We have the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968.
In Gov. Andrew Cuomos 10th State of the State address last week, he claimed that under his administration, We have the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. New Yorks business climate has for years been thesubject of criticismfrom business groups and conservative lawmakers, so we wondered about this claim. We approached Cuomos office, where spokesman Jason Conwall provided us with historical tax data. The Department of Taxation and Finance maintains this data, and atabletitled History of Corporate Tax Rates in New York State, 1917-2009, shows that between 1968 and 1970, the corporate tax rate, also known as the corporation franchise tax, was 7 percent. The rate did not fall below 7 percent in later years, and in the final year, 2009, the rate was 7.1 percent. Since 2009, the rate changed once, when it was lowered to 6.5 percent, Conwall said. The 6.5 percent ratetook effect on Jan. 1, 2016. Historically, New York has had separate rates for banks and insurance companies. The bank tax wasmergedinto the corporate tax system in 2015. We reached out to observers of the states tax policies for context and to check for any conflicting data. The Tax Foundation, a national organization, studies federal and state tax policy and advocated for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act supported by President Trump and congressional Republicans. The Tax Foundation confirmed Cuomos claim. New York saw remarkable improvement in both its corporate rate - bringing it down to 6.5 percent - and structure - cutting four corporate bases down to three - through tax reform in 2014, said policy analyst Janelle Cammenga. The Tax Foundation advocates for simpler tax codes, and Cammenga noted that New Yorks complex individual income tax code affects so-called pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, sole-proprietorships, and limited liability companies. E.J. McMahon, founder and research director at the conservative Empire Center, also confirmed Cuomos claim. McMahon added that in the 12-county region in downstate New York served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a surcharge brings the tax rate to 8.34 percent there. But even with the surcharge, its still the lowest rate since 1970, McMahon said. At the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute, executive director Ron Deutsch confirmed Cuomos claim. Dave Friedfel, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization in Albany and New York City, said that readers should be aware that companies in New York pay more than just the corporate franchise tax. In addition to the MTA surcharge,set by the state, New York City imposes a 8.85 percent corporate franchise tax. Overall, its good that New York States corporate franchise tax rates are lower than they were and arecompetitive nationwide, but its just a small part of the taxes paid by businesses in New York, Friedfel said. Cuomo claims that under his administration, New York has the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. Though there are other taxes levied on businesses in New York, experts from the left and the right agree with Cuomo's assertion. We rate Cuomos statement True.
Scam:  Scammers pose as census workers to elicit personal information from unsuspecting victims. Origins:  Many modern scams involve the obtaining of personal information (e.g., names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers), data which fraudsters can use in a variety of ways to loot the bank accounts and credit lines of unsuspecting victims.  Unfortunately, scammers often find easy pickings, because some people still offer up such information indiscriminately; and even those who are more cautious about providing personal information only to appropriate authorities are often fooled by crooks who falsely pose as official representatives of agencies  such as financial institutions, law enforcement, and government. The census undertaken by the federal government in the United States once every ten years can provide ample opportunities for identity theft scammers.  Most citizens know that U.S. Census Bureau officials will be contacting them in person, on the phone, or by mail to verify their addresses and gather information (e.g., name, age, gender) about persons in their households, so during the census period they may let down their guards and more willingly provide information (or entry to their homes) to unauthorized strangers posing as government officials.  Reports of con artists taking advantage of these circumstances were not uncommon during previous censuses and have already started rolling regarding the upcoming 2010 census, as these reports from 1990, 2000, and 2009 (respectively) demonstrate: census An 80-year-old North Carolina woman was tied up and robbed by two men she thought were census workers. Con artists claiming to be census employees charged Houston residents $50 after helping them complete their forms. Isolated incidents of con artists posing as census workers have occurred during every census, said Ray Bancroft of the census promotion office.  In the North Carolina case, the woman initially allowed only one man into her home and was having a "nice conversation" with him when the doorbell rang and the man told her it was his partner, said Tom Smith Jr. of the Charlotte, N.C., census office. "They tied her up and commenced taking some valuable things from the house as well as her car," Smith said, adding that the woman was not physically injured. In the Midwest, about a dozen people have complained that "someone has come around saying they're taking a census, not saying the U.S. Census Bureau, and then they ask demographic type of questions, generally including some income questions," said Marvin Postma, director of the Kansas City census region office.  