Was there a proposal made by Trump that could potentially result in the termination of disability benefits for thousands of individuals who receive SSI?
In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019.
The M-16, a rapid-fire, 5.56 mm assault rifle carried by thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War, grew out of efforts to develop a replacement for the standard M-1 Carbine used during World War II. The M-16 (originally designed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite as the AR-15) was constructed using plastics and alloys and was a much smaller and lighter weapon than its predecessors, one that fit in with the developing Vietnam-era strategy of less emphasis on long-range accuracy in favor of more easily-carried weapons with rapid rates of fire. M-16, Hundreds of thousands of M-16s were supplied to U.S. troops in the mid-1960s as US Army made the M-16 their standard rifle: Example:  [Morgan and Tucker, 1987] The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, soldiers noticed the toy company's logo embossed on the handgrip and complained. Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. However, the M-16, manufactured by the Colt Firearms Corporation (who bought the rights from Armalite in 1959), soon developed a reputation for unreliability, frequently jamming and fouling (especially when not kept clean, a next-to-impossible task in the dust and mud of Vietnam battlefields). Problems with the M-16 eventually achieved such prominence that a congressional inquiry was ordered, resulting in design changes, additional troop training, and other modifications that ameliorated many of the reliability issues U.S. troops were experiencing with the weapon: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered. This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam. The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment  including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles. A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. To the troops in the field, the original M-16 was new, it was small, it was light, it was made of plastic rather than wood, and it often performed poorly to boot. It was no surprise that many of them started expressing their dissatisfaction by referring to it derisively as a cheaply-made "toy," and that they associated it with the most prominent toy company of the time: Mattel, the Hawthorne, California, toy manufacturer famous for introducing the Barbie doll to the world: Mattel One of the sayings soldiers had about the M16 was, "You can tell it's Mattel" which was a toy company's slogan at the time  the gun had a lot of plastic parts, which can't stand up to the vibrations like wood can but it is cheap. The Mattel legend was undoubtedly fed by the fact that Mattel really did sell an  M-16 Marauder toy gun in the mid-1960s, a quite good reproduction of the actual weapon, complete with "realistic" sound effects:  M-16 Marauder     The sardonic joke about problem-plagued M-16s being toys morphed into a legend about their really having been produced by a toy company, with "proof" offered in the additional detail of soldier's spotting M-16 handgrips embossed with the Mattel logo. The redesign that improved the M-16's reliability was then attributed to a switch in manufacturers (to a "real" gun company) prompted by soldier complaints. Chivers, C.J. "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?"
The New York Times. 2 November 2009. Morgan, Hal and Tucker, Kerry. More Rumor!
New York: Penguin Books, 1987. ISBN 0-14-009720-1 (pp. 175-176). The Atlanta region has drawn millions of newcomers here in recent years with its warm weather (snowstorms notwithstanding), reasonably priced housing, and job opportunities in real estate, banking and the airline industry. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed talked about the economic might of the region during a recent speech before the Atlanta Press Club. One statistic he used to cite the size of metro Atlantas economy surprised us, so we decided to do some fact-checking. The annual gross domestic product of metro Atlanta, the mayor said, is bigger than 28 states in the union. Is it really that large? Mayoral spokesman Carlos Campos said Reed was using U.S. Commerce Department data as the basis for his claim. We looked at the data, and the most recent statistics we found show the mayors statement might be conservative. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total market value of all of the goods and services produced within the boundaries of a specific area. Federal officials define the Atlanta metropolitan area as 28 counties that stretch as far north as Dawson, south to Meriwether, as far west as Haralson and as far east as Walton and Jasper counties. It includes Georgias four highest-populated counties: Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and Gwinnett. The Atlanta metropolitan area had nearly 5.3 million residents in 2010, the ninth-highest total in the nation. In addition to having a large labor force, metro Atlanta has two major transportation hubs that have helped its economy race ahead of other regions. One is Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, which ranks among the worlds busiest airports. The other is the ports of Savannah and Brunswick, which are considered to be among the fastest-growing ports in terms of the volume of items shipped there. Although the ports are not located in metro Atlanta, Reed and others note they are important to the regions