[O]ver 200,000 ordinary citizens were given the opportunity to identify projects they preferred.
A new mailer about a referendum to fund a transportation overhaul for metro Atlanta makes it appear as if voters had a hand in this plan to raise their taxes.Voters will decide July 31 whether they want to pay a 1 percent sales tax to build an estimated $7.2 billion worth of roads, highway interchanges, mass transit infrastructure and other projects to ease traffic in a region thats choking on it.More than two dozen local leaders spent months hammering out that list of projects through state-created regional roundtables. The mailer, which appeared in a PolitiFact Georgia reporters home mailbox April 3, said the average Joe had a say, too. [O]ver 200,000 ordinary citizens were given the opportunity to identify projects they preferred, it said.Its enough to make a populist swoon. But 200,000 people? Is that even possible?PolitiFact Georgia called up the Metro Atlanta Voter Education Network, which sent out the mailer on the proposed transportation special local option tax, or T-SPLOST. The nonprofits mission is to educate voters about the referendum.A MAVEN spokeswoman said the Atlanta Regional Commission, the regions planning agency, contacted 1.3 million residents last year for telephone town hall meetings about the plan.Part of ARCs mission is public outreach, so it regularly tallies the number of residents it involves, spokeswoman Julie Ralston said.Our research shows ARC has a track record for doing so. It counted residents who participated inPlan 2040, which identified transportation projects the region will need in the next three decades. It posted numbers on the projects website.T-SPLOSTs website, news accounts and ARC news releases chronicle the series of 10 evening telephone town hall meetings in June.ARC contracted with Telephone TownHall Meeting, a Denver-area company that uses Web and telephone technology to hold virtual meetings. Members of Congress often use the meetings to connect with voters back home.Telephone TownHall Meeting owner Curt Cerveny told us how the meetings typically work:The company calls tens of thousands of land lines and cellphones for their target households. Some numbers dont work. Others send the call to voicemail or a fax machine. Sometimes, people hang up.About 15 percent to 20 percent of the time, someone picks up and listens in for at least one minute, Cerveny said. Usually, listeners spend eight to 10 minutes on the line.The T-SPLOST town halls attempted to reach 1.3 million registered voters, an ARCreportsaid. The town halls took place by county.It was the biggest call we had ever done, Cerveny said. It was kind of ahead of its time.Some 134,400 households participated. They stayed on the line for an average of 10.59 minutes. Presenters took 213 live questions. (This PolitiFact Georgia scribe received one of those calls on her cellphone. She was in her car, stuck in gridlock. )This number does not include calls that went to voicemail. These households received messages telling voters how they can have a say in the project. The report did not state the number of listeners per call.This amounts to about 10 percent participation, or slightly less than what Cerveny said was typical.ARC launched other outreach efforts. In March and April 2011, 126 residents of the affected counties participated in a series of 12 focus groups. In July, about 200 attended a 3 -hour town hall meeting. In September, 12 public meetings were attended by about 1,700 people, according to ARC meeting notes.An online survey generated9,600 responses. Interested residents could also consult the projects website,www.atlantaregionalroundtable.com.Local governments and private organizations also conducted their own outreach. ARC collaborated with more than 80 of them to get the word out, Ralston said.One is the Livable Communities Coalition, an Atlanta nonprofit that works on regional growth strategies. A very conservative estimate is that its efforts reached 5,000 people, said Jim Stokes, the groups interim executive director.To conclude:Since ARC tried to reach 1.3 million people through its telephone town halls and managed to get about 10 percent of them, we think its safe to say that more than 200,000 were given the opportunity to participate.In addition, some 20,000 participated in meetings, online surveys and other outreach efforts organized by the planning agency. Local governments and other organizations performed outreach as well.This is a lot of ordinary citizens, but their influence had limits. The decision rested with the regional roundtable. Members could accept -- or ignore -- public comments as they saw fit.That said, MAVENs mailer stopped short of saying that these voters controlled the process. Furthermore, its participation estimate is conservative. Its statement earns our highest rating -- True.
