Is the CDC considered a 'Private Nonprofit Corporation'?
Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is
FACT CHECK: Do Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood?  Claim: Olive Garden restaurants donate money to Planned Parenthood.   Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, July 2015] @olivegarden gives $ to planned parenthood, who are accused of selling baby body parts. No more breadsticks for me. #PlannedButcherhood @olivegarden #PlannedButcherhood  hotpink (@hotpink100) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP Profiting off the most vulnerable: terrified mothers & babies. @olivegarden donates to #PlannedParenthood. @PPact #IStandWithShuttingDownPP @olivegarden #PlannedParenthood  ConservativeOutreach (@conservoutreach) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   Olive Garden restaurants fund Planned Parenthood: think of the skulls they crush with that money, next time u chew an olive there...  Christian Tea Party (@ChristianTParty) July 21, 2015 July 21, 2015   I will boycott all companies which support @ppact. None are essential and there are plenty of other options. @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden @ppact @AriDavidUSA @olivegarden  Joe American (@MidAmericanGuy) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   Origins: Beginning on 14 July 2015, a controversy involving Planned Parenthood dominated conversation topics on social media. Among the rumors that were subsequently circulated about Planned Parenthood  was the claim that Olive Garden restaurants (or their parent company, Darden) is currently donating (or had previously donated) money to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood The claim about Olive Garden donating to Planned Parenthood was not new: Does Olive Garden still support Planned Parenthood? Last info found from 2007 https://bit.ly/5738R #prolife #tcot #prolife #tcot  Ms. B. (@msbeeee) June 18, 2009 June 18, 2009   Write to Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden), stop giving to Planned Parenthood https://t.co/FHZJxl4, info: https://t.co/rv7b57I https://t.co/FHZJxl4 https://t.co/rv7b57I  LifeLetters, Julia (@lifeletterj) August 8, 2011 August 8, 2011   Since Olive Garden is a corporate sponsor of Planned Parenthood, I think they should serve unlimited breadsticks in the waiting room.  Liza (@thelizakate) October 5, 2011 October 5, 2011   Examples of the rumor concerning Olive Garden and Planned Parenthood were abundant, but tracking a definitive source documenting its claim was another matter entirely. Many people who repeated it cited a March 2012 "boycott list" published on the anti-abortion web site Life News, but that list offered zilch in the way of any proof that Olive Garden (or any of the other companies listed on it) actually supported Planned Parenthood. What's more, that years-old list didn't even describe how it came to the conclusion that any of the companies it listed currently or previously donated funds to Planned Parenthood. published Other critics cited a 2012 article published on the site XOJane urging its readers to patronize businesses that supported Planned Parenthood, in which Olive Garden was also mentioned. However, that XOJane article cited the 2011 Life News article, which made near-identical claims about companies supporting Planned Parenthood without providing any documentation for them. article The 2011 Life News article included an assertion by anti-abortion group Life Decisions International (LDI) suggesting that companies frequently hide evidence of their donations to Planned Parenthood: We learned early on that corporate leaders will turn to devious methods to continue supporting Planned Parenthood. For example, one corporation had donated $5,000 to the pro-abortion group every year since 1991. After becoming a boycott target, the corporation donated $25,000 and for four years told consumers they do not support Planned Parenthood. Therefore, do not be surprised if a corporation responds that it is no longer supporting Planned Parenthood. Such statements create an unreachable standard of proof for those wishing to verify this type of claim,  suggesting that corporate denials are insufficient evidence while offering no proof of their own assertions. And since the primary purpose of such corporate donations is to generate goodwill by funding worthy causes and organizations, it would make little sense for a business to simultaneously support a given non-profit or charity while publicly denying any such beneficence. Planned Parenthood's Annual Report for 2013 [PDF] is the most recent available and includes no specific mention of any donors. However, Olive Garden's Twitter account has replied to concerned customers about whether or not the company currently or previously supported Planned Parenthood: PDF @MidAmericanGuy We have never donated to them. We focus our giving on helping end hunger. Last yr we gave 3+ MM lbs of food to food banks. @MidAmericanGuy  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) July 22, 2015 July 22, 2015   For those who subscribe to the belief that a company might donate money and lie about it, the non-profit and non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) lists all Planned Parenthood donors as far back as 2010 (before LDI claimed in 2011 and 2012 that Olive Garden was among Planned Parenthood's supporters). In all the available  data listed on CRP's web site, neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants appears among Planned Parenthood donors. Center for Responsive Politics data That list, however, provided an amusing twist concerning tweets calling for a boycott of Olive Garden due to their purported support of Planned Parenthood: While no Darden Restaurants brands appeared on the list, Twitter was slotted at #48 among Planned Parenthood donors.  