Virginia tax receipts in just the last four years alone have grown 50%.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin has been stressing that Virginia can afford the $1 billion in tax cuts he recently proposed. The overtaxation of Virginians is something we can address here and now because we have seen the governments tax resource grow astronomically, Youngkin said Jan. 23 during aspeechat the Weinstein Jewish Community Center in Richmond. Receipts just in the last four years alone have grown 50%. Virginias Republican governor made the same 50% tax growth claim in his State of the Commonwealth Address on Jan. 11. We fact-checked the governors claim and found its close to the mark. Youngkin wants to cut levies that go to Virginias general fund  which supports public education, public safety health programs and general government expenses. Those tax revenue grew by 45.2% during the past four budget years, according to statefinancialrecords. Virginia collected$19.9 billionin general fund taxes for the fiscal year that ran from the start of July 2017 to the end of June 2018. It took in$28.9 billionfor the budget year that ended in mid 2022. (Virginias fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.) The general fund has three major money sources: personal income tax, corporate income tax and the sales tax. These account for 93% of the general funds tax receipts, and each revenue stream significantly grew during the last four years even as tax rates stood pat and Virginias population barely grew. Lets take a look. Personal income taxesare by far the largest source of general fund money, kicking in about two-thirds of the revenue. Their net revenue grew over the last four budget years (fiscal 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) from $14.1 billion to $20.4 billion  a 44.7% increase. Nationally, state income tax receipts grew by anestimated36.7%over the same span, data from the National Association of State Budget Officers shows. Virginia collects two types of income taxes. A withholding tax is the money held out of paychecks. A nonwithholding tax (also called a capital gains tax) is a levy on profits from selling personal assets such as stocks. Net withholding tax collections rose from $10.6 billion to $13.6 billion during the last four budget years  a 28.3% increase. Much of the increase came from salary growth among upper income workers, according to a November 2022reportby the staff of the Virginia House Appropriations Committee. Gross non-withholding tax receipts rose from $3.5 billion to $6.8 billion  a 94.3% increase. The gain was caused mostly by people cashing in profits from the soaring stock market of the last four years. Sales taxrevenue increased from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion over the last four budget years  a 31.4% increase. Much of the rise was caused by inflation and a heightened demand for goods during the COVID-19 crisis, said Anne Oman, staff director of the states House Appropriations Committee. Sales tax receipts in all states grew byabout30%during the span. Corporate income taxcollections rose from $862 million to $2 billion over the period  a 132% increase. Oman said uncertainty over inflation, recession and the economic effects of COVID caused many businesses to sit on profits instead of reinvesting them, creating greater corporate tax income. Corporate income tax revenue from all states  combined grew by anestimated177%during the same four years. Virginias burgeoning tax revenues have not been unique. States have quirks that make it impossible to exactly compare their total general fund tax receipts. What they have in common, however, is that income, sales, corporate taxes produce the vast majority of their proceeds. Virginias evenue from those three levies increased by 46.1% over the last four years, slightly higher than theestimated44.2%rise seen by all states combined. Youngkins $1 billion in tax cuts would come on top of nearly $4 billion in tax cuts that went into effect in the second half of 2022. The boon allowed Youngkin and the General Assembly to agree on a budget last year that also raised spending and lifted Virginias reserve funds to a record$2.6 billion. But the gravy train began to slow in 2022s latter half and is expected to continue to do so this year because of uncertainty about rising interest rates, the stock market and a possible recession, according toVirginia Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings. Democrats have been skeptical about Youngkins proposed tax cuts this year, saying the money is needed to improve programs. Youngkin said Virginia tax receipts in just the last four years alone have grown 50%. State records show that general fund tax receipts have grown 45.2% over the last four budget years. So, Youngkins claim, although very credible, is a little high. We rate Youngkins statement Mostly True. Correction, Jan. 25, 2023:This fact-check originally said PolitiFact Virginia made two attempts to contact Youngkins office and did not get a response. Our emails, it turns out, were mistakenly sent to a wrong web address. Our ruling is unchanged.
