Passing Fancy
Claim:  Article contrasts observances of the passings of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Ed McMahon died this week. He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel. He was discharged in 1946 and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the CA Air National Guard. Farrah Fawcett died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering. Michael Jackson died this week. He was perhaps one of the greatest singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation. QUESTION - Which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence for today? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) QUESTION - Which of the above's family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama? (Hint - It wasn't the first two.) Need we say more? Variations:  A later version of this item included the following bit about actor Karl Malden (who died on 1 July 2009): Karl Malden died this week after a long career in Hollywood as an actor. He also served in the US Air Force during WWII and also served on the US Postal Service committee to review and recommend commemorative stamps.  In 2005, the US House of Representatives authorized the US Postal Service to rename a Los Angeles post office the Karl Malden Postal Station. Origins:  The entertainment world suffered a triple shock at the end of June 2009, when television personality Ed McMahon passed away on the 23rd of that month, a loss followed two days later by the deaths of both actress Farrah Fawcett and singer Michael Jackson.   It is true that Ed McMahon was a veteran, a decorated U.S. Marine Corps pilot who served his country during both World War II and the Korean War.  It is also true that after Farrah Fawcett was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, she became "an outspoken advocate for early detection and  treatment of cancer" and "worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this disease," bravely allowing herself to be filmed for the harrowing Farrah's Story, a documentary that chronicled her grim fight against cancer in order to "make viewers aware of the need for testing and research." Farrah's Story It is also true that neither of these celebrities was honored in their passing with the observance of a moment of silence in the U.S. Congress, and that (as far as we know) neither's family was the recipient of a personal note of condolence from the President.  In contrast, the day after Michael Jackson's death, the House of Representatives observed a moment of silence in the entertainer's honor, and a few days later senior presidential adviser David Axelrod stated that President Obama had written to the Jackson family and "shared his feelings" with them. observed stated However, many would take exception to the implication that Michael Jackson was merely an eccentric entertainer who, unlike Ed McMahon and Farrah Fawcett, did nothing (outside of his art) to benefit society and make him (as) worthy of the honors and recognition he received at his passing.  Michael Jackson left behind a substantial philanthropic legacy, having contributed for over twenty-five years to a long, long list of charities through donations of his time, money, and other forms of support.  As the Los Angeles Times Michael Jackson left a philanthropic legacy almost as large as his cultural one. In all the financial and personal turmoil that characterized his latter years, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that he was a pioneer not only in popular music but also in charitable fundraising within the entertainment industry. Jackson, like his close friend Elizabeth Taylor, was one of the first entertainers to enlist in the fight against AIDS/HIV, and he went on to contribute and raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help sick children, set up scholarship funds, and to find new ways for entertainers to raise money and awareness for causes. He also helped set the standard of generosity for other entertainers, particularly pop stars. His song "We Are the World," which he co-wrote with Lionel Richie in 1985 to help combat famine in Africa, was instrumental in changing the way rock stars generate funds for the causes to which they're devoted. Before the financial woes that haunted him in recent years, Jackson was one of the industry's most formidable philanthropists.  Jackson's estate is expected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars more over the years to come. If the will currently being treated by the courts as valid is sustained, it appears that at least 20% of the income on the trust that Jackson directed his executors establish will go to charity. A detailed list of Michael Jackson's many charitable efforts can be found here. here Last updated:  9 July 2009    Gerstein, Josh.  "Obama Sends Condolence Letter to Jackson Family."   Politico.  28 June 2009.    Koppelman, Alex.  "On House Floor, A Moment of Silence for Michael Jackson."   Salon.  26 June 2009.    O'Neil, Tom.  "Farrah Fawcett's TV Cancer Confession May Be Emmy-Worthy."   Los Angeles Times.  7 May 2009.    Ventre, Michael.  "'Farrah's Story' a Tale of Inner Strength."   msnbc.com.  22 May 2009.
