Is Starbucks Offering $100 Coupons During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips
Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris, a Democratmulling a run for governorin 2014, contends that his private-sector experience would put the state on a better course. Making the media rounds thissummer, the former bank trust officer has gently criticized Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans for what he views as overly exuberant tax cuts and borrowing. Harris, as you might expect, thinks his own record on fiscal issues is more responsible. Ive got the spending down, Ive got the debt down a little bit, Ive got the reserves up, Harristold journalist Mike Goushaon WISN-TVs Upfront show July 21, 2013. Harris was first elected county executive in 2005 and previously served as mayor of Oshkosh and on the Oshkosh City Council and Winnebago County Board. He has worked as a certified public accountant in Michigan and Indiana, was a lawyer in Indiana, and worked as a trust officer and vice president at Associated Trust Company in Oshkosh from 1995 until 2005. With Harris pledging to decide on running by Labor Day, we thought it was the right time to check the books on his claims. Heres what we found: Reserves Average year-end reserves are up considerably in the Harris era, compared with the final four budget years of his predecessor, county financial records show. Under Harris, the county often has kept reserves in excess of its goal of having a cushion totalling one month of the countys annual spending. The average annual reserve is up more than 50% on average, and in 2012 reserves swelled to nearly two months of spending, prompting the county to suspend new borrowing in 2013. The increase in unrestricted reserves has not been a steady march, but the trend is clear. Spending Harris pointed us to numbers showing that the 2013 adopted county budget set operating spending at 1 percent less than the 2005 budget -- the last one adopted before his election. We confirmed those figures, and found a four-year trend of declining or flat expenditures from 2010-13, so Harris has some backup. The countys finance director, Charles Orenstein, told us savings came in part from reining in fringe benefit costs, consolidation and efficiency moves in county facilities, and savings on court and jail costs through technology. But, looking more broadly, the spending trend lines look like a roller-coaster ride. Spending went up in Harris first four years. In fact, only in 2013 could Harris make the claim that spending is lower compared with when he came in. In every other year but this one under Harris, the countys annual spending total was higher than in the last pre-Harris budget. Harris acknowledges that Walkers curbs on collective bargaining saved the county money, but he contends that state aid cuts offset most if not all of the savings, at least in 2012. The countys property tax levy has increased 24 percent in eight years under Harris as aid from other levels of government -- a category including the state -- fell off markedly, county budget records show. The property tax levy has fallen the last two years amid tight property tax caps imposed by Walker. Debt Harris said he got the countys debt down a little. Yes and no. Harris notes that Winnebago Countys outstanding general-obligation debt totalled $59.6 million at year-end 2012, down from $63 million in December 2004, months before he took office in April 2005. In noting that, he uses 2005 as his first year and 2004 as the baseline year. His numbers are correct, and defensible to a point. But, under the countys capital improvement process, many debt-funded capital projects would have received approval before Harris took office. So both the previous county executive and Harris can claim an influence on the outstanding debt level in 2005. Keeping that in mind, if you instead use 2005 as the baseline year, Harris debt claim fails. Debt added up to $57 million in 2005, slightly lower than the mark under Harris in 2012. Harris claim, though, is on target by two other measures, average annual debt per capita, and average annual debt in raw dollars. In general, this is a difficult area to judge because huge projects -- a new nursing home built on Harris watch, for instance -- spike borrowing in certain years. The Credit Game One final issue. Harris credited himself for driving the fiscal trends. But he acknowledged that the County Board deserves some credit as well. And two veteran Winnebago County Board leaders, David Albrecht and Patrick Brennand, told us that former County Executive Jane Van De Hey and others also helped instill a cautious approach to spending. Theres also the effect of the state budget, which helped the county drive down costs while also cutting aid to the county. Our rating Harris said, Ive got the spending down, Ive got the debt down a little bit, Ive got the reserves up. He was referring to his tenure as Winnebago County executive from April 2005 to the present. He makes the best case on reserves, which clearly have risen. Spending is down when viewed narrowly. The debt burden has dropped by some measures but not by all. Harris deserves some credit for the trends, but not all. We rate his claim Mostly True. Claim:  Diet Coke (or Diet Pepsi) contains more calories than claimed, but the company gets away with the deception by paying a yearly fine.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] There was an old rumour that stated that a particular diet soda company (Coke I believe) paid a fine to print their cans as stating that the soda had 'just one calorie'.  According to the rumour, companies who knowingly printed misinformation on the nutritional facts of their product would have to pay a fine.  The company in question figured it could make more money by convincing people the product only had 1 calorie than it would cost to pay the fine, meaning a higher profit margin for them.  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I heard a rumor today that Diet Coke actually contains 40 calories, and the Coca-Cola company pays a huge fine to the FDA every year to keep "0 calories" on the can.  Have you heard anything of this?  