The House of Delegates budget bill cuts $50 million from education.
Numbers are flying around state Capitol this week as legislators try to hammer out a budget agreement and adjourn their 2011 session on Saturday.The Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-run House of Delegates have sharply different ideas on how dollars should should be spent. Each chamber is trying to win public sentiment for its proposals. In a Feb. 10 press release, the Senate Democratic Caucus said the Senate had introduced a balanced budget restoring funding cuts to education, public safety and health care, while saying the House introduced a budget that cuts $50 million from education, and reduces funding from other core areas.We checked the $50 million claim.Keiana Page, communications director for the Senate Democratic Caucus, said the number comes from a Feb. 17 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. The story indeed said the House budget would cut K-12 spending by $50 million. Thats the roughly the amount the House wants to reduce an education budget recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell in December.We reviewed the numbers and found the House pared overall public education spending by $50.8 million. But that didnt make the caucus' claim a slam dunk.Almost all of the reduction -- $43.2 million -- stems from lowered estimates of the number of students who will be enrolled in Virginia schools during the coming fiscal year. The remainder of the savings is coming from higher than expected sales tax revenue. When localities reap more money from their portion of the sales tax, the state pays less to support schools.Del. M. Kirkland Cox, R-Colonial Heights and vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said there are 8,000 to 9,000 fewer students attending Virginia schools than originally projected, with a total enrollment this school year of just over 1.2 million. Cox, a high school teacher, maintains the cuts are technical, not changes to policies.The House plan would hold per-pupil spending roughly flat. The current budget provides state spending of $5,166 per pupil, according to Robert Vaughn, staff director of the Appropriations Committee. The proposed House changes would lead to per-pupil spending of $5,161 next school year. The Senate wants to spend $5,242 per pupil next year.Despite the lower-than-expected student numbers, the Senate bill would increase current spending levels, using the new money mainly for textbooks, English proficiency programs and remedial summer school classes.The House has one other key proposal that would alter education spending. It wants to shift $89.8 million largely invested in instruction to the Virginia Retirement System for teachers pensions. The money would help make up for past shortfalls in retirement funding and lay the groundwork for the higher contributions that will be needed in future budget cycles.The cash would come from $55.4 million in promised payments to 97 localities that lost money last year when the state rejiggered its allocation formula to school systems. The rest of the pension payment comes from $34.4 million currently funding resource teachers in middle schools. Vaughn said the state currently pays for resource teachers in grades K-7, while state law only requires funding those teachers up through fifth grade.Under current rules, state contributions into the pension system are matched by school districts. Vaughn said the House decided not to require matching payments on the $89.8 million because localities had not planned for these payments when building their budgets.House budget writers say that since the money is going towards teacher pensions, its an education expense. But critics argue the pension payment would consume money that could otherwise have gone into classrooms.Jim Regimbal, a former Senate Finance Committee staffer who now runs consulting company Fiscal Analytics, said the extra pension payments mean less on-the-ground spending for teaching kids.To review, the Senate Democratic Caucus says the House of Delegates is pushing a budget that cuts $50 million from education. They are basing this on the overall dollar figures proposed by the governor and largely adopted by the House of Delegates.Much of the reduction in funding is due to student population being lower than expected. Spending on a per-pupil basis would remain relatively constant. But the House budget also removes $55.4 million in education funds that localities could use at their discretion and invests it in teacher pensions. That would likely result in less money going into classrooms, which sounds like a cut to us.We rate the claim True. Correction:This statement was originally attributed to the Democratic Party of Virginia. It was in fact published by the Virginia Senate Democratic Caucus.