economy. About 180,000 full-time and part-time jobs in the 28-county Atlanta region can be attributed to the ports, according to a 2012 University of Georgia study. The region has 11 Fortune 500 companies with Atlanta addresses, according to the Metro Atlanta Chamber. Only New York City and Houston have more Fortune 500 businesses, according to the chamber. So how large is this regions economy? In 2012, the Atlanta region had a GDP of nearly $295 billion, according to the Commerce Department. Reed used that same number in his remarks. Among metropolitan areas, Atlantas GDP is the 10th-highest nationally, which is about where it should be considering it has the ninth-largest population. In order, the metropolitan areas with the largest gross domestic products are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Washington, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Boston. In terms of how Atlanta fares in comparison with other states, only 16 states had a higher GDP. In order, those states were California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, Maryland, Indiana and Minnesota. Metro Atlanta would also beat out the rest of the state. The region makes up about two-thirds of the states GDP, the Commerce Department data show. The Atlanta region does have a larger population than the rest of the state. PolitiFact Georgia looked at other categories of gross domestic product, and the Atlanta region fared as well, if not better, in those areas. For example, in 2012, only 12 states had a higher per capita GDP than metro Atlanta. The per capita gross domestic product for metro Atlanta was $46,970. University of Georgia economist Jeff Humphreys said hes not surprised metro Atlanta has a higher GDP than most states. Atlanta is a huge metro area, said Humphreys, the director of the universitys Selig Center for Economic Growth. The population would outrank a lot of states. Indeed, metro Atlanta has a larger population than 30 other states, U.S. census figures show. Humphreys said the Atlanta region has a highly developed economy through economic resources such as the airport that are serving people in other states, the country and the world at this point. To sum up, Reed claimed the Atlanta region had a higher GDP than 28 other states. Our research showed Atlanta slightly better than that in most categories. We rate the mayors statement True. On 9 December 2015, a message claiming that the legal drinking age would be raised to 23 in February 2016 started circulating on Facebook:   While the above-displayed Facebook message may appear atfirst glance as if it came from the news network CNN, that is not the case. This Facebook message was created by a prank website that creates links which resemble real news stories. However, when a user clicks on the link they are redirected to apage that informs them that the story was fake:   Users are then prompted to share the joke with their friendson Facebook. Similar pranks have previously circulated on the internet, briefly convincing Facebook users that Taco Bell was closingandthat PepsiCo was discontinuing Mountain Dew. closing discontinuing  [article-meta] Since the 2010s, a picture has permeated corners of the internet purportedly showing two women adorned with large "blizzard cones" to protect their faces from a snowstorm. For example, a Reddit post claimed:  The picture was authentic and accurately captioned (aside from the misspelling of "Montreal"). Snopes traced the location of the photograph's original, physical copy to an archive in the Netherlands, where an editor shared what is known about its backstory. Through a reverse-image search, Snopes found the photograph has been circulating onlinesince at least 2010, when it was published by the entertainment website Bored Panda. Since then, dozens of websites, such asCountry Living, and social media platforms, including ImgurandX,have shared the picture. Many posts accurately claimed the face masks were said to protect the two individuals from snow, though some falsely asserted that such masks were supposedly used to prevent infectionduring the 1918 Spanish Flu. reverse-image search since at least 2010 Country Living Imgur X protect the two individuals from snow during the 1918 Spanish Flu We found the above image hosted onFine Art America's online photograph database, where it wascreditedto the image-licensing group, Bridgeman Photos. We contacted that agency and were referred totheDutch foundation, Spaarnestad Photo,which confirmed it was housing the original, physical copy of the picture for theNational Archives of the Netherlands. Fine Art America credited Bridgeman Photos After reviewing the photograph upon Snopes' request,Spaarnestad Image Editor Kim Tieleman told us by email that information regarding the its origins was handwritten on its back. That note said Spaarnestad publishing house first published itin 1939 in the Dutch-illustrated magazine Het Leven, which translates to "life" in English.According to Spaarnestad's records, the picture's caption is: Two ladies wear plastic face protection against the blizzard and cold in Montreal, Canada 1939. There was no information about who took the picture, nor the identities of the women. As of this writing, the photograph's credit was the Nationaal Archief/Collectie Spaarnestad/Het Leven, according to Tieleman. The picture's authenticity aside, Snopes was unable to determine whether the cone-shaped mask was a one-off invention in the 1930s, or if the device gained any type of popularity to protect