Notable concepts worth discarding.
FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015
In her book, The Truths We Hold, California Sen. Kamala Harris asks How can you dream when you are drowning in student loan debt? in a section on the rising cost of living in America. On thecampaign trail, the Democratic presidential hopeful has called student loan debt one of the biggest challenges facing our country and our students. In the Senate, she helped re-introduce theDebt-Free College Act, a bill she says will help reverse the growing student debt crisis. Specifically, it would provide states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education. The senator then made this eye-popping claim about how fast student loan debt has grown in anews releaseon March 6 announcing her support for the bill: College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. Shetweeteda similar claim a few days later. But is student loan debt really growing that fast? And is it really second only to mortgage debt? We decided to crunch Harris numbers in this fact check. Our research To support the statement, a spokesman for Harris cited a Federal Reservetableshowing the nations cumulative student loan debt for each year from 2006 through 2018. He also cited articles fromThe Washington PostandMarketWatch. The Federal Reserve table shows student loan debt at the end of 2006 was $521 billion. By the end of 2018, the most recent period available, it had grown to $1.57 trillion  which matches with Harris claim that it now exceeds $1.5 trillion. But after calculating the numbers, we found an increase of 201 percent, an even faster rate than the 170 percent Harris referenced. Id say that her statement is mostly correct, said Mark Kantrowitz, a national financial aid expert. The one slight error: She actually underestimates the growth of student loan debt outstanding. Kantrowitz is publisher and vice president of research for SavingforCollege.com, a guide to college savings plans. The only way I get to 170 percent, he added, is if I compare the current debt outstanding to 2007 instead of 2006. That works out to be 170 percent. Hans Johnson, director of the Public Policy Institute of Californias Higher Education Center, also reviewed the data and found a 200 percent increase based on the most current Federal Reserve figures. SOURCE: Federal Reserve student loandata. Why is college debt growing so fast? More students going to college accounts for some of the growth of student loan debt, but only a small portion, Kantrowitz said. In 2006, there were 15.2 million college students. A decade later, that number had increased 11 percent to 16.9 million, he said, citing figures from the National Center for Education Statistics. Kantrowitz added that another factor is that federal grants have slowed as tuition has gone up. States often cut tuition assistance at the first signs of a financial crisis. The average student loan debt was nearly $30,000 for students graduating with a bachelors degree in 2018, Kantrowitz said. That is up from nearly $21,000 in 2006. College debt second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt We found this part of Harris statement is accurate. In 2014, PolitiFact Virginiareportedthat student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, citingdatafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the end of 2018, the nations overall credit card debt was $870 billion and mortgage balances stood at $9.1 trillion, according to thedata. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris said College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion dollars, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt. She actually understated how fast student loan debt is growing. The most recent Federal Reserve figures show its increased 201 percent since 2006. Harris was right about college debt topping $1.5 trillion, and being second only to mortgage debt. We rate her overall statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  The Jim Henson Company has announced development of a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2013] "Labyrinth 2 return of the goblin king is rumored to be released soon but I can't find a release date anywhere and it's floating around facebook like wild fire.. Is this a rumor? or can all of the Jim Henson lovers of the world get stoked about the upcoming Labyrinth 2?!"   Origins:  On 9 October 2014, a rumor began circulating via social media that the Jim Henson Company was working on Labyrinth 2, a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth.  