Says hes proposed the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.
Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True.
Claim:  By default, all U.S. federal income tax refunds paid in 2010 will be issued in the form of U.S. savings bonds.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Please be aware that when filing your income taxes for 2009 earnings, the IRS has decided that all refunds due clients will be paid in US Savings Bonds unless you choose to "opt out". So watch carefully and find the area on the forms or inform your preparer of your intentions regarding this.  I would think that MOST PEOPLE would not want to receive savings bonds as opposed to a refund check in the event of a refund comingto them.   Origins:  Income taxes are a subject of near universal agreement: Nobody likes paying them, nearly everyone thinks they're too high, and many folks are disgruntled that they have to pay their taxes in advance (through payroll withholding) and wait until the following year for the government to refund any overage.  To most, it would be adding insult to injury if, as suggested above, the government stopped issuing income tax refunds in cash (via check or direct deposit) and instead started paying them out in the form of U.S. savings bonds (especially since savings bonds generally cannot be redeemed for their full value until the purchaser has held them for one year). However, the described refund switch isn't happening this year; someone has misinterpreted the introduction of a new option as a system-wide change to be imposed on everyone by default. In his weekly radio address of  5 September 2009, President Obama announced new initiatives for retirement savings, one of which was the following: radio We'll make it easier for people to save their federal tax refunds, which 100 million families receive. Today, if you have a retirement account, you can have your refund deposited directly into your account. With this change, we'll make it easier for those without retirement plans to save their refunds as well. You'll be able to check a box on your tax return to receive your refund as a savings bond. But taxpayer participation in the described initiative isn't a mandatory or default plan, and (for now, at least) it isn't as simple as "checking a box on your tax return." For refunds to be issued in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has implemented a program under which taxpayers may opt to receive part or all of their refunds (up to $5,000) in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds. This program is described in the "Buying Savings Bonds" section of the IRS' informational page entitled "Taxpayers Can Now Use Refunds to Buy Savings Bonds": program page This year, a taxpayer for the first time can request a portion of his refund be used to buy up to $5,000 in low-risk, liquid Treasury I Bonds, which earn interest and protect owners against inflation. The resulting bonds will be issued in the taxpayer's name. If the refund is a joint refund, the bonds will be issued in the names of both taxpayers. No beneficiary may be selected. The taxpayer need not have a TreasuryDirect account to purchase I Bonds using this option. You can buy Savings Bonds in denominations of $50, $100, $200, $500 and $1,000. You buy them at face value, meaning if you pay $50 using your refund, you get a $50 Savings Bond. In any single calendar year, you can buy up to a total of $5,000 of U.S. savings bonds of any series whether using your refund or some other method. If you buy $250 or less of Savings Bonds with your refund, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued. If the amount is over $250, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued up to $250 and the fewest possible additional Savings Bonds will be issued for the remaining amount. Follow the instructions on Form 8888 to tell the IRS to make a direct deposit of the amount you designate to an IRA, to buy U.S. savings bonds, or to a savings account or other savings vehicle. As noted in that description, the program for receiving refunds via savings bonds is an option taxpayers can request to participate in; not a default applied to everyone except those who specifically take action to opt out of it.   Taxpayers who wish to take part in this new program must proactively indicate their desire to do so by filling out and submitting IRS Form 8888 with their returns. Form 8888 Additional changes may be coming in future years, but taxpayers filing federal income tax returns in 2010 for income earned in 2009 need not "watch carefully" to avoid receiving their refunds as savings bonds. Last updated:  26 January 2010    Liberto, Jennifer.  "Obama to Workers: We'll Help You Save."   CNNMoney.com.  5 September 2009.    Nicklaus, David.  "How to Promote Savings? The Humble Savings Bond Is Part of the Answer."