Failure to Salute
Claim:  Marines surreptitiously failed to observe the proper protocol in saluting President Clinton all throughout his eight years in office.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Military courtesy change I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W. leaving HM-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and as he walked away, the marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's back . . . something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency.  The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine orderly to the ship's Captain always faced him, no matter hisdirection of movement, to be ready to receive an order.  Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone? . . . And for eight years, they did. Origins:  According to this Internet-circulated piece, to a man, Marines decided they didn't respect President Clinton the minute he took office, and so for eight years all of them declined to observe proper protocol in his presence.  Moreover, no officer ever objected to this behavior, and not one member of the Presidential entourage ever noticed or reported it. The best way to answer this one would be to ask a Marine.  So we did: If the question is "Did the Marines who greeted the President willfully show disrespect by failing to execute a   "facing" movement after the salute?" the answer is no.  Proper protocol is for the Marine to snap a salute to the President. The President may or may not return the salute at his discretion. If the President returns the salute, the Marine immediately "cuts" or "posts" by bringing his arm sharply down to his side from the salute and remaining at a position of attention. If the President does not return the salute, the Marine will wait until the President passes him, then he will cut and remain at a position of attention. This is the protocol when greeting a senior officer, including the President.  With the new Presidency comes a changing of the Presidential Detail. The new command of the Presidential Detail may have chosen to add a facing movement to the protocol. This is at the complete discretion of the command. A Marine does not have the luxury of choosing whether or not he follows proper protocol. He is given an order and he follows it to the letter. If the order does not include a facing movement, the facing movement will not occur. If the order includes a facing movent, the facing movement occurs. It is that simple. Whether or not this movement becomes a standard part of protocol remains to be seen.  Marines do not act as individuals, we act as a team. Marines follow procedure and protocol. The Marines you saw followed their orders. That is a Marine. This piece was also refuted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Snappy little story. It has only two problems:   "It's absolutely false," says Staff Sgt. Keith Milks of the public affairs office at Marine Corps headquarters.   If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter "are chosen for their professionalism." In a phone interview, Milks said crew members of HM-1 - Marine One, the presidential helicopter - had followed the same protocol with Clinton that they used for all presidents, to wit:  The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the debarking president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away," Milks said. Even if one dislikes the man who is currently President, protocol dictates that he be shown the proper respect in order not to dishonor the office of President of the United States. Marines know that as well as anyone.  Additional information:        Presidential Tradition   (RonaldReagan.com)   Last updated:  27 January 2007    Sources:   Levins, Harry.  "Don't Believe Your E-Mail: The Marines Didn't Show More Respect to Bush Than Clinton."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  10 March 2001  (p. 2).
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. Walt Disney's health had been deteriorating for many months before he finally agreed to enter St. Joseph hospital in California on 2 November 1966, for tests concerning the pain in his leg and neck. Doctors discovered a walnut-sized spot on the x-ray of his left lung and advised immediate surgery. Disney left the hospital to attend to studio business for a few days, then re-entered St. Joseph on Sunday, November 6, for surgery the next day. During Monday morning's operation, doctors found his left lung to be cancerous and removed it. His oversized lymph nodes were an indication that Disney hadn't much longer to live.  After two weeks of post-operative care, Disney was released from the hospital. He crossed the street to his studios and spent another ten days tending to studio business and visiting relatives before he grew too weak and had to return to St. Joseph on November 30. His health started to fail even more rapidly than expected, and drugs and cobalt treatments sapped what little strength he had left. Walt Disney died two weeks later when his circulatory system collapsed on the morning of December 15, 1966. In the decades since Walt Disney's death, the claim that he arranged for his body to be frozen has become ubiquitous. Nearly everyone familiar with the name 'Walt Disney' has heard the story that Disney's corpse is stored in a deep-freeze chamber somewhere -- directly under Disneyland's "Pirates of the Caribbean" attraction is the most frequently mentioned site -- awaiting the day when science could repair the damage to his body and bring 'Uncle Walt' back to life. Was Walt Disney aware of the possibilities of life extension through cryogenics? He certainly could have been aware of the progress being made in cryogenics research. Numerous articles and books on hypothermia and the preservation of animal tissue through freezing appeared in both the scientific/medical and general press