So to remain ideologically pure, one would need to find an alternative social media site upon which to voice disapproval of Planned Parenthood  after all, those pro-boycott tweets are generating revenue for Twitter, a known supporter of Planned Parenthood. On 23 July 2015, Olive Garden replied to a snopes.com query as to whether the chain (or Darden Restaurants) donated to Planned Parenthood: Neither Olive Garden nor Darden Restaurants has ever donated to Planned Parenthood. Rather, our company strives to make a meaningful difference in the lives of others through programs such as Olive Garden Harvest. Through the Harvest program, every Olive Garden across the country donates fresh, wholesome food to a local food bank on a weekly basis. Last year, Olive Garden donated more than 3 million pounds of food to those in need. Last updated: 23 July 2015 Originally published:  22 July 2015 In the spring of 1823, two men by the names of De Voe and Lozier (a retired butcher and a wealthy contractor, respectively) whiled away an idle day with an excursion to their familiar stomping grounds at New York City's Centre Market.  There, at a table in the back of the market, they regaled an enthralled audience of butchers, farmers, and fishmongers with an astounding tale: Manhattan Island was sinking.   By the 1820s, burgeoning New York City had become America's most populous city with 150,000 inhabitants, and the combined weight of all the additional people and the buildings and other infrastructure necessary to support them, the two men claimed, had made Manhattan too bottom-heavy, and the island was beginning to sink into the harbor.  Not to worry, De Voe and Lozier averred to the credulous crowd  they had been hired by New York mayor Stephen Allen to deal with the problem and had come up with a masterful plan to stave off  impending disaster: They were to oversee a massive, coordinated effort to saw Manhattan in half, then tow the lower half out in the harbor, turn it around, and reattach it.  The most heavily populated section of Manhattan would then be situated in the middle of a more balanced island, and the danger of its tipping and spilling into New York harbor would be ameliorated.   Maybe it sounded a bit incredible, but to an audience of uneducated New Yorkers who had witnessed the ongoing successful development of the Erie Canal, no engineering feat seemed beyond the abilities of dedicated, hard-working men. Erie Canal Such a mammoth undertaking would require a huge investment in labor and material, both of which the vendors and laborers found in the Centre Market were only too happy to volunteer to provide.  With New York ravaged by an economic depression and a yellow fever epidemic, work was hard to find.  The prospect of steady employment at good wages, even of a temporary nature, was a godsend. Over the ensuing weeks, De Voe and Lozier signed up the hundreds of eager workmen, craftsmen, and suppliers required for their project: the manual laborers needed to do the work of sawing the island in half (twenty men per saw, provided they could demonstrate a suitable ability to hold their breath while sawing underwater), rowing it out past Governor's and Ellis Islands into the harbor (one hundred men per oar), pivoting it, bringing it back in, and re-attaching it; the carpenters and joiners needed to fashion twenty 100-foot-long saws with three-foot teeth and two dozen 250-foot-long oars; the blacksmiths and ironworkers needed to create twenty-four towering cast iron oarlocks as well as huge anchors with long chains (to prevent the island's being swept out to sea by an unexpected storm); the contractors needed to construct housing for all the workmen; and the farmers and butchers needed to supply hundreds and thousands head of cattle, pigs, and chickens to keep everyone fed. As the day for the commencement of the project drew near, De Voe and Lozier announced their intention to have their army of laborers proceed to the work site in two groups.  Author Joel Rose imagined the scene that day: The men began to arrive early, as they had been instructed. Some were carrying tools. Shovels, axes, picks. Some pushed wheelbarrows. Some came with their wives and children. Contractors and carpenters drove up in wagons loaded with lumber and hammers and saws. Butchers drove herds of cattle and hogs, carts loaded with crated chickens. At each site they were met by a fife-and-drum corps that had been engaged by Lozier to lead the army of workers in their triumphant trek north. The atmosphere was jovial and full of hope. Estimates were that between five hundred and a thousand workers had shown up at each locale. They stood around for some time to no avail. Finally after several hours, a contingent was sent back to Centre Market to see if either or both Lozier and De Voe could be located or to learn what had caused their delay. At the market a message had been left. The message said that the pair had had to leave town, owing to matters of their health. For an hour the workers hung around wondering what to do, while the fife-and-drum bands continued on with their music. The mood grew increasingly angry. Gradually it dawned on more and more of them that they had been 'handsomely sold.' Several hundred men had been foolishly humbugged in one of the most improbable, celebrated hoaxes in American history.  