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  9 September 2009.    Rosato, Donna.  "Help Consumers Save More of Their Dough."   Money.  January 2010.    Tompor, Susan.  "Put Away Debt, Put Money Into Savings."   Detroit Free Press.  7 January 2010.    Trumbull, Mark.  "Uncle Sam Wants You to Save More Money."   The Christian Science Monitor.  5 September 2009. 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 April 2020, various cities in the United States saw protests against shelter-in-place orders that were enacted to combat the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease. Several photographs and videos showed these protests, but one image in particular went viral after it was likened to a scene from the zombie comedy "Shaun of the Dead." went viral The top half of the image is a real photograph taken on April 13 by Joshua A. Bickel of The Columbus Dispatch and shows protesters outside of the Ohio Statehouse demonstrating against the state's self-quarantine rules.  Joshua A. Bickel The Columbus Dispatch It was originally published in an article entitled "GOP lawmakers, protesters call on DeWine to begin re-opening Ohio." That article started: started Some Republicans in the Ohio legislature are publicly calling on Gov. Mike DeWine to consider removing coronavirus-related restrictions beginning next month, while on Monday, around 100 protesters gathered outside the Statehouse during Dewines daily COVID-19 press briefing. A growing chorus of Ohios Republican lawmakers want Gov. Mike DeWine to set a date for the first phases of re-opening businesses, schools and public places. We need to get the economy open, even if that means social distancing of some sort for months to come, Sen. Andrew Brenner, R-Delaware, wrote in a Facebook post. We cant stay like this much longer, and the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans whove lost their jobs or the thousands of small business owners cant keep doing this either, or their lives will be irreparably destroyed. On April 15, shortly after this image went viral, The Columbus Dispatch published a follow-up article providing the story behind the photo. This photograph was presented in that article with the following caption: story behind the photo Protesters stand outside the Statehouse Atrium where reporters listen during the State of Ohio's Coronavirus response update on Monday, April 13, 2020 at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. About 100 protesters assembled outside the building during Gov. Mike DeWine's weekday update on the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, upset that the state remains under a Stay-At-Home order and that non-essential businesses remain closed. While Bickel's photograph was taken on April 13 in Ohio, it truly went viral later a few days later when a similar (but larger) protest dubbed "Operation Gridlock" took place in Michigan and made national headlines. That protest featured hundreds of Michiganders outside of the state's Capitol demanding an end to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home orders.  Whitmer said that the protest in Michigan, which featured American flags, Trump flags, Confederate flags, and a number of heavily armed protesters, was just as much about partisan politics as it was about public health. Whitmer said: said It really wasn't about the stay-at-home order at all. [...] It was essentially a political rally, a political statement that flies in the face of all of the science, all the best practices. [...] It looks like a lot of people and it felt like a lot of people but in the bigger scheme of things, Michigan is a state of 10 million people, the vast majority of whom are doing the right thing. Our hospitals have stepped up, our nurses, our doctors, the average citizen whose staying home or is contributing in some way to help people on the front line. That's the story of what's really going on here. This group, a small group of people that came together without masks on, who were passing out candy with bare hands to children, who were congregating together, who were brandishing their weapons, who were having posters of being anti-choice; this was a political rally, it was a political rally that is going to endanger people's lives, because this is precisely how Covid-19 spreads. While there has been genuine criticism about various stay-at-home orders, there has also been a good deal of misinformation shared about these restrictions. For instance, many people falsely accused Whitmer of "banning the sale" of American flags.  banning the sale Staver, Anna' Behrens, Cole. &bsp; "GOP Lawmakers, Protesters Call on DeWine to Begin Re-Opening Ohio."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  13 April 2020. Deadline Detroit.  "MSNBC Asks Michigan's Whitmer: What's Up With Confederate Flags At Lansing Rally?"