In early March 2021, readers alerted us to a Facebook scam that involved a Bora Bora vacation getaway. This led us to revisit Facebook pages like Las Vegas Travel that advertised a Las Vegas vacation giveaway. involved Las Vegas Travel We previously made note of the suspicious Vegas page in July 2020. At the time, we archived a post from a different, though similar one: Las Vegas Vacations. At least one of the pages had a Russian page manager. archived On July 2, we noticed that the Las Vegas Travel page had shared a post from Las Vegas Vacations. It mentioned a purported grand opening celebration for a resort. "We're going to celebrate our grand opening by doing something special for you. We will be rewarding someone who has shared then commented by August 26th with a 7-night stay for up to 5 people in a luxury suite. Don't worry about flights and transfers, it's all included." shared  As of March 2021, the above post and likely many other posts like it had been deleted. This appeared to be an effort to cover the tracks of the scammers so they could keep the pages alive for future fake giveaways.  Just like with the Bora Bora getaway, the Las Vegas pages were illegitimate. They should be avoided for the possibility of phishing, identity theft, and other potential consequences. We strongly suggest against submitting any personal information to links on these pages. Since July, the Las Vegas Travel page attempted to expand its scheme to Instagram. Meanwhile, the Las Vegas Vacations page was still running the "Grand Opening Celebration" scam. expand still running  The Las Vegas Vacations Facebook page was created in July 2020. It was purportedly managed from the United Kingdom and Germany.  For almost a year and a half, Facebook failed to take action on the illegitimate pages. The Las Vegas Travel Facebook page was created in 2019. As of March 2021, it had around 250,000 followers. Las Vegas Vacations was created in July 2020. It was building toward 50,000 followers. The scam appeared to work in a similar way to the Bora Bora getaway. In fact, the same person or group of people appeared to manage both fake giveaways. We came to this conclusion after noticing similarities in dates and text on the pages. Further, the same .xyz domain website was listed. Bora Bora getaway Here's how the scam worked. First, Facebook users were asked to like, share, and comment with the word: "WIN." This February - We are giving away 10 nights at the The Venetian Las Vegas for 5 people. Includes Flights, Accommodation & Transfers. You will have 2 years to use the holiday! To participate:1. Like2. Share3. Comment: "WIN"Closes 28th February at 9pm. Next, a personal Facebook profile that appeared to be a page responded to each entrant. (A Facebook profile is for an individual person. A page is for companies, bands, personalities, etc.) The response to each entrant read: "You win. Check my profile." The profile named "Las Vegas-Nevanda" had a name in its Facebook URL: facebook.com/titis.ariandini. It read: "Titis Ariandini."  "Honey, just a reminder that we're having dinner on Friday with the Vegas-Nevandas."  Entrants who clicked to view the "Las Vegas-Nevanda" profile were led to yet another post. It advised Facebook users to visit a link to register for a prize.  The post also told readers "this is original and official." How reassuring.  One Facebook user named Jason appeared to believe the scam giveaway was real. In the same comment, he also referred to effective measures to reduce the chance of more deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic as a "communist shutdown." The link in the post led to a registration page that mirrored scammy websites we've seen before.  Needless to say, this is not a registration page from a real Las Vegas resort.  The registration page resulted in affiliate marketing links for streaming movie websites. This was where the Bora Bora getaway pages ended as well. The point of the affiliate marketing was for the scammers to make commissions on signups on the streaming movie websites. Again, it was also possible that the scam involved phishing, identity theft, and other dangerous outcomes. We found a number of other pages that shared the Las Vegas scams. They appeared to be in the same network of Facebook pages. They included: Maldives 2021, Bora Bora Vacations, Cancun Tours, New York Christmas Vacations, Maldives Getaways, Santorini - Greece, Package Holidays 2021, Dominican Republic Vacations 2021, Bali Tourism, Visit Hawaii, Seychelles Holidays, Tourism Bali, Cabo Tourism, Cabo San Lucas 2021, and Bali Holidays. Maldives 2021 Bora Bora Vacations Cancun Tours New York Christmas Vacations Maldives Getaways Santorini - Greece Package Holidays 2021 Dominican Republic Vacations 2021 Bali Tourism Visit Hawaii Seychelles Holidays Tourism Bali Cabo Tourism Cabo San Lucas 2021 Bali Holidays We noticed that some of these pages were scrubbed of their past scam posts. This allowed the page managers to plead innocence and continue running their post-and-delete operations. Further, this list of pages perhaps only scratched the surface of the entire scam empire. In sum, the giveaways that showed up on the Las Vegas Travel and Las Vegas Vacations Facebook pages were not legitimate. Facebook failed to take action on these scams despite their existence dating back to at least 2019. As a rule, it's always good to look for the "verified" badge on Facebook pages. "verified" badge In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019. When it comes to illegal campaign cash, the wheels of justice move slowly. So when a May 