The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country.
In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth   the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True.
On 31 October 2018, the Facebook page Hunter Alerts was born, garnering just 40 followers in its first week of existence. So far, all that page has been used for is the distribution of two political advertisements asserting that If you vote in North Dakota, you may forfeit hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakota": Hunter Alerts advertisements   Those ads were promoted by North Dakotas Democratic party (known as the Democratic-Nonpartisan League, or Democratic-NPL) and linked back to that partys website with a slightly more detailed explanation of the claim: explanation You MUST be a resident of North Dakota to vote here. And if you are a resident of North Dakota, you may lose hunting licenses you have in other states. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election. This statement, which was misleading for several reasons (enumerated below) and was provided with no additional information, citations, or exposition, was characterized by many critics as an attempt to suppress conservative votes in North Dakota because it targets a demographic (i.e., hunters) who traditionally lean conservative. (North Dakota also faces allegations of voter suppression efforts that target the more Democrat-friendly Native American population in that state.) characterized allegations Both the North Dakota Secretary of State and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NGFD) have told reporters they do not know what the ad was talking about. An NGFD representative told us via email that they cannot explain [the ad] and we have no desire to try to sort it out for [the Democratic-NPL]. We have had no involvement in the post. told The most generous interpretation of the Democratic-NPL statement would be that the act of voting in North Dakota, because it requires a state-issued North Dakota ID, means voters would necessarily be forfeiting claims to residency in any other states. Many states offer both resident and non-resident hunting licenses, with the former coming at a cheaper cost but with proof-of-residency requirements. If, as the Democratic-NPL seemed to be arguing, one somehow obtained a resident hunting license in another state but actually lived and voted in North Dakota, that other state could revoke their license if they found out you had declared residency somewhere else. (The Democratic-NPL declined our request for comment). requires Many states Not only was this scenario far more specific than what was implied by the two-sentence statement promoted by the Democratic-NPL, but it also suggested an unrealistic level of inter-state bureaucratic communication whereby one states hunting licensure board actively communicated with the ID-granting offices in every other state to make sure no one was receiving unwarranted license discounts. In most (if not all) cases, it was also simply inaccurate. As an example, we will present a scenario under which a Wyoming resident legally obtains a resident hunting permit in that state and then moves and legally obtains residency (and therefore voting rights) in North Dakota. In Wyoming, you must have resided in that state for at least one year, and during that time period you must not have been claiming residency for any other purpose in any other state (emphasis ours): Wyoming To qualify for any resident game and fish license, preference point, permit or tag, a person shall be domiciled and shall physically reside in Wyoming for one (1) full year (365 consecutive days) immediately preceding the date the person applies for or purchases the license, preference point, permit or tag and the person shall not have claimed residency elsewhere for any other purpose (including, but not limited to, voting, payment of income taxes, purchase of resident hunting, fishing or trapping licenses, etc.) during that one (1) year period. While several states stipulate you can no longer be considered a resident if you register to vote somewhere else, the requirements to receive a resident hunting license in Wyoming and most other states is retrospective and not prospective. If a hypothetical Wyoming resident switched jobs and moved to North Dakota to work, their Wyoming hunting license would already have been issued, and the State of Wyoming would likely have no idea that person had moved. All that would be required for that individual to become a valid North Dakota voter would be for that person to have maintained a residence in the state for 90 consecutive days and to have obtained an ID card or driver's license from North Dakota's Department of Transportation. no longer required An additionally misleading aspect of the ad is the suggestion that the act of voting could pose a threat to out-of-state hunting licenses. If you want to keep your out-of-state hunting licenses, the Democratic-NPL states, you may not want to vote in North Dakotas 2018 election (our emphasis added). The only population of people this ad could possibly be relevant to are people who live in North Dakota, have a resident hunting license in another state, and also do not have an up-to-date North Dakota ID or drivers license. By not providing those supporting details, the ad does nothing to correct the false notion an already legal North Dakota voter (i.e., one already in possession of a state-issued ID) could put the legality of their theoretical out-of-state hunting licenses in jeopardy by going to the polls. The fact that this ad was released less than a week before the election also speaks poorly of its legitimacy. The argument presented by the Democratic-NPL is based on a highly implausible scenario that has state hunting licensure boards actively and continually communicating with other states DOT or DMV offices and would relate only (if at all) to a population of people who have claimed to be residents in other states for the purpose of obtaining discounted resident hunting licenses. Even then, it would not be the act of voting that theoretically put out-of-state licenses at risk, but the act of obtaining the state-issued ID required for voting. North Dakota Democratic-NPL Party.  "By Voting in North Dakota, You Could Forfeit Your Hunting Licenses."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Schallhorn, Kaitlyn.  "North Dakota Democratic Party Discourages Hunters from Voting, Claims They Could Lose Out-of-State Licenses."