  15 April 2020. Everhart, Michelle.  "You've Seen the Photo of Ohio Protesters. Heres The Story Behind It."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  15 April 2020. Everhart, Michelle.  "You've Seen the Photo of Ohio Protesters. Heres The Story Behind It."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  15 April 2020. Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly 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] In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had "voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive." social media posts   The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows:  summary This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties  a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context  federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions  and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as "false."  here The proposed "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate.  Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, "invoking cloture" is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate.  February 2019 February 2020 motion of cloture filibuster On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted "Yea," and in 2020 that number was 56  below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama.  2019 2020 The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. was identical In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, "vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive," it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions.  It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of "babies screaming until they die." So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme.  By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder.  prohibition Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really.  Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: states (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words person, human being, child, and individual, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances.  The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's "born alive" abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here.  published here (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with "born alive" abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) passed signed vowed The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own "born alive" abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a "born alive" abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely.  In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did.  In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, "We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws." Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, "It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor. wrote wrote Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was "a solution in search of a problem," adding, "Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." said Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. stated ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that theres no chance your baby will survive that theres no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step  Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I cant begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage  making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities  even if its against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldnt extend or improve the babys life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families  forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, theyd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: letter "It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients." Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. reported Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a "maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies," which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others.  data Sasse, Ben. "S. 311 -- Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 U.S. Senate. 31 January 2019. Davis, Christopher M. "Invoking Cloture in the Senate."
 Congressional Research Service. 6 April 2017. Congressional Research Service. "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate."
 7 April 2017. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 51, Section 1111 -- Murder."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. Chabot, Steve. "H.R. 2175 -- Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002."
 U.S. House of Representatives. 5 August 2002. Family Research Council. "Pro-Life Laws in the States -- Born-Alive Protections."
 Accessed 20 August 2020. PBS/The Associated Press. "West Virginia Senate Passes 'Born Alive' Abortion Bill."
 10 February 2020. Justice, Jim. "Governor Speaks on 'Protecting Abortion Survivors.'"
 The Point Pleasant Register. 14 February 2020. Kaine, Tim. "Kaine Statement on S. 311."
 25 February 2020. Cardin, Ben. "Cardin Statement on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act."
 26 February 2019. Hirono, Mazie. "Hirono, Murray, and Colleagues Denounce Latest Republican Attack on a Womans Right to Choose in Remarks on the Senate Floor"
 25 February 2019. Duckworth, Tammy. "Minutes Before Vote, Duckworth Pushes Senate to Reject Latest Anti-Choice, Anti-Doctor GOP Bill."
 25 February 2019. Jatlaoui, Tara et al. "Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 2016."
 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 29 November 2019. National Center for Health Statistics. "Mortality Records with Mention of International Classification of Diseases-10 code P96.4 (Termination of Pregnancy): United States, 2003-2014."