The rumor stemmed from an article published by Variety about Billy Crystal's joining the cast of another Jim Henson project, Which Witch. At the end of the article, author Davy McNary mentioned the Henson company also had several other projects in the works: article It's also working on a quartet of legacy titles in the Henson library  a Fraggle Rock movie that's been in development at New Regency; a sequel to 1982's The Dark Crystal; a sequel to 1986's Labyrinth; and a movie based on the Emmet Otter character. Variety updated the article on 13 October 2014 to clarify the above-quoted sentence: Henson Co. is working on a project based on Labyrinth, but it is not a sequel. But that correction didn't kill the rumor, because in November 2014 a fake movie poster for Labyrinth 2 started circulating on the internet:  That movie poster was a private mockup for the not-in-the-works Labyrinth 2 created by artist Ruben Ireland which went viral shortly after it was published by Slash Film on 11 November 2014 in an article titled "Cool Stuff: Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened."  article In January 2016, Variety reported that Sony had closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce what was described as a Labyrinth "reboot" (rather than a sequel): Sony is developing a reboot of "Labyrinth," the final movie directed by Jim Henson, and has closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce the film with Sony's TriStar division. Lisa Henson of the Henson Co. will produce the project. "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-writer Nicole Perlman will write the script. The original musical fantasy movie, released in 1986, starred a 15-year-old Jennifer Connelly as the protagonist who has to navigate a maze to save her infant brother, who had been kidnapped by a goblin king  played by David Bowie, who recorded five songs for the film. Tri-Star's Nicole Brown will oversee the new "Labyrinth" for the studio. However, EW then confusingly reported that "the new 'Labyrinth' film will be a sequel to the original, not a reboot." reported Shortly afterwards, screenwriter Nicole Perlman fostered even more uncertainty when she tweeted to say that "no one is remaking 'Labyrinth'" and suggested that a "continuation" of the film was in the works: Guys, please don't fall for all the clickbait. No one is remaking "Labyrinth." That movie is perfect as it is.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016 January 24, 2016  Labyrinth is my favorite film from childhood, so I share your concerns that any continuation of the world be handled with love and respect.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016  Henson Co & I started talking in late 2014, so the timing of these rumors is so upsetting. I would never seek to profit from Bowie's death.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016  So what's next in the Labyrinth realm: a sequel, a reboot, or a continuation?  The answer remains unclear. The original Labyrinth was something of a box office bust when it was released in 1986 but has built a cult following over the years thanks to Jim Henson's amazing puppetry and a flamboyant performance by the Goblin King, David Bowie:  bust    Last updated:  6 February 2016   Lussier, Germain.  "Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened."   Slash Film.  11 November 2014.  McNary, David.  "Billy Crystal Joins Henson Co.'s 'Which Witch.'"   Variety.  9 October 2014.  McNary, David.  "Sony Rebooting Jim Henson's 'Labyrinth.'"   Variety.  22 January 2016. In August 2014, Facebook users begin seeing posts that featured what looked to be an image from a video of pro wrestler Hulk Hogan bloody and prone, with text indicating that "Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge": Is this true? R.I.P Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge  However, no matter how often this hoax is recirculated on social media, Hulk Hogan remains alive, and no such bloody video of him exists to be seen. As of 20 November 2017, Hogan was still well enough to be commenting on that day's destruction of the Georgia Dome: Georgia Dome The first time the Georgia Dome exploded was Hollywood Hogan vs @goldberg. Now they had to implode it. They should have just called me and Bill again brother. HH pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl @goldberg pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl  Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) November 20, 2017 November 20, 2017  (The bloodied photo of Hulk Hogan actually came from a 2009 promotional 'incident' in Australia when Hogan was 'attacked' by fellow wrestler Ric Flair.)   incident Users who did click through on such links were taken to a faux Facebook page which eventually led them down the trail of the usual survey scam, directing them to "like" or "share" links with their Facebook friends and complete online surveys, all with the goal of getting them to enrich scammers by disclosing sensitive personal information, spreading malware, buying products, and signing up for costly, difficult-to-cancel services. survey scam In June 2014 Facebook users began seeing posts pointing to a purported video clip entitled "You Will Not Use Head & Shoulders Shampoo After Watching This Video," which supposedly graphically illustrated the deleterious effects of using that popular  brand of shampoo.  (Later versions substituted Dove brand shampoo for Head & Shoulders.)  