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Comment: Is it true that Pepsi One is really not one calorie and that Pepsi Co. pays a fine every year for false advertising (because the calorie count is a lot higher than that)? Origins:  How long this particular belief about low-calorie sodas has been around is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it dating back to 1990. We've encountered claims of Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (which are listed as containing zero, zero, and one calories per 12-oz. can, respectively) actually containing 25, 50, 70, or 90 calories, in each case with the parent   company's paying an annual fine to continue falsely listing the beverage's caloric content.  (A can of non-diet cola typically contains about 120 calories.) The rumor associates most strongly with Diet Coke (which is known as Coca-Cola Light outside the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain).  In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place. Federal Trade Commission Act Lanham Act Common sense should also serve to rule out what the whispers say about an annual payoff.  For health reasons, many potential consumers of diet drinks have to carefully monitor what they ingest. Were the rumor true, diabetics with a love of Diet Coke, for instance, would experience glucose levels spiraling out of control. Imagine the lawsuits resulting from  that! This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria. bananas If there is the tiniest bit of truth to this rumor, it's that even though sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are advertised as having zero calories, they do have some caloric content from ingredients such as artificial sweeteners, citric acid, and caramel coloring.  However, the number of calories per can is still less than one, and FDA regulations allow any food product that contains fewer than five calories per serving to be advertised as calorie-free. Barbara "calorie countered" Mikkelson Last updated:  26 August 2013 Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY":  This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions:  Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook  In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again:  Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page:  Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam Not only has U.S. Rep. Alan Graysonendorsed presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, he also has echoed one of the senatorsmain platform planksthat the rich should help shore up Social Security. At a Senate campaign debate with U.S. Rep. David Jolly, R-Indian Shores, in Orlandoon April 25, 2016, Grayson said the Social Security payroll tax cap on earnings needs to be lifted in order to make the program solvent. He used the mind-boggling salary of professional basketball superstar LeBron James to illustrate his point. Let's talk about LeBron James. Do you know when he stops paying his Social Security taxes? He stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season, Grayson said. Rest of the game, pays nothing. Rest of the 81 games of the season, pays nothing. The offseason, still pays nothing. That's ridiculous. The Cleveland Cavaliers forward rakes in an average of$23.5 million per yearas part of his current two-year contract, so its not like hes going to depend on Social Security in his twilight years. But is Grayson right that James is done paying into the program before halftime of the first game of the season? Its not a slam dunk, but the Orlando Democrat does score points with this one. Tax tip-off Lets start by reviewing what Grayson is talking about. The federal government imposes a payroll tax of6.2 percent on wagesto pay into the Social Security fund. But theres a limit of how much income can be taxed. This maximum amount, which is periodically adjusted upward, was$118,500 in 2016. That means the most any employed person pays into Social Security annually is $7,347 (6.2 percent of $118,500). If you make less than $118,500, you obviously are taxed on that amount and pay less. Employers match that amount, so a single workers total contribution to Social Security is essentially a maximum of $14,694 per year. Benefits, for the record, also are capped. In the case of self-employment, the person pays both halves of the $14,694 contribution, or 12.4 percent of $118,500. Well come back to this in a moment. If you make more than $118,500 in salary from an employer  say, $23.5 million or so  youre still only on the hook for taxes on the maximum of $118,500. Thats the highest amount on which the government can tax anyone, LeBron James or otherwise. Grayson has said that this limit is exacerbating projected Social Security deficits as more people retire. Not only would lifting this cap keep the program solvent, it would allow the government toincrease benefits for seniors. President Barack Obama also has proposed lifting this cap, which has rated aPromise Brokenon our Obameter. Some argue that raising the maximum taxable wage basewouldnt fix the system on its own. For his James example, Grayson broke down the NBA 82 regular-season games into their 328 respective quarters, then divided that against James $23.5 million average salary. That amounts to $71,646.34 per quarter, which is almost $6,000 per minute, with 12-minute quarters. Not bad for a nights work. Using that math, James hits the $118,500 taxable earnings cap somewhere before the eighth minute of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Youre probably only on your second (maybe third) $11 beer by then. Now, this interpretation is obviously just to make Graysons point easier to understand. Its kind of likeTax Freedom Day, ostensibly the day people earn enough to pay their total tax bill. How James gets paid depends on the structure of his contract. We'll also note that the NBA season starts in October, with the playoffs running through June. The tax year starts Jan. 1 and runs the calendar year. That makes the actual timing of when taxes are deducted from James' pay different than what Grayson said  a minor detail in a broad example. The Cavaliers' first game of 2016 was onJan. 