people from snow. We found no evidence of other photographs depicting similar items, and we were unable to identify the cone mask's original inventor, or a patent for it. Fashion and culture historian Deirdre Clemente, an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,told Snopes via email thatshe had never seen or heard of "such a contraption." However, given the popularity of plastic at the time, she said she was not surprised that such an invention existed. "Tons of innovations in plastics [were produced] in the 1930s and more so into the 1940s, so it's culturally on point with that period," Clemente said. Deirdre Clemente Plastic was invented in 1907 by Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland, according to the Science History Institute in Philadelphia. This, the U.K.'s Science Museum wrote, sparked a "consumer boom in affordable yet highly desirable products." S cience History Institute Science Museum "18 Cool Inventions From the Past." Bored Panda, 18 June 2010, https://www.boredpanda.com/cool-inventions-from-the-past/. "Can You Guess the Weird Purpose Behind These 1930s Face Cones?" Country Living, 22 Jan. 2016, https://www.countryliving.com/life/a37397/weird-invention-1930s-face-cones/. "Cone-Shaped Face Masks to Protect Face in a Snowstorm. Montral. 1930s." R/OldSchoolCool, 20 Dec. 2020, www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/kgqe1v/coneshaped_face_masks_to_protect_face_in_a/. "Deirdre Clemente." University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 9 Dec. 2013, https://www.unlv.edu/people/deirdre-clemente. "History and Future of Plastics." Science History Institute, https://sciencehistory.org/education/classroom-activities/role-playing-games/case-of-plastics/history-and-future-of-plastics/. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. "Https://Twitter.Com/Fakehistoryhunt/Status/1263911647686639618." Twitter, https://twitter.com/fakehistoryhunt/status/1263911647686639618. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. "Https://Twitter.Com/vSaleharde/Status/1158698236028305413." Twitter, https://twitter.com/vSaleharde/status/1158698236028305413. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. Imgur. "15 Absolutely Absurd Inventions." Imgur, https://imgur.com/a/FcwBb. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. Limited, Alamy. 635 Face Protection from Snowstorms Stock Photo - Alamy. https://www.alamy.com/635-face-protection-from-snowstorms-image212668423.html. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. "Plastic Face Protection From Snowstorms, Montreal, Canada, 1939 by French School." Fine Art America, https://fineartamerica.com/featured/plastic-face-protection-from-snowstorms-montreal-canada-1939-french-school.html. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. The Age of Plastic: From Parkesine to Pollution | Science Museum. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/chemistry/age-plastic-parkesine-pollution. Accessed 26 Aug. 2023. One favorite tactic in political debate is to put words in the mouth of a respected elder statesman to make it appear he presciently anticipated some modern issue or political personality (and, naturally, took a stand that supported the viewpoint of whoever put those words in his mouth).  Therefore, given the debates that arose in over President George W. Bush's efforts to alter the Social Security system, one would expect the appearance at that time of a  fifty-year-old quote from a former President (and fellow Republican) labeling as "stupid" certain "Texas oil millionaires" who wanted "to abolish social security" to be a similar fabrication. See this claim we collected got in the Snopes inbox in 2005: President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, uttered these words on November 8, 1954: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things.  Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.  Their number is negligible and they are stupid."  In addition to being a war hero, a decent fellow, a moderate Republican before they began to go extinct, President Eisenhower apparently was also quite the prophet. Little George W. Bush was about 9 years old at the time ... Save for a few minor details, however, the quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited in this message is in fact an accurate one.  It wasn't something he uttered but rather something he wrote, and the version reproduced above omits Ike's reference to a specific Texas oil tycoon (H.L. Hunt), but it otherwise is taken verbatim from a letter President Eisenhower penned to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954: letter Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this  in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything  even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.  A meme circulated in 2015 elided the reference to "Texas oil millionaires" and presented the quote as something aimed at the modern Tea Party:  Politically, Ike was a classic small-government Republican.  He was of the opinion that the federal government had grown too large at the expense of local and state authority since the advent of FDR's New Deal in the 1930's, a situation exacerbated by the national emergency produced due to America's entry into World War II.  Since the Depression and the war were over by the time Eisenhower took office in 1953, Ike felt it was time to return to a "middle way"  that included pruning federal subsidies to industries such as agriculture and power companies, which he believed no longer needed government assistance.  