2011 court filing brought fresh attention to old claims involving illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, Democrats jumped, airinga radio adin his Florida district. Congressman Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election, the narrator of the ad says. Tell Buchanan to come clean.The ad ran from June 13-17 and was paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It relied onnews articlesabouta lawsuit filedby theFederal Election Commissionagainst a business Buchanan once owned, the DCCC said.The 'old business' Buchanan, 60, is awealthy Republicanfrom Longboat Key serving his third term in Congress representing Florida's13th Congressional District. He built his wealth founding a chain of print shop franchises in Michigan, leaving for Florida in the 1980sas the chain struggledand investing in a range of new businesses, including Florida auto dealerships.One of those dealerships is at the heart of this claim.Buchanan had owned a majority interest in Hyundai of North Jacksonville,the FEC says, when his business partner Sam Kazran arranged for dealership employees and relatives to donate to the Vern Buchanan for Congress committee, then be reimbursed by the business. This went on during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the FEC says. (We should note that the date Buchanan legally parted ways with the dealership is a matter of disagreement.The FEC saysBuchanan owned 51 percent of the dealership until Kazran completed his purchase of Buchanan's stake to become the sole owner in 2008  after the suspect contributions were made. Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts says Buchanan sold the dealership to Kazran in 2005, putting more distance between the congressman and the illegal contributions. )What's the big deal with reimbursing contributions? It violates federal election law, which says (n)o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person. The Federal Election Campaign Act also limits how much a single contributor may give to candidates' campaign committees. Funneling cash through employees would have made it possible for the dealership to bust through that limit.The Buchanan campaign said they brought the questionable contributions to the attention of the FEC, which then launched the investigation. We can't independently confirm if that's the case, because the FEC does not comment on open cases. However, we found no evidence to the contrary. The commission combined the complaint withone filed in 2008 by a Washington groupand two employees of a Venice dealership, which you canread more about here. The FEC investigated,finding probable causeto believe that the Hyundai dealership and Kazran had illegally reimbursed $67,900 in campaign contributions, but it didn't go after Buchanan.Instead, it's now seeking $67,900 in fines from Kazran.Kazran, for his part,admits reimbursingcampaign contributions, but told theBradenton Heraldhe did it at Buchanan's direction. I've been caught in this political nightmare that I have nothing to do with, he told PolitiFact Florida. But he failed to reach an agreement with the Federal Election Commission  andfailed to respond to the complainton behalf of Hyundai North Jacksonville, which is no longer in business. That means facts in the case stand uncontested. So the commission voted to sue him to collect the fines, asking a judge for a default judgement.The FEC told the U.S. District Court that the dealership illegally spent $67,900 in an attempt to influence an election for Congress, presumably believing this to be a worthwhile investment. And that's the May suit that prompted stories in aWSJ.com blog, theSarasota Herald-Tribuneand theBradenton Heraldthat the DCCC cited as it released the script for its Florida radio ad. Jesse Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the committee, theofficial campaign armof the Democrats in the U.S. House, used partial quotes from the lawsuit when he said, The FEC is seeking fines from a business that Vern Buchanan owned at the time for an 'extensive and ongoing scheme' of 'secret illegal contributions' to help his campaign and were going to make sure his constituents know about it.Buchanan's responseWhat does Buchanan's team say? That the FEC has cleared Buchanan himself  so the ad linking the behavior of Kazran and his dealership to the congressman is misleading and dishonest.It creates the false impression that Vern Buchanan has done something wrong when in fact he has been fully exonerated by the FEC, said Sally Tibbetts, his spokeswoman.Arelated news releasethat says Buchanan has been completely exonerated is the subject of its own fact-check, andwe found the claim to be Barely True. But we'll summarize here by saying that what little information is available so far from the FEC doesn't fully clear Buchanan  though it does mean the commission won't take any further action against him in the case.Information's limited because the case isn't yet closed, soconfidentiality rulesapply.That means for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll rely on what's in the public record  information that the DCCC had access to when it scripted its ad.The rulingThat ad starts by naming the congressman, then says his old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election.The FEC and Buchanan's team agree that he owned a significant stake until at least 2005, when suspect campaign contributions started. The FEC says the dealership reimbursed more than $60,000 in contributions. The money went to Buchanan's main campaign committee, and the FEC says the money was spent in