In his latestTV ad, released on the first anniversary of hisinauguration, Wisconsin Gov.Scott Walkermakes a case for why he should not beonly the thirdU.S. governor ever recalled from office.The Republican takes credit for erasing Wisconsins $3.6 billion budget deficit and for saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by making government employees pay more for pension and health benefits.Walker closes the ad, released Jan. 3, 2012, by drawing a contrast with his Democratic predecessor.In the three years before I took office, he says, without namingJim Doyle, Wisconsin lost 150,000 jobs. But now, well, employer confidence is up, and since the start of the year, Wisconsin has added thousands of new jobs. Instead of going back to the days of billion-dollar budget deficits, double-digit tax increases and record job loss, lets keep moving Wisconsin forward.Thats some broad language.So broad, some would think the double-digit increases were a fact of life for most residents. While widespread jobs losses in therecessionand the deficit Walker inherited are well known, we wondered what Walker meant by double-digit tax increases.Walkerrepeatedthe double-digit tax increases claim on Rush Limbaughs national radio talk show on Jan. 17, 2012, the day before petitions seeking the recall election weresubmitted. And he did it again the next day,claimingDemocratic recall candidateKathleenFalkintends to take Wisconsin back to the days of double-digit tax increases.Lets see if thats what state Democrats did.Democrats did boost taxes with the 2009-2011 state budget and a 2009 budget adjustment bill. We found, when rating a $5 billion claim by Walker running mateRebecca KleefischasFalse, that the two measures raised taxes and fees by just over $3 billion over the two-year period.Ben Sparks, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, said Walkers double-digit claim refers to the same two budget measures. In adocumentSparks provided, Walker cites three sets of tax changes to back his claim.School property taxesWalker said that, because of the Democrats 2009-2011 budget, school property tax levies would have increased an estimated17.3percentin 2011 had he not taken the steps he did with his 2011-2013 budget.Hmmm.In the ad, Walker flatly claimed that Democrats raised taxes by double-digits. Now hes talking about a hypothetical -- indeed, one that didnt occur.Like any governor, Walker had the opportunity to fashion his own budget. And with a Republican-controlled Legislature, he cut state aid to schools and school districts ability to raise property tax revenues. The result: 2011 school levies dropped1 percent.What about the other two tax changes Walker cites?Business taxesWalker contends Democrats raised business taxes by $456 million, or 28 percent, over two years.Among other things, he cited the Democratic adoption of combined reporting, which taxes a relatively small number of Wisconsin-based businesses on income from subsidiaries outside the state, rather than only those within Wisconsin. That tax is estimated to raise $187 million over two years. He also cited elimination of a tax deduction fordomestic production, which is estimated to increase corporate income tax payments by nearly $72 million.Dale Knapp, research director of the nonprofitWisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said there isnt a good base on which to calculate the $450 million increase. But roughly $350 million of that increase is to be paid in corporate income taxes, which is roughly an increase of 21 percent, he said.So, that material is generally on point.Whats left?Miscellaneous taxesWalker cites a number of double-digit tax increases the Democrats made, including a 42 percent hike in the tax oncigarettesto $2.52 per pack; more than doubling the $75 per-bed per-month assessment paid bynursing homes; and more than doubling thetipping feecharged to landfills, which is ultimately passed on to garbage generators such as families.Our own research turned up one Walker didnt cite.The Democrats raised the top income tax rate from 6.75 percent to 7.75 percent. That 1-percentage-point increase amounts to a 15 percent boost in the rate itself. The change caused a 13.5 percent increase in the actual tax paid by people with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more,accordingto the taxpayers alliance.Our ratingIn a TV ad, Walker said the Democratic administration and Legislature that preceded him approved double-digit tax increases. There certainly were not widespread double-digit increases in the taxes most people directly pay -- income taxes and the sales tax. But there are a variety of other tax increases that rose by double digits.We rate Walkers statement Mostly True. A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. Sen. Mark Warner is pitching a plan that would allow some Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled and apply the additional tax revenue toward business tax cuts and incentives to spur the economy.Laying out his plan in anOp-Ed in the Financial Times, Warner notes that a Republican-Democrat compromise is being considered by the Obama administration that