Claim:  Welfare queen decries New Orleans public housing. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2008] Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass  the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into   Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacydown to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, "I tried it for a year..you know...working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year." Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. "Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors," says Sharon. "They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool  that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump." "Do you know why?" She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard, and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, "Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!" Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, "Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they areunfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment." Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents, and states that, "I might do better out there with one of these tents." She further lamented hersentiments about her situation, "I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor." Origins:  In December 2007, as part of its coverage of the ongoing battle over the City Council of New Orleans' plan to tear down four public housing complexes, a photographer visited the home of Sharon Jasper, a 48-year-old resident of that city and housing activist who lives in an apartment rented for her under the provisions of Section 8. (Federal housing assistance programs began in the U.S. during the Great Depression. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is one such program and is better known as Section 8, a term which refers to the part of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 under which the original subsidy program was authorized. Section 8 tenants pay their landlords about 30 percent of their income for rent, with the difference between what they pay and what is deemed fair rent for the unit provided by the federal  government.) That visit resulted in the photograph shown here of Jasper sitting on a couch in the subsidized private apartment she'd described as a slum. The snapshot captured her big screen TV and the unit's hardwood floors, apartmental accoutrements many had difficulty squaring against their definition of "slum." Jasper also complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door, and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated.  That photo plus quotes from Sharon Jasper lifted from that article ("I might do better out here with one of these tents") and from others ("I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor") were married to her outbursts at a New Orleans City Council meeting on 20 December 2007 ("I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!"), then worked into the satire piece quoted above. It's for this reason that we've given this item a "Multiple" status: While some of the elements portrayed in the spoof are fabricated of whole cloth, others aren't. And while most of the photos associated with the satire were taken from elsewhere, the first one, the one that shows a big screen television, is the real deal. Though we cannot yet definitively identify the satirist who masterminded this piece, we believe it to be the work of a blogger known as jimbyrd on the Word Press site. The item now circulates generally in the shortened version quoted above, but the far longer original contains additional photos of the "substandard" housing given in the satire's version of Sharon Jasper, as well as her assessment of the same, such as her reaction to the contents of the wine cellar: "Look at all these bottles of wine, they are worthless. Just another example of thinking I am stupid. All this wine is at least 10 years old and some of it is 20 years old, you know the white man kept all the fresh stuff for himself. I aint that stupid." original That same blog contains other works of satire, such as "Vermont to Arrest George Bush and Dick Cheney" and "Hillary Clinton Sues Barack Obama." Vermont Sues Last updated:  17 February 2008    Sources:   Bohrer, Becky.  "Public Housing Advocates Seek Halt on Demolitions."   Associated Press.  30 November 2007.    Warner, Coleman.  "Housing Officials Claim Surplus."   [New Orleans] Times-Picayune.  18 December 2007. Claim:  E-mail reproduces an editorial from a Canadian newspaper about U.S. presidential candidates. Status:  True. Example:  [Caldwell, December 2007] I recieved this as an email.  Is this real? A Canadian's view of US Elections Theo Caldwell,  National Post (Canada)Wednesday, December 26, 2007 An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious. This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president. This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity evinced by the Democratic field. "Not ready for prime time," goes the vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are. Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  We've received many forwarded copies of the above-linked article, accompanied by inquiries from readers wanting to know whether it's "real" or "true." The article is "real" in the sense that it is indeed an editorial by Theo Caldwell which was published in the 26 December 2007 edition of Canada's National Post newspaper (and reproduced in that publication's online version), offering the writer's assessment of the candidates vying for the nominations of the two major parties in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Theo Caldwell online Aside from the issue of its origins, the article is not classifiable as "true" nor "false"  it is an editorial which reflects its author's opinions. Last updated:  14 January 2008    Sources:   Caldwell, Theo.  "Democrat or Republican? The Question Is Shockingly Easy."   National Post.  26 December 2007  (p. A27). On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. On 14 February 2017, the web site America's Last Line of Defense published an article reporting that President Donald Trump had ended "Obama's vacation scam." article According to the story, former President Barack Obama had taken funds from the "Office of Presidential Visits and Vacations" to pay for vacations for himself, his family, and two dozen staff members through the year 2036. Once the "scam" was uncovered, the article said, Trump allegedly sent a bill to Obama to repay the money used for those vacations: Before Obama left office he arranged with the State Department for a series of official visits to foreign countries spanning the next 20 years. Using discretionary funds from the Office of Presidential Visits and Vacations, Obama was able to weasel what would have been another $2.1 billion in free vacations for him and up to 24 members of his family plus staff and a dog sitter until the year 2036. He would have, that is, had he not lost his office to Donald Trump. Trump, who is always looking for ways to save money, was having the office used for vacations repainted with 24 karat gold leaf trim and having the shelves lined with leather when he was presented with a ledger that contained all of the travel plans and expenses. The ledger was found by one of the 31 workers Trump hired from outside the typical White House staff to make alterations requiring specialized craftsmen. Our President immediately canceled the plans and recalled all Secret Service agents scheduled to protect the Obamas anywhere outside of the United States. The Obamas, who are still waiting in Kenya for their documents so they can re-enter the country, are also facing another new challenge at the hands of Trump: Theyre going to have to repay the government for all of those vacations that werent official state business. Of course, there is absolutely no truth to this story. President Obama did not steal $2.1 billion to fund family vacations until 2036, nor did President Trump end his "vacation scam" or send Obama a bill to repay the money. TheLastLineOfDefense.orghas a long history of publishing false information, and while the web site also reported that the Obamas were "waiting in Kenya" for their documents, the former President was actually with former First Lady Michelle Obama in the British Virgin Islands. On 14 February 2017, Michelle Obama posted a photograph from the beach, wishing her husband a happy Valentine's Day: history British Virgin Islands photograph An argument could be made here that Kenya also has beaches, which it does; in fact, its beaches are renowned for their beauty. However, before you conclude that the Obama family is lying about where in the world they are (and somehow fooling the press assigned to cover their stay in the islands), consider the following disclaimer, taken directly from TheLastLineOfDefense.org's own "About" page:  beauty About DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. Horton, Helena.  "Barack Obama Tweets Romantic Valentine's Day Message to His Wife Michelle."