Or had they? Although numerous accounts of this elaborate jape have been penned throughout the years, they all trace to a single source: an account given over thirty years after the fact by John De Voe to his nephew Thomas, a member of the New York Historical Society.  Thomas De Voe eventually published his uncle's reminiscences in The Market Book, his historical account of public markets in several eastern cities, and it is from this one work that all information about the great "Manhattan Sawed in Half" hoax springs.  Single-source tales are often problematic, and indeed problems abound with this particular source.  John De Voe couldn't recall important details, such as the year the prank occurred (it was either 1823 or 1824; he didn't remember which) or the first name used by his partner Lozier.  And although he admitted that "Lozier" was a pseudonym, he couldn't recall his partner's real name, even though the two men were supposedly friends. More suspect, though, nobody other than John De Voe seems to have left any record whatsoever of his participation in this gargantuan put-on, or of the put-on itself.  No newspaper of the day made any mention of this mammoth undertaking, or its failure to come off.  No published journals, diaries, or letters by New Yorkers of the era include any reference to a plan that supposedly enlisted hundreds of local workers and supporters.   No writer found this story sufficiently interesting to chronicle while anyone involved with (or fooled by) it was still alive.  No arrests, prosecutions, or civil lawsuits followed in the wake of this cruel exploitation of public gullibility. Plenty of excuses are offered for this suspicious lack of documentation  that De Voe and Lozier had committed no crime, that no one involved wanted to embarrass himself by admitting he'd been taken in, that most of those duped were immigrants circumspect about speaking to outsiders  but the improbability of a such an absurd prank's very visibly ensnaring several hundred victims in the country's largest city yet remaining completely unremarked upon cannot be dismissed.  The hoax here isn't that two men once led hundreds of foolish New Yorkers into falling for an incredibly silly scheme -- the real hoax is that so many people since then have believed they did. It's possible that De Voe did have a partner, and that they did once briefly lead a few nave Centre Market denizens into falling for a tall tale about sawing Manhattan in half to keep it from sinking, but no credible evidence exists to verify that they pulled off anything on the scale attributed to them by latter-day chroniclers.  In the end, though, as writer Joel Rose concluded an account of his efforts to trace the origins of the hoax: The hoax may never have occurred, and therefore deserved no further notice. But ... it became evident that the hoax's authenticity no longer mattered.  The story was part of the fabric of the city's history, as much as Washington Irving's Diedrich Knickerbocker, and Asbury's own gangs of New York, and against a context of nineteenth century ruse, hoax, and humbug, it was important. Or, as Margo Jefferson put it more succinctly: "The public enjoyed both tales ... People wanted to believe and know they'd be conned, as long as they didn't know when or how." Jefferson, Margo.  On Michael Jackson On Michael Jackson Rose, Joel.  New York Sawed in Half: An Urban Historical New York Sawed in Half: An Urban Historical Sifakis, Carl.  The Big Book of Hoaxes The Big Book of Hoaxes On 12 August 2017, First Lady Melania Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, by tweeting the following: violent events Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let's communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence. #Charlottesville #Charlottesville  Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) August 12, 2017 August 12, 2017  In mid-2016, Mrs. Trump had been the subject of fierce criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama.  That event prompted a good number of spoof items posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each other's words. criticism spoof items posted Shortly after the 12 August 2017 statement referenced above was posted to the First Lady's Twitter feed, another image began circulating online positing that Melania Trump had likewise taken those words (without credit) from a comment made by former First Lady Michelle Obama over a year earlier:  Although we can't yet absolutely rule out the possibility that Mrs. Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, we have found no record of her having done so (on 16 April 2016 or any other day) and suspect that this image is just a spoof of the earlier convention speech controversy. In September 2021, British health officials announced the launch of the worlds largest trial of a blood test capable of detecting more than 50 types of cancer before symptoms appear.  50 types of cancer Headed by The Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and Kings College London, the so-named Galleri trial aims to recruit 140,000 volunteers across eight areas of England. Galleri checks for the earliest signs of cancer. If it's successful, its ability to catch cancer during its earliest stages could be a game-changer in the fight against the disease.  