Con artists posing as census takers have attempted to get Social Security numbers and gain entry into local homes, according to the Better Business Bureau president. "Those are the two things that are most prevalent. It's happening throughout the United States," said Jere L. Bennett, president of the local BBB office. Mr. Bennett said his office has received phone inquiries during the past month about fake census enumerators  people who contact residents by telephone and in person  wanting information.  Some senior citizens in Congressman Bill Foster's district recently received what appears to be a scam letter in the mail that solicits credit card information and donations while falsely appearing to be authored by the U.S. Census Bureau. The eight-page mailer starts with a header identifying the letter as being sent by the "National Census of Senior Citizens" and the "Council for Retirement Security." The letter describes itself as an advocate for senior citizen interests and asks a number of questions about political issues before soliciting a minimum contribution of $14.58 or more by providing credit card information. Since the first phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is already underway, reminders about how to ensure you provide information only to official Census Bureau representatives  and provide only the types of information they are authorized to collect  are especially timely.  The web site of the Better Business Bureau (BBB) offers some good advice on this topic: BBB If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag and a confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions.  However, you should never invite anyone you dont know into your home.  Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census.  While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, it will not ask for Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations.  Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail or in person at home.  However, they will not contact you by e-mail, so be on the look out for e-mail scams impersonating the Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an e-mail that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Last updated:  11 September 2009    Sources:   Fuller, James.  "'National Census' Scam Targets Senior Citizens."   [Chicago] Daily Herald.  7 May 2009.     Skorneck, Carolyn.  "Count on Scam Artists to Profit from Census."   Chicago Sun-Times.  29 May 1990.     Walker, Clarissa J.  "Bureau Warns of Census Scam."   The August Chronicle.  11 April 2000. On Feb. 6, 2024, the Republican presidential primary election results for Nevada started coming in, and X (formerly Twitter) was quickly flooded with posts claiming that former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley had embarrassingly lost to a Nevada ballot option: "None of These Candidates." primary election Nikki Haley Voters in the Nevada GOP Primary were presented with three choices: Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and none of these candidates. And well pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM pic.twitter.com/TXIH9j2fHM  Charlotte Clymer ?? (@cmclymer) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024  It's true that Voters were given the option to select the option "None of These Candidates," and 63.2% of voters did. Nikki Haley received only 30.5%, while former U.S. President Donald Trump opted to compete in the Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses instead of the presidential primary. Feb. 8 Nevada caucuses Although Trump's campaign encouraged voters to only focus on the Feb. 8 caucuses, many showed their support by voting for "None of These Candidates" in order to express displeasure with the remaining choices. The results for all candidates were as follows, as reported by AP. reported by AP.  (Image via AP) Jon Ralston, the editor of The Nevada Independent and longtime political commentator, tweeted on the evening of Feb. 6: One of the most embarrassing things I have seen in all my years of covering politics. Major presidential candidate loses to None of these Candidates. Might as well drop out. Seriously. https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0 https://t.co/7kyQhp3kp0  Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 7, 2024 February 7, 2024  "Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn't bother to play a game rigged for Trump," Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokesperson for Haley, responded to the results in a statement. "We're full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond." responded to the results Although they are focused on South Carolina  where Haley served as state governor 2011 to 2017  Trump continues to lead the state by a wide margin compared to Haley, according to the Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll published on Feb. 1. Monmouth University-Washington Post Poll  (Image via Monmouth University and the Washington Post) The option to vote for "None of These Candidates" has been in place in Nevada since 1975. The state only allows votes for specifically named candidates to count toward an official election result, so Haley will be considered the winner for technical purposes. Therefore, the loss is more symbolic, than anything, of her unpopularity with GOP voters compared to Trump. in place in Nevada since 1975 Continue following our coverage of the 2024 Presidential race here. here Haley Pushes Forward after Trumps Allies in Nevada Ensured Her Loss to None of These Candidates.AP News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-donald-trump-nikki-haley-none-candidates-d5ce36684eb7e41d7d2e74c6957e9196. Https://Twitter.Com/Cmclymer/Status/1755095824114094325.