At the same time, he wanted to sustain and even increase funding for programs he thought had good track records, and Social Security was paramount among those programs.  Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  16 January 1994  (p. G1). Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele is blunt about one of the reasons he backs state legislation to drastically cut the pay and office budget of the countys legislative branch.Supervisors elected to the County Board, says Abele, have much less to do than in county governments heyday, but the boards budget has ballooned.In the 70s the county had about 11,000 employees, Abele said in a Jan. 18, 2013interview on WTMJ radio (620 AM). A lot of big functions have been moved from the county. Now we have 4,400 employees.In the 1970s, Abele continued, elected supervisors were part-time and the total County Board staff numbered three or four -- a couple committee clerks and a secretary. Now the staff totals 38 and supervisors pay is full-time.Abele concluded by claiming that supervisors have a lot less to do and we are paying a lot more, and he offered the opinion that government worked pretty well; you didnt have a pension scandal back then.Thestate legislationto cut Milwaukee County supervisors pay by 70 percent (to $15,000) and the County Board budget by 85 percent is still in draft form. County Boarddefenderssay it will gut the legislative branch and throw checks-and-balances to the wind.State lawmakers could take the measure up soon and Milwaukee County voters might be asked in a spring 2013 referendum to approve the salary cut.Lets take a look at Abeles assertion that the County Board staff has gone from three or four to 38 in four decades, and costs taxpayers a lot more even though the total county workforce is less than half its former size (11,000 to 4,400).Of course, we are not fact checking Abeles opinion that things worked better in the old days. Nor are we checking in this item his assertion that supervisors are less busy today.County workforceAbeles numbers on the overall county workforce are on target.County government employed 11,340 in 1975, compared to something between 4,000 and 4,600 today depending on how you count heads, according to county budget books and other documents we examined.The most recent payroll showed 4,397, according to the countys human resources department.Since the 1970s, the county has sold Doyne Hospital, contracted out the bus system, sold off a power plant, stopped operating a baseball park, partially privatized the Milwaukee Public Museum and outsourced numerous services previously performed by county employees. The state took over the countys child welfare, food aid and child care programs. The parks system alone has shed hundreds of workers.County Board staffDid the board have just three or four staff members at some point in the 70s, compared to 38 today (not counting the elected officials)?Close.In 1970, the boards budget listed five staffers (typist, administrator, board secretary, researcher and fiscal analyst). But for an accurate comparison to the set-up today, you have to throw in three committee clerks who in 1970 were housed in the County Clerks office. Today they are under the County Board budget.So thats a total of eight back then. Today, the board has 38 staff positions.Abele would have been slightly better off citing the 1960s instead of the 1970s as a reference point. By 1973, the boards non-elected staff had jumped up to 21, and by 1975 it was 24. So for much of the decade, the staffing was closer to todays levels.Whats changed?There are actually fewer elected supervisors now (18 today vs. 25 then) and they earn less in inflation-adjusted dollars compared to their 1970 counterparts. (The actual unadjusted salaries: $11,500 in 1970 vs. $50,679 now).But today, each lawmaker has a legislative aide to handle constituent calls and perform other tasks. Also, the boards research staff has grown considerably, as has the number of general support staff.The board also has hired people to publicize its work and more formally communicate with the public. And it has its own staff to lobby other units of government on county issues.County Board budgetSpeaking broadly about the County Board budget, Abele said it costs taxpayers a lot more now than in 1970.Over a 40-year span, a big increase in raw numbers is hardly surprising. It went from $535,000 then to $6.6 million today.So, its more instructive to measure the change in inflation-adjusted dollars. When we ran those numbers, we found the County Board budget increase was more than double the inflation rate.By contrast, the overall county operating budget grew at slightly below the inflation rate for the period. Budgets are proposed by the County Executive and his department heads, then adopted with changes by the County Board. The system dates to 1960, when John Doyne became the first elected county executive.Our ratingAbele said the County Boards staff grew from three or four workers to 38 since the 1970s, and now costs taxpayers a lot more, while the total county workforce was more than cut in half in the same period.He slightly overstates the growth in Board staff, and the time frame needs some clarification, but its accurate to say the County Board staff has grown notably since the early 1970s.And even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the board costs a lot more today than in 1970, from a budget standpoint, even though there are fewer elected supervisors.We rate Abeles statement Mostly True. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is InJanuary 2016, a photograph purportedly showing musicians David Bowie and Motrhead frontman Lemmy together at a party started circulating online. The photograph was originally posted to the image sharing web site Imgur on 11 January 2016, along with a caption that referenced the deaths of both musicians. Lemmy passed away on 28 December 2015, and Bowie passed a short time later on 10 January 2016: Imgur Bowie Bowie and Lemmy are about to start the most rocking, stellar band ever.Rock In Peace you legends. The photograph went viral as fans of Motorhead and David Bowie mourned the loss ofthe two rock legends. Unfortunately, the above-displayed image is fake. The fake imageof David Bowie and Lemmy isa combination of two photographs: A 1972photoof Lemmy and an unidentified girlfriend, and another image of David Bowie and singer Claudia Lennear: photo     It's possible that David Bowie and Lemmy Kilmister met at some point during their careers, but the above-displayed photo is not proof of such a meeting. 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 In mid-November 2020, an email from U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign alleged millions of mail-in ballots were erroneously sent to people who did not request them. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them," claimed a Nov. 16 email obtained by Snopes.   The claim implied people "who never asked" for mail-in ballots wrongfully received them, and, because of that, the election was tainted with fraud and Americans should reject the results of the popular vote. Firstly, let this fact be clear: Americans have been voting by mail since the Civil War in the 1860s. In the modern era, the majority of states for years have allowed anyone to request an absentee ballot and submit it via mail  while others only allowed people to vote absentee if they provided a qualifying reason for why they cant make it to a designated polling station on Election Day, such as illness, physical disabilities, travel, or work. Meanwhile, five states allowed all eligible voters in all elections to submit ballots entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  while other states permitted local jurisdictions to run elections by mail under certain circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, put new pressure on the country to expand existing vote-by-mail systems to avoid spreading the virus at polls. COVID-19 pandemic Several states passed new laws to allow all eligible residents to vote by mail, per the National League of State Legislature's compilation of state laws governing mail-in voting in 2020, or added "COVID-19" to their list of reasonable excuses to request an absentee ballot. National League of State Legislature's compilation But at the core of Trump's allegation about "millions of mail-in ballots" being sent to people who didn't want them were states' varying rules regarding ballot applications. Most states  but not all of them  require voters to submit an application that expresses their desire to vote by mail in order to receive the official ballot paperwork to cast a vote. Additionally, some states permit voters to apply for "permanent absentee ballot status" so they automatically receive ballots via mail each election and do not need to submit applications for each one. The NLSL stated: The ways in which voters may request a ballot vary, as do the deadlines for submitting the application to the local election official. Some states regulate who can distribute or collect applications for delivered ballots as well. Once the application is received, states have a process for verifying that the application did indeed come from the intended voter before sending a ballot to that voter. That said, the handful of states that have for years conducted elections entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  send ballots to every person listed in their respective databases of eligible voters, no application necessary. With COVID-19, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont also conducted the 2020 presidential election that way  every eligible resident received a ballot in the mail to vote for Trump or Biden, per NLSL. Additionally, Montana allowed counties to decide whether they would conduct the election that way, no requests for mail-in ballots necessary. So, considering the number of registered voters in those 10 states (there are more than 4.2 million in Colorado alone) there's some truth to the claim "millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them" in the Trump-Biden race, if you consider the application process the step in which people "ask for" ballots.  Colorado However, that argument is flawed by the fact that recipients of those ballots at one point registered to vote. And, in at least a handful of the 10 states, by registering to vote, they were joining a vote-by-mail system that sends ballots without applications first. In short, it is false to imply that millions of ballots were improperly or erroneously mailed in the 2020 election, or suggest that the system was a nefarious scheme to undermine Trump. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign attempting to sound the alarm on a fictional election conspiracy asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. Brendan Fischer tweeted In sum, while it was true millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who did not submit applications for them in the 2020 presidential election, it was a mischaracterization of states' election laws to frame that fact as evidence of impropriety or fraud. Rather, the ballots were sent to registered voters in accordance with state laws. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." Claim:  The U.S. government unfairly excluded Hawker Beechcraft from bidding to supply military aircraft for Afghanistan. UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2011] "Any president whose actions so consistently refute his own words must have deep contempt for the intelligence of the American public." The obama administration told U.S. owned Hawker Beechcraft earlier this week they are being excluded from bidding on the US Air Force contract for a light attack aircraft. That leaves Brazilian owned Embraer as the likely recipient of the lucrative deal. I found this one hard to believe so I did a little research. It was tough because this was completely ignored by the main stream media.  This is a double slap in the face of the United States. At a time when jobs, the economy, and security are the most critical priorities for our country, the Obama administration decides to send a defense contract to a foreign owned company. This has to be the stupidest thing this administration has done to date. This is not just a dumb decision, it is a perfect example of why this president is such a poor leader. He talks about wanting jobs. He says we need to force companies to repatriate billions of dollars that Americans keep overseas. He wants to raise taxes so he can spend billions on stimulus that does nothing to stimulate anything. And when it's time to act, he sends our tax dollars overseas at the expense of American jobs and income for an American company. This is nothing more than a Chicago-style political pay back; but this time it is at the expense of our national security. How much more damage will obama be allowed to do in the next 14 months? One of the lead stories in the media this week blasted congress for insider trading. If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company. When will the 4th estate do it's constitutionally protected job and expose the real obama to the American people?   Origins:   On 30 December 2011, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it had awarded a $355 million contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) for 20 light air-support/single-engine turboprop aircraft that will serve as both trainers and ground-attack planes for Afghanistan's air force.  Wichita-based aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (HBDC) had hoped that their AT-6 aircraft, an armed version of their T-6 trainer which is currently used by the U.S. military, would be chosen for the contract, but the U.S. Air Force (USAF) excluded the AT-6 from the running, leaving the A-29 Super Tucano built by Sierra Nevada Corp. in partnership with Brazil-based Embraer as the lone eligible supplier. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. has since filed suit against the U.S. government over the exclusion, maintaining that the Air Force had not provided them with sufficient detail about the reasons behind their exclusion and that Embraer had been unfairly favored: The suit alleges the exclusion was "arbitrary and capricious" and seeks to prevent the government from awarding a contract until Beechcraft can make its case in court. "This is yet another example of the Air Force's lack of transparency throughout this competition," said Bill Boisture, Hawker Beechcraft chairman and CEO, in a statement. "With this development, it now seems even clearer that the Air Force intended to award the contract to Embraer from early in this process." "We think we were wrongfully excluded from the competition," Boisture said. "We don't understand the basis for the exclusion, and frankly, we think we've got the best airplane. "So we're going to take every avenue available to us to make sure our product is fully evaluated and recognized for what it is. There are several issues here that just, frankly, don't make sense." The Air Force maintains that the process was fair, that Hawker Beechcraft was excluded because "multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC's proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk," and that the company failed to respond to its notice of exclusion in time to request a debriefing or file a protest: respond Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman, said the contest "was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations" and that the evaluation of the aircraft "was fair, open and transparent." In dismissing Hawker Beechcraft Corp from the competition, the Air Force found Hawker Beechcraft's bid "technically unacceptable," one that would result in an "unacceptable mission capability risk."  The Air Force said the company missed a three-day deadline to file a request for a debriefing and a 10-day deadline to file a protest. It is not possible at this point to definitively determine why the USAF excluded Hawker Beechcraft from the Light Aircraft Support (LAS) bidding, as ongoing litigation prevents the Air Force from releasing information regarding the competition, but according to industry observers the primary issue behind Hawker Beechcraft's disqualification was that the LAS contract called for a non-developmental, production-ready aircraft, and Hawker Beechcraft's AT-6 was still a developmental aircraft.   