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). Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. In his Democratic convention address, former President Bill Clinton took a shot at President Donald Trumps economic record during the coronavirus pandemic, saying the 45th president has botched his handling of the twin health and economic crises. Donald Trump says were leading the world, Clinton said. Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple. Using the most clear-cut multi-nation comparison  comparing January to June 2020  Clinton is right. But its worth noting some differences in how countries address unemployment. We turned to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank whose members are advanced industrialized countries. The group collects economic statistics for all its members, including unemployment rates. We chose 20 countries for which data was available, including most of the countries in western Europe, plus Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. For consistencys sake, we compared January to June because only two of the countries reported data for July. As the following chart shows, the United States was among the few countries to show a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate between January and June. The U.S. is the peach-colored line with the steep climb; you can see each country highlighted if you hover over the list of countries at the bottom. The United States saw its unemployment rate increase from 3.6% to 11.1%. That works out to a little under 3.1 times higher in June than January. No other country saw such a big increase. The only other nation that saw its unemployment rate more than double over that period was Canada, which saw its rate increase 2.2 times. Canada actually had a higher unemployment rate in June than the U.S. did, at 12.3%, but the scale of Canadas increase was more modest than the United States because Canada had a higher rate to start, at 5.5%. Using U.S. data for February instead of January doesnt change the picture much. The U.S. unemployment rate in February was 3.5%, making the increase through June about 3.2 times. There are a couple asterisks to Clintons statement. If you compare January to July, a month for which data isnt available for most of the OECD nations, the increase in the United States was still substantial, but just short of three times higher. The unemployment rate rose from 3.6% in January to 10.2% in July, meaning an increase of 2.8 times. Its also worth noting that the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen for three straight months, amid a zigzagging reopening and a volatile economy. So the unemployment rate is likely to bounce around a bit before it settles down. Finally, the OECD itselfnotessome differences across countries. Some nations have used more aggressive efforts than the United States to subsidize workers to remain on payrolls. And some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not count temporarily laid-off workers as unemployed, while the United States does count such workers as unemployed. Clinton said the United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began. Thats accurate for the broadest comparison  a 20-nation selection of OECD nations between January 2020 and June 2020. The rate in the U.S. was 3.1 times higher in June than in January. Only Canada came close, with the unemployment rate 2.2 times higher over that period. However, extending the U.S. data to July showed that the increase fell slightly below three times, and there are some complications in making cross-country comparisons. We rate the statement Mostly True. UPDATE, Aug. 20:This article has been updated with additional context about the complications of making cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates. The rating remains the same. FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. In his 1948 book The Affairs of Dame Rumor, Jacobson mentions this rumor "flooded the Atlantic states in 1934" and notes the story had been published in the Boston Traveler a few years earlier: Example: [Brunvand, 1984] This teen age girl, growing up in a California coastal town, was obviously pregnant  stomach starting to swell, morning sickness, etc. She, however, tearfully insisted to her mother that she couldn't possibly be pregnant. She had never "done it" with a boy and it just wasn't possible. As time went on, however, the signs continued. Her stomach continued to grow, her appetite increased, and so forth. Her mother insisted she was pregnant. The girl insisted it wasn't possible. She was still a "good" girl. Finally x-rays were taken and the girl was vindicated. She had a large tumor in her stomach and surgery was performed immediately. To everyone's amazement the surgeons removed not a tumor but a small, live octopus that had fastened itself to the lining of the girl's stomach. What happened to this girl supposedly is really possible. Octopus eggs are microscopic in size and laid in clusters of tens of thousands. They are usually affixed to kelp at the ocean bottom by a sticky secretion. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a few could escape and float to the surface where they could be swallowed by an unsuspecting swimmer . . . Anyway, don't scoff, because the girl was a close friend of my older brother's girlfriend. Fishbein's 1930 book Shattering Health Superstitions includes the text of the Traveler piece: A London factory girl is reported to have swallowed something while taking a swim, and immediately after was seized with terrible pains. A local doctor and a specialist both failed to diagnose the case, but an X-ray examination finally showed that she had swallowed an octopus egg, which had hatched out inside her anatomy. Folklorist Jan Brunvand points out there is a traditional folk motif assigned to this type of tale:  B784.1.4  Girl swallows frog spawn; an octopus grows inside her with tentacles reaching to every part of her body. How an octopus can grow from frog spawn remains unexplained, however. There are numerous versions of the basic legend:  All of these tales might be considered variations of the "bosom serpent" legend, described by Harold Schecter as a tale in which "through some unfortunate circumstance or act of carelessness . . . a snake. . . is accidentally ingested by, or grows inside the body of, the unlucky individual, where it remains until it is expelled or in some way lured out of the victim's body." This motif remains popular in films such as Alien, which features a crew member "impregnated" by an alien creature; once the incubation period is complete, the alien lifeform is "born" by bursting out through his chest. As Schechter notes, "like the traditional, oral versions that have been popular for hundreds of years, [the] only purpose [of the birth scene in Alien] is to produce emotional response: shock, revulsion, morbid fascination." In June 2004 the Iranian daily Etemaad reported that an unnamed woman from the south-eastern city of Iranshahr had given birth to a frog. According to that paper, the woman's gynaecologist confirmed that the lady in question, whose period had stopped for six months, had undergone sonography in May which showed she had a cyst in her abdomen and that following severe bleeding, she gave birth to a live grey frog accompanied with mud. Numerous news outlets subsequently carried the story, but in the manner of reporting that an Iranian paper had run the item, not as a confirmation of the facts of the account. If the photo of the frog (as initially provided by the BBC  it was later stripped from their online article and replaced by a map of Iraq) was accurate, it disproved the theory that the purported mother of Kermit came by her amphibian pregnancy through having swum in or drunk frog spawn, because the lily pad jumper so pictured was of a species not native to Iran. In any event, it was always a case of news outlets repeating a weird story that had come to them, not of vetting the tale's claims. Humans cannot give birth to frogs, or snakes, or fish, or lizards, or octopuses  our biology rules it out.  Also told in:   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 77).  The Big Book of Urban Legends   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.  ISBN 0-393-30321-7  (pp. 110-111). The Choking Doberman   BBC News.  "Iranian Woman Gives Birth to Frog."
