Parkland Memorial Hospital and undocumented migrants.
Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1).
In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information. New York Republican State Committee Chairman Edward F. Cox claimed the unemployment rate is rising in upstate counties, something Republicans intend to remind voters about in the 2018 race for governor. Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Coxsaidin a radio interview. The claim is in direct contrast to a rosier picture of the economy painted by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The governor touted a decline in unemployment statewide during his State of the State address this month. Every region has seen a drop in unemployment and underemployment, Cuomo said. Is Cox right that unemployment is up everywhere outside New York City? Coxs numbers Cox based his claim on a press release on unemployment from the state Department of Labor, his spokesperson said. The release showed the jobless rate for the states 15 metro areas in November 2016 and November 2017, the latest data released by the department. The release does not break down unemployment by county, though it links to that data. Albany, Schenectady and Troy are all counted as one area even though the cities are in different counties. Each of the 14 metro areas outside New York City had a higher unemployment rate in November 2017 than the year before, the data showed. The rural parts of the state, lumped into one category, also had a higher unemployment rate. The New York City metro area was the only place where unemployment went down. A short-term rise in unemployment isn't always bad news. As was the case inMassachusettslast year, a higher unemployment rate could mean more people have decided to enter a growing workforce, but have not landed a job yet. All but five of the state's metro areas added private sector jobs last year. The labor force, meanwhile, increased in all but two counties in New York state. Unemployment by county The state Department of Labor also tracks the unemployment rate for each county. Our analysis of the data shows Cox is mostly correct in his claim, with a few exceptions. The unemployment rate in Lewis County decreased from 6.1 percent in November 2016 to 5.9 percent a year later. The countys labor force and the number of people working increased during that time. Seneca and Clinton counties saw no change in unemployment during that time. The labor force and the number of people employed increased in those counties as well. Unemployment in every other county outside New York City went up between November 2016 and November 2017. Unemployment in each of New York Citys five boroughs went down. The rates for each county and metro area are not seasonally adjusted. That means they dont adjust the data for major shifts in employment during retail holidays seasons, or construction in the summer. A market analyst from the state Department of Labor said the agency does not calculate seasonally adjusted numbers at the county level. Since 2011 While unemployment has inched up in most counties outside New York City recently, the trend has been very different since Cuomo took office in 2011. The unemployment rate is lower in every county since Cuomo took office in 2011, according to state data. Hamilton County, which recorded the largest one-year increase in unemployment in 2017, still has a lower unemployment rate than it did in 2011. Other counties, like Clinton and Columbia, now have an unemployment rate less than half of what it was when Cuomo took office. Someanalystsbelieve drops in unemployment upstate have been inflated by a shrinking population. Monroe County had more than 13,000 fewer people in the labor force in November 2017 than January 2011, for example. During that time, the countys unemployment rate decreased from 8.3 percent to 5.1 percent. Our ruling Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Cox said. Cox was comparing unemployment figures between November 2017 and November 2016. The figures showed unemployment up in almost every county outside New York City. One county had a lower rate, and two other counties had no change in their unemployment rates. We rate his claim Mostly True. Sen. Mark Warners re-election stump speech dwells on giving everyone an equal opportunity and high on that list is an affordable college education. Warner and many of his fellow Democrats have called for legislation that would ease student debt by allowing students to refinance their federal college loans at substantially lower interest rates and limit their loan repayments to 10 percent of their annual income. President Barack Obama endorsed those measures during a speech Monday.. Warner, during a recent speech of his own,said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. This statistic caught our attention, so we put it to the Truth-O-Meter. David Turner, spokesman for Warners campaign, backed up the statement by sending us aspeechby an official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anddatafrom the Federal Reserve System. Both of those sources say that student debt has topped $1 trillion and the speech noted that it had surpassed credit cards. But the best data comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which publishesdebt statisticsevery quarter. In the most recent report, covering first three months of 2014, student loan debt totaled $1.1 trillion, while credit card debt hit $659 billion. The largest type of debt for Americans is mortgages, which came in at $8.2 trillion in the first quarter. Student loan debt is No. 2, followed by automobile loans at $875 billion and credit card debt in making up $11.7 trillion in all debt. Student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, when college loans hit $762 billion. Student debt topped the $1 trillion mark in the third quarter of last year. Average tuition across the nation increased 79.5 percent from 2003-2013, according todatafrom the U.S. Labor Department. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index grew by26.7percent during the same span and average wages grew by30.1percent. Credit card debt, by contrast, has gradually fallen from $843 billion in early 2009 to its $659 billion level this year. Much of the decrease occurred during the recession when people cut back on spending. But the recession exacerbated college debts, according to Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. She cited two reasons: You have to remember that during the time of the Great Recession, more people were going back to school because of the job situation, so they were taking on more debt, she said. Astudyshe co-wrote tackled the demographics of people with student loan debt. It found that student loan debt, for those ages 29 to 37, had increased by $10,381 on average from 1989 to 2010, while car loans had increased $302, credit card debt had increased $1,215 and other debt had decreased $2,078. In 2012, 40 percent of Americans in their 20s had student debt, 30 percent in their 30s owed on student loans, 19 percent of Americans in their 40s, 12 percent in their 50s and 4 percent in their 60s. This included students and parents who borrowed to send their children to college. Our ruling Warner said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. His figure on student debt is accurate and total U.S. credit card debt in the first quarter of this year was $659 billion. We rate Warners statement True. FACT CHECK:  Are the claims made in an e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurate?  Claim: An e-mail titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work.     Examples: [Collected via Facebook and e-mail, August 2015] Do you have any info on this article? I find a lot of it to be wrong, and no sources are cited. From what I understand less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, Pell grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of 2 really get $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted 3 times today in my FB feed and feel it needs to be dispelled  ------------------------  The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend         1. Don't marry her.         2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.         3. The guy buys a house.         4. Guy rents out house to his girl girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.         5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home.         6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance.         7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free!         8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps        9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government       10. Girlfriend get free utilities.       11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail.       12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit.       13. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again.         This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets $21,600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free obamacare + $6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever popular and exciting, everyone is entitled to everything world. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published the Miller County Liberal of to Colquitt, Georgia, on 19 August 2015 it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") published credited As is often the case with e-mail polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet: polemics welfare abuse taxpayer assistance   1. Don't marry (your girlfriend).  2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail.  3. The guy buys a house.  4. Guy rents out house to his girlfriend who has 2 of his kids.  5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a 3 bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. Section 8 HUD While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of it.  Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place.  Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a 24 August 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: close years The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on Sept. 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant, Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed back down, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The wait list was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, in particular the federal department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing.  He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's paying him rent to live in a house he owns.  The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend, or rented it out to someone other than his girlfriend. 6. Girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, the ACA, or "Obamacare") somehow allows low-income Americans to "sign up" for free medical care and/or free health insurance.  It doesn't.  It does provide lower-income households with tax credits/subsidies for the purchase of health insurance, but one would generally have to be at the very lower end of the ACA income scale and select the least expensive type of health insurance plan available to avoid paying anything at all for insurance.  (And even then, the family would still have to pay out of pocket for all the costs not necessarily covered by insurance, such as copays for office visits, diagnostic tests, lab work, prescriptions, hospital stays, etc.) PPACA  7. Being a single mother, Girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it.  Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother.  