  Fox News.  2 November 2018. Lopez, German.  "North Dakotas New Voting Restrictions Seem Aimed at Native Americans Who Vote Democrat."
  Vox.  31 October 2018.
 Crowe, Jack.  "North Dakota Dems Threaten Hunters with Loss of License for Voting."
  National Review.  1 November 2018. North Dakota Secretary of State.  "ID Required for Voting."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  "Hunting in Wyoming."
  Accessed 2 November 2018.  North Dakota Dept. of Transportation.  "ID Card Requirements."
  Accessed 2 November 2018. Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. Claim:  The Corporate Angel Network, an organization that coordinates free air travel for cancer patients, began when Coca-Cola executives arranged for the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels to fly a liver from San Diego to Houston in time for transplant into a little girl.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] On November 1, 1986, a Coca-Cola corporate jet arrived at Elisabeth City, North Carolina, carrying the CEO and several members of the Board of Directors. At the same time as it was arriving, a Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was about to take off. It was headed to Memphis, Tennessee to pick up a little girl by the name of Crystal Grant and carry her on to Good Samaritans Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas, to undergo a liver transplant.  As the Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was beginning its takeoff, it blew both front tires, causing the jet to veer off the runway and run into a fence line.  The pilots of the Coca-Cola plane watched the events and slowly began to hear reports over their cockpit radio about the other jet's mercy mission. The CEO and his passengers witnessed the scene, and asked the pilots what was going on. Once the CEO had learned of the situation, he asked to be taken to the Coast Guard Station so he could speak with the Station Commander.  Once there, he asked the Commander if there was anything he could offer or do. The Commander said, in a frustrated voice, "Yeah, can you make miracles happen. We need a jet and we need one fast."  The CEO just smiled and said, "You've got one," pointing to his company jet. Within two hours the Coca-Cola jet was on its way to Memphis and the situation seemed under control.  But - unknown to them - a similar scene was playing out in San Diego, where the donor organ was being prepared for transport to Houston.  The aircraft lined up to take it to Houston had lost its ability to pressurize its cabin and a similar scramble was under way to find a replacement. Calls went out and everyone in San Diego made excuses - from corporate CEO's to airline managers - as to why they just couldn't help out.  Word of the dilemma made its way to Elisabeth City. The situation was reaching its last window of opportunity for the surgeons. Time was now becoming an enemy.  Again, the CEO of Coca-Cola was called to help out. He jumped on the phone and contacted his pilots, who were now in Houston. They told him there was just no way they could go from Houston to San Diego, retrieve the organ, and then return to Houston in time for the operation to take place.  The CEO began to consider what would be speedy enough to retrieve it in time. The answer came to him like a miracle. A call was placed to the Governor of Georgia, and he in turn placed a call to the Governor of California requesting help.  On   that day, sitting on the ramp at the Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego, were 8 brand new F18 Fighters wearing the colors of the "Blue Angels." They were waiting for their debut at an 'Air Show' November 6th.  It took four phone calls to reach the Air Station Commander, and two more to reach the Commander of the "Blue Angels." In less than an hour, Navy Lt. Tony Less, in Blue Angel No. 8, was gear-up and East-bound. His precious cargo was in the rear seat, securely strapped in place by four dress belts.  In Houston, neither the family nor anyone else knew what events had been unfolding.  Without the family or anyone else knowing, the local media had interviewed little Crystal moments before she was placed into the prepping room for her surgery. A reporter asked her if she were scared. Crystal said, "No, I'm not worried. My mommy told me that my Angel would watch over me."  It was an ironic statement indeed. At that moment, Blue Angel No. 8 was disengaging from an Air National Guard refueling tanker over New Mexico and making a mad dash for Houston. The clock was still ticking, and each movement of the hand went further against the surgeons.  With only 90 minutes to spare, Angel No. 8 landed on Houston's Hobby Runway 4L and rolled out to a stop surrounded by police cars and an ambulance to rush the organ to the hospital.  The transplant was successful, and Crystal returned home to Memphis in time for Thanksgiving.  The CEO of Coca-Cola lobbied the Fortune 100 companies to create "Corporate Angel Network," the name inspired by the event involving Coca Cola and the Blue Angels. To this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name "Crystal" written underneath.  A little over a month after the surgery the "Blues" made a planned detour to Memphis to say hello to a little girl named Crystal. And it was on that day, December 18, 1986, that Crystal met her Angel, the Angel who saved her life.  That was fourteen years ago. Today, Crystal Grant is 24, and every year she is personally invited by the Blue Angels to attend a show near her home in Memphis as the guest of honor. Origins:  Glurge involving specific, identifiable people and events are usually based upon a kernel of truth, even if that kernel has surrounded with layer upon layer of fiction, embellishment, and exaggeration.  This one, however, despite referencing names, dates, and places, is as devoid of anything resembling the truth.  The Corporate Angel Network is a real organization, and the Blue Angels are indeed the U.S. Navy's famous flight demonstration squadron, but after mentioning them, this piece takes a left turn from  Corporate Angel Network Blue Angels reality. The Corporate Angel Network works with a network of hundreds of different companies to make availableempty seats on regular business flights of corporation-owned airplanes to cancer patients traveling to or from treatment centers (a service provided without regard to a patient's financial status), and so far they have arranged over 13,000 such flights.  