would temporarily extend all the tax breaks for two more years.However, this latter approach has problems beyond the $65bn that would be added to the deficit if we keep the cuts for people on the highest incomes, Warner writes. In Washington such temporary benefits also have a strange way of becoming permanent.Since Warners own plan hinges on reapplying the $65 billion in additional tax revenue that would come from allowing the tax breaks for the wealthy to expire, we thought it prudent to check the figure.Asked for the source, Warners communication director Kevin Hall pointed to estimates by the U.S. Treasury.Those projections show that allowing the cuts to expire along with adjustments to the capital gains and dividends would amount to $74.4 billion over two years.Heres why we mention that factor: If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, the top tax rate on long-term capital gains would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent. Dividends, which are currently taxed at 15 percent, would be taxed at the same rates as ordinary income with a top rate of 39.9 percent.But if we look exclusively at allowing the Bush cuts to expire, its $62.5 billion for the two years.Hall said Warner excludes the capital gains and dividends change because they might not be enacted, and capital gains isnt really what people talk about when they say income taxes.Gerald Prante, senior economist with the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, disagreed on that point. He also  suggested looking at more recent figures from the Office of Management and Budget, noting that the Treasury numbers are based upon estimates that have since been revised.The OMB figures show that allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire would generate more than $66 billion in tax revenue over two years. But thats including the adjustment to the capital gains.Without it, the two-year total is closer to $57 billion.Its worth noting, however, that the numbers from both sources look at the revenue to be gained from repealing the tax cuts permanently as opposed to eliminating them after a two-year extension.If there was only a two-year extension, the cost may not be $66 billion as [the] Joint Committee on Taxation/Treasury would assume tax planning that could change the costs, moving income between years, noted Prante. But overall, Warner's claim is fine...the $65 billion figure is not an exaggeration.So, if we use the Treasurys numbers, and look exclusively at the tax revenue raised by the two years worth of repealed cuts for the wealthy, then Warner is very close.Using the more recent OMB figures, hed be nearer  by including the capital gains adjustment, but is still in the neighborhood.Accepting that pinpointing a number using evolving projections is not an exact science, we find Warners claim to be Mostly True. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Vice President Joe Biden visited a New Hampshire university Oct. 20, 2011, to promote President Barack Obamas American Jobs Act before an audience whom he called the 9/11 generation.Speaking to a full house inside Plymouth State Universitys lecture hall, Biden talked about the need to restore the middle class and to bring jobs back to America. He said middle-income-earning Americans have been under siege, long before the economic recession hit.In the previous decade, before the current recession, the middle class was getting killed, said Biden. During that period between 2001-07, productivity of American workers was up 20 percent, but median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 during this time.Did the median of middle-income households really take a $2,100 hit before the economy hit the fan? We looked into Bidens claim to find out.First we contacted Bidens staff to find out which figures they were using to come to the $2,100 decrease in the median income for middle-class households.Tobin Marcus, Bidens deputy economic policy adviser, told us the vice president was referring to real median household income for working age households. Were looking at the core wage-earning households as opposed to retirees, Marcus said.Working age households aretypically consideredhouses headed by someone between the ages of 25 and 54, and the median income was chosen to represent middle income wage earners.Bidens office cited the Census Bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Surveys for year-ending data for2000and2007.They said they compared inflation-adjusted numbers, using the annual average increase column of theBureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.We took a look at their numbers, and their calculations checked out.To be sure, we contacted Dennis Delay, an economist with the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and a New Hampshire State Forecast Manager for the New England Economic Partnership.He confirmed the calculations Bidens campaign provided.I looked at the data sources, and they appear to be correct, and the data calculated correctly, Delay said.Delay then pointed us toa report by the Economic Policy Institutewhich used the same data. From 2000-07, the Institute