  The Telegraph.  14 February 2017. The Last Line of Defense.  "Trump Just Ended Obamas Vacation Scam and Sent Him a Bill You Have to See to Believe."
  13 February 2017. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text:  In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates  The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216  a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009. 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. The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965, and it remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on childrens health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses: Lorsban 1965 remains 2000 This action comes after completing the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. This action  the result of an agreement with the manufacturers  will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children. Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemicals residue on food products by October 31, 2015. mandated Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on 6 November 2015, which suggested  as requested by the petition  that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked: proposal EPA is proposing to revoke all tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos [including] tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos on specific food commodities; on all food commodities treated in food handling and food service establishments in accordance with prescribed conditions; and on specific commodities when used under regional registrations. The agency is proposing to revoke all of these tolerances because EPA cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, are safe. In March 2017, before the EPAs proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt  the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump  reversed course and argued the previous administrations scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition: reversed course In October 2015, under the previous Administration, EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trumps inauguration fund. Liveris also was scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban.  appointed reports On 19 November 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook Page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action: using text   We explore each component of this memetic claim: Chlorpyrifos Was Invented by the Nazis as a Nerve Agent false. Chlorpyrifos is a specific chemical that belongs to a broader class of chemicals called organophosphates. While the Nazis were at the forefront of developing this broader class as both weapons and insecticides, they can not be credited with inventing chlorpyrifos specifically. In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals. IG Farben interact Originally this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime. required  Shraders discovery led to the discovery and production of some of the worlds most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin gases. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide. led Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical company in a 1963 patent which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to, and during, WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war. patent Chlorpyrifos Causes Brain Damage Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea, in developing such a chemical for use an insecticide, is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects. AChE inhibition From a scientific standpoint, the main controversy surrounds the potential residual effects that chlorpyrifos may have on the neurological development of fetuses and young children, which some studies have documented even at levels well below what is currently considered acceptable. In their 2016 decision to ban all tolerances for the chemical on food, the Environmental Protection Agency stated: In summary, the EPAs assessment is that the [Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health, CCCEH] study, with supporting results from the other 2 U.S. cohort studies and the seven additional epidemiological studies reviewed in 2015, provides sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for AChE inhibition. The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development:  study We investigated associations between [chlorpyrifos, CPF] exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children, 5.911.2 y, selected from a nonclinical, representative community-based cohort. Twenty high-exposure children (upper tertile of CPF concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children on cortical surface features [...]. In a press release this study, CCCEH said: press release Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child [...] Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of [...] CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7. previously reported [...] Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways. There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates to neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the later point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to punt a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date: lacks date Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, EPA has concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the 9th Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the Petition would not be granted, EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review, but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panels meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary  even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned:  neglected interview They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid, Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Speaking of the EPAs reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitts decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity: arguing Science should be used to prevent harm and to protect lives. The decision to put the agenda of a corporation over the lives and wellbeing of Americans is an egregious failure of our government to use strong, independent science to protect public health and safety. Chlorpyrifos Was Supposed to Be Banned in 2017, but Trump Is Now Allowing It True. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPAs ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: anti-regulation afforded Act: Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408( d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the Petition. If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by 31 March 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different.  to make a ruling As a result of Trump and Pruitts actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017. Dow Chemicals Gave President Trump $1 Million for His Inauguration True. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trumps inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trumps largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds. described 2009 2013 Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign: report Rachelle Schikorra, the director of public affairs for Dow Chemical, said any suggestion that the companys $1 million donation to Trumps inaugural committee was intended to help influence regulatory decisions is completely off the mark. Dow actively participates in policymaking and political processes, including political contributions to candidates, parties and causes, in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, Schikorra said. Dow maintains and is committed to the highest standard of ethical conduct in all such activity. Although it is clear that Dow Chemicals actively lobbied against a chlorpyrifos ban, we cannot rule on claims that their $1 million donation influenced Trump or Pruitt to change their view on the issue. lobbied While some aspects of the text included in the Chelsea Handler tweet and Really American petition, such as chlorpyrifoss connection to Nazi Germany and the scientific degree to which irreversible brain damage has been alleged, include some uncertainty, the bulk of its claims are true. The EPAs scientific community was certain enough, despite questions about methods or mechanisms, to agree with the petition that chlorpyrifos posed a risk to neurological health and should be banned. President Donald Trump, who did receive a significant amount of money from Dow Chemicals for his inauguration, unilaterally reversed this decision through his administrator Pruitts actions. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  "Chlorpyrifos: Production, Import/export, Use, and Disposal.