in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Anyone with an interest in the subject could easily have located this reading material, and even someone without a particular interest in the subject may have run across one or more articles on the topic in the general press. The subject of cryonics was further brought to the public's attention with the publication in 1964 of Robert C.W. Ettinger's book, The Prospect of Immortality. Ettinger's book, drawing on much of the available literature about cryonics, covered the practical, legal, ethical, and moral impact of freezing and reviving human beings. Ettinger, while admitting that science had as yet no way of reviving frozen human beings, was unflaggingly optimistic that a viable means of reanimation would eventually be found, telling his readers: The fact: At very low temperatures it is possible, right now, to preserve dead people with essentially no deterioration, indefinitely. The assumption: If civilization endures, medical science should eventually be able to repair almost any damage to the human body, including freezing damage and senile debility or other cause of death. Hence we need only arrange to have our bodies, after we die, stored in suitable freezers against the time when science may be able to help us. No matter what kills us, whether old age or disease, and even if freezing techniques are still crude when we die, sooner or later our friends of the future should be equal to the task of reviving and curing us. Given the prevalence of articles published about cryonics in the mid-1960's, and the relative popularity of Ettinger's book among science buffs (even if few of them had actually read it), it is certainly possible that Walt Disney was aware of the potentiality of cryonic storage of humans. Whatever the possibilities, however, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that Walt Disney was interested in, or had even heard of, cryonics. Documentation of Disney's alleged fascination with preserving or extending his life through cryonics did not appear until decades after his death, and what little information is available has predominantly been provided by some extremely questionable sources. Claims about Disney's interest come primarily from two of the more recent Disney biographies: Leonard Mosley's 1986 effort, Disney's World, and Marc Eliot's 1993 entry, Walt Disney -- Hollywood's Dark Prince. Both books have been largely discredited for containing numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions, rendering them rather untrustworthy as sources of reliable background material. Eliot's biography, which dwells unrelentingly on every salacious incident and rumor connected with Walt Disney's name, is fairly easy to dismiss. Charitably described as "speculative," it contains a single passage concerning Walt Disney's alleged interest in cryonics: Disney's growing preoccupation with his own mortality also led him to explore the science of cryogenics, the freezing of an aging or ill person until such time as the human body can be revived and restored to health. Disney often mused to Roy about the notion of perhaps having himself frozen, an idea which received ... indulgent nods from his brother ... Not surprisingly, the source behind this piece of information is nowhere to be found in Eliot's notes. And as there is no record of Roy ever having spoken of his brother's alleged interest in cryonics, Eliot's "source" was likely nothing more than repetition of rumor. Mosley's Disney's World is also rather long on rumor and short on facts. The book has been described as "poorly researched and filled with inaccuracies", a biography that seemed "to promote certain preset points of view, regardless of evidence". The same critique goes on to say, "One of its central themes, for example, is Disney's fascination with cryogenesis and the strong suggestion that his body was frozen following his death. It makes for titillating reading; however, few facts support Mosley's claims". Disney's World paints a picture of an anxious Walt Disney desperately searching for a way to spring back to life in order to prevent or correct the horrible mistakes his followers were bound to make in turning his EPCOT dream into reality: [T]he chief problem that troubled Walt was the length of time it might take the doctors to perfect the process. How long would it be before the surgical experts could bring a treated cadaver back to working life? To be brutally practical, could it be guaranteed, in fact, that he could be brought back in time to rectify the mistakes his successors would almost certainly start making at EPCOT the moment he was dead? Mosley's book is filled with repetitions of the claim that Walt Disney grew increasingly interested in cryonics as his health waned in late 1966, such as this paragraph: It was about this time that Walt Disney became acquainted with the experiments into the process known as cryogenesis, or what one newspaper termed "the freeze-drying of the human cadaver after death, for eventual resuscitation." Mosley's statements regarding Disney's belief in the feasibility of cryonics are somewhat difficult to take seriously, given that his book includes such ludicrously erroneous (or fabricated) statements as: The surgeons had taken away his diseased lung to examine it, and then were going to preserve it. Walt was pleased when he heard that. He knew enough about cryogenesis by now to be aware that it was important to hold onto all the organs -- just in case the surgeons needed to treat them before putting them back where they belonged. (Samples of tissue removed during cancer surgery are preserved in formaldehyde, a method of "preservation" which, while useful for microscopy studies, damages the tissue biologically. Organs removed from Disney by his surgeons could never be "put back where they belonged", no matter what the treatment.) Mosley provides no source for his