NHS Kings College London This quick and simple blood test could mark the beginning of a revolution in cancer detection and treatment here and around the world, said NHS Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard in a news release. By finding cancer before signs and symptoms even appear, we have the best chance of treating it and we can give people the best possible chance of survival. news release While its early cancer detection ability holds promise, Galleri does not diagnose cancer and does not detect all forms of the disease. Blood drawn from a participant is tested for chemical changes in fragments of the bloods genetic code known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which leaks from tumors into the bloodstream. Previous research conducted by Galleri founding company Grail showed that the test was effective at finding cancers that are difficult to identify early on, like head and neck, bowel, lung, pancreatic, and throat cancers.  As of this writing, Galleri is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but was granted a breakthrough device designation in 2019 under a government-led voluntary program for certain medical devices "that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions." The test joins two other similar tumor-testing tests that were approved in the U.S., according to the consumer publication Evaluate. Galleri is available in the U.S. for $949, and is available for prescription only. Because it is new to the market and does not have FDA approval, the test is not covered by health insurance.  Galleri granted breakthrough device Evaluate prescription only  Galleri is designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer. Grail  Grail   Galleri doesnt rule out cancer, but instead helps providers to evaluate and confirm whether and where cancer may exist. It is intended to be used in coordination with other screening practices and is not a replacement but rather a method to inform the next steps of diagnosis.  For the British trial, tens of thousands of recruitments between the ages of 50 and 77  those most at risk for cancer  will be asked to give blood samples at mobile testing clinics across the country. Regardless of their results, the test is designed to detect cancer signals such as cfDNA and predict where in the body those signals exist. Half of the participants in the randomized control trial will have blood samples screened with the test right away, while the other half will have their sample stored and tested in the future. This will allow researchers to compare the stage at which cancer is detected between the two groups. Regardless, study participants will be notified if their test signals potential cancer.  Early cancer detection during stage one or two allows for more treatment options, some of which can be less aggressive and harmful. Patients whose cancer is identified at the earliest stage may see up to ten times the survival rate compared to a person who learned of cancer at stage four.  Those who give blood as part of the British trial will be invited to participate in later stages of the trial one and two years later. Initial results are expected by 2021 and if successful, researchers plan to extend the rollout to 1 million people by 2025.  Sources GRAIL Announces Significant Progress with Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Including FDA Breakthrough Device Designation. GRAIL, https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-announces-significant-progress-with-multi-cancer-early-detection-test-including-fda-breakthrough-device-designation/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Grail Launches Pan-Cancer Screen  for Those Who Can Pay out of Pocket. Evaluate.Com, 4 June 2021, https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/grail-launches-pan-cancer-screen-those-who-can-pay-out-pocket. Health, Center for Devices and Radiological. Breakthrough Devices Program. FDA, Jan. 2021. www.fda.gov, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program. Kings Leads the Worlds Largest Trial of Cancer Blood Test. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/kings-leads-the-worlds-largest-trial-of-cancer-blood-test. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. NHS England NHS Launches World First Trial for New Cancer Test. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Our Products. GRAIL, https://grail.com/our-products/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. In a letter shared by the joint labor union Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) on Feb. 4, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump resigned as a member of the union. Trumps resignation came just as the union leadership was moving to expel Trump in the wake of his alleged provocation of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. shared resignation The letterhead appeared to carry the logo for what was called the Office of the Former President, created by Trumps team in Palm Beach, Florida, to serve as the official outlet for Trumps statements and to share his future plans. Office of the Former President However, now, the stationery on which the letter was submitted says Office of Donald J. Trump. The letter was shared on SAG-AFTRAs website, along with the union's response to Trump, which was a simple, Thank you. website response As seen in the document, the end of the letter is indeed signed with President Donald J. Trump.   