  Accessed 27 November 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos.
  Archived from 19 January 2017. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Dursban Announcement.
  8 June 2000. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  "Pesticide Action Network North America; Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  10 August 2015. Regulations.gov.  "Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos.
  6 November 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "EPA Administrator Pruitt Denies Petition to Ban Widely Used Pesticide.
  29 March 2017. Biesecker, Michael.  "Pesticide Maker Tries to Kill Risk Study."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2017. Associated Press.  "EPA Chief Met with Dow Chemical CEO Before Deciding Not to Ban Toxic Pesticide.
  30 June 2017. Everts, Sarah.  "The Nazi Origins of Deadly Nerve Gases."
  C&EN.  17 October 2016. Rauh, Virginia A. et al.  "Brain Anomalies in Children Exposed Prenatally to a Common Organophosphate Pesticide"
  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  30 April 2012. Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health.  "Insecticide Linked to Altered Brain Structure.
  30 April 2012. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the April 19-21 2016 FIFRA SAP Meeting Held to Consider and Review Scientific Issues Associated with Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data?
  21 April 2016. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Chlorpyrifos; Order Denying PANNA and NRDC's Petition to Revoke Tolerances.
  March 2017. Lipton, Eric.  "E.P.A. Chief, Rejecting Agencys Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide."
  The New York Times.  29 March 2017. Union of Concerned Scientists.  "How Dow Chemical Influenced the EPA to Ignore the Scientific Evidence on Chlorpyrifos.
  April 2017. Goodell, Jeff.  "Scott Pruitt's Crimes Against Nature."
  Rolling Stone.  27 July 2017. Wilson, Megan R.  "Corporate Donors to Trump Inaugural Revealed."
  Rolling Stone.  2 February 2017. A nine year-old viral Facebook post that portrays the United States as soft on illegal immigration enjoyed something of a resurgence in early 2018, most likely in light of ongoing negotiations between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats over the fate of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children by their undocumented parents and who have previously been allowed to stay in the United States under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The wording of the post, which was turned into a meme, has been repeated since at least 2009, and has been adapted for Australian and Canadian audiences over the years. There have been small variations here and there, but it typically goes something like this: Australian Canadian this   Undocumented immigrants do have some rights and entitlements, but the meme vastly overstates these entitlements, and omits to mention the many burdens and disadvantages placed on these immigrants, including the constant possibility of arrest and deportation.  A job Adults who enter the United States illegally are not provided with a job. In fact, it's illegal to knowingly hire any immigrant who isn't authorized to work in the country (whether they entered the United States illegally or overstayed a visa after entering legally.) illegal Of course, that doesn't stop the practice from happening, and according to a 2017 analysis by the Pew Research Institute, there were around 8 million unauthorized immigrants working or looking for work in the United States in 2014. analysis A driver's license This depends on where you live. As of January 2018, there are 12 states (and the District of Columbia) which allow immigrants without legal status to obtain a driver's license. Some of the states where unauthorized immigrants can drive (California, New Jersey, Illinois) have relatively high undocumented populations. 12 states populations Food stamps An immigrant who does not have a legal status in the United States is not eligible for food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), although their children might be. Indeed, undocumented immigrants do not receive most kinds of welfare benefits, even though they do pay taxes.  not eligible benefits According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan think tank, undocumented immigrants collectively contribute almost $12 billion per year in state and local sales, income and property taxes.  contribute "A place to live" Generally speaking, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing benefits like public housing, rental assistance, and vouchers. However, as a 2015 Congressional Research Service report outlines, some undocumented immigrants may live in a household with citizens or qualified immigrants, and thereby indirectly benefit from some public housing assistance (although the level of that assistance is reduced on a pro rata basis, due to the presence of that undocumented immigrant.) report Undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency assistance such as homeless accomodation and domestic violence shelters.  