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1755095824114094325. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nevada Primary and Caucus Results.AP News, https://apnews.com/ap-nevada-election-2024-results. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Nikki Haley Is Trounced by the none of These Candidates Option in Nevadas Republican Primary.AP News, 6 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/nevada-2024-presidential-primary-biden-trump-haley-d731bf8ab1e7d4a7379c07d3a37b581b. Nikki Haley Loses to none of These Candidates in the Nevada GOP Primary.NBC News, 7 Feb. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-loses-nevada-republican-primary-without-trump-rcna137367. NJ 07764571-3400, 400 Cedar Avenue West Long Branch. Haley Trails in Home State.Monmouth University Polling Institute, 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_sc_020124/. None of These Candidates Received the Most Votes Tuesday in Nevadas GOP Primary.USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/02/07/none-of-these-candidates-wins-an-election/72503691007/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Presidential Primaries and Caucuses | USAGov. https://www.usa.gov/primaries-caucuses. Accessed 7 Feb. 2024. Silver, Nate. In Nevada, No One Is Someone to Watch.FiveThirtyEight, 1282940575, https://archive.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/in-nevada-no-one-is-someone-to-watch/. Slattery, Gram, et al. Haley Vows to Stay in Race Following embarrassing Nevada Defeat.Reuters, 7 Feb. 2024.www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/haley-reels-stinging-loss-nevada-while-trump-seeks-clean-up-delegates-2024-02-07/. Following the death of Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on Sept. 29, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he would replace her with long-time political operative Laphonza Butler. At the time of his announcement, Butler was president of Emily's List, a political action committee (PAC) aimed at electing pro-choice female, Democratic candidates to office. death announced  president Active in Democratic politics for years, she was a senior adviser to Kamala Harris' 2020 presidential primary campaign and a partner at the firm SCRB Strategies, a well-known political and business consulting group that handled Harris' campaign, Newsom's fight against recall efforts, and several other high-profile Democratic causes. Prior to her consulting work, she was the president of the largest labor union in California  a healthcare and homecare workers union  Service Employees International Union (SEIU)Local 2015. fight against president With this background, claimswent viral after Newsom's announcement that Butler had advised Uber during its fight against labor protections for drivers and had worked on political issues for the vacation rental company Airbnb: claims  (Twitter) Both assertions are factual. As journalist Lee Fang reported, Uber paid SCRB at least $183,000 in the time period in which Butler worked for the firm, which is now named Bearclaw Strategies. Back in 2019, Bloomberg labor reporter Josh Eidelson reported on Butler's work for Uber, specifically writing: reported reported One asset for Uber is Laphonza Butler. She was president of one of the SEIU's largest local unions until last year and is now a partner at SCRB Strategies, a California-based business and political consulting firm. There, Butler has advised and represented Uber in its dealings with organized labor on employment issues and also serves as an adviser to the presidential campaign of Kamala Harris, the Democratic senator from California. An Uber spokesman said Butler brings a valuable perspective to the company's efforts to improve work for drivers, and a spokesman for Harris declined to comment. Butler and her firm didn't respond to requests for comment. It is also public knowledge that Butler left SCRB strategies to work in the policy arm of Airbnb in September of 2020, taking the title "North American Policy Director." As reported by Politico in 2020: reported Laphonza Butler, a partner at a leading California political consulting firm that has helped guide the campaigns of Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, is leaving to join the vacation rental company Airbnb, she confirmed to POLITICO. In that role, she advocated policy positions favorable to Airbnb to the U.S. Congress. She was the author, for example, of a letter to congressional leaders advocating Airbnb's "strong support for the necessary federal funding to implement sustainable, long-term policy solutions for broadband deployment throughout our country in order to provide more opportunity in every city, state and territory of the United States. a letter Because both Uber and Airbnb have publicly confirmed that Butler worked with them, and in the case of the latter was directly employed by the company, we rate the claim as  Airbnb Letter on Rural Broadband 8 Jun 2021. 8 June 2021, https://news.airbnb.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/06/Airbnb-letter-on-Rural-Broadband-8-Jun-2021.pdf. Fang, Lee. Governor Newsom Selects Political Operative Laphonza Butler to Replace Sen. Feinstein. https://www.leefang.com/p/governor-newsom-selects-political. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. "Key Kamala Harris Political Consultant Heads to Top Airbnb Post." POLITICO, 4 Sept. 2020, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/kamala-harris-political-consultant-airbnb-409154. "Leadership." EMILYs List, https://emilyslist.org/our-leadership/. Accessed 2 Oct. 2023. Marinucci, Carla. "Here's the Political Team Newsom Has Assembled to Fight the Recall." POLITICO, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.politico.com/states/story/2021/03/17/heres-the-political-team-newsom-has-assembled-to-fight-the-recall-1368535. "Teamsters Union Splits From Uber and Lyft on California Worker Rights Law." Bloomberg.Com, 25 July 2019. www.bloomberg.com, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/union-splits-from-uber-and-lyft-on-california-worker-rights-law. FACT CHECK:   Did Ann Coulter refer to President Obama as a "retard," prompting a response from a Special Olympics athlete?  Claim:  Ann Coulter referred to President Obama as a "retard," prompting a response from a Special Olympics athlete.    Example:    [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Did Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a retard? Origins:   On 30 August 2015, Facebook user Aria Brown shared a post reporting that professional political troll Ann Coulter had referred to President Obama as a "retard" in a tweet. That Facebook post, which also included a response from Special Olympics athlete John Franklin Stephens, quickly went viral and racked up more than a half million shares in 24 hours: post Some people who viewed the Facebook post questioned its authenticity, as they couldn't find the "Obama retard" tweet in Coulter's Twitter feed. The reason for that was because the referenced comment was one she made after a 2012 presidential debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, not something Coulter said in 2015 as implied by the Facebook post: Shortly after the tweet made headlines in 2012, Ann Coulter appeared on Alan Colmes' Fox News radio show to double down on her trolling: appeared "Look, no one would refer to a Down Syndrome child, someone with an actual mental handicap, by saying 'retard.' Where do you think the words 'imbecile,' 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'cretin' come from? These were all technical terms at one time. 'Retard' had been used colloquially to just mean 'loser' for 30 years ... But no, no  these aggressive victims have to come out and tell you what words to use." The response from Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens is also real, although also not recent. On 23 October 2012, Stephens posted it as open letter to Coulter on the Special Olympics Blog: letter   Dear Ann Coulter, Come on Ms. Coulter, you arent dumb and you arent shallow.  So why are you continually using a word like the R-word as an insult? Im a 30 year old man with Down syndrome who has struggled with the publics perception that an intellectual disability means that I am dumb and shallow.  I am not either of those things, but I do process information more slowly than the rest of you.  In fact it has taken me all day to figure out how to respond to your use of the R-word last night. I thought first of asking whether you meant to describe the President as someone who was bullied as a child by people like you, but rose above it to find a way to succeed in life as many of my fellow Special Olympians have. Then I wondered if you meant to describe him as someone who has to struggle to be thoughtful about everything he says, as everyone else races from one snarkey sound bite to the next. Finally, I wondered if you meant to degrade him as someone who is likely to receive bad health care, live in low grade housing with very little income and still manages to see life as a wonderful gift. Because, Ms. Coulter, that is who we are  and much, much more. After I saw your tweet, I realized you just wanted to belittle the President by linking him to people like me.  You assumed that people would understand and accept that being linked to someone like me is an insult and you assumed you could get away with it and still appear on TV. I have to wonder if you considered other hateful words but recoiled from the backlash. Well, Ms. Coulter, you, and society, need to learn that being compared to people like me should be considered a badge of honor. No one overcomes more than we do and still loves life so much. Come join us someday at Special Olympics.  See if you can walk away with your heart unchanged. A friend you havent made yet,  John Franklin Stephens  Global Messenger  Special Olympics Virginia   Last updated:     1 September 2015 Originally published:   1 September 2015 Claim:  Your personal information may be viewable through the Spokeo web site. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] This is so scary to me.  My address along with a picture of my home is showing on this site.. GO to this website:  https://www.spokeo.com/ and type in your name. If you find ANYTHING with your info on it, go to "Privacy" at the bottom of the page and follow the instructions to remove your information. Some of the information they have listed may not be correct, but if your address, phone number and a picture of your home comes up, that's cause for concern!  