statements, other than to assert that Disney's "closest colleagues and advisers" were "confident" that Walt Disney "eventually became convinced of cryogenesis as a viable medical process and was persuaded that, even in 1966, it was possible for a human being to have himself brought back to life after death". In fact, these "close colleagues" of Disney's turned out to be a few employees on the periphery of the Disney organization who had never spoken to Walt about cryonics, and were merely repeating the same decades-old rumor for Mosley's benefit. On the other hand, someone much closer to Walt Disney, his daughter, Diane wrote in 1972: "There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that my father, Walt Disney, wished to be frozen. I doubt that my father had ever heard of cryonics." Despite the persistent rumors, available documentation indicates that Walt Disney was in fact cremated. Although Disney's preferences regarding the disposal of his body are not public record(instructions or provisions for his funeral and burial were not included in his will), other publicly-available material is entirely consistent with the claim that he was cremated: will o Walt Disney publicly stated -- ten years before his death -- that he wished not to have a funeral. o Disney family members have confirmed that cremation was Walt's wish. o Disney's death certificate shows that he was cremated two days after his death. The name, license number, and signature of the enbalmer appearing on the death certificate are those of a real enbalmer who was employed at the Forest Lawn mortuary at the time. death certificate o A marked burial plot for Walt Disney (and other family members) can be found at the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale (the logical resting grounds for someone whose cremation was handled by Forest Lawn's mortuary), and court papers indicate that the Disney estate paid $40,000 to Forest Lawn for interment property. burial plot Since Disney's demise, several unmremarkable events and circumstances surrounding his life and death have been combined to try to establish a pattern of mystery and secrecy concerning the disposal of his body. All of these events, however, have straightforward, non-mysterious explanations: o "Disney had a long preoccupation with death"o "Disney had a neurotic fear of death" Statements concerning Disney's alleged preoccupation with death are generally attempts to sensationalize the topic by distorting the facts. Although he did worry about dying prematurely, Disney was not "obsessed with death". Supposedly having been told by a fortune-teller that he would die when he was thirty-five, Disney reportedly brooded about his inevitable demise during occasional bouts of depression, even after he had long passed the allegedly fatal age. Contemplating one's mortality is not an unusual behavior, and there is no evidence that Walt Disney did so to an excessive degree. William Poundstone quotes some ridiculous passages from Anthony Haden-Guest's The Paradise Program to try to establish Disney's preoccupation with death, detailing a "gruesome seven minute Mickey Mouse cartoon" made in 1933 in which "a mad scientist tries to cut off Pluto's head and put in on a chicken. The cartoon in question is The Mad Doctor, which was nothing more than humorous spoof of 1930's horror films. Even in the cartoon itself the "horrific" events are not portrayed as real: the whole episode turns out to be nothing more than a nightmare of Mickey's. Although Poundstone wrote that the film was pulled from the Rank film library in 1970, it has been readily available on home video releases since then. o "The news of Disney's death was deliberately delayed." This claim that the announcement of Walt Disney's death was deliberately withheld from the press for several hours has been made most persistently, presumably because Disney's aides would have needed time to furtively whisk his body away from the hospital to the secret cryogenic chamber before the presence of reporters made the task impossible to accomplish in privacy. Leonard Mosley's description of the event features some of more absurd stretches of truth made in this regard: And this is where the mystery begins. It was Walt himself who had asked Roy Disney to keep his illness secret, but the manner in which the world was apprised of his death remains surprising. In fact, it was not until hours after he was declared dead that an announcement was made. First came radio announcements, then a curt official notice informed the press and public that Walt Disney was no more. It added that there would be no funeral. He had already been cremated, the announcement said, and his ashes interred in the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. Only immediate family members had been present. It is true that Disney's death was not officially announced to the press until several hours after it occurred at 9:30 AM on Thursday, December 15, 1966, but the reasons behind the delay were perfectly ordinary ones. First of all, Disney's death would not have been announced immediately under any circumstances: Several family members had to be notified before a public announcement could be made, and Disney studio executives had to be located and informed that the head of their organization had passed away before the information would be released to the press. Additionally, the gravity of Disney's illness had largely been kept a secret from the press, so there were no hordes of reporters crowding the hallways of St. Joseph Hospital, waiting for the inevitable announcement of his death. The reason for Disney's original hospitalization had been announced to the press as "treatment of an old neck injury received while playing polo," and when Disney re-entered the hospital for the final time two weeks before his death, the statement made to the press was that Disney was undergoing "a