The static image accompanying the posts was the one displayed above, which allegedly pictures some form of bizarre injury or infection that befall a user of that brand of shampoo. The image itself is a hoax, a fabrication that imitates a notorious fake photograph of a supposed 'breast rash caused by South American larvae' (created by merging a picture of a lotus seed pod with a picture of a human shoulder) which has been circulating on the Internet since 2003 and that was earlier used as the subject of a Twitter jape: breast rash lotus seed pod  The referenced video does not exist, and the purpose of the hoax was to serve as a lure in leading users to yet another survey scam: those who clicked through on the teaser link hoping to view the Head & Shoulders video were instead taken to a screen that forced them to first share the link with others on Facebook and/or verify their age by completing a survey that promised a $100 VISA Gift Card for its completion: survey   Of course, getting that "free" $100 gift card required  as explained in tiny type at the bottom of the survey page  that participants first sign up for several different offers, each of which required them to purchase something, subscribe to something, or apply (and be accepted for) a credit card or loan: Purchase Requirements. Incentives are split into two tiers: Tier 1 incentives with a value of $100 or less and Tier 2 incentives with a value more than $100. To qualify for a Tier 1 incentive you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold and 1 Platinum offer. To qualify for a Tier 2 incentive, you must complete 2 Silver, 2 Gold, and 6 Platinum offers. You must complete all offers within 30 days from when you complete your first offer. Completion of offers usually requires a purchase, subscription or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. The best way to handle such scamming come-ons is to give them a wide berth: do not click through on associated links, don't share those links on Facebook, and do not participate in any related surveys. Fiscally conservative members of the Oregon Legislature never much like the size of the states budget. But once something is funded, its never easy to muster the political willpower to take the cash away.In a recent opinion piece for The Oregonian, Sen. Doug Whitsett, a Republican from Klamath Falls, offered a creative solution: Peg state spending to population growth and inflation.Oregon desperately needs to establish a constitutional limit on the growth of state spending, he wrote. He maintains that the $60 billion all-funds budget is growing out of control.Whitsett noted that the states Legislative Fiscal Office, which keeps a close eye on the budget, had illustrated for purpose of comparisons what Oregons all-funds budget would look like today if his proposal had been implemented 20 years ago.Oregon spent about $20 billion in all-funds budgets 20 years ago, he wrote. With this spending limit in place, the states all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today.Thats a nearly $33 billion difference. A huge amount of money for a state like Oregon. So huge, in fact, that PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know whether Whitsett was right.We spoke with Whitsett, who said that hed gotten this statistic from a presentation that the fiscal office had given at the beginning of the current legislative session. So we called Ken Rocco, the offices director, and asked him if he remembered this.Rocco got back to us via e-mail. He offered two pieces of caution.First: There was no reason in particular that his office chose the budget from 20 years ago to use for their projection.Second: The data the senator had referred to in his opinion piece hadnt been calculated accurately. In looking at this chart, the data presented claimed it was inflating the 1991-93 base year by both inflation and population growth, but when I looked more closely at the data today, it was actually only for inflation.In fact, he noted, if the calculations been done right, the actual 2011-13 budget -- pegged to population growth and inflation -- would be about $36 billion. This was not the Senators mistake, but LFOs, Rocco noted.Nevertheless, the point Whitsett was trying to make -- that spending growth has happened beyond just normal population growth -- remains true, Rocco said. There are a number of other drivers to budget growth than simply inflation and population increases, such as specific caseload growth, additional mandate programs that require funding, etc.Let us point out here that the all-funds budget is just that -- all funds. It includes not only the general fund, which lawmakers can allocate however they choose, but also federal money, bond revenue, gas taxes, fees -- in short, a whole lot of money dedicated for specific purposes.Now, allow us to offer up a slight tangent. Whitsetts idea is not entirely new. Back in 2006, Measure 48 was put on the Oregon ballot. That measure would have limited any increase in state spending to population growth and inflation increases.It turned out, this had nothing to do with what Whitsett was writing about, but we bring it up because it illustrates an important point: Measure 48 didnt apply to things like federal funds. Thats huge given that nearly a fourth of the state budget comes from federal funds.For instance, about $15 billion of the upcoming all-funds budget comes from federal sources -- thats about a quarter of the total. Twenty years ago, federal funds only accounted for about 15 percent of the total. If you were to play by Measure 48s rules and add that chunk of change to the $36 billion that the fiscal office projected, youd get an all-funds budget closer to $42 billion.That, of course would still mean about $18 billion in less budget growth over 20 years. That is no small thing -- but its still a lot closer to the current all-funds budget than the initial $27 billion Whitsett mentioned.Whitsett also pointed out, during an interview, that it would be a mistake to assume the federal government will keep providing a quarter of the states all-funds budget. At some point in time that has to reverse  the current sequester might be a part of that.Whitsett said that if we had curbed budget growth 20 years ago by pegging it to population growth and inflation, our budget would be about $27 billion today instead of $60 billion. He was referring to an inaccurate calculation made by a typically unimpeachable source. The figure is actually closer to $36 billion.We wont hold their error against Whitsett, but we do think its important to note that, if federal funds are a concern at all, our budget wouldnt be quite as slight as Whitsett predicted. We rate this claim Mostly True. Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. A 30 November 2016 negotiation between Donald Trump and the company Carrier in order to keep some 1,000 jobs in the United States was soon followed by claims that he either owned (or was a shareholder in) the company or parent United Technologies: Carrier claims As part of its #TrumpLeaks program, the Democratic Coalition Against Trump has uncovered the financial disclosures Trump filed in May 2016, which shows he owns stock in UT. According to the 104-page financial disclosure form that all candidates running for President are required to fill out, Trump made between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest from an investment in United Technologies. The entry in the financial disclosure can be found on page number 45 under Part 6. The full financial disclosure can be found online here. The material quoted above cited the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which claimed to be pursuing legal action against Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) head James Comey. That group was involved in several questionable efforts against Trump, and appeared to exist solely to mount legal and media-based challenges against him. Democratic Coalition Against Trump James Comey Claims that Trump owned Carrier or stock in United Technologies closely mirrored similar rumors the President-elect was similarly vested in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Although the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point owned Carrier or United Technologies stock in 2014 or 2015, his 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure [PFD] did not reflect any such investment: Dakota Access Pipeline reported reflect   Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that a "goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump as well as a team of highly skilled executives." Trump's transition team vowed that any holdings that represented potential conflicts of interest would be transferred before his January 2017 inauguration. In early December 2016 additional details about the Carrier deal emerged, including the total number of jobs preserved in the negotiation as well as a portion slated for outsourcing by the end of 2017. Carrier Grimaldi, James V and .  "Donald Trump Had Investments In Carrier Corp.s Parent."
  Wall Street Journal.  2 December 2016. Korte, Gregory.  "Donald Trump Financial Disclosure Report, 2016."
  USA Today.  18 May 2016. On Sept. 19, 2016, theWisconsin Democratic Partycalled onDonald Trumpto release his tax returns, issuinga statementthat quoted U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., as saying: The time is way past due for Donald Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major party nominee has done for the past 40 years. So, lets see if thats what every Democratic and Republican presidential nominee since 1976 has done. Wayback machine Baldwin has taken aim at Trump before, since he became the GOP nominee. In August 2016, werated Half Trueher claim that Trump has a long history of exporting jobs overseas. Trump-brand products such as his clothing have been made overseas, but those jobs were always abroad, not U.S. jobs that were moved. To back her current claim, Baldwins campaign cited editorials from theNew York Timesand theWashington Post, both of which said Trump would be the first major party candidate since 1976 -- 40 years ago -- not to release his tax returns. Also cited was an editorial from theBoston Globe, which said its been more than 40 years. But there is an exception. We checked anarchive of presidential tax returnsmaintained by the Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy. It shows that going back to 1976, all but one major-party nominee released at least one return. Only Republican Gerald Ford, who lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, did not release returns (he released summary tax data), the archive shows. FactCheck.org also found Ford to bethe one exception. Joe Thorndike, the Tax History Project director at Tax Analysts, told us that Fords summaries were clearly not the same as tax returns. For instance, they didnt provide detailed information on things such as sources of income and charitable contributions. Moreover, its impossible to know what might be in a return unless you see the return. It's also worth noting that while some nominees have released numerous years of returns  1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole provided30 years worth others have not. In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan released onlyone returnand in 2012, Republican Mitt Romneyreleased two. In the 2016 race,Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has released returns from 2000 through 2015. As for Trump, he has said he hasnt released his taxes because he is being audited. When he claimed he released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics. You don't learn much in a tax return, PolitiFact Nationalsrating was False. Trump did release an extensive (and legally required) document detailing his personal financial holdings. But experts say tax returns would offer valuable details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his assets. Our rating Baldwin says that except for Trump, every other major party nominee for the past 40 years has released their tax returns. Shes almost right. During that period, the only major-party presidential nominee who didnt release returns was Ford, the Republican nominee in 1976. It's also worth noting that many nominees have released numerous years of returns, but some have released only one or two. We rate Baldwins statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3b799eb7-8454-41ff-a343-3c13c44e9c78 Second-term San Antonio Mayor Julin Castro did not shy from celebrating his hometown during his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. Addressing the delegates assembled in Charlotte, N.C., Castro said that San Antonio residents recognize the value of investing in pre-Kindergarten and student college loans. We're investing in young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorow, Castro said. And it's paying off. Last year the Milken Institute ranked San Antonio as the nation's top-performing local economy. Castro made the same claim in his keynote at the Texas Democratic Party convention. In that June 8, 2012, speech -- which weve previously dipped intotwice-- Julin Castro said his citys investments in infrastructure and education paid off late last year when San Antonio was ranked as the top-performing local economy by the Milken Institute.Indeed, we confirmed, San Antonio topped Milkens2011 listof the nations best-performing large metropolitan areas, rocketing up from 14th place the year before. Its rise is part of a recent trend in which Texas cities have dominated the list as the nation recovers from the2007-09recession.The economic think tanks annual list, which Milken spokesman Conrad Kiechel told us by phone has been issued in its current form for more than a decade, was described in a Dec. 30, 2011,Texas Tribunenews storyas a ranking that measures American metropolitan areas based on their ability to create and sustain jobs.Milkens2011 reporton the best-performing cities says the index gives priority to job and pay gains, then some weight to several technology measures in relation to national averages: the local growth in high-tech gross domestic product, the concentration of tech industries and how many of 25 specific tech industries are concentrated there. Some measures are weighed across five-year spans, to flatten out extreme swings, and the most recent year, to capture recent momentum. In recent years, theTribunesaid, companies have flocked to San Antonio, making it an economic center rivaling Houston and Dallas. In contrast to those cities, though, San Antonio has attracted high-wage jobs, capitalizing on its booming medical research industry.TheTribunestory said InCube and Medtronic were the latest bioscience companies to move to San Antonio, which was already home to global headquarters for Valero Energy, Clear Channel Communications, USAA insurers and the H-E-B grocery chain.TheSan Antonio Express-Newscredited the citys rise to reasons including military base realignment, drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale and the growth of health care in aDec. 16, 2011, news story.Texas cities held four of the top five spots on Milkens 2011 big-cities list, with Austin/Round Rock at fourth. Back in 2008, Austin was Texas only top-five city, but the state claimed most of those slots in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The other chart-toppers for 2011 were No. 2, El Paso; No. 3, Fort Collins/Loveland, Colo.; and No. 5, Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood.Texas rise in the ranks, theExpress-Newswrote, came partly because of downturns in other parts of the country. The story quoted research economist James Gaines of Texas A&M Universitys Real Estate Center: Our growth rate and advancement isn't all that wonderful. We've managed to stay flat or have very small positives. But because everybody has so many negatives, we look so much better.APhiladelphia Inquirercolumnist interviewed Milkens chief research officer, Ross DeVol, and wroteDec. 