an attempt to influence an election for Congress.What is contested is Buchanan's role in the scheme.The FEC has said it will take no further action against him, closing his file. But it didn't go further to declare it had no probable cause to believe he was involved  which would have better supported his team's claim that he's been cleared. Meanwhile, his former business partner still says Buchanan put him up to it, and says he plans another lawsuit to prove it.While we think the DCCC could have done a better job noting it was Buchanan who turned in the illegal contributions, we rate this ad Mostly True. The Trump administration is not known for accuracy when it comes to spelling; from the names of contemporary world leaders, to historical figures, to innocuous words like "education," the administration has repeatedly made headlines with embarrassing mistakes. So a 7 June 2017 Facebook post claiming that the Department of Education had misspelled the word "success" in a letter to parents seemed plausible. leaders figures education Castro Valley, California parent Kendra Galordi Frautnick shared a copy of a letter on Facebook that the Trump Administration purportedly sent to her daughter, congratulating the eighth grader on her receipt of the President's Education Award: shared copy   blogs We spoke to a representative from the Department of Education's President's Education Awards Program, who told us that the letters of congratulations were not intended to be distributed to individual students, but to be read aloud at an awards ceremony by a school administrator. The representative said 2017 was the first year in which the letter was not physically mailed to participating schools, but made available for download on the PEAP web site. The official version of this year's letter [PDF], does not contain the purported typographical error spelling "success" as "succuess": letter PDF       Although a separate person claims that a friend received the version with an error on the same date Frautnick shared the photograph, that account was secondhand and might have referenced Frautnick's Facebook post. Aside from that copy, we were unable to find any versions containing the spelling error. claims Frautnick sent us additional photographs to show that she had not doctored the image of the letter that she posted to Facebook. She told us: Its the actual letter my daughter received with the presidential award. I took a picture of it when she pointed out the typo. I posted it and it went viral. She received it from the white house through her school. The official published President's Education Award letter for 2017 lacked the "succuess" error present in Facebook shares of the document. We rate this "false" because a copy of the letter with the spelling error exists but was not reproduced across the country. We have so far unable to determine whether the typographical error was only regionally distributed or simply fabricated. Reeves, Chris.  "So Much Success In The Trump White House, They Can't Even Spell The Word."
  Daily Kos.  9 June 2017. National Association of Secondary School Principals: Downloads.  "President's Education Award Letter."
  Accessed 12 June 2017. Wikipedia.  "President's Education Awards Program."
  Accessed 12 June 2017. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's "All in With Chris Hayes" program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. June 20, 2020 Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. incorrect theory segment We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: June 29 And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, its hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you cant do the math in your head, thats a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen.  The COVID Tracking Project    However, Hayes language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trumps rally "may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state." Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. PoliticusUSA Numerous tweets  But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health departments daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. executive order reports Each government report  only issued on weekdays  shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. Monday report report indicates The COVID Tracking Projects reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government.  COVID Tracking Projects COVID Tracking Project July 2 report  June 26 report We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us.  On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: July 1 ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahomas weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: PoliticusUSA ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trumps June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. violate unhealthiest In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as  Brown, Trevor. "Experts: Oklahoma, Among the Unhealthiest States, Faces Heightened Risks for COVID-19."
 Frontline PBS. 16 April 2020. Colarossi, Sean. "Correction: MSNBCs Chris Hayes Misinterpreted Oklahoma Virus Test Data."
 PoliticusUSA. 29 June 2020. Coronavirus.health.ok.gov. "Executive Order Reports." Gupta, Sanjay and Andrea Kane. "How Risky is it to Attend a Trump Campaign Rally During a Pandemic?"
 CNN. 19 June 2020. Lutz, Tom. "Brad Parscale Faces Trump 'Fury' After Tulsa Comeback Rally Flops."
 The Guardian. 21 June 2020. Regan, Helen, Marsh, Jenni, Rahim, Zamira. "Coronavirus Pandemic: Updates From Around The World."