routine post-operative" checkup. Although it was certainly no secret that Disney was quite ill, the seriousness of his condition was not generally known. The extent to which the details of Walt Disney's illness were kept from the press are evidenced by the newspapers reports of his death, which stated that his left lung had been removed during an operation on November 21 (an error which Poundstone repeats in Big Secrets). That operation had actually taken place two weeks earlier; November 21 was the date of his original post-surgery release from the hospital. So, given that relatives and studio heads had to be notified before any statements about Disney's death were made to the press; that the media were not on a "Disney death watch," busily preparing obituaries and tributes; and that communications in 1966 were certainly slower than they are today, it is not at all surprising that official news of Disney's death did not reach the public until a few hours later. Mosley's other statements, about Disney's funeral and cremation, are just further examples of sloppy research on his part. Disney was not cremated until two days after his death; no press announcement made "hours after he was declared dead" claimed that he had already been cremated.  o "The cause of Disney's demise was never formally announced." This statement is both inaccurate and irrelevant. The cause of Disney's death was initially announced as being "acute circulatory collapse," which meant simply that his heart had stopped beating. As facile as the official announcement may seem to those who know he "really" died of lung cancer, it does reflect the proximate cause of his death. This notion is borne out by the official death certificate, which lists "cardiac arrest" as the primary cause of death. The fact that cancer was what caused Disney's heart to give out was, medically, of secondary importance. death certificate Official statements released to the press after Disney's surgery (and before his death) had already revealed that a tumor had been found, necessitating the removal of a lung. Whether stated "officially" or not, it was quite clear to the public that Disney had died of lung cancer. In any case, what possible difference could it have made what Walt Disney died of? How could dissembling about the "real" cause of his death possibly have facilitated the goal of secretly storing his body in a cryonic chamber? o "Disney's funeral services were held in secret." Disney's funeral was not "secret"; rather, it was private, conducted quickly and quietly at the Little Church of the Flowers in Forest Lawn Cemetery, Glendale at 5:00 PM on Friday, December 16 (the day after his death). No announcement of the funeral was made until after it had taken place, no associates or executives from Disney Studios were invited, and only immediate family members were in attendance. Forest Lawn officials refused to disclose any details of the funeral or disposition of the body, stating only that "Mr. Disney's wishes were very specific and had been spelled out in great detail.". None of this secrecy surrounding Disney's funeral should be the least bit surprising to anyone, however. The biography The Story of Walt Disney (essentially an autobiography in which Disney's own words and thoughts were attributed to his daughter Diane), written a decade before Disney's death, noted that: [Walt] never goes to a funeral if he can help it. If he had to go to one it plunges him into a reverie which lasts for hours after he's home. At such times he says, 'When I'm dead I don't want a funeral. I want people to remember me alive.'" Is it so remarkable that a man who had an aversion to funerals -- and who had stated a ten years earlier that he didn't want a public funeral -- was sent off with a very quick and very private ceremony? If the clandestineness of the funeral had been intended to cover up the fact that Disney's body had already been deposited in liquid nitrogen at a secret facility, there were certainly better, less obvious ways of accomplishing the deception: Disney could have been given a simple closed-casket ceremony, with nobody the wiser. o "Disney specified the public was never to be told the location of his grave." Again, this claim is unsupported by any factual information and is not the least bit extraordinary. It is true that officials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park will not divulge the location of the Disney family plot. Many celebrities do request that the locations of their burial plots not be given out to visitors as a simple matter of privacy. The burial sites are not intended to be "secret," however; if they were, they wouldn't be marked and located on publicly-accessible grounds. Disney's plot was not, as Mosley claimed, "already filled with family ashes from which the public would always be barred." Disney's plot is far from obtrusive, but it is located in an unrestricted part of the park and marked with a plaque identifying its occupants; anyone who so desires is perfectly free to visit, leave flowers, take photographs, etc. The plot was certainly not "already filled with family ashes" at the time of Disney's interment, as for many it held the remains of only one other person: Ron Brown, a son-in-law who died the year after Disney did. In fact, according to the book Wills of the Rich and Famous, the interment property was not even chosen until September 19, 1967, making it rather difficult to believe that it could have been "already filled with family ashes." If Disney was not really frozen, then how and when did this rumor originate? The exact origins of the rumor are unknown, but at least one Disney publicist has suggested that the story was started by a group of Disney Studio animators who "had a bizarre sense of humor." The earliest known printed version of the rumor appeared in the magazine Ici Paris in 1969. Even if the origins of the story are unknown, it is certainly easy to see why the rumor is so believable. In the years immediately preceding his death, Disney was involved in a number of projects which cemented his image as a technical innovator in the public's mind. Disneyland attractions such as the monorail, the House of the Future, the Voyage to the Moon; the introduction of audio-animatronic figures at the 1964 World's Fair, and Disney's plans for his "community of tomorrow" (EPCOT) in Florida made it easy to believe Walt Disney was ahead of everyone else in his planning, even when it came to his death. When you consider that the first cryonic suspension took place just a month after Disney's death (Dr. James Bedford, a 73-year-old psychologist from Glendale, was suspended on January 12, 1967), it's not so far-fetched to imagine that Disney might have made similar arrangements.  