There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to both help them afford school while they are in and and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scant, and very, very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college on the basis of their status as single parents alone. Pell Grants single parents scant 8. Girlfriend gets $600 a month for food stamps The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger by financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day.  The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. food stamps criticized Eligibility The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent.  Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. estimates investigated 9. Girlfriend gets free cell phone from US Government The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before the Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers.  The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). Obamaphones 10. Girlfriend get free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. utilities emergency 11. Guy moves into home but still uses mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. Girlfriend claims one kid and guy claims one kid on taxes.  Now you both get to claim head of household at $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. head of household status entitles And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, than the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. Girlfriend gets disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her (working) life.  Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits ability to do any other work: easy accrued work credits criteria If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't  qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. denied aging This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay at home mom yields $0 dollars. An unmarried couple with stay at home mom nets. $21.600 disability + $10,800 free housing + $6,000 free   obamacare +$6,000 free food + $4,800 free utilities + $6,000 Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grant + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is 18 + trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the e-mail encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolates the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several of forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their perfidy be unraveled. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. fallacious Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. account Last updated: 31 August 2015 Originally published:  31 August 2015 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020. This story started making the rounds in June 2013: The Internal Revenue Service sent 23,994 tax refunds worth a combined $46,378,040 to "unauthorized" alien workers who all used the same address in Atlanta, Ga., in 2011, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). That was not the only Atlanta address theoretically occupied by thousands of "unauthorized" alien workers receiving millions in federal tax refunds in 2011. In fact, according to a TIGTA audit report published last year, four of the top ten addresses to which the IRS sent thousands of tax refunds to "unauthorized" aliens were in Atlanta. The IRS sent 11,284 refunds worth a combined $2,164,976 to unauthorized alien workers at a second Atlanta address; 3,608 worth $2,691,448 to a third; and 2,386 worth $1,232,943 to a fourth. Once the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began using Social Security Numbers (SSN) as the primary form of taxpayer identification, it ran into a problem: how to identify people who had federal tax reporting or filing requirements but were not eligible to obtain Social Security Numbers (such as non-resident foreign nationals who earned income which was taxable in the U.S.).  The IRS' initial solution was to create temporary numbers known as Internal Revenue Service Numbers (IRSN) to process the tax returns of such persons, but that system created a problem because IRSNs were assigned to tax returns rather than to the individuals filing those tax returns, a situation which made it difficult to track all the returns filed by any particular person.  To remedy that problem, in 1996 the IRS introduced the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), nine-digit numbers similar in structure to SSNs issued to individuals (regardless of their immigration status) who are required to have U.S. taxpayer identification numbers but are not eligible to obtain SSNs: ITIN An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) is a tax processing number issued by the Internal Revenue Service. It is a nine-digit number that always begins with the number 9. IRS issues ITINs to individuals who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who do not have, and are not eligible to obtain a Social Security Number (SSN) from the Social Security Administration (SSA). ITINs are issued regardless of immigration status because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals must have a filing requirement and file a valid federal income tax return to receive an ITIN, unless they meet an exception. In July 2012, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a final report titled "Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications" which stated the TIGTA had initiated an audit of the ITIN assignment process due to two congressional complaints alleging IRS management personnel were encouraging the approval of fraudulent ITIN applications, and that it found the complaints to be largely accurate: report This audit was initiated because TIGTA received IRS employee complaints referred from members of Congress alleging that IRS management responsible for overseeing