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 April 2016. Robertson, Lori. "The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate."
 Factcheck.org. 4 March 2019. A set of photographs showing former President Bill Clinton on vacation is frequently shared online by conspiracy-minded websites and social media users, along with the claim that the pictures show him with his arms around a convicted sex offender named George Nader. This rumor was first promulgated by proponents of the "Qanon" conspiracy theory in March 2018 after it was revealed that Nader, a key witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, had previously been convicted on charges related to child pornography: Qanon   The images were subsequently picked up by websites such as True Pundit, The Event Chronicle,, and News Punch and posted in articles that alluded to some sort of nefarious activity involving Clinton, pedophilia, and the Mueller investigation. True Pundit The Event Chronicle News Punch Here's how True Pundit presented these images in March 2018: BUSTED: Muellers New Star Witness Against Trump Caught Partying at Exclusive Island Resort with Bill Clinton ... George Nader testified last week to the Mueller grand jury. Mr. Nader is an adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates. According to The Times, Mr. Mueller is investigating whether Emirati money found its way to the Trump campaign, which would be illegal. That sounds very official and all but perhaps Mueller might ask his new star witness in the Trump investigation what he was doing partying on an exclusive island resort with Bill Clinton. Especially when The Clintons have been caught helping fund the bogus Trump dossier which helped launch Muellers probe. Optics here. Very bad.   Interest was renewed in these images in June 2019, after Nader was brought up on another set of charges related to child pornography. A tweet from "Praying Medic," a Twitter user described as a "Qanon Researcher" in the account's bio, was shared more than 2000 times: another set of charges Praying Medic   The above-displayed images are real, and they truly show Clinton posing with a man named George Nader. However, this is not the same George Nader who has a record of child-pornography charges and who was a key witness in Mueller's investigation. The man seen in this picture is actually an art entrepreneur who happens to share a name with the convicted sex offender mentioned in the Mueller Report. Mueller Report These images were taken in January 2017 during Clinton's vacation to Casa de Campo in the Dominican Republic. A number of Spanish-language news outlets received the images and published them in articles about the former president's trip. Diaspora Dominicana, for example, reported at the time as follows: reported LA ROMANA, Dominican Republic.- The former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, is on vacation in the Dominican Republic. He is spending his vacations in Casa de Campo, La Romana, in the residence of his friend and fellow student Ronald Gonzalez Bunster, a renowned entrepreneur with great interests in the electrical and tourism sectors of the Dominican Republic. Many of the pictured individuals were identified by these news outlets, including the person to Clinton's left. While these outlets identified this person as "George Nader," they also described him as an "artistic entrepreneur," a description that does not fit the Nader involved in Mueller's probe, who is a businessman and lobbyist: identified businessman and lobbyist (Clinton) is spending his vacations in Casa de Campo, La Romana, in the residence of his friend and fellow student Ronald Gonzalez Bunster, a renowned entrepreneur with great interests in the electrical and tourism sectors of the Dominican Republic ... In the photos appears the artistic entrepreneur George Nader Ricardo Cheaz, Dominican businessman, of oriental descent. The note received by Accent, along with the photographs is very eloquent. It says the following: "In Palmilla. Former President Clinton is on vacation. Playing golf and enjoying Palmilla with his Dominican friends." A family of artistic entrepreneurs with the surname Nader are active in the Dominican Republic. Georges S. Nader opened his first gallery in Port-au-Prince Haiti in 1966, and since then his family has expanded the business with galleries in Miami and Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. family of artistic entrepreneurs gallery George Nader the artistic entrepreneur shared one of these photographs to his Instagram page in January 2017:   We reached out to Nader's company, Nader Enterprises, to confirm it was indeed him in the photograph. The company told us via email that "It's George Nader but not the pedophile!" Nader Enterprises, The websites sharing these images as if they showed Clinton with a sex offender are basing that claim solely on the fact that the pictured man shares a name with an individual involved in Mueller's investigation. Two people having the same name is quite common, however, and does not make them the same person. Aleem, Zeeshan.  "George Nader, One of the Trump-Russia Investigations Most Mysterious Figures, Explained."
  Vox.  28 March 2018. Kaplan, Talia.  "Bill Clinton Est Pasando Sus Vacaciones en Casa de Campo con Amistades Dominicanas."
  Diaspora Dominicana.  7 January 2017. Kaplan, Talia.  "Mueller Probe Witness George Nader Charged with Trafficking Child Pornography."
  Fox News.  3 June 2019. True Pundit.  "BUSTED: Muellers New Star Witness Against Trump Caught Partying at Exclusive Island Resort with Bill Clinton."
