Knopp says he upheld a campaign promise not to join the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).
Freshman Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, is clear that lawmakers need to fix the Public Employees Retirement System this year, and that they themselves should not be part of the system. He pledged during his campaign to decline membership in PERS.Earlier this month, Knopps officeissued a press release sayingthat along with being sworn into office, he upheld a campaign promise not to join the state retirement program known as the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).It is very important to me to honor the promises that Ive made, Knopp is quoted as saying in the release. If wedont fix PERS now there will be fewer firefighters protecting our communities, fewer police officers on the streets, and fewer teachersin the classroom.PERS is contentious.Lawmakers reformed the system in 2003, curbing benefits for new employees going forward. Some lawmakers say its still too generous. Public employee unions are firm that the benefits were bargained for and are fair.Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, wants to find savings in the system, as do Republicans;House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, is lukewarm to the idea. Public employees generally favor Democrats with campaign help and money, so its not surprising to hear that Knopp, a Republican, promised to opt out.But PolitiFact Oregon also recalled that before he joined the Senate this year, Knopp was a three-term member of the Oregon House. In fact, he was House majority leader when lawmakers tackled reform in 2003. We were pretty sure he had been a member of PERS.Knopps office confirmed what we thought to be true. He joined the system in 1999, when he was first elected to the House, and remained an active member until 2005, when he left office. As a member for six years, he was vested in the system. The money continued accruing until 2010.What happened in 2010? Knopp needed money for a family medical emergency, so he cashed out his account. The total gross amount was $8,167.07, which we acknowledge is not an astonishingly high figure. Retirement benefits are calculated based on pay, and length of service, and legislators dont earn much, about $20,000 a year.Still, we think his previous membership is a relevant detail curiously missing from an otherwise glowing press release. If PolitiFact Oregon were in office and had made public employee retirement a major part of our platform and had promised to opt out, we think wed make it explicit that we had once been part of PERS, in the interest of full and complete disclosure.In any case, Knopp had three options when he was sworn into office this year: Join the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan, which is the pension system hes complaining about; join the Oregon Savings Growth Plan, which is like any other deferred compensation plan; or decline to join a retirement plan.Knopp chose the deferred compensation plan. The state -- his employer, the taxpayers -- contributes 6 percent to his plan. The state does not pick up the additional 6 percent of salary on behalf of employees, as it would under PERS.We had two questions for the senator from Central Oregon: One, why not publicize the fact that he was a member -- for more than a decade -- of the system he is now criticizing? And two, why take a retirement option at all?Lets take the retirement question first. Knopp told PolitiFact Oregon that hes not opposed to compensation for legislators. He just doesnt want them to vote on a system in which they have a stake. To that end, he has co-sponsored a bill toprohibit future legislators from joining PERS or the deferred compensation plan, because they shouldnt be forced to be in the system, as he was.Actual or perceived, there needs to be somebody who completely represents citizens and taxpayers, without a conflict, he said.As to the first question, Knopp said he disclosed his previous membership on the campaign trail. When his Democratic challenger said Knopp was a PERS member at an October 2012 candidates forum, he said, I closed my account years ago, honestly, to pay some medical bills when my daughter had two brain surgeries.We get that the retirement system in 1999 was not the legislative issue that it was in 2003 or that it is in 2013. But why didnt he close his account before 2003, when it was clear hed have to vote on PERS reforms? He said it wasnt clear at the time whether he could..Why not close the account in 2005, after leaving office? He saidhe co-sponsored a bill in 2003 that offered a financial incentive for peoplewith inactive accounts to close their accounts. He thought it unseemly to benefit from that legislation -- although we checked, and he wouldnt have qualified.Then why wait until 2010 to close his account? Knopp didnt have a clear answer. He acknowledges that had he not needed the money in 2010, he would have continued to be a member.Knopp has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the Public Employees Retirement System. He served as the House chairman of the committee to reform PERS in 2003. He promised voters that he would not accept PERS this year and he followed through on the promise.What Knopp failed to mention is that he was a member of PERS who closed his account in 2010 because his family needed the money. Knopp could have closed his account in 2003 -- and avoided the conflict then -- or he could have closed his account when he left office in 2005.None of that takes away from the accuracy of the statement -- he honored his pledge to stay out of PERS -- but it is additional information that we deem missing from his press releases.We rate the statement Mostly True.
Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book,Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support ourselves or contribute financially to our familys bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say working woman as if she were an anomaly. We never say working man. There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to hone in on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited2013 Pew Research Center reportthat looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the familys income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. Thats quadruple what it was in 1960  11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't have kids. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report  especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. And the households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progressthat had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015. And 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though womens share of the labor forcegrew dramaticallythroughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of alack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling Ivanka Trump said, 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the familys income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. Claim:  A Russian man was drugged and his testicles stolen by an attractive stranger. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2015] There appears to be a new version of the kidney robbery articlegoing around.  kidney robbery Now the Daily Mail in the UK has just published an article about a famousRussian actor (but not showing his face, but showing his name) beingdrugged and having his testicles stolen:  Origins:  On 26 February 2015, the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article titled "Married TV actor wakes up to find his testicles have been STOLEN after he is drugged in Russian bar by attractive blonde working for organ traffickers." As the example quoted above observed, the article bore many hallmarks of long-circulating urban legends involving organ theft (often as the result  article urban legends of an illicit or otherwise immoral sexual encounter).  According to the article, 30-year-old married Russian celebrity Dmitry Nikolaev met a blonde stranger in a bar in Moscow. After he (presumably) pursued an extramarital encounter with the woman, he awoke to unexplained and severe pain in the area of his groin and was later informed by doctors that his testicles had been removed (without his knowledge or consent). Moreover, the site claimed, the surgical procedure was performed by a skilled individual and likely resulted from a larger organized crime outfit trafficking in human organs. Neither the Daily Mail nor the Russian news source to which it referred provided any date, specific location, or other verifiable details of the alleged crime. The narrative stated that the man was transported to a hospital and only learned after an examination that his testicles had been removed, which does not sound particularly likely given even a layperson's ability to detect whether or not he currently possesses testes. It's possible that the news source intended to imply the man's testicles were replaced with prosthetics, but the nature of his injury was not detailed: referred They kissed and had some more beer and after that the actor remembers nothing,' said a police source. He woke up next day at a bus stop, feeling acute pain, and with blood on his trousers. Rushed to hospital, he was told that his testicles had been removed and that 'it was done like proper surgery by someone with a medical education'. The operation was conducted in a 'skillful way', said police, who believe his beer was spiked by an unknown drug. As discussed elsewhere on this site, the usefulness of such a donation (willing or not) is debatable. It's highly unlikely a crime such as the one described truly constitutes a profit center for gangs in any country, as testicles are neither a commonly purchased medical commodity nor a commonly transplanted organ, and organs of any description are delicate and difficult to transport. donation Finally, the manner in which the site partially obscured the purported victim's identity was atypical and suspicious. While the man's face was pixelated, his full name, age, and general location were utilized by the Russian news outlet from which the Daily Mail sourced the story. The translated article from which the claims arose concluded with a claim that the man's wife remained ignorant of his experience, which is rather implausible given that his full name and other identifying details were released by the media: Interestingly, the wife of the injured man is still convinced that her husband was in the hospital because of surgery on the genitals caused by a serious illness. Last updated:  26 February 2015 New Jerseys just about gone to economic hell under Chris Christies leadership, a Democratic group suggests ina new TV ad. Things are so bad here that the state ranks at the top nationwide for unemployment, at the bottom for economic growth and isnt doing a thing to help the middle class, the ad claims. Under Republican Chris