  27 June 2004.   Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.
  London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 74-75). The Tumour in the Whale   Fishbein, Morris.  Shattering Health Superstitions.
  New York: Horace Liveright, Inc., 1930  (pp. 90-97).   Jacobson, David J.  The Affairs of Dame Rumor.
  New York: Rinehart & Co., 1948  (p. 23). The Affairs of Dame Rumor   Schecter, Harold.  The Bosom Serpent: Folklore and Popular Art.
  Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1988. Conservative social media users circulated an image of a purported Facebook post from 17 October 2017 which they said showed Gold Star widow Myeshia Johnson accusing Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) of exploiting a presidential condolence call over the death of her husband, U.S. Army Sgt. La David Johnson, for political gain: circulated   The picture allegedly depicts a post from Myeshia Johnson's Facebook page dated "17 October 2017 at 3:27 p.m." saying: I want to set the record straight! I'm getting sick and tired of this so called politician using my husband as a political platform. Even buy [sic] her own words she did not hear all of the conversation she only heard part of it. This is what actually was said. "They know the risk, they know what they sign up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid" A phone call from President Donald Trump to Johnson is at the center of what has become a public dispute between Johnson and the Trump administration. But the validity of the screenshot is doubtful. While the date of the post corresponds with that of the 17 October 2017 condolence call, the time listed is actually more than an hour before the reported time of President Trump's phone call, which was 4:45 p.m. Eastern time. reported Also, the picture shows a Facebook profile bearing a square profile picture. But the social media site implemented an update in August 2017 that changed the shape of users' profile pictures in the Facebook newsfeed from square to round, as seen in this example from the Snopes.com Facebook page (top left): update shape Facebook   La David Johnson was killed while serving in Niger on 4 October 2017, in what has been described as an ambush by Islamic insurgents. Three other U.S. service members, Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, were also killed in the attack, as were four Nigerien troops. described Rep. Wilson said she was riding with the Army sergeant's widow and members of her family to receive his body when the President called, telling CNN host Don Lemon that night: telling I heard what [Trump] said because the phone was on speaker. Basically he said, "Well, I guess he knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt." That's what he said. Wilson accused Trump of being insensitive not only to La David Johnson's family but "to the family of every soldier that has paid the ultimate price for our freedom." The sergeant's mother, Cowanda Jones-Johnson, has corroborated Wilson's account of the phone call, saying that "President Trump did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband." corroborated President Trump responded by denying what Rep. Wilson had claimed: I didn't say what that congresswoman said. Didn't say it all. She knows it. I had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife who was  sounded like a lovely woman. Did not say what the congresswoman said, and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. On 23 October 2017, Myeshia Johnson told ABC News that Wilson was "100 percent" in her description of the phone call. She said: told The President said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway. And it made me cry cause I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said he couldn't remember my husband's name.  