the ITIN operation was encouraging employees to assign ITINs to applicants when the ITIN application was fraudulent. The objective of our review was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the IRS's process to identify questionable ITIN applications. TIGTA substantiated many of the allegations set forth in the IRS employees' complaints. The complaints alleged that IRS management is not concerned with addressing questionable applications and is interested only in the volume of applications that can be processed, regardless of whether they are fraudulent. The audit found that the ITIN application review and verification process is so deficient that there is no assurance that ITINs are not being  assigned to individuals submitting questionable applications. Because of lax documentation requirements to obtain an ITIN, tax fraud can go undetected. Management also eliminated successful processes used to identify questionable ITIN application fraud patterns and schemes.  In its report, the TIGTA noted its analysis of ITIN application data had identified indications of possible fraud, such as ten addresses that were each issued thousands of tax refunds from returns using ITINs in 2011:   As stated in the example quoted in the head of this article, four of those ten addresses were located in Atlanta, Georgia, with one address accounting for a total of nearly 24,000 different tax returns and over $46,000,000 in refunds. However, whether such information is indicative of widespread tax fraud involving the use of ITINs by non-citizens cannot be determined from the information provided.  TIGTA's report did not claim to have uncovered specific cases of tax fraud; it offered charts such the one displayed as examples of how various analyses of IRS data could "identify indications of possible fraud."  It's possible some of the addresses referenced  above correspond to the offices of lawyers or accountants or some other service providers who assist immigrants and other non-citizens in preparing and filing tax returns. It's also possible that if some of those addresses are indeed connected to fraudulent tax return filings, the perpetrators of that activity are domestic criminals rather than "aliens." The July 2012 TIGTA report noted some of the deficiencies observed "had been brought to management's attention long ago" via a September 2002 report, but "management has failed to take sufficient action to address those deficiencies." In the 2012 report, TIGTA made nine different recommendations for modifying the ITIN review process to ensure the integrity of the program; in response, Peggy Bogadi, commissioner of the IRS's Wage and Investment Division, issued a memorandum stating the IRS was taking steps to implement seven of those recommendations by the end of 2012 and would consider the other two after conducting a broader review of the program and evaluating the feasibility and impact of those changes. Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009. Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Congress on Dec. 21, 2022, to thank them for their support and to request more aid amidst the ongoing invasion of Russia in Ukraine. Though Zelenskyy received multiple standing ovations and thunderous applause from both parties during his speech, Republicans Rep. Matt Gaetz and Rep. Lauren Boebert did not appear to share in the enthusiasm. addressed One clip from C-SPANeven went viral, in which they appeared to remain seated as others around them stood and clapped: C-SPAN  While this clip is indeed accurate, Gaetz and Boebert did stand at different points in the speech, particularly toward the end, and stood for Zelenskyy's departure. They were seen standing at the very beginning as they waited for Zelenskyy's arrival. Gaetz is in a grey suit, and Boebert is in a white dress. They can be seen standing on the upper half, toward the center of this shot. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) At around 14 minutes, Gaetz and Boebert were seen standing and chatting with other members of the House. As Zelenskyy entered and stood at the podium, the audience stood and clapped to welcome him. Gaetz and Boebert stood along with everyone else, though it was difficult to determine if they were applauding, as well. Gaetz's arms appeared to be by his side as he leaned down to speak to Boebert. 14 minutes stood (Screenshot/C-SPAN) As Zelenskyy began speaking, he received a number of standing ovations in which it was unclear whether Gaetz and Boebert were sitting. At the 32-minute mark they can be seen sitting alongside everyone else, listening to Zelenskyy. At 34 minutes, when almost everyone could be seen giving Zelenskyy a standing ovation, the camera cut to Gaetz and Boebert who were already seated as the people around them took their seats. They both appeared to be looking down at their laps. It is highly likely they never stood for the standing ovation. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) The moment took place right after the 34-minute mark in the video below: 34-minute  Zelenskyy said, "Your money is not charity. It's an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way." At 35:27 another standing ovation occurred after this statement, and as people sat down, through this wide-camera shot Gaetz and Boebert can be seen seated (marked with the red arrow), having not stood up at all in that moment. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) That moment can be seen in the video, from the 35:25 mark:  The crowd got up again as Zelenskyy said, "Russia" and paused, and Boebert and Gaetz remained seated along with some other legislators. They did however join the standing ovation later on in his speech. At around 42:35, Gaetz can be seen standing up, though Boebert is not visible from this angle. At the 46:43 mark, as Zelenskyy leaves while holding the American flag, they can be seen standing along with everyone else: 46:43 mark  In this Getty Image, they can also be seen standing alongside everyone else (the top right of the frame): Getty Image  But in this one, they are seated as everyone around them gives a standing ovation: this one  They are both vocal opponents of sending Ukraine aid. Gaetz posted on Twitter soon after the speech: vocal opponents  Boebert also expressed sympathy for the people of Ukraine but demanded a "full audit" of where U.S. money for Ukraine had already gone before she would support sending more money, and called on Biden to do more "at home" to secure the "southern border."  Given that the pair did sit for significant standing ovations, but joined other standing ovations later in the speech, we rate this claim a "Mixture." Finally, we should add the pair made news for security related to Zelenskyy's visit, as well. security related to Zelenskyy's visit Baker, Sinad. "Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz Stayed Sitting and Looked at Their Phones While Congress Gave Zelenskyy a Standing Ovation." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/video-boebert-gaetz-ignore-zelenskyy-ovation-in-congress-check-phones-2022-12. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Addresses Joint Meeting of Congress." C-SPAN. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfFYvAFlU8. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks to a Joint Session Of..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky-speaks-to-a-joint-news-photo/1245778448. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "US Republican Reperesentative from Colorado Lauren Boebert And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-reperesentative-from-colorado-lauren-boebert-and-news-photo/1245775412. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Zelenskyy Thanks 'every American,' Sees 'Turning Point.'" AP NEWS, 21 Dec. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-biden-68c65b3274e552f36f16853f24fedbb9.Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. Claim:  The Boy Scouts of America has lost some funding over its refusal to accept homosexuals within its ranks. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Good Morning,As near as I can tell the following is a real concern and not a hoax.  The Boy Scouts need all the support they can get.  The request is to sign a petition in their support in response to the many funding sources that have withdrawn support due to the issue that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. Also many Federal Parks that now will not permit them to use that facility. You can access this issue at the following address. https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 They also provide a series of statements of what has happened concerning the removal of support. Thanks for your interest Origins:  The petition quoted above began circulating on the Internet in October 2000.  It calls upon folks to electronically sign a petition in support of the Boy Scouts. (The Boy Scouts of America are not sponsoring this petition; an unrelated entity is housing and administering it.)  The petition (found at the Grassfire site) reads as follows: PETITION TO SUPPORT THE BOY SCOUTS!!As a concerned citizen, I am deeply troubled by the recent attacks which have come against the Boy Scouts simply because the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has every right to set standards for leadership and morality. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear! I urge you to cease these hostile attacks against one of America's great institutions. Should you sign it? The answer to that depends on two things: What your views on the underlying issues are,  as well as what you think of the validity of online petitions.  We think it's not at all likely any Internet petition (no matter what issue it addresses) will have an appreciable impact on anyone in a position to affect policy. It's too easy to cook up lists of fake names and phony e-mail addresses and festoon a petition with them for anyone charged with gauging public reaction to be tempted to give such documents much weight when it comes time to make a decision. Petitions signed in ink in a variety of different handwritings aren't given all that much consideration in this world; how valid will a computer printout appear? A decision to support this petition should probably be based on what one thinks of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. The Grassfire petition glosses the question of why support is being sought by saying nothing other than "the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values." This wording leaves those who weren't aware of the core issue in the dark as to what prompted folks to withdraw support from the BSA. We don't find that a fair way to write a petition. In a 5-to-4 opinion handed down on 28 June 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the Boy Scouts of America held the right as a private group to expel scoutmaster James Dale on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court ruled: Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law [the statute contended in a New Jersey suit involving Dale] to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts' freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does. Grassfire expresses its view of the issues at stake as: This summer, the Scouts won a hard-fought case before the U.S. Supreme Court called Dale v. Scouts. The Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts right to set standards for leadership within their organization. This apparently infuriated the politically correct cultural elites. Almost immediately, the anti-Scout campaign was launched, with the Scouts being branded as intolerant. The standard affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dale vs. Scouts, which recognized the BSA's right to determine how to run its organization, also applies to the groups who would now withhold funding from the Scouts: they too possess the right of association. Some local chapters of the United Way are guided by policies that expressly forbid them from financially supporting groups that practice discrimination. They have discontinued funding of the Boy Scouts of America because their entrenched principles  rule out this association in much the same way the BSA's principles rule out an association with homosexuals. It's the same issue, just the other side of the coin. At this point, only a few chapters of the United Way have withdrawn financial support from the Boy Scouts of America. Some municipalities are also now refusing to allow Scout troops to use municipal sites for camping and rallies. United Way funding to the BSA has not yet been substantially affected, however. A rough estimate of loss of beneficence over this issue places the figure at $500,000 a year out of budget hundreds of times that. (In 1996, for example, United Way funding of the BSA amounted to $83,743,000.)  As to what to make of the core issue behind the petition, it comes down to this: The Boy Scouts uphold their deeply-held beliefs by barring homosexuals from becoming scouts or scoutmasters. That stand, however, impels organizations who have sworn to refuse aid to those who practice discrimination to now recognize the Boy Scouts of America as one of the groups they must turn away. Barbara "one good turn deserves another" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2007    Sources:   Parker, Laura and Guillermo Garcia.  "Boy Scout Troops Lose Funds, Meeting Places."   USA Today.  10 October 2000  (p. A1).     Zernike, Kate.  "Scouts' Successful Ban on Gays is Followed by Loss in Support."   The New York Times.  29 August 2000  (p. A1). Claim:   The Seattle Seahawks are not selling tickets to the NFC Championship Game to California residents.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Just read an article saying that Fearing 49er Fans, The Seahawks have banned NFC Championship Ticket Sales for Californians. Is this true, I don't see how it can be?  I want to know if it is true that the Seattle Seahawks website page is closed to residents in California and Carolina from buying tickets to the January 19th 2014 playoff game to the Super Bowl. It is only reported on a California news page. Is it true??? Origins:  When the NFL's Seattle Seahawks take the field on 19 January 2014 for the NFC Championship Game in the hopes of securing a berth in this year's Super Bowl, there likely will be a good many fans from California in the stands at Seattle's CenturyLink Field, because the Seahawks' opponents that day will be the San Francisco 49ers.  Possibly there will be far fewer fans from the Bay Area in the stands than would like to be there, though, because the Seahawks announced  announced on their web site on 11 January 2014 that tickets for the game would be available only to buyers in a specified geographic area  and that area does not include any part of California. According to the notice posted on the Seahawks' official web site, tickets for the NFC Championship Game can be purchased only by buyers with credit card billing addresses in the states of Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Hawaii, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta.  So a Canadian football fan from Edmonton, Alberta, has a shot a scoring some tickets to next Sunday's game (even though there are no NFL franchises anywhere in Canada), but not fans from Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego (all of which are home to NFL teams), or Los Angeles (the second-largest city in the U.S.).   The Seahawks offered no explanation for this restriction on their web site, but theories for the reasons behind it have ranged from its being a (likely ineffective) attempt to cut down on ticket scalping to a (mean-spirited) move to protect the Seahawks' home-field advantage by making it more difficult for 49ers fans to pack the stands.  As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "Niner fans are known for traveling. This season, several road stadiums were packed with 49ers fans, and 49ers' play-by-play voice Ted Robinson said there were droves of 49ers fans in Charlotte for [last] Sunday's 23-10 road win over the Panthers." Somewhere in between is the notion that the team simply wants to try to ensure that their allotment of tickets for the championship game ends up, as much as possible, in the hands of Seahawks fans as a reward for their support throughout the season, rather than being bought up by others who simply want to attend a championship game (regardless of who's playing in it) or re-sell the tickets for profit.   The Denver Broncos have similarly restricted sales of tickets to the AFC Championship Game to residents of the Rocky Mountain region (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota and Western Kansas), an area that does not include the home of their opponents for that game, the Boston-based New England Patriots (but Denver and Boston are much father apart than Seattle and San Francisco are). restricted Boosters of the 49ers and other California football fans can still acquire tickets to the game through the secondary market (i.e., ticket resellers), but it will cost them.  According to Forbes, the NFC Championship Game will be the most expensive NFL game this season, with the cheapest ticket on the secondary market going for just under $400, and tickets selling for an average price of $740 each.  Last updated:  12 January 2014    Lynch, Kevin.  "Seahawks Block NFC Title Game Ticket Sales to California."   San Francisco Chronicle.  12 January 2014.