Christie, New Jersey had the highest increase in unemployment in the country last year, a narrator states in the ad by One New Jersey. Nearly 1 in 10 jobless. The worst unemployment in the region. Near the bottom in economic growth, yet Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires but vetoed a minimum wage hike. The ad, which is also running on NJ.com, the online home of The Star-Ledger, is largely accurate. Let's review each claim. New Jersey having the worst increase in unemployment is based on the period from December 2011 to December 2012. Lets note that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment data by unemployment rates and the number of unemployed. For that period, New Jersey and New Hampshire had the highest rate increase, at 0.3 percent. New Jerseys rate ticked upward to 9.5 percent from 9.2 percent. New Jersey wasnt the worst, though, when looking at the number of unemployed, said Joseph J. Seneca, an economics professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. Pennsylvania had 24,761 unemployed. New Jersey had 21,932. New Jerseys unemployment rate increase was the 10th highest nationwide for the period from February 2012 to this past February, Seneca said. And with New Jerseys unemployment rate hovering above 9 percent since June 2009  the end of the recession  its accurate to claim the state has nearly 1 in 10 people jobless. The state, however, has added more than 120,000 private-sector jobs, according to BLS data, Seneca and the state Republican Party. Next, did we have the worst unemployment in the region? One New Jersey didnt define region specifically so we compared New Jersey with New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. New Jerseys unemployment rate was the highest among the five states from December 2011 to December 2012, according to BLS data. The ad also claims New Jersey is near the bottom for economic growth. We previously checked a similar claim by Assemblyman Lou Greenwald (D-Camden). From 2010 to 2011, New Jerseys real gross domestic product  an inflation-adjusted measure of a states economy -- dropped by a half percent, placing us 47th among all states, according to data fromThe Bureau of Economic Analysis. So we were near the bottom, but economic experts told us for the Greenwald claim that national and regional economic conditions  not just Christie -- were factors. Now lets look at whether Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires and vetoed a minimum wage increase. Democrats approved a bill in May 2010 renewing a one-year tax rate increase of 10.75 percent for those with taxable income above $1 million. The rate had expired before Christie became governor.. Christie, who campaigned that he wouldnt raise taxes, vetoed the surcharge -- protecting the rich, some claim -- and Democrats couldnt override it. As for the minimum wage claim, Christie in January vetoed a Democratic proposal raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 an hour, with future increases tied to inflation. He instead proposed phasing in a $1 increase over three years and eliminating automatic hikes. The sad truth is New Jersey is falling further behind, and no amount of hype can hide the reality that the middle-class and working families are hurting, One New Jersey spokesman Joshua Henne said in an e-mail. The facts clearly show New Jersey has consistently trailed the rest of America when it comes to jobs and the economy. NJGOP spokesman Ben Sparks pointed to the state's private-sector job growth under Christie. Despite the predictably misleading claims from Barbara Buono's campaign operatives, New Jersey has created over 120,000 private-sector jobs since Governor Christie took office, which stands in stark contrast to the failed two years Barbara Buono spent as Jon Corzine's budget chair, when our state lost 240,000 private-sector jobs, Sparks said in an e-mail. Buono, (D-Middlesex), is challenging Christie in the November gubernatorial election. Our ruling One New Jerseys new ad claims, Under Republican Chris Christie, New Jersey had the highest increase in unemployment in the country last year. Nearly 1 in 10 jobless. The worst unemployment in the region. Near the bottom in economic growth, yet Christie protected a tax cut for millionaires but vetoed a minimum wage hike. Each claim had varying degrees of accuracy. New Jersey and New Hampshire tied for the highest increase in unemployment last year. Nearly 1 in 10 New Jerseyans are jobless, and our states unemployment rate is the worst in a five-state region. The state has been near the bottom in economic growth, even though experts have said thats not entirely Christies fault, and the governor vetoed a minimum wage hike. Christie technically didnt cut the millionaires tax since it expired before he took office, but opinions vary wildly on that claim. We rate the ad Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Claim:  Wal-Mart employees must pony up to buy flags, flagpoles, and floodlights, or else their stores have to do without American flag displays. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] I have run across a situation that I think should be changed; it upset me and so I decided to put it out on the Internet. If you decide to forward this note to your friends, that's fine-if not, that's okay, too. Maybe I'm wrong in feeling this way, but this is what I found on Friday, October 12, 2001. I ran to our local Wal-Mart store before I went to work. While I was being checked out at the counter, I realized that I had not noticed an American Flag flying outside and asked the clerk why there wasn't one. I was told that the policy is that Wal-Mart does not provide flags to their stores. Rather, each store must provide their own.  