The only way he remembered my husband's name is because he told me he had my husband's report in front of him and that's when he actually said La David. I heard him stumblin' on, trying to remember my husband's name and that's what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country why can't you remember his name. But while President Trump suggested he had proof to support his account of events, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters that the call had not been not recorded. Instead, Sanders said, Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly and other White House staff members were near President Trump when he phone Myeshia Johnson and heard what he said. proof told For his part, Kelly called Wilson an "empty barrel" and accused her of taking credit in 2015 for the funding of a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office in Miami, a claim that was debunked by footage of Wilson's remarks that was posted online on 20 October 2017. debunked Despite Sanders' statement that the president's conversation with Myeshia Johnson was not recorded, Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law and host of a Facebook broadcast devoted to what his administration calls "real news," asserted on 20 October 2017 that she had read a transcript of the call which confirmed Trump spoke the words in question, albeit with additional context: broadcast asserted [Trump] said, "Your husband went into battle, you know, knowing that he could be injured, knowing that he could be killed, and he still did it because he loved this country, and he did it for the American people." Wilson came under additional criticism after she responded to Kelly's allegations by exclaiming that "You mean to tell me that I've become so important that the White House is following me and my words? This is amazing. That's amazing. I'll have to tell my kids that I'm a rockstar now." exclaiming Two days earlier, Rep. Wilson had issued a statement reading: statement Despite President Trump's suggestion that I have recanted my statement or misstated what he said, I stand firmly by my original account of his conversation with Myeshia Johnson, the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Moreover, this account has been confirmed by family members who also witnessed Mr. Trump's incredible lack of compassion and sensitivity. The Johnson family and the families of the three other soldiers who tragically lost their lives in the Niger ambush are experiencing what I am certain must feel like an unbearable loss. Rather than engage in a petty war of words with Mr. Trump, it is so much more important to embrace and support the families and honor these fallen heroes. We reached out to Rep. Wilson for comment but have not yet received a response. Sabovic, Sanela et al.  "Trump to Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson: 'He Knew What He Signed Up For.'"
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. Wilson, Frederica S.  "Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson Stands by Account of President Trump's Condolence Call to the Widow of Sgt. La David Johnson."
  18 October 2017. Kelly, Heather.  "Facebook's Adding Text Bubbles and Round Profiles."
  CNN.  15 August 2017. Sabovic, Sanela.  "Remains of US Army Sgt. La David Johnson return to Miami."
  WPLG-TV.  17 October 2017. CNN.  "Congresswoman Describes Trump's Call to Widow."
  17 October 2017. Gearan, Anne and Kristine Phillips.  "Fallen Soldier's Mother: 'Trump Did Disrespect My Son.'"
  The Washington Post.  18 October 2017. de Moraes, Lisa.  "White House: No Recording Of Donald Trumps Phone Call to Widow of Soldier Killed in ISIS Ambush."
  Deadline.  18 October 2017. Barszewski, Larry.  "Frederica Wilson 2015 Video Shows White House Chief of Staff John Kelly Got It Wrong."
  The Sun-Sentinel. nbsp; 20 October 2017. Holly, Jessica.  "Congresswoman Reacts to White House Statement on Call to Army's Family."
  WSVN-TV.  19 October 2017. Searcey, Dionnne et al.  "Conflicting Accounts in Niger Ambush Are Subject of Pentagon Investigation."
  The New York Times.  20 October 2017. Slattery, Denis.  "Lara Trump Says She 'Read Exactly What' President Said to Fallen Soldier's Widow Even Though There's No Transcript."
  [New York] Daily News.  20 October 2017. Nestel, M.L.  "'I Was Very Angry' at Trump, Says Myeshia Johnson, Widow of Fallen Soldier."