Adams, Cecil.  More of The Straight Dope.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.  ISBN 0-345-35145-2  (pp. 331-333). Davis, Jeff.  "Walt Disney Dies."   Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.  15 December 1966  (p. 1). Eliot, Marc.  Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince.   Seacaucus, N.J.: Carol Pub. Group, 1993. Ettinger, Robert C.W.  The Prospect of Immortality.   New York: Doubleday, 1964. Jackson, Kathy Merlock.  Walt Disney: A Bio-Bibliography.   Westport, CT: Greenwood Pub. Group, 1993.  ISBN 0-313-25898-8. Miller, Diane Disney.  The Story of Walt Disney.   New York: Holt, 1957. Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2. Mosley, Leonard.  Disney's World.   New York: Stein and Day, 1985. Nass, Herbert E.  Wills of the Rich and Famous.   New York: Warner, 1991.  ISBN 0-446-39218-9. Poundstone, William.  Big Secrets.   Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986.  ISBN 0-395-45397-6  (pp. 219-224). Thomas, Bob.  Walt Disney: An American Original.   New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.  ISBN 0-7868-6027-8. Trimborn, Harry.  "Wizard of Fantasy Walt Disney Dies."   Los Angeles Times.  16 December 1996  (p. 1). The Boston Globe.  "Ask the Globe."   24 January 1992  (p. 20). Los Angeles Herald-Examiner.  "Disney Rites Secret; As He Wished."   17 December 1966  (p. 1). Los Angeles Times.  "Services for Walt Disney Held as He Asked -- For Family Only."   17 December 1966  (p. 1). The New York Times.  "Walt Disney, 65, Dies on Coast; Founded an Empire on a Mouse."   16 December 1966  (p. 1). Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. On 27 February 2016, the World News Daily Report web site published an article positing that a retired postman had fathered more than 1,300 illegitimate children: An 87-year-old former postman has been proven to have fathered over 1,300 illegitimate children after a private investigator hired by a Tennessee family discovered the shocking truth. Contraception wasnt very popular in those days, he told local reporters in his defense. I have nothing to be ashamed of. The 60s were the good old days and I did a great Johnny Cash impression which played out real good with the ladies, he explained. Some even thought I was Johnny Cash for real, he recalls laughingly. I dont know if they really believed it or if they were trying to convince themselves, but who was I to say no to a quickie? he acknowledged. There was no truth to thisstory, which originated with World News Daily Report (WNDR), a fake news site that does not publish factual stories (as noted in their disclaimer): WNDR assumes however all responsibility for thesatiricalnature of its articles and for the fictional nature oftheir content. All characters appearing in the articlesin this website  even those based on real people  areentirely fictionalandany resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purelya miracle. In addition to the disclaimer, thefake news story about a postman's fathering 1,300 illegitimate children was given away as fiction because it featured two unrelated images that were lifted (like all of WNDR's photographs) from other sites:   The first image, which purportedly depicts the prolific postman, actually shows a 97-year-old World War II veteran. The second image, which supposedly captures the reporter who uncovered the story, is actually picture of David Stockman, the budget director during the Reagan administration. shows picture A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012. On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children: tweet   However, the photograph used in this tweet was miscaptioned. It's true that nine parents who were deported from the U.S. were later reunited with their children, but that occurrence took place a year before the tweet shown above was posted. Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet.  The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration." reported Both Xol and his son were featured in that AP story: LOS ANGELES (AP)  As his long-lost son walked toward him in an airport terminal, a sobbing David Xol stretched out his arms, fell to one knee, and embraced the boy for about three minutes, crying into his shoulder. He had not held the child since May 2018, when border agents pulled then-7-year-old Byron away inside a detention facility. They were separated under President Donald Trumps zero-tolerance policy  the father deported to Guatemala, the son placed in a series of government facilities before ending up with a host family in Texas. Xol was one of nine parents who won the exceedingly rare chance to return to the U.S. after being deported under family separation. They arrived Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport to be reunited with children they hadnt seen in a year and a half or longer under the order of a federal judge who found the U.S. government had unlawfully prevented them from seeking asylum. A video was also included with the AP story showing the moment that