At this store, the employees would have to take up a collection among themselves to make the purchase of the flag, pole & flood light. I was sure there was a misunderstanding in that policy somewhere, but I needed to get to a meeting, so I didn't pursue the problem. As I drove to my meeting I became more and more upset to think that the Company that always "seems" to encourage patriotism and "Buy American" won't even, in these days of horror and heroism and war on terrorism, provide their stores with flags to show their support!!  When I got to my meeting I told one of my friends what I had found that morning and they agreed that I must be mistaken. Wal-Mart would not have a policy that made individual stores/employees purchase their own flag, "for heavens sake!" My friend suggested I just call Wal-Mart's corporate offices and there I would discover the truth to this misunderstanding. So, I did. I called the Corporate office and spoke to their representative. By the way, their number is 1-800-Wal-Mart. Do you know what I was told? I wasn't misunderstanding their policy!  Each store must provide their own flag  if the store can't fit the expense into their budget, then the employees have to take up a collection. Now, I find this a disgrace. I have always noticed the large flags flying at every Perkins Pancake House  they always fly the flag, even when there isn't a National Emergency. But here's Wal-Mart, the company who has become wealthy beyond measure in this great Country of ours; who claims to be "one big happy family," who recommends we "Buy American," but who cannot/will not provide a flag pole/flag and light to each of their stores wherever they are.  Would this be expensive? Oh, somewhat, I agree, but I hear that Wal-Mart is planning to build many new stores in the near future and that, possibly, they will make every existing store into a "super-store." Now, I realize that expanding like that will bring in more money and make them wealthier still, where providing flags to all their stores would only COST money and not add money to their fortune. Maybe, just maybe, not providing flags to their stores and not flying the flag in support of our Country will start costing them more money-maybe I will start looking more closely for the flag before I shop and begin supporting the smaller stores who don't worry so much about the "bottom line," but rather are happy to spend some money to show they really love America. Do you think I am really way off base on this, or do you feel the same. Thanks for taking the time to think about this with me-if you feel the same, forward this on to your address list-if not, that's what your "Delete" is for. Origins:  This one reminds me of an episode of TV's M*A*S*H, in which Hawkeye and Trapper John attempt to acquire an incubator so that they can save time (and lives) by growing bacterial cultures right at the M*A*S*H hospital instead of having to send them out to labs.  As they   attempt to cut their way through layers of military red tape they find that even though the Army agrees an incubator is a perfectly sensible piece of equipment for a M*A*S*H unit to possess, they can't have one because an incubator is not on the list of recommended supplies for a M*A*S*H unit, leaving them to resort to some less "official" means of obtaining their goal.  (They finally get their incubator when Radar, the company clerk, surreptitiously swaps their commanding officer's barbeque for one.) Most of us who have had to deal with the management of business budgets know that you often have to make do with whatever amount of money you're allotted, even if it's woefully inadequate for the job expected of you.  You soon become an expert in finding all sorts of ways to pay Paul by robbing Peter: charging necessary expenses to different budgets (preferably someone else's), making deals, getting creative with expense reports, and doing whatever it takes to scrounge up the funds you need.   If you desperately need to purchase a new photocopier because the old one is broken beyond repair, but you've already used up the entire year's office equipment budget, you claim it as a personnel expense and maintain with a straight face that yes, you did indeed hire a contractor by the name of Mr. Xerox. So, you're the manager of a Wal-Mart store, and you need an American flag to display outside the store.  Wal-Mart corporate may have assigned money (on paper) to your facilities budget for a flag (and Wal-Mart corporate assures us they do indeed  budget each store for such an expense), but maybe you already used up all the start-up funds allotted to you getting the store ready for its grand opening before you got around to purchasing a flag and pole.  Or maybe you had a flag, but it got ruined; you need a new one, but you're already over budget. What do you do?  Go without a flag? Purchase one, submit the expense, and hope you don't draw corporate censure for running over budget?  Perhaps you take the path of least resistance and just go and pay for a new flag out of your own pocket (possibly even asking some of your employees to chip in).   