance Committee staff report did, per capita spending in Rhode Island is actually 55.8 percent more than the national average, a bit higher than Sasse said.Why does Rhode Island spend so much more?We have very high residential care costs, said Sasse, a factor others have noted.In addition, Rhode Island covers some services regarded as optional by the federal government, such as adult daycare, assisted living for the elderly and hospice care for the dying.Sasse offered no specific suggestions about what to cut. He said that's for the politicians to decide; he's just looking at the basic numbers.Fred Sneesby, spokesman for the state Department of Human Services, said in April after we published our earlier item that it's important to consider other fiscally meaningful differences among states; for example, the percentage of disabled and elderly in Rhode Island is significantly higher than in neighboring states as well as the national average.He pointed us to section of the Kaiser website, StateHealthFacts.org, showing that since the 2004 fiscal year, the state's growth inMedicaid spending has been significantly less than the U.S. average. He also said that eligibility for Rhode Island programs isas strict -- if not stricter-- than Massachusetts and Connecticut.To sum up, Sasse said Rhode Islands per capita human services spending -- by his definition, Medicaid spending per enrollee --  is 52 percent higher than the national average. By that definition, hes correct.Hes also correct in the more common use of per capita -- spending by population.So we rate his claimTrue.As often happens, our research on this item raised questions that go beyond the statement we evaluated. Chief among them: How concerned should we be that Rhode Island spends more than the national average?Advocacy groups rarely address the question directly when they offer their reports and statistics.The 52-percent figure could mean that the state is being overly generous with its benefits.Or it could mean that the characteristics of Rhode Island's population require us to spend more to give the same level of service that other states provide.Or it could mean that the national average is depressed by states that are declining to provide some of the optional services, such as hospice care for the poor, that some Rhode Islanders might regard as anything but optional.Such context would help voters and their leaders make intelligent decisions about where to attack the problem. It would also help them ensure that our money is being spent wisely on the services we want to offer. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) A fixation on toilets took over the internet in mid-June 2021 when a social media user posted a photo to Reddit that claimed to depict a Japanese toilet with a hand sink attached to the top of it. According to the post, water from the sink is used to wash a persons hands before it is reused in the toilet bowl for future business. toilets Reddit  Screengrab/Reddit  Reddit   An internet search for the toilet-topping sinks revealed that there are several options available for less than $100. Product descriptions claim that the sink can be installed on a toilet in less than five minutes  simply take the already existing reservoir lid off of the toilet and replace it with the sink addition. A valve connects the faucet to the toilet and, according to customer reviews, water used to wash hands is then automatically drained into the toilet bowl and reused during flushing. customer reviews Similar products have been on the market in recent years and have been advertised as not only something to save water but a method that encourages men to wash hands. In 2013, NPRs "All Tech Considered" featured the toilet-sink  and toilet-urinal  addition, noting that the combination has been around in Japan since at least 1956. According to an excerpt from Leonard Korens book, 283 Useful Ideas From Japan, the Japanese inspired combo is both practical and budget-friendly: encourages men to wash hands All Tech Considered 283 Useful Ideas From Japan "This system costs less than conventional toilets and comes in eight- and-16-liter sizes and a rainbow of colors. Also available for bathrooms are artificial flushing-sound generations that people can use to cover up the sound of what they're doing without wasting water." The toilet review site, Toilet Found! noted that the toilet-sink systems became popular in Japan after World War II when the real estate came with a hefty price tag. The design was meant for small bathrooms and living quarters, where creativity and innovation were key to comfortability. In addition to space constraints, the system also conserves and reuses water and does not require a heater to warm the water, potentially lowering utility bill expenses as well. Toilet Found! The design is such that water from the supply line channels through the faucet for you to wash your hands. And then drained out through the sink drain and into the tank. The water will keep flowing to fill up the tank, until it gets shut off by the float, wrote the review site. This way water is not wasted. Compare to the usual when you have to wash your hands on a separate sink with clean water. And it adds up to more water used