16, 2011that Technology and energy explain why nine Texas cities placed in the top 25 of the 2011 Milken ranking.Our rulingSan Antonio hasnt just been holding steady in the economic downturn; its been gaining ground, even compared to other Texas cities. Castros statement rates True. Racial disparity in sentencing has long been a subject of controversy in the United States, and a meme posted to Facebook in November 2017 appeared to capture a particularly egregious example.  On 20 November 2017, the Army Anonymous page posted a graphic showing two mugshots of two different men  one white, one black  with the following text: posted A billionaire raped his own 3-year-old daughter  got probation.A homeless man stole $35 rack of ribs  was sentenced to 50 years in prison.     While the two crimes in these examples are very different, statistics show that there exists a marked discrepancy in the sentences given to white and black people, even if they're convicted of the same or similar crimes. The Sentencing Project, a non-profit group that campaigns for fairness and equality in the criminal justice system, outlines how these racial disparities work: outlines Once arrested, people of color are also likely to be charged more harshly than whites; once charged, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences  all after accounting for relevant legal differences such as crime severity and criminal history. The type of crimes that black people are more commonly convicted of are also crimes that are more likely to carry harsher sentences, the group explains. And while the basic facts outlined in this meme are mostly accurate and follow a deeply unfortunate trend, it's worth giving some context for both cases.  The man shown on the left of the meme is Robert H. Richards, the wealthy great-grandson of Irenee du Pont, and an heir to the Du Pont chemical fortune.  In February 2009, Delaware Superior Court judge Jan Jurden gave Richards an eight-year sentence for raping his three-year-old daughter. Richards had initially been charged with second degree rape but later pleaded guilty to fourth degree rape, of which he was convicted.  Richards Judge Jurden suspended the eight-year jail sentence, imposing probation on Richards and ordering him to perform 50 hours of community service, avoid all contact with children under the age of 16, and undergo sex offender treatment and mental health evaluations.  In her sentence order, Jurden noted that Richards had "significant treatment needs" and "would not fare well in [a] Level 5 setting" (i.e. jail.) sentence order The News Journal in Delaware reported in 2014 that Richards' ex-wife had accused him of also sexually abusing their son, when the boy was 19 months old. Tracy Richards' lawsuit against her ex-husband was settled out of court.  reported The man shown on the right of the meme is Willie Smith Ward. In May 2013, a jury in Waco, Texas convicted him of robbery after he stole a rack of ribs from a grocery store, two years earlier. A clerk at the grocery store had told the court Ward threatened him and told him he had a knife in his possession.  convicted We found no record of Ward having an address at the time of the robbery in 2011, or his conviction two years later, but we also did not find find evidence that he was homeless.  According to the Waco Tribune, Ward had five previous felony convictions including burglary, aggravated assault and attempted robbery, and four previous misdemeanor convictions. Under Texas' "habitual offender" law, the jury took Ward's criminal history into account, and enhanced the sentence for his robbery conviction to 50 years. Waco Tribune habitual offender According to prison records, Ward was denied parole in January 2017, and is still incarcerated at the William G. McConnell Unit state prison in Beeville, Texas. His next parole hearing is set for January 2019. records denied Ward is scheduled for release in September 2061, by which time he would be 91 years old.  Conlon, Kevin; Gallman, Stephanie. "Du Pont Heir Convicted of Raping Daughter Spared Prison."
 CNN. 2 April 2014. Delaware Superior Court. "State of Delaware v. Robert H. Richards - Sentence Order."
 Delaware Superior Court. 6 February 2009. Barrish, Cris. "Du Pont Heir, Ex-Wife Settle Child Sex Abuse Suit."
 The News Journal (Wilmington). 27 June 2014. CBS News Crimesider. "Willie Smith Ward, Texas Man, Gets 50 Years in Prison for Stealing Rack of Ribs."
 CBS News Crimesider. 3 June 2013. Witherspoon, Tommy. "Theft of Ribs Gets Five-Time Felon 50 Years in Prison."
 Waco Tribune. 30 May 2013. Locke, Shannon. "Understanding the Texas Habitual Offender Law."
 The Locke Law Group. 19 April 2017. Ghandnoosh, Nazgol. "Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequity in the Criminal Justice System."
 The Sentencing Project. 3 February 2015.