Wal-Mart itself stated on its web site that: web site Wal-Mart shares the enthusiasm of Americans everywhere for displaying the American flag. In fact, we display the flag at all Wal-Mart stores and Supercenters. While some of our stores are equipped to fly the flag outside on flagpoles, others display the flag inside, usually in the front of our stores. In every instance, the flag has been purchased by Wal-Mart out of the local store's operating budget. Wal-Mart is proud of our American heritage and the things our associates and customers do every day to support this great country. So, if this piece isn't a complete work of fiction, it sounds like the writer grossly misunderstood what she was told.  Yes, Wal-Mart stores get money for flags, but managers often have to perform juggling acts with their budgets, and funds don't always end up being used for their specifically allocated purposes.  If you're a store manager and your store needs six things (including a flag), but the cost of those six things (which all come out of the same budget) exceeds the monies available to you, you have to decide which one(s) you're going to do without.  You don't have to take up a collection amongst your employees to buy a flag, but you might decide it's better to do that than to skip on lights for the exterior sign or painting lines in the parking lot.  Certainly your workers are more likely (out of pride) to chip in for an American flag than they are for, say, new mops and brooms.  It's not hard to see how someone might misinterpret  an explanation of the sometimes difficult trade-offs managers have to make to mean "They have to get their employees to pay for this stuff or do without!"  Last updated:  2 December 2007 On 13 April 2017, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona took part in a town hall meeting with some of his constituents that, like several other such events held by U.S. Congress members in the early part of the year, proved to be something of a contentious one for the Republican U.S. senator: contentious Sen. Jeff Flake encountered a raucous audience at a town hall meeting in Mesa, Arizona. Constituents peppered the Republican lawmaker with questions about President Donald Trump's actions in office, and his broader agenda on climate change, the president's taxes, the Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood. Much like other GOP town halls held since Trump assumed the Oval Office, attendees railed against Flake, many of whom accused him of being a rubber stamp for Trump. Flake, like Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Mike Coffman, and Sen. Mitch McConnell before him, attempted to answer the audience's concerns, though most explanations drew shouts and boos from the crowd. Though Flake's town hall did not appear to have a large presence of demonstrators as those of some high-profile congress members in recent months, Flake at times struggled to contend with fits of chanting and jeering from the crowd at the Mesa Convention Center. Not all of the questions were hostile, and some constituents applauded Flake for sharing his time. The senator extended the meeting by one hour to take more questions, but the mood frequently returned to a bitter note. "Can you just remind me when you're up for reelection," one woman asked. The audience erupted in cheers at the question. During that town hall meeting, Senator Flake engaged in a several-minute exchange with a constituent who urged the lawmaker to support efforts to promote alternative energy sources over fossil fuels and address climate change issues. One small portion of that exchange was later incorporated into an image macro that was widely spread online to make it appear as if the senator were ignorant about the basics of solar power: Portraying people as fools for proclaiming that wind and solar power technologies don't work when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is a common trope (revealing them to be unaware of the basic fact that energy derived from intermittent production sources is typically stored via batteries or other methods to be used during periods of non-production). However, although Senator Flake did make the statement attributed to him (actually expressed by him as "you can't tell people we're gonna turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining"), in this case that trope has been unfairly applied to him, as his comment has been stripped of context that showed it to be not so foolish or unreasonable. As video of the town hall event captures, Senator Flake engaged a constituent (who introduced himself as a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and a recent graduate of Arizona State University with a degree in Sustainability) in a fairly extensive conversation about alternative energy sources, with the constituent advocating the promotion of solar power technologies in Arizona, given that the state is blessed with an abundance of sunshine. In response, the senator didn't disdain the idea by expressing the absurd concept that solar energy wouldn't be available at night. Rather, Flake's contention was that battery technology was not yet sufficiently developed to be able to store enough solar-derived energy to provide "base load power" to cities during non-daylight hours, and thus the use of solar energy exclusively was not yet feasible  that if we wished to completely eliminate our use of fossil fuels, for the time being solar power would have to be supplemented by other non-carbon energy sources, such as nuclear power. This discussion of alternative energy sources begins at the 13:00 mark in the following