But none of the details provided here about its origins jibes with the truth. The founding of Corporate Angel Network had nothing to do with the CEO of Coca-Cola (in 1986 that position was held by Roberto Goizueta) "lobbying Fortune 100 companies," nor did it involve the participation of (or derive its name from) the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels squadron:  The Corporate Angel Network was started in 1981 by Priscilla Blum of Greenwich, Conn., and Jay Weinberg of Armonk, N.Y., both of whom are recovered cancer patients: Roberto Goizueta The idea of matching cancer patients and corporate shuttle flights began with Pat, who has been flying her Piper Comanche from Westchester for more than 30 years. Time and again, she saw corporate planes take off or land with only the pilot and one or two passengers aboard. Many were small planes, but others were Lear jets and Beechcrafts capable of seating as many as 10.  She contacted Weinberg, a friend and fellow volunteer for the American Cancer Society, who was working with patients at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan. From their conversation in the fall of 1981 the "Corporate Angel Network" was born.  "The name seemed appropriate," Weinberg recalled. "We would be using corporate aircraft and we would be flying missions of mercy."1 The Corporate Angel Network's first beneficiary was not a little girl from Memphis for whom a donor liver was flown from San Diego to Houston on a U.S. Navy F/A-18 in time for transplant, but a Detroit man who traveled to New York on a corporate jet for ongoing cancer treatment: The first passenger was 18-year-old Michael Burnett of Detroit, a patient at Sloan-Kettering who had just lost a leg to cancer. Burnett wanted to spend the Christmas holiday with family and friends in Detroit, but he needed to return to New York to continue his treatment.  Safe Flight Instrument Corp. was sending one of its planes from New York to Detroit on Dec. 22. Leonard Greene, Safe Flight's chief executive officer, had lost his second wife to cancer. Greene didn't hesitate. 1 This piece also oddly omits the names of many of its participants (the CEO of Coca-Cola, a Coast Guard station commander, a U.S. Navy air station commander, and the governors of Georgia and California are all identified as key players in this drama, yet none of them is identified by anything other than his title), and the two names that are mentioned don't correspond with available information.  No locatable news story mentions anything about a girl named Crystal Grant in connection with either the Blue Angels or a liver transplant, and although an officer named Tony Less was indeed the Blue Angels' Commander at one time, he served with the squadron in 1974-75, far too early to have been involved in the Corporate Angel Network's 1981 founding (or the fictional 1986 flight described here).  Additionally, the "fact" that "to this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name 'Crystal' written underneath" is news the U.S. Navy.  Although eight pilots comprise the squadron, only six jets and six pilots are used during demonstrations.  The Blue Angels maintain an additional pair of two-seat jets used for publicity footage and rides for VIPs, as well as three spare jets, but none of the planes bears any artwork or writing other than the standard markings on its exterior. Tony Less The Corporate Angel Network has been able to accomplish a great deal of good for cancer patients thanks to the contributions of hundreds of companies, all of whom should be applauded for their generosity, but let's not allow sappy glurge about Coca-Cola executives and the Blue Angels to slight the honors due to the two people whose imagination and perseverance made the Corporate Angel Network a reality in the first place: Priscilla Blum and Jay Weinberg. Corporate "angels" do indeed help cancer patients.  And little Internet devils create glurge. Last updated:  22 February 2007    Sources:   Blake, Judith.  "You May Be Able to Call for Help When Traveling in an Emergency."   The Seattle Times.  2 February 1986  (p. K1).    Pray, Tom E.  "Corporate Angel Network Finds Friends in High Places." 1   The Westchester County Business Journal.  3 October 1988  (p. 1).    Richter, Paul.  "Transportation Made Available on Otherwise Idle or Unfilled Aircraft."   Los Angeles Times.  21 January 1985  (Home; p. 1).    Business Wire. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In the final days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated his months-long campaign strategy to downplay the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. At rallies and on Twitter, Trump repeated claims that alleged a nefarious scheme on behalf of news reporters to undermine his reelection campaign by highlighting COVID-19 statistics  when, in Trump's reality, he wanted Americans to believe the country was "rounding the turn" on the deadly outbreak. rounding the turn By pointing to alleged successes, ranging from the country's mortality rate to its testing levels, Trump sought to convince Americans his administration was making positive strides in curbing the virus' spread, and that the worse of the outbreak was over. With that messaging, he attempted to frame his Democratic rival Joe Biden as the candidate who would instead ruin the economy with strict lockdowns to curb the spread. On Oct. 30, Trump tweeted: economy tweeted "Biden would lock us down forever. We are rounding the corner!"   