  13 March 2018. Gerstein, Josh.  "Mueller Witness Was Convicted on Child Porn Charge."
  Politico.  16 March 2018. During a meeting with the San Antonio City Council, former mayor Henry Cisneros made a pitch for a new transportation plan that emphasizes roads over public mass transit. Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton, highlighted the need for more money to go toward transportation and explained how this kind of investment could transform the city. We are a poor city, Cisneros said of San Antonio. We have the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. We ran the numbers, and the latest figures show that San Antonio has a lower per capita income than some, but not all, of the states most populous cities. Cisneros did not return a request for comment seeking clarification on his definition of a major Texas city. To be clear: there is no universal definition of a major city, so we looked at Texas cities with a population estimate of at least 500,000 in 2018. Census figures show rankings To check this claim, we looked at yearly estimates of per capita income from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group, according to the Census Bureau. In this case, those groups are Texas cities. The per capita income is calculated by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. The final figure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. In 2018, the per capita income in Texas was $30,641. In the United States, it was $33,831. Looking at individual Texas cities reveals a wide range of values, from $65,743 in The Woodlands, a master planned community north of Houston, to $15,369 in Pharr, a city on the Texas-Mexico border east of McAllen. In San Antonio, per capita income in 2018 was $24,684. San Antonio is the second most populous city in the state (1.5 million), preceded by Houston (2.3 million) and followed in order by Dallas (1.3 million), Austin (964,254), Fort Worth (895,008) and El Paso (840,758), according to 2018 population figures. Heres the per capita income in 2018 in these cities, presented from highest to lowest: An analysis of the rankings of these cities each year from 2010 through 2018 shows that San Antonio is low on the list, followed by El Paso. Another way to assess income in a community is to look at median household income or median family income. Median household income includes the income of the householder and anyone else living in the home over 15 years old. This figure is different than median family income, according to the Census Bureau: Because many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. Median family income looks at incomes of all members 15 years old and over related to the householder. In 2018, the median household income in San Antonio was $49,024, lower than all of the six most populous Texas cities besides El Paso ($45,031). San Antonios median family income was $60,689 in 2018, a higher figure than Dallas ($58,835), Houston ($56,693) and El Paso ($50,245). Poverty in San Antonio Cisneros made this claim after stating that San Antonio is a poor city, so we also looked at poverty data available from the Census Bureau for the 10 most populous cities in the state. In 2018 in San Antonio, about 19% of its population was living below the poverty line  more than any of the other cities with populations over 500,000. Take at look at each city and the percent of its population below the poverty line, ordered from highest to lowest: Another factor worth mentioning here is cost of living. San Antonio may be among the cities with the lowest per capita income, but the cost of living is also on the lower end. The Economic Policy Institutes Family Budget Map shows an estimated cost of living for a two-parent, two-child family in counties across the state. Here is the cost of living per year in the predominate county in each city with a population over 500,000, in order from highest to lowest: Our ruling Cisneros said that San Antonio has the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. San Antonio is among the six most populous Texas cities with the lowest per capita income. El Paso has consistently recorded a lower per capita income than San Antonio. We rate this claim Mostly True. In May 2023, a reader informed us by email of a scam appearing in Facebook and Instagram ads that claimed Delta Air Lines was holding a promotion to give away $500 gift cards for $1 each. On the same day, we reviewed a second "Delta Airlines Online Shopper" scam in an email from an address ending in asahi.com that promised a "$100 reward" or gift card, simply for taking a survey. Needless to say, these were not legitimate giveaways, nor were they offered by Delta Air Lines. Always remember with online offers that if they seem too good to be true, they probably are. Worse, they are likely to be phishing scams that can result in both privacy and monetary losses for victims. First, Delta Air Lines was not giving away $500 gift cards for $1 each. Even something as small as $5 gift cards for $1 each would make little sense, as it would be putting Delta or other airlines in the position of losing money to the throngs who would buy up the cards. The scam ads read as follows: Elevate your travel experience with Delta! We're giving you an extraordinary opportunity to fuel your dreams of exploration. For only $1, you can get a $500 gift card - a limited time offer that's too good to pass up. It's time to see why Delta isn't just an airline, it's the Delta difference. Apply now and book your next Delta journey today! The paid ads on Facebook and Instagram led to a fake survey onduwucuu.info. After filling out the survey, the scam led users towb.giftgiveaways.xyz where they were asked to fill out personal information and a credit card number. As for the email scam that promised $100 Delta Air Lines "rewards" or gift cards for taking a survey, the messages