for each visit to the toilet. State Rep. Mike Villarreal maintains the state tax system, untended by ruling Republicans, needs a full review. In a Jan. 7 op-ed column in theSan Antonio Express-News, the San Antonio Democrat wrote that Republicans have ignored the fact that over the last decade our population has been growing three times faster than our state tax system.Were not gauging what Republicans notice, but wondered if Villarreal correctly compared population growth and state taxes.In an interview, Villarreal told us he drew his population counts from the state demographer, Lloyd Potter, and fiscal information from annual cash reports by the state comptrollers office, adjusting figures for inflation to reflect 2009 dollars. Villarreal said he considered all state taxes including sales and franchise taxes and taxes on motor fuels, vehicle sales, tobacco and alcohol products, insurance and oil and natural gas production.He said he prepared a spreadsheet in consultation with experts including Dale Craymer, president of the business-oriented Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, and Eva De Luna Castro, senior budget analyst for the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities, which has made a case for Texas to create a state personal income tax.According to Villarreal, the states population increased 19 percent from 1999 to 2009, from 20.9 million to 24.8 million. In 2000, according to Villarreal, inflation-adjusted state taxes generated $35.8 billion. In 2009, the comparable total was $37.8 billion, up 6 percent.So, Villarreal said, population increased three times faster than annual state tax revenue.What we noticed: Villarreals spreadsheet also showed that money from non-tax revenue such as state fees went up 13 percent, trailing population growth, while federal aid surged 47 percent, more than double the rate of population growth. State income from all sources, including federal aid, increased 26 percent.Next, Villarreal shared a revised spreadsheet indicating that revenue from all sources increased 19 percent--not 26 percent. In an e-mail, Villarreal said he fixed an error that had me over-counting non-tax revenue and as a result over-counting total revenue from all sources. He said hed inadvertently double-counted the federal aid, but stressed the error did not bear on his comparison of state taxes to population growth.Even in the revised version, we noted, all revenue to state government increased at about the same pace as population growth. Villarreal agreed, but said that the bulk of money from all sources--which broke down in 2009 to 45 percent from state taxes, 18.5 percent from state non-tax revenue and 37 percent from federal funds--consists of dollars dedicated to specific purposes. His point: Lawmakers cant easily tap such sources, which include public college tuition, to support general needs such as public education and health care.We sought outside perspective.Craymer of TTARA, which represents businesses and trade associations, said Villarreals work leads to a flawed conclusion--that the states main revenue source, the sales tax, is undependable.If there is a systemic problem with the tax system, Craymer said, its probably that it reflects the economy, which was rocked by two recessions in the decade. So its not surprising to me that sales taxes would not have kept pace with population.Craymer said too that any analysis varies due to the time period it covers. For instance, he said, sales tax revenues steadily rose from 2005 through 2007.Lobbyist James LeBas, formerly the states chief revenue estimator, offered a per-person breakdown of Texas taxes over the decade, adjusted for inflation, which also took into account property taxes levied by local governmental units. LeBas, who said his figures came from the comptrollers office, said in an e-mail that from 2000 to 2010, taxes per person grew slightly faster than inflation--by 37 percent compared to the 27 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index. In 2000, he said, Texas taxes per person, adjusted for inflation, amounted to $2,180; the 2010 figure was $2,195.LeBas, summing up, said the tax system has produced a stable, if unremarkable, amount of revenue per capita, even adjusted for inflation.We asked De Luna of the CPPP for her perspective on per-capita state plus local taxes. She suggested that combining state taxes and locally levied property taxes obscures the fact state taxes have dropped. Drawing on figures published by the comptroller in January 2011, she said 3.6 percent of personal income in Texas went to state taxes in 2010--down from the 4.4-percent level of 2001.Next, we asked LeBas to focus on state taxes alone. He reported that inflation-adjusted per-capita state taxes were $1,210 in 2000 but $1,145 in 2009. The 5-percent decrease reflected slower growth in state taxes than population.DeLuna floated another way to pit changes in taxes and population. She said average annual rates of change can be more  meaningful than comparing a recent year to an earlier year. The year-by-year average helps put numbers in a better context for the average person, she said. From 1999 to 2009, she said, the states average annual population growth, 2 percent, compared