Below, we determined the legitimacy of Trump's framing of the COVID-19 outbreak in the run-up before Election Day. We considered key metrics to which scientists point for measuring the outbreak's status: the rolling average in the increase in new cases and deaths each day, and mortality rates. We based our analysis on COVID-19 patient information compiled by multiple sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The COVID Tracking Project, to which local governments and health care systems refer, as of Oct. 30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention The COVID Tracking Project First, let let us define what a wave means during outbreaks of infectious diseases. When a fatal epidemic starts, a rising number of people fall ill and die, and that number grows until some sort of change occurs. For example, as researchers deepen their understanding of a new disease, they can tell communities how to better protect themselves from illness  and those messages could stop rising case numbers and fatalities. Or, a disease may become less transmissible over time, people may grow immune, or scientists may discover new treatments. If or when that type of change happens, the community would have tallied its all-time high record number of patients and deaths, and see a steady decrease in such measurements from then on. But over the course of an infectious disease outbreak, that pattern  a rise in cases and deaths, a peak, and then a decline  often repeats. For example, the largest 19th-century epidemic of influenza, an outbreak that occurred between 1889 and 1892, consisted of three such waves, all of which varied in intensity. Let's circle back to COVID-19, which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2. The president alleged on multiple occasions, including at the final of two presidential debates with Biden on Oct. 22, that the country's "excess mortality rate is way down, and much lower than almost any other country," without further explanation. final of two presidential debates But in reality, epidemiologists are still developing definitive estimates for the country's rate of excess mortalities  or the number of COVID-19 patients who died, in part, due to the virus exacerbating pre-existing health problems. "Data are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed," according to the CDC. excess mortalities CDC Rather, to measure the pandemic's deadliness, scientists often referred to what's called the "observed case fatality ratio," or the percentage of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying within the sum of all positive cases. As of this writing, that proportion was 2.6% in America  the seventh-highest rate among hardest-hit countries globally, per Johns Hopkins data. Czechia held the top spot, followed by India and Poland. Additionally, to determine a country's ability to contain the virus, researchers considered the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people, healthy or not. In the days before the election, almost 70 people for every 100,000 in the U.S. were testing positive for COVID-19 and dying  a rate that was the fifth worst death globally, according to Johns Hopkins data. Comparatively, Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus, with roughly five deaths per every 100,000 people. data All of this said, an October study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association compared America's death rates  including preliminary estimates of excess mortalities in the U.S.  with that of 18 countries with similar economies and confirmed the findings of the Johns Hopkins data: the U.S. had one of the highest rates of deaths per 100,000 people. The researchers determined: October study Compared with other countries, the US experienced high COVID-19associated mortality and excess all-cause mortality into September 2020. After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality. In other words, it was outright false to claim the country had the lowest case-fatality ratio globally, or the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 people, and the CDC was still analyzing that data to form definitive estimates for the country's excess mortalities. the CDC There is some truth within the president's framing of the pandemic's death toll shortly before the election: The survival rate among severely ill COVID-19 patients in the U.S. appeared to be improving. survival rate  During mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of deaths per day hovered below 860, which was well below the peak of more than 2,100 in the spring, according to the tracking project. As you can see in the graph below, that statistic was on a downward slope since that high point with slight ebbs and flows, though it never fell below about 480 daily mortalities.   No evidence showed the virus was becoming less fatal over time, but rather that the medical community had improved treatments for severely ill patients, and that more younger people with lower health risks comprised that group. Dr. Leora Horwitz, director of NYU Langones Center for Healthcare Innovation & Delivery Science, told The New York Times for an Oct. 29 story on the dropping death rate: Langones Center The New York Times We understand better when people need to be on ventilators and when they dont, and what complications to watch for, like blood clots and kidney failure. We understand how to watch for oxygen levels even before patients are in the hospital, so we can bring them in earlier. And of course, we understand that steroids are helpful, and possibly some other medications. Nonetheless, epidemiologists were preparing in the weeks before the presidential election for the raw number of deaths to increase as the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven) increased  a trend we unpack below. According to CDC models, between 3,900 to 10,000 people could die during the third week of November alone, raising the country's COVID-19 death toll to at least 243,000 people. Facing a crowd of supporters in Michigan on Oct. 27, Trump repeated what he believes is the reason for America's high number of COVID-19 cases compared to other counties. "You know why we have so many cases? Because we test more," he said. said Not quite. Directly equating the increase in cases to the increase in testing (or upward slopes in graphs depicting COVID-19 data) was a flawed argument that, in effect, removed the role of individual responsibility to make lifestyle changes to prevent the spread of the virus. individual responsibility  Without question, increased testing would reveal more positive cases  thats the nature of probability, and partly the reason for the country's all-time high positivity rate in the spring (seen in the graph below). However, in order for increased testing to be the sole reason for more positive COVID-19 tests among Americans, the proportion of positive tests (within the sum of tests) would have to decrease, or remain steady, over time. And looking nationally, this measurement, called the "positivity rate," was on a slight upward climb in the final weeks before the 2020 election, according to Johns Hopkins data.   