video, with Senator Flake's now-infamous comment occurring a 18:20  after more than five minutes of back-and-forth that established the context in which he made it: As the constituent interrupted the senator's remarks by interjecting "battery ... battery" (contending solar energy can be harvested and stored), Flake responded by saying that "what we've gotta do is we've gotta have baseload power now ... you can't tell people we're going to turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining." Clearly, Senator Flake was aware that solar-derived energy can be stored in batteries for later use, as the point he was disputing with his constituent was the state of the art in battery technology  Flake maintained batteries couldn't currently provide "base load power" levels to cities, while the constituent countered by referencing a solar energy station built by Tesla on the Hawaiian island of Kauai: solar energy station Renewable energy supplies are great because they produce power without filling the air with pollution. Yet, once the sun goes down solar panels become pretty useless. But Tesla and Hawaii have a solution that'll use the sun's rays both day and night using Powerpacks built at the Gigafactory. The Kapaia project is a combination 13MW SolarCity solar farm and 53MWh Tesla Powerpack station on the island of Kauai. In partnership with the KIUC (Kauai Island Utility Cooperative) the project will store the sun's energy during the day and release it at night. The station (along with Kauai's other renewable resource solutions including wind and biomass) won't completely keep the island from using fossil fuels but it will temper the need. In addition to using Tesla's station to battle the island's incredibly high electric bills, it's also part of a long-term Hawaii-state plan to be completely powered by renewable energy sources by 2045. Kauai has its own goal of using 70 percent renewable energy by 2030. With this project the island is getting closer to that goal and can now produce 100 percent of the energy it needs during high usage mid days and low loads via renewables during a brief period of time. Whether Senator Flake was right or wrong about the particulars of the current state of solar energy and battery technologies, he did demonstrate a working awareness of the manner in which energy from the sun is collected and stored, and he did not express a belief that dependence on solar energy would necessarily mean residents would have to go without power at night. The video of the town hall event shows that Senator Flake and a constituent disagreed about the current scalability of power gathered from the sun but were not in disagreement about the existence of solar technologies or the availability of sun-harvested energy at night. Nonetheless, the senator's remarks were misleadingly truncated and altered (replacing "power" with "lights") and shared online in a form that falsely suggested he did not understand how solar power works. Nowicki, Dan.  "Sen. Jeff Flake Weathers Brutal, 2 1/2-Hour Mesa Town Hall."
  The Arizona Republic.  13 April 2017. Logan, Bryan.  "Republican Sen. Jeff Flake Gets Slammed in Raucous Town Hall Meeting."
  Business Insider.  14 April 2017. Baldwin, Roberto.  "Tesla's New Solar Energy Station Will Power Hawaii at Night."
Engadget.  8 March 2017. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.,took to Twitterrecently to tout her support for a $15 minimum wage. In the tweet, Smith wrote that one of the proudest things I did as lieutenant governor serving under Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton was helping to raise Minnesotas state minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Now, Im proud to back a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024, she wrote, referring to a measure introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Patty Murray, D-Wash. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25, though states can set higher levels if they wish  anda majority do, from a small amount more than the federal level to $11.50 in Washington state. In a threadedtweet, Smith gave some historical perspective on the minimum wage: The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. The federal minimum wage hasnt been raised in a nearly a decade. Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. And prices for everything from milk to prescriptions has skyrocketed. We wondered if Smith was correct, so we looked at the data. Back in 1968, the minimum wage was set at $1.60. That is equivalent to $11.76 in todays dollars, which is well above todays minimum wage level and an all-time high when adjusted for inflation. (We used the Bureau of Labor Statisticsinflation calculatorfor this purpose.) Over the last 50 years, the situation in 1968  greater purchasing power for the minimum wage than today  has been common, though not universal. By contrast, we only found seven years in which todays minimum wage is able to buy more than a previous minimum wage could. (Those years were 1989, 1995, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.) Heres the full chart, with the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage shown in red: All told, then, the minimum wage has been worth more than it is today for 86 percent of the time over the past 50 years, and less than todays during 14 percent of that time. Smith said, Taking into account inflation, the federal minimum wage is actually worth less than what it was worth 50 years ago. Smiths strict comparison with 50 years ago is accurate, and her comparison even holds for most years out of the past 50, suggesting that the year she picked is not an unreasonable choice. We rate the statement True. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. Gov. Rick Scott boasted about job growth, his signature issue, during his second annualstate of the state addressJan. 10, 2012.In the past year, Floridians, not government, created almost 135,000 new private sector jobs. We netted more than 120,000 total jobs in the first 11 months of 2011; the third most of any state in the nation.Were Scott's numbers right?James Miller, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, pointed to his department's Decemberpress releasebased on BLS data that showed 120,200 net jobs between January and November 2011. That includes 134,800 private sector jobs added, but 14,600 government jobs lost.We turned to theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsto verify.Data from the BLS shows total nonfarm seasonally adjusted jobs in Florida grew from about 7.16 million to 7.28 million, or an increase of about 120,200 between January and November 2011. So that gets us to Scott's claim about netting more than 120,000 total jobs.But the BLS would call that a 10-month change -- not an 11-month change because those numbers start with January and don't show how many jobs were added between December and January.Scott might have wanted to look at the first 11 months of 2011 rather than the 12-month net change because he was sworn into office Jan. 4, 2011, and 11 months of data is available for that year so far. Scott appears to have lopped off theDecember 2010 job loss figuresfrom before he was governor.The BLS provides data for states' 12-month net jobs change, which was 110,500 for Florida for private jobs and 98,000 for total nonfarm jobs (both not seasonally adjusted.) Those figures put Florida third behind Texas and California.Florida is the fourth most populous state in the country behind California, Texas and New York so its not particularly impressive that it would net the third most number of jobs. And by focusing on the number of added jobs rather than the unemployment rate, Scott is able to tell a more positive story. Florida's unemployment rate was 10 percent for November. Only four states had a higher rate -- California, Nevada, Mississippi and Rhode Island. Illinois and North Carolina tied with Florida.Our rulingScott said, In the past year, Floridians, not government, created almost 135,000 new private sector jobs. We netted more than 120,000 total jobs in the first 11 months of 2011; the third most of any state in the nation. Scott's figures are correct, although what he has done here is point to a 10-month job change. We also question how significant it is that Florida ranks third for new jobs, given that we're one of the largest states population-wise. Our unemployment rates would suggest we still have quite a way to go. Still, Scott's numbers are on track. We rate this Mostly True. After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldnt stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water.Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase.While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TVs 10 News Conference on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they werent out of line.For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge  I dont think thats an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island, Licht said.Could the fees atstate beachesstill be lower than town beaches  even if doubled?When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governors spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us wed hear back by the next day.While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season.Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. And there are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents and seniors. (The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey. )We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents -- who dont live in beach communities -- would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, theyd all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, theyd pay that communitys non-resident fee.The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Comptons South Shore Beach. Middletowns Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newports Eastons Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly.So how does the states proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach, on the Sakonnet River.So far, so good for Licht.But what about daily fees? (Remember, were comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents. )Lets begin with weekdays.The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10.Three towns -- Warren, Bristol and Tiverton -- charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6 and Portsmouth charges $7.Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns -- Barrington and North Kingstown -- dont allow non-residents to park at their beaches.So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners.On weekends and holidays, the states new fee would be $14 -- less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns.So when Licht says the new state fees are less than some of the town beaches, we cant  disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances.We wont kick any sand at Licht on this one. We rate his claimTrue.