observers According to SNC's own statement on the issue: statement In its Request for Proposal, the Air Force specifically sought a non-developmental, in-production aircraft so that warfighters in-theater could have an advanced solution quickly and so that American taxpayers would not have to pay development costs. The plane proposed by SNC's competitor is a developmental aircraft that is not in production and has never been used for light air support or any other purpose. The AT-6 is a developmental aircraft.  With only two prototypes in existence, it has never been in production. In contrast, the aircraft selected by the Air Force and to be provided by SNC, Embraer's A-29 Super Tucano, is a light air support aircraft that is currently in use with six air forces around the world.   Unlike the AT-6, the A-29 Super Tucano has more than seven years of real-world combat and training experience behind it.  This means that its operational costs are known and that all costly development issues related to weapons load, maneuverability and operations have already been worked out.  Only the A-29 Super Tucano has actually flown in combat.  More significantly, only the A-29 was built from the ground up to perform counterinsurgency and light air support operations.  The A-29 is larger in size allowing it to make full use of the 1,600-hp engine without power limitations due to torque.  It sits higher off the ground and has a broader stance, increasing stability on unprepared airfields.  The A-29's longer tail section increases longitudinal stability and provides exceptional accuracy for the delivery of weapons.  Only the A-29 delivery system is specifically designed with the five NATO hard points for external stores, translating into maximum operational flexibility for the war fighters in the theater.  The AT-6 carries no munitions in its native configuration. This is a critical difference.  The A-29 also is munitions-certified with over 130 operational external load configurations.  The AT-6 is not yet munitions-certified. In February 2012, the Air Force announced it was canceling the contract with Sierra Nevada Corp. pending an investigation of the award: General Donald Hoffman, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, has started an investigation, Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force Spokeswoman, said. She said she didn't know whether the contract would be re-opened for competition and didn't elaborate on the reason for the cancellation. "While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Michael B. Donley, the Air Force secretary, said in a statement. "Since the acquisition is still in litigation, I can only say that the Air Force Senior Acquisition Executive, David Van Buren, is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision." The awarding of the Air Force contract to a partner of Brazil-based Embraer did not necessarily mean that all the jobs connected with the contract would be sent overseas, as Embraer said that its partner, Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corp., would build the turboprops in Jacksonville, Florida, if it won the contract: The A-29 Super Tucano will be built in America.  Embraer will make the plane at a new production facility in Jacksonville, Fla.  Over 88 percent of the dollar value of the A-29 Super Tucano comes from components supplied by U.S. companies or countries that qualify under the Buy America Act. No new jobs are being created in Brazil as a result of this contract. Despite the claim made in the example text reproduced above that the subject of Hawker Beechcraft's exclusion was "completely ignored by the mainstream media," it has in fact received widespread news coverage in a variety of media sources, including at least five of the nine highest-circulation newspapers in the U.S. (The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News, the New York Post, and the Chicago Tribune). widespread Also, we found no evidence to support the claim that "If this contract goes to Embraer it will be a huge pay off to another George Soros company,"  as we turned up no information indicating that George Soros holds an ownership stake in Embraer.  The closest connection we found between George Soros and Embraer seems to be that the former is one of the leading shareholders in China's Hainan Airlines Group (HNA), and HNA bought ERJ-145 jets from Harbin Embraer, a partnership between Embraer and the Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation of Harbin, China. However, that connection makes Soros a customer of Embraer, not an owner, and therefore does not put him in a position to profit from the awarding of an Air Force contact to Embraer. shareholders Last updated:  5 March 2012    Hodge, Nathan.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Bidding."   The Wall Street Journal.  28 December 2011.    Hodge, Nathan.  "Embraer Hits Defense Barrier."   The Wall Street Journal.  11 January 2012.    Ivory, Danielle.  "Air Force Cancels Contract to Sierra After Hawker Protest."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 March 2012.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Requests GAO Review of Air Force Deal."   The Wichita Eagle.  22 November 2011.    McMillin, Molly.  "Hawker Beechcraft Files Suit Over Air Force Contract."   The Wichita Eagle.  28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Hawker Beechcraft Sues Over Air Force Contract."   28 December 2011.    Associated Press.  "Air Force Temporarily Halts Work After Hawker Beechcraft Lawsuit."   The Washington Post.  5 January 2012.