Over the course of several weeks before the election, the country's moving average rate of positive tests increased from 4.2% to 6.3%. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), an area's positivity rate should remain at 5% or lower for at least two weeks before its leaders lift rules on social distancing. As of this writing, just 17 states met that threshold. just 17 states "The data speak for themselves," said Fauci, a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force, in an interview with BBC, where he described some states' high positivity rate as an indication the country was going in the wrong direction. interview with BBC After all, the Trump administration listed "ending the COVID-19 pandemic" as one of the president's top accomplishments in a campaign flyer on Oct. 27, according to a copy obtained by Politico and displayed below. A spokesperson for the White House later told Fox News the statement was "poorly worded" and meant to emphasize the administration's goal to overcome the pandemic. copy Fox News   Alleging success was undoubtedly a key reelection strategy for Trump. The day after the Michigan rally, for example, Trump went to Bullhead City, Arizona, where he said: "We have great numbers, we have some incredible numbers," in reference to the COVID-19 outbreak. said While he did not explain to what statistics, exactly, he was referring, nor highlight any specific evidence to support his claim, his supporters interpreted the comment to mean the pandemic was less of a problem in the fall than during the spring and summer months. For the purpose of this report, we considered "great numbers" to mean the U.S. had hit its peak case total and was seeing a steady decrease in positive tests since then  or that the country was completing a wave. With that background in mind, consider the country's seven-day rolling average of new COVID-19 cases and deaths (or the sum of the current day's increase plus the six preceding days' increases, divided by seven), which researchers consider one of the most reliable indicators of the country's pandemic status. As you can see in the graph below, which was a compilation of data by Johns Hopkins, the rolling average had steadily increased since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak, with two slight dips in summer and fall.   For purposes of checking this claim, let us narrow in on the weeks before the November election. Between mid-September and late October, the seven-day average of new cases was rising from a trough  as you can see in the below-displayed graph via The COVID Tracking Project, to which governments and health care systems refer for developing COVID-19 plans.That meant the number of new COVID-19 cases from one day to the next was increasing  not decreasing (which would show a downward slope), nor remaining stagnant  when the president suggested otherwise. In fact, the rolling average reached a record high in late October, when the country tallied an average of more than 70,000 new cases daily and Trump alleged progress containing the virus. The COVID Tracking Project  All of this said, the country's rising cases never showed a downward slope that signified an end of a wave in infections. In the words of Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country in October was experiencing an "exacerbation of the original first wave" of COVID-19 cases. To determine whether the country was overcoming the pandemic, let us recap the above-explained trends:   But that data did not include the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases on a state-by-state basis  rather than nationally  which was among the strongest measurements of the country's progress.  As Lisa Maragakis of Johns Hopkins explained, "the spread of the coronavirus so far has been more like a patchwork quilt than a wave," with the virus wreaking havoc to varying degrees in different areas at different times. Lisa Maragakis In other words, if most states had curbed the spread of COVID-19 and reduced their number of new daily cases since the start of the outbreak, while populous states did not, the nation's moving average would not reflect the majority of the country's progress, lending some credibility to Trump's claim that most of the country was making positive steps. That was not the case, however. Less than a dozen states were tallying a downward trend of new cases per 100,000 people, as of late October, according to Johns Hopkins data. As seen in the below-displayed graphic, states in shades of orange were experiencing a surge in new cases as of late October, and states in shades of green were seeing a decline in new cases. The darker the shade, the bigger the change.   Another compilation of the tracking project's data by The Washington Post came to the same conclusion. The graphics below showed how the pandemic progressed in summer and fall by comparing the daily rates of new cases to each state's peak, or its highest increase in new cases for one day. The Washington Post       As you can see, most states' trajectories appeared to be worsening rapidly. "We see no evidence that any state in the current surge has reached its peak and begun to decline," the COVID tracking project tweeted on Oct. 29. tweeted Here's the bottom line: The outbreak was far from under control  no matter what each presidential candidate claimed in their final pitches to voters.  "We should have been way down in baseline and daily cases, and we're not," Fauci said, while speaking with the the Journal of the American Medical Association. In sum, scientists as of this writing were expecting the rolling average of new COVID-19 cases to continue to climb, with no indication that they had peaked or would begin to decline. So by describing the country as "rounding the turn" on COVID-19, the president was blatantly mischaracterizing actual COVID-19 data. For that reason, we rate this overall claim  C-SPAN. "Trump-Biden Second Debate."