to inflation-adjusted growth in state revenue of .8 percent and inflation-adjusted growth in all funds of 1.7 percent.Finally, we asked DeLuna the question wed asked Villarreal: If revenue to the state from all sources pretty much kept pace with population growth, should there be a beef? DeLuna replied that revenue from all sources soared mainly because of federal aid, which the comptroller expects to drop in 2012-13. Also, she said, lawmakers perpetually added to the states funding burdens in 2006 by cutting local school property tax rates and committing the state to cover the difference going forward.Phew. What a seminar.Our take: Villarreals analysis disregards that state revenue from all sources, in part due to increased federal aid, about matched population growth from 2000 through 2009. He also disregards property taxes, which are affected by legislative decisions.That said, his statement accurately compares population to state taxes, which are, as he said, the taxes lawmakers directly set.We rate the statement Mostly True. On 15 January 2018, DailyWire.com, the right-wing web site headed by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, posted an article falsely reporting that "Mohammed" was the most popular name given to baby boys born in the Netherlands in 2017: article The mainstream media in the Netherlands reported last week that "Noah" was the most popular baby name for boys in the small European nation. "Noah and Emma were the most popular children's names in the past year," reported Nos.nl. "This is evident from the annual list of names of the Social Insurance Bank, which pays out the child benefit. Boys were named Noah 635 times, while 755 girls went through life as Emma since last year." The year before, "Daan" and "Anna" were the most popular names, the site said. But a journalist at Powned.tv did a little research on the report and found something completely different. Checking for "Mohammed"  and all its alternative spellings  the writer found that 636 babies had been given that name last year. PowNed.tv, the web site DailyWire.com aggregated their story from, is a Dutch blog owned by GeenStijl, a right-leaning site that boasts about being "needlessly offensive." Both GeenStijl and PowNed.tv have been criticized for posting anti-Muslim and anti-migrant content. criticized Baby names in the Netherlands are recorded by the Social Insurance Bank (SVB) for social service purposes, and each year SVB releases a list of the most popular names and ranks them. (For example, Noah and Emma were the most popular boys' and girls' names in 2017, while Daan and Anna were the most popular in 2016.) PowNed arrived at their conclusion that Mohammed was the most popular boys' name for 2017 by tallying all of that name's variations and then weighing that total against the number of newborns who were named Noah in 2017, a methodology that's flawed, for obvious reasons. SVB ranks names by specific spellings, so if the variant spellings of any one name are tallied together, that approach changes the ranking order. Thus, "Mohammad" may be a less popular name on its own than "Morris" or "Moos," but when all the different spellings of "Mohammed" are considered together, that name is more popular than either: ranks  It's true that if multiple variant spellings of the name "Mohammed" are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names "Lucas" and "Daniel," it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy's name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of "Lucas," while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name "Daniel" in 2017. The topic of migration in Europe has attracted the attention of nationalists and white supremacists, particularly since 2015, when the number of people seeking refuge from places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria spiked. European countries have been the targets of false stories claiming that migrants are creating rape capitals and "no-go zones." attention spiked rape capitals no-go zones DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified. For example, in the days after a violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, the site helped spread a false rumor that "leftists" were digging up Confederate graves. In March of that year, the site spread a false claim that Democratic lawmakers refused to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow. In May 2017, the site falsely reported that Harvard University was holding segregated commencement ceremonies.  DailyWire.com spread false claim segregated The site was embroiled in another racial controversy after posting a video disparaging Native Americans in October 2017. After removing the video, Shapiro responded by apologizing but called the video 'satire.' controversy DutchNews.nl.  "Noah and Emma Top the List of Most Popular Dutch Baby Names."
  12 January 2018. Al Jazeera.  "Rise of the Right: 'Anarchist' Media in the Netherlands."
  27 November 2016. GeenStijl.nl.  "LOL. Real Donald Trump Retweet Dumpertvideo."
  29 November 2017. O'Donnell, Katie.  "Anti-Immigrant Forces Gain Ground in Europe."
  Politico.  22 October 2017. Hinshaw, Drew.  "Polish Nationalist Youth March Draws Thousands in Capital."