 CNN. 21 June 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "Oklahoma." Claim:  Oprah Winfrey said that restaurant customers need not tip their servers more than 10%..  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Did Oprah Winfrey state that, in this economy, tipping 10% is acceptable? Origins:  Leaving a relatively substantial monetary tip for the waitstaff at the conclusion of a restaurant meal is the custom in some countries, including the U.S. and Canada. A gratuity amounting to 15% to 20% of the bill is now considered the standard or minimum tip, with even more left in recognition of superlative service. It is therefore little cause for surprise that any cultural icon's public voicing of an opinion that folks should leave no more than a 10% tip would raise the hackles of many in the service industry.  And so it was with the belief that Oprah Winfrey, beloved television talk show host, had instructed members of her audience to not leave more than a 10% tip when dining in restaurants, with such rumor often coupled with a further assertion that this advice was offered in recognition of the recession's having hit everyone hard. Such belief that Oprah had said it fit  well with a widely-held stereotype that African American customers tip less than do other restaurant patrons. In September 2009 a page on the social networking site Facebook raised the false "Oprah said not to tip more than 10%" claim. Titled "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments," the group stated as its purpose:  Against Oprah Winfrey has recently stated on her TV show that it is acceptable to tip servers 10% in our current economy. This group is being put together to show Oprah that her comments have a crippling affect on servers all over the world. As of 4 November 2009, "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments" has 37,228 members. Yet the claim that has inflamed so many is false. There is no evidence in support of the assertion that Oprah Winfrey recommended her audience tip waitstaff 10%, in response to economic recession or otherwise, on her television show or in her magazine. No one has yet to turn up a video clip from her show of her supposed  tipping advice or produce a copy of an article from  O, The Oprah Magazine in which such counsel was allegedly given.  Instead, material from both those venues state that restaurant goers should tip at least 15%. While we've yet to locate a video clip or news report of Oprah herself instructing the audience to pony up with 15% or better, there are examples of invited guests on her show or columnists in her magazine saying exactly that. In the "Ending Rudeness" segment of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which aired on 9 September 2008), Steven Dublanica, author of Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip  Confessions of a Cynical Waiter, sat beside Oprah and, with her nodding in agreement, offered this bit of advice for restaurant goers: Rudeness Don't tip less than 15 percent Waiters are paid wages well below the minimum wage  as little as $2.15 an hour in some states  with the expectation that they will earn the majority of their income through tips. In addition, some restaurants require waiters to pay around 20 to 30 percent of their tips to food runners, hostesses and bartenders.  "If you don't tip, then that person doesn't get paid," Steven says. "Literally." Of the "10 Do's and Don'ts of Restaurant Etiquette" proffered by The Oprah Winfrey Show via oprah.com, its official web site, the first is "Tip 15 percent or more." first Likewise, the "Guide to Tipping" published in the December 2002 issue of  O, The Oprah Magazine says:  Guide to Tipping Normally, 15 to 20 percent of the total bill  20 percent for a first-class place. Note that people tip more in urban areas. According to the Zagat Survey, the average gratuity in city restaurants across the United States is about 18 percent. In response to the rumor, HarpoBear (moderator of oprah.com's message board) posted a clarificationon 8 June 2009 (and repeated periodically since then) that said: posted We'd like to respond to the concerns raised about Oprah's thoughts on tipping. The truth is that Oprah has never said that people should tip less during the recession. She believes in generously compensating waiters and waitresses. While a November 2009 Facebook page marked a resurgence of the Oprah rumor, it wasn't the first time the claim had been bruited on that venue: In December 2008 a now defunct Facebook group titled "No, Oprah, it's not OK to tip 10%" repeated the gossip. The rumor comes in two forms: that Oprah herself directed her audience never to tip more than 10% or (far less frequently) that one of her guests did. One name that has been mentioned as the identity of the guest who gave such advice is financial guru Suze Orman, as in this 19 September 2009 blog entry:  Suze Orman blog entry It has been brought to my attention that Suze Orman went onto the Oprah Winfrey show some time ago to give some sound financial advice to all the Oprah-ites who bow down to the feet of the great and powerful O. [...] She said that when it comes time to tip you should just leave 10% instead of 15%. Barbara "the ten percent dissolution" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 November 2009    Day Owen, Sarah.  "Servers at Restaurants See Dropoff in Gratuities."   Augusta Chronicle.  19 December 2008.    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' owing a lack sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details for the sake of trying to frame her as being irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes":  Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016. revealed The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities: op-ed I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans, and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations -- however slowly but surely. Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC.  sued Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. reported Bluestein, Greg.  "Georgia 2018: Abrams Owes More Than $50K to IRS."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 March 2018. Abrams, Stacey.  "Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me for Governor of Georgia."
  Fortune.  24 April 2018. Elliott, Richard.  "Investment Company Sues Brian Kemp Over $500K Loan."
  WSB-TV.  12 June 2018. Judd, Alan.  "For Brian Kemp, Suit Over Bad Loan Reveals Political, Financial Perils."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  21 September 2018.