were often coming from "ozdxuofbqh.asahi.com via loi5sir.classyield.site." Clicking the link in the message led to a strangely-labeled "Hitech Research" website onignitesurge.org. The page instructed users to take a survey and then pick a "free" offer on gadgetspromodeals.com or other websites. However, these "free" offers came with monthly subscription fees that were hidden in the terms and conditions. Nowhere on these pages did we find a box for customers to check to indicate that they agreed to the fine print that appeared on another page. The domain name giftgiveaways.xyz was last registered on May 15, just seven days before we looked into the "$500 gift cards for $1" scam. Meanwhile, ignitesurge.org, the website associated with the $100 Delta Air Lines "reward" email scam, was last registered on April 5. Newly-registered domain names are often a big red flag associated with scams. We advise all readers to do their due diligence before giving their credit card number to a website they've never heard of. Scammers often hide subscription fees in terms and conditions and purposely do not mention these fees anywhere on the product checkout pages. Contact your credit card company immediately if you believe you have given your credit card number to scammers. Delta Air Lines hosts a page about the scams they've seen over the years, including gift card promotional websites: page Over the years, Delta has received reports of attempts by parties not affiliated with us to fraudulently gather customer information in a number of ways including: fraudulent emails, social media sites, postcards, Gift Card promotional websites claiming to be from Delta Air Lines and letters or prize notifications promising free travel. These messages were not sent by Delta Air Lines. We do not market to our customers this way, but individuals or groups intending to gather and use your personal data for their gain can be inventive in their approach  often adding messages to generate a sense of urgency so you take action. Scammers know that airfare can be quite pricey. By pushing fake offers for cheaper airline tickets, they attempt to scam the masses with their fraudulent schemes. If readers encounter offers in the future that seem suspicious, we recommend contacting the airline company directly to ask questions. For further reading n the realm of "way too good to be true," we once covered anotherscam that claimed Delta Air Lines was giving away first-class air travel tickets and $10,000 in cash. scam "Protect Your Data." Delta Air Lines, https://www.delta.com/us/en/legal/privacy-and-security/protect-your-data. In a tweet that preceded West Virginias buck firearm season, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice encouraged West Virginians to purchase a hunting license. In the tweet, he offered an economic rationale -- that hunting is an economic engine for the state. In theNov. 5 tweet, Justice wrote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttp://wvhunt.com.#WV#WVHunt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttps://t.co/burilhQECG.#WV#WVHuntpic.twitter.com/btBNdz4TR6 State offices have thrown around the figure more than once. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources sent atweeton Nov. 24 that used the same dollar figure, adding that deer hunters in particular spend an estimated $230 million in West Virginia, much of it in the rural areas of the state. We wondered: Do bucks, and other game, really bring the state 500 million bucks? When we contacted Justices office, Jordan Damron, the governors assistant legal counsel and digital director, cited it to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. A Nov. 14press releasefrom the division includes the $500 million figure and said that hunting is estimated to be responsible for 5,400 jobs and $35 million in sales taxes on goods and services spent in West Virginia. The news release said the numbers came from Southwick Associates, a research firm focusing on outdoor markets. TheSouthwick Associates reportsaid that there had been $421,819,113 in retail sales in West Virginia, with a multiplier effect raising that amount to $552,085,233. The multiplier was used  to estimate the total amount of spending that occurs in the economy as a result of hunters spending. The report also said that 5,377 jobs were created through hunting and $35,544,522 in state and local taxes were gathered due to hunting. The amount spent on deer hunting alone was $291,972,745. So the numbers cited by Justice exist. But well offer a few caveats. First, the report is from 2012 and the data is from 2011. Though Justice offered a specific-sounding figure, the actual figure might have grown or shrunk in the subsequent seven-plus years. Second, multiplier effects are estimates and are highly dependent on the assumptions used. Different assumptions will lead to different results. Using the retail sales figure without the multiplier adjustment might have been a more defensible approach. Finally, the report says it was funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and produced in partnership with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The association represents government officials who oversee hunting, but the National Shooting Sports Foundationbills itselfas the firearms industry trade association. This means that the NSSF is an advocacy group that has a vested interest in promoting hunting. As with any advocacy group, its data should be understood in this context. Justice said that hunters contribute more than $500 million to West Virginia. This statistic comes from a comprehensive, 50-state report, but its worth noting that the data is more than seven years old, that it uses an estimate of economic impact beyond just retail sales, and that the report was funded by an industry trade group. We rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003.