2, and was their 31st contest of the 2015-16 season. They beat the Orlando Magic, 104-79, by the way. It may sound minor to those of us not making millions annually, but while Grayson is sticking to the game clock, he understates James time commitment. This example doesnt include the hours James spends practicing, traveling, giving interviews, attending team events or anything else that goes along with a superstar athletes life. It also doesnt include preseason games, overtime, playoff games (which bring in more money) or the value of his endorsements, whichForbesestimated at $48 million. PKF OConnor Davies sports accountant Robert Raiola also cautions that Graysons example doesnt mention other taxes James must pay. Raiola pointed out James faces a1.45 percent Medicare taxthat includes no cap, plus a0.9 percent Medicare surchargeon all the income he makes over $250,000. Which is a lot. And dont forget that self-employment tax. James possibly also must pay that in some form, depending on how his income is structured, Raiola said. How that affects James depends on how he conducts his finances, so its not really possible to say without getting a peek into his books. (LeBron, if youre reading, email us and well talk.) But Graysons talking point  that no matter how much the mega-rich earn, they are only taxed on the maximum of $118,500 in income  holds up. If you make less than that, you pay less, but James isnt required to pay Social Security payroll taxes on his income beyond $118,500. Our ruling Grayson said James stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Thats a broad statement meant to draw attention to the fact that Social Security taxes are capped at $118,500 of a persons income, no matter how much they make. There are a lot of factors that go into how much James is paid, and how much of that goes to various taxes. But the bottom line is that the athlete only faces Social Security taxes for a relative sliver of his income. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7010f3db-ddad-4d0d-98a5-197ed37eab1a UPDATE, April 28:An astute reader pointed out a minor flaw in Grayson's specific talking point. The NBA season starts in the fall, while the tax year begins Jan. 1. As such, James hypothetically would hit the threshold in the second quarter of the first game he played in the new calendar year, not the first game of the season. We've added that information to this story. ButGrayson's point that the uber-wealthy quickly hit the Social Security tax cap remains just as valid. In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was coming around to the idea of a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and considering restarting construction on it. Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. Charlie Kirk below-displayed Facebook post another foot of wall   While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." executive order dubbed As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing  about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press said Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. news reports Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. article Alejandro Mayorkas It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). Business Insider According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: 'The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as the administration, as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished,' he said. He said those parts include 'gaps,' 'gates,' and areas 'where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented.' Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. order It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: White House transcript C-SPAN video Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop for a plan  its paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds.  When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits  and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it  by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues.  Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is  it is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused. The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript.  C-SPAN White House transcript "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We dont believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall as an answer to addressing the challenges  immigration challenges at the border.  Theres a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but its currently paused and  for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." tweeted @POTUS  In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown -- no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Claim:  You can recharge your cell phone using body electricity.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2015] Is there any truth to this video?  i.e. you can charge your phoneusing body electricity?  Seems just too simple:  Origins:  According to the video displayed above (titled "Charge Your Phone with Body Electricity!"), the perpetual modern dilemma of how to ensure your cell phone is always charged or charging can be solved with just two silver coins, a piece of paper, a paper clip, and your hot, sweaty body. In terms of appealing propositions, this one features the advantages of frugality,  ease of use, and the enticing tempt of never suffering a temporarily bricked device again. Mobile users can be spared the shame of ever having to ask  virtual strangers for loans of their charger cords, if they can put aside the notion that body-charging a cell phone phone is a fairly awkward public proposition. Whether the human body can charge electronic devices (such as phones, or pacemakers, or hearing aids) is not a subject that lies entirely within the realm of science fiction. A September 2014 Newsweek article tackled the potential offered by body-based device charging, but with the caveat that the technology was nowhere near accessible just yet: Newsweek Of course, with all due respect to Voix's cool invention, talk is cheap. Piezoelectrics energy harvesters haven't yet made a dent in the real world, for the most part. On the other hand, all of the researchers and industry reps interviewed for this story agree that piezoelectrics is very much poised to become a real commercial forceperhaps within the next three to five years. The gait-powered backpacks and knee braces look likely to break through even sooner. It is perhaps telling that these two last products don't use piezoelectrics and produce somewhere around 1,000 times more electricity. But as electronic devices continue to shrink and need less juice to work, and piezoelectronic ones are tweaked to produce more power, the technologies will likely meet in the middle. While you one day might be able to harness body-generated power to charge a phone, no useful manner of doing so existed when the video in question was posted online. Moreover, its extraordinary claims about harnessing body-generated power to recharge cell phones were not proved within the video; viewers were simply informed that the trick worked without being presented with any corroborating evidence that the phone shown in the video hadn't been charged in some other fashion. Some viewers attempted to replicate the feat shown in the impressive clip with multiple devices, only to come up short:    A Quora user also opined that the body electricity claim didn't wash in terms of the mechanical process of recharging cell phones: This particular video is pure rubbish.  