In the letter, Trump cited his own acting experience and contributions to television: Im very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice  to name just a few! Ive also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others. He concluded with a criticism of the unions actions: Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me  besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas  as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, Why isnt the union fighting for me? These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious. I no longer wish to be associated with your union. Professor and author Seth Abramson pointed out how signing the letter this way is troubling, given that Trump is on trial for inciting the riots:  However, signing a letter as President does not appear to be out of the ordinary. Former President Barack Obama's statements are also released under "President Obama." Former presidents are still addressed as President [insert name] or Mr. President. All U.S. presidents retain their titles for life. statements addressed Given that the official letter was shared by SAG-AFTRA, along with Trumps signature, we rate this claim as True. Scam:  The IRS (or the Department of Justice) is sending out notifications of "complaints in regards to business services" via e-mail.   Example:  [Collected on the Internet, May 2013] Internal Revenue Service You have received a complaint in regards to your business services. The complaint was filled by Mr./Mrs. Filelio BALDIZAN on 05/29/2013/ Case Number: 165430554448 Instructions on how to resolve this complaint as well as a copy of the original complaint are attached to this email. Disputes involving consumer products and/or services may be arbitrated. Unless they directly relate to the contract that is the basis of this dispute, the following claims will be considered for arbitration only if all parties agree in writing that the arbitrator may consider them: Claims based on product liability; Claims for personal injuries; Claims that have been resolved by a previous court action, arbitration, or written agreement between the parties. The decision as to whether your dispute or any part of it can be arbitrated rests solely with the IRS. The IRS offers a binding arbitration service for disputes involving marketplace transactions. Arbitration is a convenient, civilized way to settle disputes quickly and fairly, without the costs associated with other legal options. Origins:  People generally associate the name "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS) with "trouble" (i.e., rarely does an envelope from the IRS bear good news), so messages that appear to issue from the IRS usually grab a recipient's attention and are therefore excellent bait for phishing schemes and other scams.  The key point to keep in mind to protect oneself  from this form of fraud is that neither the IRS nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) sends out unsolicited e-mails or ask taxpayers to supply detailed personal and financial information (including PINs and passwords) via e-mail. Phony "complaint in regards to your business services" messages (like the example cited above) that have been appearing in inboxes since May 2007 use the lure of seemingly official IRS communications to trick recipients into clicking on links or opening attachments, with predictably harmful results.  In this case, the payoff was apparently not the usual direct phishing scheme (i.e., an attempt to lure the unwitting into providing sensitive personal and financial information) but the planting of a Trojan Horse on recipients' computers: The Internal Revenue Service has alerted taxpayers to the latest versions of an e-mail scam intended to fool people into believing they are under investigation by the agency's Criminal Investigation division. The e-mail purporting to be from IRS Criminal Investigation falsely states that the person is under a criminal probe for submitting a false tax return to the California Franchise Tax Board. The e-mail seeks to entice people to click on a link or open an attachment to learn more information about the complaint against them. The IRS warned people that the e-mail link and attachment is a Trojan Horse that can take over the persons computer hard drive and allow someone to have remote access to the computer. The IRS urged people not to click the link in the e-mail or open the attachment. Similar e-mail variations suggest a customer has filed a complaint against a company and the IRS can act as an arbitrator. The latest versions appear aimed at business taxpayers as well as individual taxpayers. The IRS and the DOJ advise "Recipients of questionable e-mails claiming to come from" either agency should not open any attachments or click on any links contained in the e-mails. Instead, they should forward the e-mails to phishing@irs.gov or file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).  advise phishing@irs.gov IC3 Last updated:  29 May 2013 One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On March 11, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide relief to Americans who have been struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the days leading up to this bill's passage, a number of Republican lawmakers and pundits criticized the bill, arguing that only 9% of the relief package had anything to do with COVID-19.  signed Conservative author Melisa Tate, for example, wrote on Twitter that the bill "only gives 9% to the American people" while the rest went to politicians and their cronies. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said that she voted against the "COVID relief" bill because "only 9% of this bill is COVID-related" while "the rest is allocated to liberal pet projects and blue state bailouts." Twitter voted against   The claim that only 9% of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is going to COVID relief is largely false. The vast majority of this bill will provide financial relief to people, businesses, and governments who have struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The argument that only 9% of the measure will go to COVID relief appears to be an exaggeration of the fact that the American Rescue Plan will provide approximately $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing, protective gear, vaccine production and distribution, and other measures to directly combat the virus. $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing While it's true that only about 9% of this bill goes to fighting the virus directly, that figure does not include the vast majority of funds aimed at providing financial relief to those who have struggled through the pandemic. For example, the 9% does not include the most famous part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals, which is expected to amount to around $400 billion (or about 21% of the total). This 9% figure also doesn't account for items such as unemployment insurance, a child tax care credit, funding for schools to re-open, rent assistance, and other measures aimed at providing relief to Americans.  $400 billion account for items Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told NPR that there were two parts to the American Rescue Plan. The first dealt with combating COVID directly, while the second aimed at dealing with the financial crisis that resulted from the pandemic: NPR "There are really two pieces to this bill. One is directly related to the health crisis, but the other, and the larger piece, is related to the economic crisis that the health crisis has created." The vast majority of the American Rescue Plan is concerned with providing relief to people, businesses, and governments that have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about $300 billion (or 15% of the bill) "is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis." In other words, about 85% of the bill is related specifically to the impacts of COVID-19.  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget In short: The American Rescue Plan is a multi-faceted, $1.9 trillion to bill that provides financial relief to those struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it's true that only 9% of this funding will be used to directly combat the virus (via vaccine distribution and other health measures), this bill provides relief to Americans in several other ways. The $1,400 COVID-19 relief checks, for example, account for more than 20% of this $1.9 trillion bill. A state senator opposed to a proposal intended to enable some children to attend private schools with government aid asserted that Texas already has a hard time keeping pace with other states. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, during an April 9, 2013, committee meeting that we in the state of Texas are 49th in the country in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. She added that she prefers to prioritize putting dollars into the public schools. A reader asked us to check that ranking. Senator cites newspaper report By email, Davis spokesman, Rick Svatora, told us she was referring to a report described in a Feb. 22, 2013,Dallas Morning Newsarticlestating that preliminary figures released by the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union, indicate Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year. The national average is $11,455, the report said, putting Texas per-student expenditures below every state save Arizona and Nevada. So, compared to other states, Texas reportedly ranks 48th in per-student spending. Then again, theNews story notes that the associations analysis also considered spending in District of Columbia schools, a consideration leaving Texas 49th in per-student spending among 51 jurisdictions. TheNews story said the associations comparisons, based on data furnished by state education agencies, are among the most reliable in the nation and are frequently cited by officials in Texas and other states. The NEA has been issuing its annual reports on public school spending since the early 1960s. Education association report We turned to the associations report, downloadablehere, finding the figures cited by the newspaper in Summary Table K, Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13, which indicates that Texas this year is spending less per student in average daily attendance (the aggregate attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of days school is in session that period) than all states but Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the report says these expenses include salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials and energy costs. A wrinkle: Part of the report says that in making useful comparisons among states, a different way of counting students, fall enrollment, is preferred to average daily attendance because of its standardized definition. Based on fall enrollment, the report says, Texas is spending an estimated $7,886 per pupil, less than every state except Utah and Arizona, according to Table K. So, it