 22 October 2020. New York Times. "Covid in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count."
  27 October 2020. Johns Hopkins University and Medicine. "Coronavirus Resource Center."
 Accessed 27 October 2020. Chiwaya, Nigel and Corky Siemaszko. "Trump Says We're 'Rounding the Turn,' But COVID-19 Is Spreading Faster Than Ever, NBC Numbers Show."
 NBCNews. 27 October 2020. BBC. "The Andrew Marr Show."
 25 October 2020. Ankel, Sophia. "Trump Kept on Declaring the US is 'Rounding the Turn' on COVID-19, Even As It Recorded Its 2 Worst-Ever Days of Infections."
 Business Insider. 25 October 2020. Farzan, Anthonia, et. al. "U.S. Coronavirus Infections hit Record Levels, With Hospitalizations and Deaths on the Rise."
 Washington Post. 27 October 2020. Bump, Phillip. "We Are Not 'Rounding the Corner' On the Coronavirus, pART 8,219,000."
 The Washington Post. 20 October 2020. Johns Hopkins. "America Is Reopening. But Have We Flattened The Curve?"
 Accessed 28 October 2020. Barone, Emily. "U.S. COVID-19 Cases Are Skyrocketing, But Deaths Are Flat -- So Far. These 5 Charts Explain Why."
 TIME. 26 October 2020. Parke, Caleb. "WH Communications Director Farah Says Science Office's COVID Statement Was 'Poorly Worded'
 FOXNews. 28 October 2020. White House. "Advancing America's Global Leadership In Science & Technology."
 October 2020. The COVID Tracking Project. "The Pubic Deserves The Most Complete Data Available About COVID-19 In The US. No official Source Is Providing it, So We Are."
 Accessed 28 October 2020. Wagner, Abram. "What Makes A 'Wave' Of Disease? An Epidemiologist Explains,"
 The Conversation. Accessed 29 October 2020. World Health Organization. "About Pandemic Phases."
 Accessed 29 October 2020. Wagner, Abram. "What Makes a 'Wave' of Disease? An Epidemiologist Explains."
 University of Michigan School of Public Health. 6 July 2020. Maragakis Lockerd, Lisa. "First and Second Waves of Coronvirus."
 Johns Hopkins Medicine. 29 October 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "National Center for Health Statistics."
 Accessed 30 October 2020. This report was updated on Nov. 4, 2020, to clarify that Indonesia had the lowest death rate among countries most impacted by the virus. Claim:   Wisconsin has passed a bill banning poor people from purchasing shellfish, potatoes, and ketchup.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] Is this true?  Origins:  Recents months have seen efforts by lawmakers in several states to limit what recipients of food stamps and other forms of public assistance may purchase with those benefits.  For example, a member of the Missouri legislature introduced a bill that would bar recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP) from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, seafood or steak. And Kansas passed a law prohibiting recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from spending those monies on a variety of goods and services: Missouri Kansas   Similarly, in May 2015, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill (Assembly Bill 177) that would require those who receive food stamps to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on foodstuffs designated by the state as nutritional items. The list of allowed nutritional items includes meat, fish, fresh produce, and white potatoes, but specifically excludes food stamps from being used for purchases of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish: bill   The larger list of allowed foodstuffs excludes such items as white potatoes, nuts, cranberry sauce, popsicles, spaghetti sauce, soup, ketchup, pickles, baked beans, flavored peanut butter, flavored milk, and brown eggs. foodstuffs Contrary to various inaccurate headlines, however, the proposed law (if fully passed and enacted as law) would not "ban" food stamp recipients from purchasing these food items; rather, it would restrict them from spending more than one-third of their SNAP benefits on such foodstuffs.  It's also unlikely the bill will be codified as law, as it would require a federal waiver that no state has ever received: headlines  No state has received such a waiver, but Rep. Brooks said he believes his bill is less restrictive than some proposed in other states and has a better chance of being implemented.   Proponents of the bill argue that it would promote healthier eating habits which would benefit both food stamp recipients and taxpayers:  They argue that limiting the purchase of junk food promotes healthy eating, reduces unspecified "abuses" and benefits society in the long run. "There is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.   Oppoents, however, contend that the bill would neither promote healthier eating nor reduce fraud:  "It's a restriction that's designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder," said Rep. Lisa Subeck. "And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare." To illustrate Democrats' opposition, Rep. Evan Goyke held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars  one shredded and one block  were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said. "The stated goals of this bill are nutrition and fraud," said Rep. Mark Spreitzer. "When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."   Last updated:  16 May 2015 As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information. A chunk of residential Northwest Austin has bridled at the prospect of a low-rise office park becoming much more. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also since modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in the three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The soonest construction was planned to start was around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact  We reached out to city officials at first, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola told us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developers request. That report, Duncan said,  indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was finished--a 478 percent uptick. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email it looks like the traffic figures indeed came from the developers consultants study. However, she noted, a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said hed heard the revision talk and for that reason, he said, his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outflanked. Im sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies  Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which looked to us like the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted  unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips means daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development, say, or trips there on city buses. An unadjusted count rolls in trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips expected once the project is finished, Bryan Golden told us by email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by a professional engineer, Bobak J. Tehrany, for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, said the redevelopment on completion in 2031 would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to some 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex  which breaks out to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. That is, he said, the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the roadway segments which were evaluated, though he also said that doesnt mean the roadways had exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis--taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenners firm told us by email--suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 of late. We didnt get a fix on why the count of current-day traffic went down. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This is taking into consideration the trips which already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is done, nearby traffic would be up 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips of late. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less  By phone, Drenner pointed out the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He said this latest analysis was based on Spires modified development planhalving the number of residential units and reducing retail uses  filed with the city April 30, 2015. Drenner said, too, the developers are suggesting $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden counseled that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031--again, provided theres no expansion on the site. Our ruling  Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment say: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developers original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On July 12, 2022, a Facebook page called "Just Boxing 101" posted a meme that claimed former heavyweight champ Mike Tyson once said, "Social media made y'all way to [sic] comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." An official social media account for Tyson really did share this quote with an image of him, and he appears to be the original author of the message. posted Mike Tyson The post on the boxing page received over 14,000 shares in three days.  For our research, we searched Twitter for the quote, and found a tweet that claimed Tyson had posted the message on Facebook in 2020. That information led us to his original post. Twitter tweet Tyson Facebook post  This post truly did come from Tyson's official, and verified, Facebook page. For that reason, we rated this claim "Correct Attribution." While we were looking around for evidence of the Tyson quote, we noticed a user in a Facebook group named "Snowflake Central" shared the above-mentioned meme, generating hundreds of additional views of it.  Snowflake Central shared This Facebook group, with its more than 30,000 members, deserved a closer examination because it included characteristics that are often indicative of foreign-run social media accounts that spread propaganda and disinformation to a U.S. audience.  Firstly, this Facebook group claimed that it was based in California City, California. While California City is a real city with around 14,000 residents, we have found in several past investigations that many politically-oriented Facebook accounts, pages, or groups that showed the town as their location were actually managed by foreign users pretending to be Americans. 14,000 residents several past investigations  Why California City? It's plausible to suppose that foreign propagandists and disinformation purveyors mistakenly typed the state name in the city field when filling out the various questions to set up accounts, pages, and groups on Facebook. The first city to auto-populate when typing "California" into the city field on Facebook is California City. Another indication of the "Snowflake Central" group's suspicious origins: its administrators. Four administrators were publicly displayed on the page, and one of those accounts had a duplicate account and claimed to be the "CEO at eBay" (and it wasn't Jamie Iannone, the e-commerce site's real CEO). Meanwhile, another a Facebook page, not a profile, for a political organization named "Criminal Illegal Aliens - CIA Report" was listed as another administrator for the "Snowflake Central" group. Jamie Iannone Criminal Illegal Aliens - CIA Report We will continue to monitor this Facebook group's future activities. In sum, aside from the separate issue of the suspect Facebook group, Tyson truly did once endorse the idea that, "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." California City, California. City-Data.com, https://www.city-data.com/city/California-City-California.html. Can I Create Multiple Facebook Accounts? Facebook Help Center, https://www.facebook.com/help/975828035803295. Just Boxing101. Facebook, 12 July 2022, https://www.facebook.com/SwankyBoxing/. @LetsGoBackToWCW. Twitter, 21 Apr. 2022, https://twitter.com/LetsGoBackToWCW/status/1517200419763761152. Mike Tyson Internet Trolls Speech Becoming the Legends Best Quote. WBN - World Boxing News, 17 May 2022, https://www.worldboxingnews.net/2022/05/17/mike-tyson-internet-trolls-truth/. Snowflake Central. Facebook, 14 July 2022, https://www.facebook.com/groups/928256410610708/. Tyson, Mike. Facebook, 3 July 2020, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100044612701436. 