There are 4 contacts in a USB connector, only one of them is power.  You do not make a capacitor with a piece of paper and two "silver" coins, and anyway a capacitor is not what you need.  And you can get a few tenths of a volt if your skin is damp and if you used two different metallic coins, but that is less than a tenth of the voltage you need and less than a thousandth of the current required.  So it's wrong on so many levels it's funny. Whether or not phones could eventually be charged using body electricity, there's no evidence the video shown here managed that feat. No corroborating videos of people charging phones in such a manner have turned up, and multiple viwers have reported that the steps outlined in the video did not work to successfully recharge any cell phone.  Last updated:  27 March 2015 On the Cats Roundtable, a radio show and podcast with businessman and political donor John Catsimatidis, New York City Mayor Eric Adams made a claim about the richest New Yorkers contributions to city coffers. Fifty-one percent of our taxes are paid by 2% of New Yorkers, Adams said. We must understand the role that high-income New Yorkers play in this city. And when I hear people totally attempting to say they dont play a significant role, that is just wrong, they do. Is Adams right? We reached out to his press secretary, Fabien Levy, who said Adams was talking specifically about personal income taxes. During the interview,Adams was not so precise.The mayor, however, has made that qualification when making this claim before, such as when he was running for officein 2021. This is what he said at afundraising appearance in October 2021: Yeah, were over 8 million people. But do you know 65,000 pay 51 percent of our income taxes? Levy provided previously unreleased data from the Mayors Office of Management and Budget, which showed that in 2020, the top 2.5% of city taxpayers, when ranked by income, paid 51.6% of the citys personal income tax collections. According to areportreleased in December 2022 from the citys Independent Budget Office, a publicly funded organization that provides nonpartisan information about city finances, in 2020, filers with annual gross income of $500,000 or more, representing 1.6% of all filers, paid 49.2% of the citys personal income taxes. Independent Budget Office Communications Director Elizabeth Brown confirmed the office estimated Adams claim to be true, but only as it pertains to personal income tax collections -- not all tax collections. We dont break out the groups the same exact way the mayor spoke about them, but we believe his numbers are more or less accurate, Brown said. Personal income taxes are a fraction of what the city collects in taxes. According to thecitys January 2023 financial plan, personal income and the pass-through entity tax (an optional tax for partnerships and S corporations, such as limited liability corporations) represent 22% of the citys collections. Property taxes constitute 46% of the collections, while sales and use taxes represent 13%. Lucy Dadayan, an expert in state and local finances at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said that its not surprising that a small fraction of earners pay nearly half of the citys income taxes. Thats because about 2.1% of New York citys earners take home around 43% of New York Citys income, she said. This data point is nearly exact to data provided by the city from the Office of Management and Budget. The available data doesnt show how much the top 2% of city earners pay on property, sales, or other taxes, Dadayan said. But their contributions to other tax categories are significant, said Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute who frequently writes about city finances. According to the city, office buildings are 21% of the property tax levy, the citys single biggest tax, for example, and the reason the office valuations are high is because of their wealthy occupants, Gelinas said. Wealthier people also consume more in goods and services than middle-class and poorer people, and thus pay higher sales taxes, she said. Adams claimed that 51% of city taxes are paid by 2% of New Yorkers. If he had specified income taxes in his statement, we would have given a True ruling. The budget analysts who study the numbers confirm as much. The mayor was talking about personal income taxes, his spokesperson said. But someone listening to Adams interview would not necessarily have known that because Adams did not offer that qualification. Given his past similar statements in which he specified it was income taxes he was talking about, we do not see this as a case in which he was trying to mislead the audience. But because his statement on the radio show was accurate but needed clarification, we rate his statement as Mostly True. In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?":     No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. figure Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: summarized Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. In 1972 legislation The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost. affect largest Konish, Lorie.  "Your Social Security Check Will Get a 2.8% Boost in 2019."
  AL.com.  16 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Historical Background and Development of Social Security."
  Accessed 17 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Social Security Benefits to Increase in 2019."
  11 October 2018.