Xol and his son embraced for the first time in more than a year and a half: https://youtu.be/r_QFc8bIIww      The tweet from @ialhusseini received thousands of retweets and likes, with one viewing replying,  "Grateful for the Biden Administration for this beautiful pix." Others thanked both U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden. However, these families were reunited a year before Biden was sworn in as president. After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion: reported Alejandro Mayorkas, who was sworn in as Homeland Security secretary after his nomination was confirmed by the Senate, will lead a task force on family separation, focused largely on reuniting parents and children who remain apart. It is unclear exactly how many, but about 5,500 children have been identified in court documents as having been separated during Trump's presidency, including about 600 whose parents have yet to be found by a court-appointed committee. "We're going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration," Biden said. The review will address the possibility of legal status in the United States for separated families and providing mental health services. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families, has asked the administration for legal status in the United States for all of the thousands of families that have been separated, as well as financial compensation for those families and attorneys at government expense. In sum, a tweet from Feb. 3, 2021, reported a news story as if it had just taken place. However, although the story was true, it was a report from more than a year earlier. Twitter users shared the tweet and its accompanying picture as if it were new and current, and for this reason we have rated this story as being "Miscaptioned." Featured photograph caption (top): "A Honduran asylum seeker, recently released from federal detention with fellow migrants, holds the hand of her six-year-old daughter at a bus depot on June 11, 2019, in McAllen, Texas." In September 2016, the magazines Boys' Life and Girls' Life put out their usual issues, with wildly disparate cover images and content listings. Pictures of the two covers were shared side by side in an image that went viral as a purported example of the divergent ways in which girls' and boys' interests are represented in the United States: A graphic artist designed her own cover based on the message she thought Girls' Life should convey: cover   However, the original photograph of the covers  while real  is misleading for a number of reasons, mostly contextual. The Girls' Life cover is a sample size of one. While this particular cover appears to encourage teens and tweens to focus on their looks at the expense of everything else (and to tacitly say that being pretty is the only important thing) at first glance, a closer look at the magazine's web site quickly shows that previous issues bore covers focusing on stories about body acceptance, getting jobs, and dealing with bullies (and how not to be one) tucked amid pieces on fashion and celebrity gossip. body acceptance getting jobs bullies Digging deeper into the web site also unearths articles about other (and not at all trivial) topics, with titles such as "Nosy parents? Try this to set boundaries" (listen, communicate, compromise), "September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month", and "5 books that will help you succeed this school year".  boundaries Month succeed But if that's not the point (and if you consider the cover the most important part of the magazine), a look at some of the other covers shows a more balanced approach to the hormonally fraught life of the average ten- to sixteen-year-old girl, with headlines showing articles about how to study better in school, how to handle friendships, how to create things, how to boost self-esteem, and book reviews and recommendations. It also is important to consider that Boys' Life magazine is not a general boys' interest publication but rather the official trade magazine of the Boy Scouts of America, whose official oath is: magazine On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and morally straight. To clarify, Boys' Life is a magazine that functions as a way to further the very specific (and positive) Boy Scouts' message to boys. It is not a usual newsstand magazine, and despite appearances, it is not affiliated with  Girls' Life  which has a similar name, and is a magazine, but is not affiliated with the Girl Scouts or any other similar organization. Girls' Life states its mission as follows:  message mission GL readers get real, honest advice. Parents can trust GL to guide their girls through the growing-up yearswithout making them grow up too fast. Karen Bokram is the founding editor and publisher of Girls' Life magazine. She told us that the outcry seems to stem from adults placing their own expectations and pressure on young people. She says that by the time girls are reading her magazine, they're already receiving mixed messages about what they're supposed to be (and with additional pressure from their peers to fit in), which is in part what her magazine is trying to help them navigate: I put this stuff in there, and once I point it out, people say  okay fine, you have a lot of high quality content, but you still should have it on the cover! And I'm like, okay, so we're shaming girls for having interests that aren't aligned with what you think they should be interested in? So getting good grades and making friends  which is on my cover  isn't within your wheelhouse?  