It is possible for an undocumented immigrant to own a home, either by buying it outright with cash, or by using something called an individual tax identification number (ITIN) mortgage. This allows non-citizens (including undocumented immigrants) to bypass the usual requirement of having a social security number to take out a mortgage.  ITIN Some 31 percent of undocumented immigrants live in a home that is owned by at least one of its residents (as opposed to rented), according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of data from the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey.  analysis Health care Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to enroll in Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Health Insurance Marketplace, significantly curtailing the affordable health insurance and health care available to them. not eligible However, six states and the District of Columbia have rules that allow undocumented immigrant children to avail themselves of Medicaid benefits, and undocumented immigrants are also entitled to emergency medical care.  six states emergency According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, non-elderly undocumented immigrants are four times more likely than United States citizens to be uninsured, and fears about immigration enforcement and detection often cause undocumented immigrants to forgo preventive healthcare, leading to worse outcomes.  analysis Child benefits It's not entirely clear what the creator of this meme means by "child benefits," but let's take a look. Undocumented immigrant tax-payers (using an ITIN rather than a social security number) can avail themselves of a child tax credit.  child tax credit Low-income undocumented immigrants are also eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food and infant formula assistance, as well as nutritional and immunization assessments.  WIC Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a federal program that provides financial help to low-income families and pregnant women. TANF Education In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally barred from denying children a public school education on the basis of their immigration status. As a result, undocumented immigrant children can attend public schools for free, like any other children. ruled While attending public schools, undocumented children can benefit from federal nutrition services like the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program.  Program Program Only two states (Alabama and South Carolina) do not allow undocumented immigrants to attend public colleges and other third-level institutions, and three others (Arizona, Georgia and Indiana) do not allow them to pay lower in-state tuition rates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. allow Undocumented students are not allowed to receive federal financial aid for higher education, but they might be able to get state aid or private scholarships.  federal A tax-free business for seven years This is completely false. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and there is no provision in law at the federal or state level which grants them any kind of "tax holiday." false Legal Information Institute. "United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324a - Unlawful Employment of Aliens."
 Cornell University. 30 October 2004. Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession."
 Pew Research Center. 3 November 2016. Mendoza, Gilberto. "States Offering Driver's Licenses to Immigrants."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 30 November 2016. Krogstad, Jens Manuel;Passel, Jeffrey S.; Cohn, D'Vera. "5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S."
Pew Research Center. 27 April 2017. Watson, Tara. "Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits?"
 Econofact. 28 March 2017. Christensen Gee, Lisa et al. "Undocumented Immigrants' State and Local Tax Contributions."
 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2 March 2017. McCarty, Maggie; Siskin, Alison. "Immigration: Noncitizen Eligibility for Needs-Based Housing Programs."
 Congressional Research Service. 8 December 2015. Kasperkevic, Jana. "The American Dream: How Undocumented Immigrants Buy Homes in the U.S."
 Marketplace. 11 September 2017. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. "Health Coverage of Immigrants."
The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 13 December 2017. Ollova, Michael. "More Immigrant Children in U.S. Illegally to Receive Health Care."
 Pew Charitable Trusts. 8 August 2017. Siskin, Alison. "Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview."
 Congressional Research Service. 12 December 2016. American Immigration Council. "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe."
 American Immigration Council. 24 October 2016. Hultin, Suzanne. "Undocumented Student Tuition: Overview."
 National Conference of State Legislatures. 29 October 2015. Mikkelson, David. "Tax Holidays for Immigrants."