looks like two states trail Texas in per-pupil spending, either way you count students. For each state, Table K also lists current estimated expenditures for other programs, meaning such expenses as summer school and adult education, which are not part of regular public elementary and secondary day-school programs, the report says. The table also shows spending by each states schools on interest on debt and capital outlays, which conservative observers such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation have said should always be taken into account when making state-by-state comparisons. Considering all education-related expenditures When we checked asimilar Davis claimabout Texas spending on education in 2011, a foundation spokesman pointed out a March 2010 report by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute that reviewed 2008-09 budgets for districts in the nations five largest cities, including Houston, concluding that average per-pupil spending was 44 percent higher than was otherwise reported by public schools. Separately at the time, Frank Johnson, a statistician with the National Center for Education Statistics, told us the center doesnt take into account capital outlays in estimating per-pupil spending because such costs can create false assumptions about whats spent on instructional programs, school supplies and teachers. In the latest education association report, Table Ks last column presents each states total school spending, rolling in all subcategories. We wondered, then, how Texas stacks up by all expenditures per pupil. The report does not present such a calculation, so wemade our own run, dividing the total spending for each state by the states average daily attendance, as shown in the reports Summary Table D. And by this approach, it appears that more than $50 billion in total Texas school spending breaks out to nearly $11,090 per pupil, placing Texas 38th nationally, ahead of states including California, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona. By phone, a spokesman for the education associations Texas affiliate, the Texas State Teachers Association, suggested it doesnt make sense to roll in all expenditures because school districts have varied commitments to capital outlays and debt, while spending reflected in the presented per-pupil tallies are driven by legislative decisions about spending and finance formulas. Clay Robison followed up by email, saying that in many cases those expenditures pay to build football stadiums and other facilities, such as fine arts centers. I am not going to engage in the argument about football stadiums, but I dont think it gives a fair comparison of how much states are spending on students. In other words, capital costs lump new classroom construction, which benefits all students, with expenditures that dont apply to all students. Robison pointed out that according to the reports Table H-14, Texas spent $9,462 per pupil in 2010-11, which was before legislators cut education aid in the 2011 legislative session. This year, the associations report suggests, such spending is down by more than $1,000 per pupil from 2010-11. Our ruling Davis said Texas ranks 49th in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. A report drawing on states figures estimates Texas is spending $7,886 or $8,400 per student this year, depending on how students are counted. Both ways, Texas ranks third to last among the states. Then again, folding in capital outlays, other education expenditures and interest on debt, total estimated spending in Texas of nearly $11,090 per pupil lands the state 38th among the states. But the senator focused on state investment which, unlike locally determined debt and capital outlays, are driven by legislative actions. Our sense is that this is the appropriate comparison, though Davis failed to clarify that Texas is 49th by this yardstick in comparison to other states plus Washington, D.C., which is not a state. Absent this clarification, her claim rates as Mostly True. Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether hell run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBCs Meet the Press. Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsins economic record and whether it is something that translates nationally. Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on tomake a number of claimsthat weve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspectiveand making a claim of his own. But Ive got to show you, he told Walker, as agraphic with figuresappeared on the screen, compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average. How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walkers viability as a presidential contender, a prospecthe has readily encouraged. So lets check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the Meet the Press graphic said Wisconsins rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to anews releasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walkers office didnt dispute this part of Todds claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesnt affect the accuracy of Todds statement, but we decided to use theBureau of Labor Statistics databaseto take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walkers nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames dont match up precisely with Walkers time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsins job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todds statement True.