While there is undoubtedly a conversation to be had about the gender binary, sexism, and the difference in expectations faced by young people based on their sex and outward appearance, this photograph of the two covers side by side does not illustrate those issues as clearly as it might seem to at first glance. On Oct. 10, 2022, a paid ad on Facebook promoted a fake investment opportunity with the words, "How To Buy SpaceX Stock Before It Goes Public." The ad showed a picture of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and directed users to chat with a person on Messenger, who then told users to visit a WhatsApp group chat named "Stock Learning Group 28." But none of this was legitimate. It was all a scam to steal users' money. Stock Learning Group 28  The full scam post that promised a way to "buy SpaceX stock before it goes public" read as follows: Bullish on the future of space travel? See how to invest in SpaceX before it goes Public! We help you pre-buy stocks in the latest up-and-coming companies, before most retail investors. Getting in on the best companies before they go public is how you can get the returns like recent IPOs such as: AirBnB - 130% return in 7 months.Palantir - 226% return in 10 months.Snowflake - 331% return in 10 months. We do one thing very well... ...get you access to the most popular companies before the public market has a chance. Click the Learn More button now and well show you how to invest in SpaceX before the public  This post appeared to follow the same playbook we had seen before with numerous crypto scams. In those scams, users were also led from one social media platform to another, where they were told that their money would be invested in a special crypto opportunity. However, it was all a lie. Just like the scam post about SpaceX, some of the crypto scams featured photos of Musk as a way of trying to create trust. crypto scams featured photos of Musk The Facebook account that hosted the ads showed up as a personal profile and not a page. It was named Tut Pro 1 38801324. The profile picture showed an image that said "Half Price Books," a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the scam. We asked the account about the strange profile photo. They responded, "This event is sponsored by Mr. Nino, a senior stock analyst. Join Mr. Nino's stock research group now and receive a stock book when you join the group." The crypto scams we covered in the past also claimed to feature a specialist who could help deliver on the scam's promise. In the crypto scams, the scammers called this person "the teacher." We asked the user if this "Mr. Nino" was "the teacher." The account responded, "Yes." If the strange account name weren't enough of a red flag, the profile also once featured two seemingly random pictures of young girls. According to TinEye.com, a handy reverse image search website, at least one of the photos was traced to websites that were managed in Vietnam. This may have indicated that the scam was being operated from Southeast Asia. TinEye.com reverse image search As for the reality of SpaceX going public in the future, CNBC previously reported that Musk told employees the company was not likely to go public until 2025 or later. reported Evon, Dan. Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches. Snopes.com, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/. Sheetz, Michael. Elon Musk Says an IPO of SpaceXs Starlink Satellite Internet Business Is Still 3 or 4 Years Away. CNBC, 7 June 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/07/spacex-starlink-ipo-elon-musk-says-offering-is-3-or-4-years-away.html. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. Tut Pro 1 38801324. Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100084130714561. On Oct. 18, 2022, we added a note that said a real company named Half Price Books had nothing to do with the scam. After Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saluted legislation potentially giving voters more sway over local property taxes, we wondered afresh about how Texas ranks nationally in terms of property tax burden. Patrick, talking upa proposalhatched by fellow Republicans led by Houston state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, said in a Nov. 29, 2016,press release: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation, and Texans have told us loud and clear that common-sense property tax reform legislation is long overdue. In January 2016,we found Mostly Truethe same claim by a Bexar County legislative aspirant. The business-orientedTax Foundation, a national group, drew on 2013 Census Bureau datato mapthe average amount of residential property tax paid as a percentage of home value state by state. By that metric, the Texas rate of 1.9 percent proved higher than the rates in 44 states; it was topped by the rates for Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois and No. 1 New Jersey at 2.38 percent. Still, we noted, property taxes in Texas are levied locally in Texas, resulting in ample differences in the burden depending on where taxpayers live. Rankings yet to be updated Not a lot has changed since we reached that conclusion. For starters, the rankings  showing Texas with the sixth highest mean effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing  havent been updated, the foundations Jared Walczak said to our inquiry. Yet, Walczak also told us by email, this does not make Texas a high-tax state. Texas has chosen to rely more heavily on property taxes, and less heavily on other taxes, than many peer states, foregoing some altogether. The state's tax structure is an important part of its economic success, and it is inevitable that, when a state foregoes an individual income tax, some other tax will be somewhat higher than it might otherwise have been. In fact, the foundation has previously reported that in 2012Texas ranked 46thin state-local taxes per resident. Why property taxes can be high Property taxes might be higher here becauseunlike most states, Texas levies no state income tax. Notably too, unlike in some states, Texas property tax rates are set locally, not by the state,according to the Texas state comptroller, with government units spending the revenue