 Snopes.com. 23 November 2012. In the rallies against North Carolinas new LGBT law, commonly known as HB2, protesters have represented not just gay and transgender activists. Also present Monday for the rallies outside the legislature were Latino activists and supporters of the Black Lives Matter and Rise Up for $15 movements. The law doesnt just ban transgender people from using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It also bans local governments  cities and counties  from raising the minimum wage that businesses within their boundaries would have to pay workers. Rev. William Barber, president of the N.C. NAACP, said the crowds of protesters were more diverse than just LGBT activists because of the wage issue. And in a speech just days before Mondays protests, he said the bathroom issue was actually a Trojan Horse, of sorts, for what he deems the real intent of the law  stopping cities from raising the minimum wage, as such cities as Seattle and Los Angeles have recently done. Eighty percent of North Carolinians are for the living wage, Barber said. So if North Carolina's legislature and the governor had just put on the table a straight bill to make a prohibition against living wages, they would have been going against 80 percent of North Carolinians. A higher minimum wage is often opposed by Republican politicians. But if Barber was right, a higher minimum wage is a true bipartisan issue  something that 4 out of 5 people support in a state where 4 out of 10 are Democrats. What is a living wage? Polling on this issue is all over the place. There are many ways to ask the question. Some polls give a specific number they test for approval; some let the respondents choose a number; some simply ask whether the minimum wage should be higher; some ask who should have the power to make that decision. But first, perhaps we should define living wage, the phrase Barber used in place of higher minimum wage. Its not just a political catchphrase; there are actual ways of calculating it. In 2004, an MIT professor of economic geography and regional planning created what she called the Living Wage Calculator. Accounting for location-specific factors such as the cost of food, childcare, housing, transportation and taxes, the tool determines the living wage as well as poverty wage for states, counties and metro areas. It gives numbers in both wage categories for single adults or couples, and households with zero to three children. It also assumes full-time employment of 2,080 work hours per year (40 hours a week for 52 weeks). For the purposes of this report, well look at the wage for a single person with no children. Right now the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although some states and cities have gone higher. North Carolina has not, and as Barber accurately said, the state has now forbidden any individual city or county from raising it. In Wake and Mecklenburg counties  the two largest in North Carolina the Living Wage Calculator saysa living wage would be right about $11 an hour. The state average is $10.53, and 13 of 14 metropolitan areas are above $10. A person working full time for $10.53 an hour would make $21,902.40 a year. At the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, that same person would make $15,080 a year  a difference of more than $6,800. Recent polling Now that we know what a living wage is, we can look to see whether Barber is right about 80 percent support. The topic isnt surveyed much at the state level, but luckily two polls have tackled this topic in the last month. Theyre from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling and the more centrist Elon University Poll. A spokesman for the states main right-leaning polling firm, The Civitas Institute, said theres no record of Civitas ever having polled people on the topic of minimum wage. Public Policy Polling found that76 percent of North Carolinianssupport a minimum wage of at least $10 an hour. That isnt an exact confirmation of Barbers claim, since its slightly lower than 80 percent and the living wage is $10.53, not $10, but its pretty close. However, the Elon poll found less support for a $10 or higher minimum wage, 65 percent. It also arrived at that number differently than PPP. PPP gave five choices, asking people to say if they thought there shouldnt be a minimum wage, if it should remain $7.25, or if it should increase to $10, $12 or $15. Elon asked people to name whatever they thought the minimum wage should be. A plurality (27 percent) said $10. In total, 65 percent said $10 or higher. Thats certainly less than the 80 percent claim Barber made or the 76 percent that PPP found. But complicating matters, Elon also found less support than PPP for keeping the current minimum wage. The difference is that many in the Elon Poll (23 percent) named a number between $7.26 and $9.99  an option that PPP didnt give. So while the Elon poll found only 65 percent support for wages that could be called a living wage under the MIT definition, it did find 88 percent support for raising the minimum wage at least a little. Political breakdown Barber framed his claim in the context of the states Republican leaders trying to avoid blowback for putting restrictions on a higher minimum wage. So we decided to look at how Republicans feel about the subject. Just like they phrased their questions differently, PPP and Elon also asked about party affiliations differently. PPP found that 63 percent of people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 also support at least a $10 minimum wage, as do 92 percent of Barack Obama voters and 65 percent of others. The Elon poll found that 46 percent of self-identified Republicans support a $10 or higher minimum wage, compared with 86 percent of Democrats and with 62 percent of others. Our ruling Its impossible to say for certain that a full 80 percent of North Carolinians want a living wage in North Carolina, like Barber said. But it does appear that a vast majority support the idea, including about half of Republicans and nearly all Democrats. One recent poll found 76 percent support for a $10 or higher minimum wage. With a margin of error of 3.4 points, Barbers 80 percent claim would be well within reason if this was the only recent poll. But another recent poll found just 65 percent support. The average of the two polls is 70.5 percent. We rate this claim Mostly True.