  The Wall Street Journal.  11 November 2017. On Nov. 13, 2021, Victory News Network (VNN) Twitter account published a graphic positing that Ben & Jerry's honored one of Kyle Rittenhouse's shooting victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, with a new flavor: Victory News Network Ben & Jerry's Honors Rittenhouse Shooting Victim All profits from 'Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut' will be donated to the Black Lives Matter organization.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a Twitter account website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: follows   Simlarly, the corresponding website, VictoryNews.online, describes its content this way: "This is a parody website, dummy." Rosenbaum, one of the men shot and killed by Rittenhouse during a riot stemming from an August 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, had previously been sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five boys, according to court records. There is, however, no ice cream flavor from Ben & Jerry's known as "Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut." The satirical tweet from VNN emerged after Ben & Jerry's Twitter account criticized the proceedings of the Rittenhouse trial.  sentenced  In response, Twitter and Facebook users shared the satirical post about "Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut" -- often with no satire or parody disclaimer -- as a commentary on Ben & Jerry's announcement:    For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Twitter, Nov. 13, 2021. https://twitter.com/VictoryNewsNet/status/1459574391042236423. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. Victory News Network. Victory News Network, https://www.victorynews.online/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. Whats True and False About Kyle Rittenhouses Alleged Victims. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. In late 2019, readers asked us about blog posts that were widely shared on social media and falsely claimed that the reality television star Duane Chapman, known as "Dog the Bounty Hunter," had died either by suicide or from a pulmonary embolism.  Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts.  hoaxes The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN."  first   The highly dubious website falsely attributed the claim about Chapman's death to WGN America, a real U.S. television network that broadcast the Chapmans' most recent reality show "Dog's Most Wanted." The hoax article also misleadingly used WGN America's logo in a sharebait video that purported to be a television news report about Chapman's death, but that paused after a few seconds and required users to share the article on social media in order to continue watching:   In reality, WGN America had no connection to the story and did not report on Chapman's death in November 2019, because Chapman did not die in November 2019. The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019. diagnosed The second blog post shared by social media users was even more distasteful than the first. It falsely and misleadingly used the logo of BBC News, a highly reputable and widely trusted information source, to report that Chapman had taken his own life.  In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: shared proclaimed "Breaking: (Actual Suicide Video) Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News." Despite the extremely distasteful claim that the video in the article contained footage of Chapman's suicide, it contained nothing of the sort and, just as in the first article, the video stopped after a second or two and required viewers to share the post on social media in order to continue watching.     The claim that Chapman had taken his own life was, like the claim he had died of a pulmonary embolism, particularly insidious. In the season finale of "Dog's Most Wanted," broadcast by WGN America on Nov. 6, Chapman spoke about the recent death of his wife from cancer, and the considerable difficulty he was experiencing in coping with her loss.  At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying: People "I just hope that I dont live very much longer without her, because now she made the first step, shes through the gate," he added. She paved a way for me. I want to take a [god damn] pain pill so bad. I feel like if I did something to myself right now and passed away suicidal and I got to heaven and was like, Hi honey, and would she go, You [dumb ass], why would you do that? Or would she go, Wow, youre here. Ill be like Of course Im here. You left me. Im here. So, am I obligated to do that?  Because of that widely reported revelation, a report that Chapman had died by suicide would have appeared somewhat plausible to many readers.  The dubious nature of the websites involved, and the absence of any corroborating evidence or reports by actual news organizations, meant that some readers would have immediately recognized the stories as hoaxes. However, a significant number were taken in by them, and shared them on social media, to the extent that Chapman himself intervened. He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day. photograph Instagram If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. Kasprak, Alex. "Outdated: Beth Chapman Death Hoax."
 Snopes.com. 22 April 2019. Lee, Ashley. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Reveals Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis."
 The Los Angeles Times. 28 September 2019. Dugan, Christina. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Contemplates Suicide After Wife Beth's Death on 'Dog's Most Wanted' Finale."
 People. 6 November 2019. TMZ. "Dog the Bounty Hunter: Nope, He's Not Dead...Look, I'm Alive!"
 20 November 2019. On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are