ABC News.  23 October 2017. Update [23 October 2017]: Updated with statement from Myeshia Johnson interview with ABC News backing up Wilson's account. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. We now accept as commonplace the notion that actors in popular television shows are set for life financially, as we read about how cast members in hit shows such as "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "The Big Bang Theory" not only were paid upwards of $1 million per episode during those series' initial runs, but then earned millions of dollars more in residuals and royalties from syndication deals, DVD sales, and video streaming. $1 million earned That wasn't always the case, however. The actors from television shows of decades past  shows whose episodes have been continuously rerun countless thousands of times all over the world and are touchstones of popular culture  did not reap any such bounty. Those cast members were typically paid salaries that ranged from modest to pretty good, and they may have received additional payments for the first few airings of episodes in which they appeared, but that was it  they collected little or no residuals when their shows were sold into syndication, and no royalties from a home video market that didn't yet exist. As Eve Plumb, who portrayed Jan Brady on the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch," revealed in 2011: The biggest misconception is that were all rich from it, but we are not. We have not been paid for reruns of the show for many, many years. We are not making money off of it at all. Eve Plumb The one notable exception to this circumstance, according to legend, is actress Dawn Wells, who played the character of Mary Ann Summers in the 1960s sitcom "Gilligan's Island." Numerous websites such as Mental Floss have offered versions of the following tale about how Wells supposedly parlayed her three seasons on the show into a lifetime of paychecks: versions Wells was married to talent agent Larry Rosen when she was hired for the Gilligan cast, and it was Rosen who noted the clause in her contract (which was standard at the time) that limited her to collecting residuals only the first five times any episode re-ran after its original airing. Rosen told Wells that if the series was a success, this clause could cost her a lot of money. Wells was the only castaway who asked for an amendment to that residual clause in her contract, and the producers granted it, never thinking the series would be on the air 40 years later. As a result, [producer] Sherwood Schwartz and Dawn Wells are the only two folks connected with the show who still receive money from it. This narrative seems quite improbable on its face. Actors are generally represented by a bevy of various unions, guilds, agents, and lawyers, and the idea that only one person in the whole television industry possessed the savvy to recognize that a contractual entitlement to residuals was a potentially lucrative reward worth pursuing strains credulity. Moreover, the goal of most television producers in that era was to keep their shows going long enough (generally three years) to amass a sufficient number of episodes for syndication deals after those series ended their original network runs, as the syndication market provided the bulk of potential profits. While producers may not have expected their shows to still be airing "40 years later," they certainly hoped their series would enjoy long TV afterlives, and they would not be keen on sharing those revenues with actors who had little bargaining power (nor would they want to set a precedent for other actors to follow). A minor actor in a secondary role who dared to press for a contractual guarantee to perpetual royalties likely would have been curtly informed how quickly and easily she could be replaced.  We don't need to speculate on the state of 1960s television to know the answer here, though, because Wells herself has repeatedly stated that this legend is false. In 2014, for example, Wells said during an interview that she was paid a salary roughly equivalent to $50,000 in today's dollars and "never received any residuals": interview Q: They stopped making Gilligans Island 47 years ago. Do you still receive residuals? A: We never received any residuals. Q: How much money did you make for Gilligans Island? A: Nothing. I dont know, maybe I made $700 a week. I understand (the producer) Mr. Schwartz made $90 million on the reruns alone. I think we got paid ... maybe we made $50,000, I dont know. And in a 2016 interview, she answered the question, "Whats one big myth about [Gilligan's Island]?" by asserting that the actors "didn't really get a dime" in residuals: A misconception is that we must be wealthy, rolling in the dough, because we got residuals. We didnt really get a dime. I think my salary -- of course, I was low on the totem pole, Ginger [Tina Louise] and Thurston [Jim Backus] got more -- was $750 a week. Sherwood Schwartz, our producer, reportedly made $90 million on the reruns alone! A 2014 Washington Post obituary of Wells' cast mate Russell Johnson, who played the Professor, also observed that Johnson "resented ... that he and other cast members were left out of the bulk of the syndication profits." obituary For what it's worth, the daughter of "Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz disputed the oft-repeated claim that her father realized as much as $90 million from the series: disputed Schwartzs daughter Hope Juber dismissed that estimate as an urban myth. While he, and my family were certainly comfortable, that kind of wild estimate is ridiculous and surprising, she wrote in an email. She said her father made his own deal with the studio just like the cast members, but not for that kind of money. She added, If there is $90 million, it must be buried in a chest on the island somewhere because weve never seen it. Mackie, John.  "Full Interview With: Mary Ann on Gilligans Island."
  Vancouver Sun.  22 January 2014. Bernstein, Adam.  "Russell Johnson, Actor Who Played the Professor on Gilligans Island, Dies at 89."
  The Washington Post.  16 January 2019. Malito, Alessandra.  "Why We Keep Hearing About Once-Famous TV Actors in Financial Trouble."
  MarketWatch.  10 September 2018. Kovalchik, Kara.  "TV-Holic: Still on Gilligans Island."
  Mental Floss.  8 September 2010. OK!.  "Eve Plumb Not Paid for 'Brady Bunch' Reruns."
  3 February 2011. Goldberg, Lesley.  "Why the 'Big Bang Theory' Stars Took Surprising Pay Cuts."
  The Hollywood Reporter.  29 March 2017. Clash, Jim.  "Interview: Actress Dawn Wells Answers the Big Ginger/Mary Ann Question, More."
  Forbes.  18 March 2016. During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020.