said the real median income of working age households fell from $61,574 in 2000 to $59,460 in 2007a decrease of $2,114.The White House Task Force on the Middle Classcited a weak labor market and anemic job growth of the 2000s among some of the problems that contributed to the approximately 3.4 percent decline in the median of middle class incomes over the seven years leading up to the economic recession.Clearly median inflation adjusted income fell much faster during the recession (2007 to present), Delay said. But the fall in that indicator during a period of economic expansion (2000 to 2007) is very troubling. I dont believe any other period of economic expansion saw a commensurate decline in median inflation adjusted income.Our ruling:Vice President Biden said the median income of the middle class dropped by $2,100 from 2001-07, and the numbers check out. We rate Bidens claim True. Fresh off afive-day trade missionto Canada, Florida Gov. Rick Scott was eager to drop a few tidbits about the country's relationship with the Sunshine State. In a news conference with the Capitol press corps on June 16, 2011, Scott showed off his Florida-Canada knowledge, claiming that: Almost 10 percent of Canadians came to visit Florida last year. And, they buy 7.4 percent of our homes in the state. Interesting claims, eh? But true? The number of Canadians visiting Florida each year is collected by Visit Florida, the state's official tourism marketing corporation. Visit Florida bases its data on credit card information and statistics supplied the Canadian government. The agency found that about 3.05 million Canadians visited Florida in 2010. That's about 9 percent of thecountry's total population of about 34 million. The Toronto Starnoted in a recent story -- based on the Visit Florida data -- that the Canadian boost to Florida's tourism happened even as oil from the Deepwater Horizon disaster threatened Gulf of Mexico beaches. So Scott is right about the tourists. But what about Canadian homeowners? Scott's press office directed us to a2010 studyon Florida's international home buyers. The study is researched by the National Association of Realtors, which creates an annual report on the country's housing market and additional reports for states with a high rate of sales to foreign buyers. The national group takes a survey of Florida members each year, and that includes a question about foreign clients. Florida has the strongest international home sales market in the country. In 2010, foreign clients were responsible for 22 percent of existing home purchases in the state, according to the study. Florida has consistently been the No. 1 destination among foreign buyers, said Lawrence Yun, a National Association of Realtors economist. And Canadians are a big part of that distinction. They out-bought all international buyers in 2010, accounting for 36 percent of Florida's foreign sales in 2010. United Kingdom residents are the next-best buyers at 15 percent. Sure, residents of the Great White North love the state's beaches and toasty climate. What's more, Yun said, is that these slices of paradise don't cost nearly as much as they used to, and the Canadian dollar is stronger than its weakened U.S. counterpart. There's greater consumer confidence among Canadians, which is not a bad thing for Florida. It's absolutely helpful, Yun said. Anytime the market is down, one way to help alleviate the pain or help the healing process is for buyers to come into the market and absorb the inventory. We wanted to find the percentage of Canadians who bought homes in Florida in 2010. So we multiplied 0.22 (portion of Florida home sales to foreign buyers in 2010) by 0.36 (Canada's share of international sales among foreign buyers) to get 0.0792. That's 7.92 percent. Scott's office did not specify how he arrived at 7.4 percent, but he's close enough. He's right that there's a clear Canadian infatuation with Florida. As one Canadian-turned-Floridian-real-estate-agent joked in aNational Public Radio reporton the housing phenomenon, If there ever was an 11th (Canadian) province, it probably would be Florida. Scott has his Canada trivia down cold, and we were unable to find any statistics that contradict him. We rate his claim True. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking in Austin, bemoaned widening income differences between the countrys very rich and the rest of us. And in his remarks at aSouth Austin union hall, the Vermont independentmulling a runfor the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination also warned about American failures to save money. Heres something not talked about, something that can make us all very, very nervous, Sanders said. Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. And you know what that means and you know why people are so stressed out? If you have less than $10,000, he said, that means an automobile accident, a divorce, a serious illness, a crisis of one kind or another can drive you into bankruptcy and financial disaster. Is he right that half of us have less than $10K in savings? Sanders backup To our inquiry, a Sanders spokesman, Jeff Franks, said by email that Sanders relied on an April 2014USA Todaynews storyquoting a survey indicating 52 percent of U.S. workers had said they had less than $10,000 in total savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement. It did not include their homes or defined benefit plans, such as traditional pensions that could be used for retirement Specifically, the story said, 36 percent of workers said they had less than $1,000 in such savings and investments with another 16 percent of workers reporting $1,000 to $9,999 in such savings and investments. Those results came from a telephone survey of 1,000 workers and 501 retirees by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald and Associates. Next, we spotted a chart on the institutes website drawn from the same 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey. The 52 percent of workers reporting less than $10,000 in savings and investments in 2014 is up from 39 percent in 2009, the chart shows. Of course, workers isnt all of us. We called the Washington, D.C.-based institute,which saysit was founded in 1978 to deliver unbiased information on employee benefit plans so that decisions affecting the system may be made based on verifiable facts. By phone, researcher Craig Copeland told us that overall, 51 percent of survey respondents, meaning retirees and others, had less than $10,000 in financial savings. Also by phone, Ruth Helman of Greenwald and Associates, which helped do the survey, paused at the senators wording. Strictly speaking, their savings account isnt correct. Its total savings wherever it may be, under the mattress or wherever, Helman said. Federal Reserve Bank We wondered if there were other ways of looking at savings. Several experts urged us to contact the Federal Reserve Bank, which conducts a survey focused on consumer finances every three years.Its latest survey, drawing on data collected in 2013, resulted in a chart pointed out by Copeland indicating that the median value of financial savings outside of a pension or home reported by the nearly 95 percent of families who had bank accounts or stocks, bonds and other financial assets that year was $21,200, down from $23,000 in the boards 2010 survey. SOURCE:Report,Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 2014 Copeland said that given that more than 5 percent of families reported no such financial assets, its reasonable to speculate that families overall had median financial savings of less than $20,000. We also asked reserve board officials to analyze the senators savings accounts statement. By phone, William Emmons and Bryan Noeth, both employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, raised questions. For instance, why not count a familys home or pension as part of its savings? Reminder: The institute, with its focus on savings for retirement, set aside these asset categories. Emmons said: People do count on their housing equity, not only in retirement, but before that. Beyond that, the pair said, its not always meaningful to focus on money held in savings accounts, which are a single wealth indicator. A savings account isnt where everybody holds their money, Noeth said. The two said a potentially superior way to gauge how Americans are faring, savings-wise, would be to consider net worth meaning family assets compared to debts. An agency manager, Adriene Dempsey, emailed usa spreadsheetshowing that according to the boards 2013 survey, 26 percent of U.S. families had less than $10,000 in net worth--a tick worse than the 25 percent of families according to its 2010 study. In 2013, half of American families had about $81,500 in net wealth or more, according to the spreadsheet. Total assets for a family include financial assets, such as bank accounts, mutual funds and securities plus tangible assets, including real estate, vehicles and durable goods, according to aFebruary 2015 essayby the St. Louis Fed.Weve elaborated on this here. So by the net-worth metric, more families are better off than if one focused on financial savings alone. We ran this net worth angle past the institutes Coleman, who reminded by email that its survey (relied on by Sanders) took into account financial assets, not just savings accounts. Our ruling Sanders said: Half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in their savings account. Some clarification went missing here: A 2014 survey indicated about half of American adults had less than $10,000 in savings and investments, such as a 401(k) or IRA, that could be used for retirement; those results encompassed more than savings accounts. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the weeks that followed the U.S. federal government's March 2020 approval of a $2.2 trillion stimulus package  the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  to jumpstart a pandemic-broken economy, journalists and economists combed through the legislation's 247-page PDF document outlining who would receive the financial help. CARES 247-page PDF document Early news reports on the bill had highlighted its funding boosts to help newly unemployed Americans, small businesses facing diminished profits, health care facilities on the frontlines of fighting the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, and qualifying taxpayers by giving them one-time checks of about $1,200 (or more depending on how they filed taxes and their number of children). Then, in mid-April, more headlines focused on the intricacies of the multi-faceted policy package  including the claim that U.S. citizens married to immigrants wouldn't qualify for the one-time payments like other taxpayers. intricacies the claim The implication was that if spouses of immigrants had different marriages, they'd be richer with the federal government's help. Numerous readers contacted Snopes to investigate the truth behind the claim. For our examination, we first looked at where the claim originated. On April 20, the Los Angeles Times published a news story headlined, "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants," featuring stories of four couples, each of which includes an immigrant and will not be receiving the payments, as well as commentary from immigrant-rights advocates. The following day, CBS News published a story that cited the LA Times' reporting. Then, on April 22, Yahoo!'s lifestyle section republished an article from the so-called ScaryMommy website, a self-proclaimed source of "entertainment and information for millennial moms online." The post included editorialized phrasing, such as: These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants story Yahoo!'s lifestyle an article ScaryMommy "They just hate immigrants, and now, by default, American citizens who associate with them," the Scary Mommy post read, referring to the federal administration under U.S. President Donald Trump. "The government is leaving those people (and their families) out of help, and its heartbreaking." A rush of tweets, some lacking important context, followed. Among sharers of the LA Times story was U.S. Sen. Claire Celsi, a Democrat from Iowa, who said on Twitter:   Responding to her tweet, however, one user wrote: "I'm an immigrant. My wife is a US citizen. We got $2,400 as a direct deposit on April 15th. This is no less misleading than posting 'immigrants commit crimes.' It's technically true, but there is no causal link." one user Cue this fact check on who is and isn't eligible for the stimulus checks, called Economic Impact Payments, based on 2019 or 2018 tax returns. For those who are eligible, the CARES Act authorized the federal government to send: Additionally, for single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the payments by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families).  But to qualify, a recipient must be a "U.S. citizen, permanent resident or qualifying resident alien" under guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service. The latter two categorizations cover foreign-born residents who have obtained green cards to prove their legal status to work and live in the country and Social Security Numbers (SSN). The provision in the CARES Act outlining the payments states: Internal Revenue Service   That means immigrants who do not have legal status are excluded from the stimulus payments, even if they have work visas or use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (which the IRS issues to workers without SSN) to pay annual taxes. Additionally, if they file joint tax returns with their spouses, both parties are ineligible for the checks; the CARES Act's provisions require both parties on a couple's return to have SSN and will not accept joint returns with one or more Individual Taxpayer ID numbers. (Different standards apply to military couples, however: "If either spouse is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid SSN," according to the IRS.) According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research center, roughly 1.2 million immigrants without green cards are married to a U.S. citizen. Of that amount, the spouses who are U.S. citizens and filed single tax returns  regardless of their partner's immigration status  qualify to receive an individualized payment amount based on their income. Migration Policy Institute Given that significant caveat, as well as the fact that immigrants with green cards are eligible for the checks, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and false  U.S. citizens who filed joint tax returns with spouses who are immigrants without Social Security Numbers won't receive the payments, but spouses to immigrants with legal status will. H.R.748 CARES Act.  All ActionsH.R.748 116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov. Accessed 20 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 Yahoo!life. 22 April 2020. Marfice, Christina. "U.S. Citizens Married To Immigrants Are Blocked From Getting Stimulus Checks".
 ScaryMommy. 22 April 2020. Jarvie, Jenny. "These U.S. citizens won't get coronavirus stimulus checks  because their spouses are immigrants".
 Los Angeles Times. 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic Impact Payment Information Center".
 Accessed 24 April 2020. Migration Policy Institute. "Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States".
 Accessed 24 April 2020.