Holy Cow Family and Friends! I just received a link for a crazy website. A friend emailed it to me saying that the website has all the personal info on her family and that maybe I should check it out to make sure I am not on the site. Well, I checked it out and although it didn't show mine, it listed many names addresses, birthdays, even showing a picture of the houses my friends lived in. It also mentions if you were married, with kids and much more. Then they have a service were people can sign up and pay 3.00 and have access to even more of my info like credit score, income, etc. I have typed in several other of my family members names and ALL were in the database. Who wants all this personal info out there on the web??????? you can scroll down to the bottom and find the privacy link and remove yourself from the website! good luck! and pass this email along to help your family and friends will possible identity theft. here is the website..... www.spokeo.com   Origins:  Spokeo is one of many sites now operating on the Internet that aggregate and display personal information collected from a variety of public sources (such as social networking accounts, blog posts, phone book listings, customer-submitted reviews, real estate listings, etc., as well as from the databases of other information aggregators) and sell detailed reports on individuals to anyone who pays for them.  Spokeo advertises itself as a "search engine specialized in organizing people-related information": advertises Spokeo is a search engine specialized in organizing people-related information from phone books, social networks, marketing lists, business sites, and other public sources. Most of this data is publicly available on the Web.  For example, you can find peoples name, phone, and address on Whitepages.com, and you can get home values from Zillow.com.  That said, only Spokeo's algorithm can piece together the scattered data into coherent people profiles, giving you the most comprehensive intelligence about anyone you want to find. Spokeo displays listings that sometimes contain more personal information than many people are comfortable having made publicly accessible through a single, easy-to-use search site, and in March 2010 warning messages alerting recipients that their personal information was viewable through Spokeo began circulating, just as warnings about a similar (pay-for-use) site, ZabaSearch, had been circulated several years earlier.   ZabaSearch Our advice here is similar to what we wrote in response to concerns about ZabaSearch several years ago:  Spokeo does have a privacy policy that allows you to request that Spokeo remove your listing from public searches, but it's important to understand that even if you block your Spokeo listing, your personal information will still be available through the underlying sources used by Spokeo.  Those third-party records will still exist and will still be publicly accessible, so the same information provided by Spokeo will still be available to others, either working on their own or using information aggregators similar to Spokeo: privacy You can remove your Spokeo listing from public searches for free. Please note that removing your Spokeo listing from public searches does not remove your information from the third-party data sources. Your information will still be shown on other people search sites, and you will need to contact those third-party sites one-by-one, In short, removing your personal information from display by Internet aggregators isn't a one-time deal, but rather more like a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole: You might swat down an aggregator site or two, but more of them will inevitably pop up.  Last updated:  12 January 2011     Smith, Alicia.  "Search Site Raises Privacy Concerns."   WXYZ-TV [Detroit].  8 April 2010. On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In late 2020, three major pharmaceutical companies announced promising results in early trials of their COVID-19 vaccine candidates, prompting widespread optimism about the availability of a safe and effective vaccine for the virus, perhaps even before the end of the year.  major pharmaceutical companies On Dec. 2, 2020, the U.K. government gave emergency authorization for the distribution and application of the vaccine created by Pfizer and a smaller German company called BioNTech. The distribution was scheduled to start during the week of Dec. 7.  authorization BioNTech was founded by Ugur Sahin and zlem Treci, two immunologists and cancer researchers who also happen to be a married couple. Their striking personal story became the focus of news coverage in late 2020, and their achievements were described by some as an "immigrant success story"  Sahin was born in Turkey and immigrated to German with his family at the age of 4, while Treci was born in Germany to a Turkish immigrant father.  coverage described some In November and December 2020, social media users enthusiastically shared an old photograph of what they said was Sahin's family, claiming that "the boy in the yellow t-shirt" would later go on to lead the team that created the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine: social media users   In one instance, another user claimed the photograph showed a family of Romanian immigrants.  claimed These widely shared posts were misleading. Sahin and his family did immigrate to Germany from Turkey when he was a young child. But Sahin's family is not shown in the photograph in question, and Sahin is not the boy in the yellow T-shirt. The widely shared tweet that referred to a Romanian family in Germany was entirely inaccurate.  As originally reported by the Turkish fact-checking website Teyit, the picture in question was taken by the German photographer Candida Hfer. It was featured in a 2016 collection of Hfer's photographs, entitled "Trken in Deutschland" ("Turks in Germany").  