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. Republicans promised that their tax overhaul would save money for the middle class, and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., was quick to make the case that it did. Im working alongside the White House and other members in the House to lessen the tax burden that currently weighs on so many Oklahomans, Mullin posted on hiscongressional blog. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the average American family of four will receive a $1,182 tax cut. Imagine what you could do with $1,182 more in your pocket! Mullin's talking point has been popular among House Republicans trying to sell the tax plan. In the past week, we've heard House SpeakerPaul Ryanand a Georgia congressman tout the same figure. In each case, they overstated the impact of the tax cut. Mullin did, too, but less so. Here's what you need to know. The figure comes from the House Ways and Means Committee, which wrote the tax bill. That committee calculated several scenarios for how the proposals changes could affect different types of taxpayers. The key elements in the committee's calculation involve tax brackets, the standard deduction and the child tax credit. Currently, there are seven brackets; these would be consolidated into four -- 12 percent, 25 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. In the meantime, the standard deduction would be raised from $12,000 to $24,000. And the child tax credit will be increased from $1,000 to $1,600, bolstered by a new $300 credit for parents and other dependents. The example Mullin highlighted refers to a family of four making $59,000 per year. Heres the scenario outlined in the Housesfact sheet, using the fictional example of Steve and Melinda with two middle school-aged children: As a result of lower tax rates, a significantly larger standard deduction, and an enhanced Child Tax Credit and Family Flexibility Credit, Steve and Melinda will pay over $1,182 less in taxes than last year, reducing their total tax bill from $1,582 to only $400. Thats more money they can use for whatever is important to them, whether its paying bills, purchasing a new refrigerator, or putting away savings for the future. The Ways and Means Committee said they chose a household income of $59,000 because its themedian household income nationally. (Mullin talked about families and families are not identical to households, but in Oklahoma, the median family income is about $58,000, so the distinction makes little difference in his state.) For that amount of income, a family today would get $12,700 from the standard deduction, $16,200 in personal exemptions, leaving $30,100 in taxable income. Of that, $18,650 would be taxed at 10 percent and $11,450 would be taxed at 15 percent, meaning the preliminary tax liability would be $3,582.50. That would be adjusted with $2,000 in child tax credits, producing a final tax liability of $1,582.50. Under the new tax bill, the family would take a larger $24,000 standard deduction (the proposal eliminates personal exemptions), leaving $35,000 in taxable income. At the 12 percent rate, that would mean $4,200 in preliminary liability. This would be offset by $3,200 in child tax credits and $600 in family credits, leaving a final tax liability of $400. Thats a $1,182.50 tax cut. So the number adds up, but there are some caveats that show it might not work out this way for all families like Steve and Melindas. The GOP bill eliminates or shrinks a number of widely used itemized deductions, and those factors arent taken into account in the figure House estimate. The deductions eliminated or pared back in the bill include the mortgage interest deduction (for future mortgages, it would be capped at half its previous maximum); the state and local tax deduction (only $10,000 in property tax deductions would be allowed); the medical expense deduction; the casualty loss deduction; and the student loan interest deduction. For example, nearly 9 million people with high medical bills deduct them on the taxes. Exchanging these changes for a higher standard deduction may benefit many taxpayers, particularly those who choose not to itemize today. But some taxpayers who depend on these itemized deductions today may end up worse off if the bill is passed as is, even with the higher standard deduction. For this type of taxpayer, the loss of even one of those deductions could conceivably wipe out that $1,182 gain for certain types of families. David Kamin, a tax and budget specialist at the New York University law school, told us that the bill has some wrinkles that can turn a tax cut into a tax hike. Kamin cited a combination of factors, including the sunsetting of the $300 per parent tax credit; the lack of inflation adjustments for the child tax credit, which effectively replace personal exemptions that were indexed to inflation; and the new use of an inflation adjustment measure known as chained CPI, which grows more slowly than the yardstick in current use. According toKamins calculations, the initial tax cut for the family making $59,000 becomes about a $450 tax increase by 2024 compared to the status quo. Heres the graph he put together:  Mullin didnt promise that the initial tax cut would last, as other Republicans have. After Mullin made his statement, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the tax plan using a different approach. The committee found that while tax collections from people making under $40,000 would fall at first, they would go up in 2023. The groups that would do the best under the plan would be people making between $100,000 and $200,000, and those making over $1 million a year. Mullin said that the average American family of four would get a tax cut of $1,182. The number is a reasonable estimate, based on certain assumptions. What might not be obvious is that families who take advantage of deductions today might see their taxes rise. And even those who benefit immediately might see those gains turn into losses after 2023. So if you think this tax cut would be ongoing, or every year, you'd be wrong. Unlike his colleagues, however, Mullin didnt outright promise that the initial tax cut would last for more than one year. Mullin's statement therefore is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.