to provide local services including schools, streets and roads, police and fire protection and many others. Moreover, the state lacks the constitutional authority to levy a property tax, as the Texas Legislative Council noted in a2002 overviewof local taxes statewide. Generally under the current system, a county appraisal district does an annual property valuation, then each area city, county, school and special district (like hospital and road districts) sets the respective tax rate necessary to raise the money needed to fund the related adopted budget. And according to Census data, property taxes in 2013, the latest year of available data, were the source of 81.6 percent of local tax revenue in Texas (the national average for this figure was 46.7 percent). Updated information is to be posted Dec. 9, 2016, bureau spokesman Sean Patrick told us by email. Regional differences When we looked into this topic before, advocates including Dick Lavine of the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities and Dale Craymer of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association suggested we consider acomparison studyby the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy showing that property owners in the biggest cities of Texas, especially Houston and San Antonio, had some of the highest property taxes in 2014 compared with large cities in other states. That remained so the next year, according to aJune 2016 institute studyindicating, for instance, that El Paso homeowners in 2015 ranked No. 3 among the countrys 50 most populous cities in homestead property taxes on a $150,000 property or $300,000 property. Among the 50 cities, homestead taxes in large Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio ranked No. 5 (Fort Worth) to No. 13 (Houston), according to the report. The disparity between property taxes by county comes through in real-dollar terms, although measures of taxes in terms of dollars paid can be distorted by the difference in home prices from county to county. A Tax Foundationmapshows in real dollars just how much property taxes vary from county to county based on IRS data reflecting the amount of real estate taxes deducted from federal taxes. In 2013, Texas counties with residents paying the most were Travis ($7,553), Kendall ($6,916) and Fort Bend ($6,813), while those paying the least are Dickens ($1,325), Stonewall ($1,425) and Hudspeth ($1,450). Another factor to think about when considering the property tax burden for the average Texan is the rate of home ownership. The Tax Foundation map showing Texas tied for sixth-highest in property taxes considered the percentage of home value thats paid in property taxes on owner-occupied housing. In 2015, 61.1 percent of Texas housing was owner-occupied, tying the state with Oregon for the nations sixth-lowest rate,according tothe Census Bureau. Our ruling Patrick said: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation. While it may be true that on average, Texas property taxes are the sixth-highest in the nation, the actual taxpayer burden on residents can vary greatly by locality, making the average less representative. We rate the 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 8 May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his administration's plans to withdraw the U.S. from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. Shortly afterwards, the Facebook page "Far Left Veteran" shared a meme with a related quote attributed to Major General Paul D. Eaton: withdraw meme Paul D. Eaton   Maj. General Eaton is a retired U.S. Army officer who commanded operations to train Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003-04 before returning to the U.S. to become Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. That Eaton made the comment attributed to him above is documented by his verified Twitter account, where he posted that comment on the same day President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran deal: I have served with foreign Soldiers and armies all my professional life - including Iranian. The American Military word was trusted. I deeply regret @realDonaldTrump decision to walk away from the Iran Deal. He dishonors America and puts us and our allies at risk. #IranDeal @realDonaldTrump #IranDeal  Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) May 8, 2018 May 8, 2018  In a statement published on VoteVets.org, the major general provided additional opinion on the issue: statement Today, Donald Trump has moved us closer to a war with Iran, while he has also moved us closer to a nuclear war with North Korea. All this while we wage a war in Afghanistan. By decertifying the Iran deal, and putting the question of new sanctions before Congress, Iran will now consider restarting its nuclear program. Should Congress reinstitute sanctions, Iran will undoubtedly speed towards nuclear weapons, putting us on the path to war. If Congress inserts new triggers for sanctions, Iran will likely consider whether staying in the deal is worth it, at all. At the same time, North Korea now knows that any deal signed by the United States is not worth the ink it is written in, when it comes to Donald Trump. That chops diplomats off at the knees, as they struggle to find a non-military solution to the crisis in Korea. It moves us closer to nuclear war with North Korea. In short, today Donald Trump has put us on the path to two new wars, with nuclear weapons. We are very much less safe today, than we were yesterday. The path we are now on  massive loss of human life, on the scale of millions  is not a positive development for America, or humanity. We implore Congress to step in, and rein in this president. VoteVets.org.  "Statement of Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton, Former Iraq War Commander, Senior Adviser to VoteVets, on Trump Decertifying Iran Deal."
  Accessed 9 May 2018.