Teyit collection   Another of Hfer's photographs shows just the mother and father from the family in question: shows   In August 2020, DiasporaTrk  an online community dedicated to collecting stories and material relating to Turkish emigrs in Europe in the second half of the 20th century  profiled the family featured in Hfer's photographs. The photograph of the family (including the children) was dated to 1975 and apparently taken in Dsseldorf.  dated Although the date next to photographs of the family sometimes appears online as 1979, that is the year in which Hfer first exhibited the collection, rather than the year in which those particular photographs were taken.  According to DiasporaTrk, one of the grandsons of the couple from the photograph contacted them and filled in the blanks about the family's story, explaining that the father had moved to Germany from Aksaray, Turkey, in 1965, and the rest of the family joined him later. In 1975 they moved to Dsseldorf, and the photograph in question was taken within a week of their moving into their new home. Rather than becoming a cancer researcher, the boy in the yellow T-shirt became a lathe setter.  explaining The date of the photograph makes any purported connection to Sahin somewhat implausible. We have not yet been able to independently verify Sahin's precise date of birth (Wikipedia states variously he was born on Sept. 19 or Sept. 29, 1965) but an August 2016 news article gave his age as 50, and The New York Times reported in November 2020 that he was 55 years old.  Sept. 19 Sept. 29, article reported As such, Sahin would have been either 9 or 10 years old in 1975, when Hfer's photograph of a Turkish family in Dsseldorf was taken. It's possible the boy in the yellow shirt was that old, at that time, but it's unlikely.  Furthermore, as Teyit correctly pointed out, The New York Times noted in its profile of Sahin and Treci that Sahin had left the city of Iskenderun, Turkey, whereas the family from the photograph emigrated from Aksaray, some 170 miles away.  noted Some social media posts and online articles including the photograph of the family described them specifically as Turkish Muslim immigrants. We have not yet been able to determine Sahin's person religious convictions, if any, so this element of the narrative surrounding both the photograph, and Sahin's personal background, remains unclear. In November 2019, Sahin was the recipient of a Mustafa Prize, an Iranian-administered award for scientists in the Islamic world. described Mustafa Prize Eligible nominees must either be professed Muslims from anywhere in the world, or scientists of any religious persuasion from one of 57 Muslim-majority nations (including Sahin's native Turkey). As a result, Sahin's personal religious convictions cannot be deduced from his winning a Mustafa prize in 2019. any religious persuasion Although the family shown in the photograph is not Sahin's, and the boy in the yellow shirt is not him, the milieu it depicted may well have been similar to the one in which Sahin grew up. According to multiple reports, Sahin's father  like the father of the "boy in the yellow t-shirt"  immigrated to Germany as a gastarbeiter ("guest worker") in a Ford factory in Cologne. Both men originally arrived by themselves, before their respective families later joined them.  gastarbeiter The purpose of the guest-worker programs was to bring an influx of skilled labor into Germany in order to revive the German economy in the 1960s and 1970s. Workers were originally intended to stay for only two years, before returning to their countries of origin, but the rules were later changed and allowed for family reunification in Germany. So in the case of Sahin and the boy in the yellow shirt, their families' journey in German society began under the same legal mechanisms, and in similarly modest circumstances. In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweetswere circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst respondedwith this critique: compilation of alleged tweets responded "[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice."   Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast "Citations Needed." In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. writer Citations Needed However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: "The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand." an April 2020 episode of his podcast Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions(eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, "What the new report on climate change expects from you." tw eeted (eat less meat an article   The tweet's reference to "that new report on climate change"alludedto a multi-chapter document that theUnited Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day.In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. multi-chapter document Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas  though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a "second person" point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet,we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says." July 10, 2017, article   Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 "Carbon Majors"study by an environmental non-profit called CDPand the Climate Accountability Institute, a "tiny think tank" as defined by theScientific American. study CDP Climate Accountability Institute Scientific American However, here was the problem: The study did not assessallsources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: "This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] isaimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings." Therefore, The Guardian headline  which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion  was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Aramco Gazprom OAO National Iranian Oil Company Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on "one piece of the puzzle"  the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement  when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: Sentient Media wrote The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as thefood system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. food system See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions bythe World Resources Institute: World Resources Institute   In sum, we rate this claim  While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. "The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting," Johnson told us. "Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage." Needed, Citations. "Episode 108: How Our 'GDP' Obsession Drives Climate Crisis and Inequality." Medium, 29 Apr. 2020, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-108-how-our-gdp-obsession-drives-climate-crisis-and-inequality-f2824d48a9bc. aCCESSED 8 Sept. 2021. Mackintosh, By Eliza. "What the New Report on Climate Change Expects from You." CNN, 8 Oct. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/world/ipcc-climate-change-consumer-actions-intl/index.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Global Warming of 1.5 oC . https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says." The Guardian, 10 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Horgan, John. "Exposing the World's Biggest Carbon Emitters." Scientific American Blog Network, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/exposing-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-emitters/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Sadai, Shaina. "No, 100 Companies Are Not Responsible for 71% of Emissions." Sentient Media, https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. This report was updated with a response from an editor at The Guardian, which published the 2017 article titled, "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says," on which Johnson said his inaccurate tweet was based. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."   [New York] Daily News.  14 September 1999  (p. 5).     Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). President Donald Trump took to the airwaves to tout his budding bromance with rapper Kanye West. The hosts ofFox & Friendsasked Trump during an April 26telephone interviewabout the enthusiastic tweets exchanged between the two men, such as this one. my MAGA hat is signed pic.twitter.com/DrDHJybS8V Trump turned his sudden friendship with West into a commentary about the economic results on his watch. Trump said, Kanye looks and he sees black unemployment at the lowest its been in the history of our country. He sees Hispanic unemployment at the lowest its been in the history of our country. He sees (womens unemployment) the lowest its been in now almost 19 years. Trump haspreviously made claims of this sort, but its been a few months, so we thought wed take a new look at the numbers. In March 2018, the African-American unemployment rate stood at 6.9 percent. Thats not a record low, but its close  and the record low was 6.8 percent in December 2017, also on Trumps watch. Heres the full data for the black unemployment rate since the statistic was first calculated in 1972: The Hispanic unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in March 2018. Thats not a record either, but once again, its close. The Hispanic unemployment rate was as low as 4.8 percent three times in 2017, in June, October and November. Those low points all occurred on Trumps watch. Heres the full historical data: Currently, the unemployment rate for women is 4.0 percent. It was slightly lower during an earlier point in Trumps presidency  3.9 percent in October 2017. The womens unemployment rate was lower still in December 2000, when it hit 3.8 percent. That falls within the 19-year windowTrump cited. Heres the full run of data: Economists agree that presidents dont deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. And to the extent that a president does deserve credit for low unemployment, Trumps predecessor, Barack Obama, deserves at least as much as Trump does. As these charts show, the unemployment rate for blacks, Hispanics, and women declined dramatically on Obamas watch as the country pulled out of the Great Recession. Black unemployment peaked at 16.6 percent in April 2010, when Obama was president. It then fell by more than half to 7.8 percent by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Hispanic unemployment, meanwhile, peaked at 13 percent in August 2009, then fell to 5.9 percent at the end of Obamas term in January 2017. And unemployment among women peaked at 9 percent in November 2010, before falling to 4.8 percent by the time he left office in January 2017, a drop of nearly half. Trump said, Kanye looks and he sees black unemployment at the lowest its been in the history of our country. He sees Hispanic unemployment at the lowest its been in the history of our country. He sees (womens unemployment) the lowest its been in now almost 19 years. The unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics have hit all-time lows in recent months on Trumps watch, and the rate for women was recently the lowest its been in more than 18 years. But its worth remembering that,to the extent that presidents deserve any credit for economic conditions on their watch, the heavy lifting in getting rates that low occurred before Trump became president. We rate the statement Mostly True.