Says LeBron James stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season.
Not only has U.S. Rep. Alan Graysonendorsed presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, he also has echoed one of the senatorsmain platform planksthat the rich should help shore up Social Security. At a Senate campaign debate with U.S. Rep. David Jolly, R-Indian Shores, in Orlandoon April 25, 2016, Grayson said the Social Security payroll tax cap on earnings needs to be lifted in order to make the program solvent. He used the mind-boggling salary of professional basketball superstar LeBron James to illustrate his point. Let's talk about LeBron James. Do you know when he stops paying his Social Security taxes? He stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season, Grayson said. Rest of the game, pays nothing. Rest of the 81 games of the season, pays nothing. The offseason, still pays nothing. That's ridiculous. The Cleveland Cavaliers forward rakes in an average of$23.5 million per yearas part of his current two-year contract, so its not like hes going to depend on Social Security in his twilight years. But is Grayson right that James is done paying into the program before halftime of the first game of the season? Its not a slam dunk, but the Orlando Democrat does score points with this one. Tax tip-off Lets start by reviewing what Grayson is talking about. The federal government imposes a payroll tax of6.2 percent on wagesto pay into the Social Security fund. But theres a limit of how much income can be taxed. This maximum amount, which is periodically adjusted upward, was$118,500 in 2016. That means the most any employed person pays into Social Security annually is $7,347 (6.2 percent of $118,500). If you make less than $118,500, you obviously are taxed on that amount and pay less. Employers match that amount, so a single workers total contribution to Social Security is essentially a maximum of $14,694 per year. Benefits, for the record, also are capped. In the case of self-employment, the person pays both halves of the $14,694 contribution, or 12.4 percent of $118,500. Well come back to this in a moment. If you make more than $118,500 in salary from an employer  say, $23.5 million or so  youre still only on the hook for taxes on the maximum of $118,500. Thats the highest amount on which the government can tax anyone, LeBron James or otherwise. Grayson has said that this limit is exacerbating projected Social Security deficits as more people retire. Not only would lifting this cap keep the program solvent, it would allow the government toincrease benefits for seniors. President Barack Obama also has proposed lifting this cap, which has rated aPromise Brokenon our Obameter. Some argue that raising the maximum taxable wage basewouldnt fix the system on its own. For his James example, Grayson broke down the NBA 82 regular-season games into their 328 respective quarters, then divided that against James $23.5 million average salary. That amounts to $71,646.34 per quarter, which is almost $6,000 per minute, with 12-minute quarters. Not bad for a nights work. Using that math, James hits the $118,500 taxable earnings cap somewhere before the eighth minute of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Youre probably only on your second (maybe third) $11 beer by then. Now, this interpretation is obviously just to make Graysons point easier to understand. Its kind of likeTax Freedom Day, ostensibly the day people earn enough to pay their total tax bill. How James gets paid depends on the structure of his contract. We'll also note that the NBA season starts in October, with the playoffs running through June. The tax year starts Jan. 1 and runs the calendar year. That makes the actual timing of when taxes are deducted from James' pay different than what Grayson said  a minor detail in a broad example. The Cavaliers' first game of 2016 was onJan. 2, and was their 31st contest of the 2015-16 season. They beat the Orlando Magic, 104-79, by the way. It may sound minor to those of us not making millions annually, but while Grayson is sticking to the game clock, he understates James time commitment. This example doesnt include the hours James spends practicing, traveling, giving interviews, attending team events or anything else that goes along with a superstar athletes life. It also doesnt include preseason games, overtime, playoff games (which bring in more money) or the value of his endorsements, whichForbesestimated at $48 million. PKF OConnor Davies sports accountant Robert Raiola also cautions that Graysons example doesnt mention other taxes James must pay. Raiola pointed out James faces a1.45 percent Medicare taxthat includes no cap, plus a0.9 percent Medicare surchargeon all the income he makes over $250,000. Which is a lot. And dont forget that self-employment tax. James possibly also must pay that in some form, depending on how his income is structured, Raiola said. How that affects James depends on how he conducts his finances, so its not really possible to say without getting a peek into his books. (LeBron, if youre reading, email us and well talk.) But Graysons talking point  that no matter how much the mega-rich earn, they are only taxed on the maximum of $118,500 in income  holds up. If you make less than that, you pay less, but James isnt required to pay Social Security payroll taxes on his income beyond $118,500. Our ruling Grayson said James stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Thats a broad statement meant to draw attention to the fact that Social Security taxes are capped at $118,500 of a persons income, no matter how much they make. There are a lot of factors that go into how much James is paid, and how much of that goes to various taxes. But the bottom line is that the athlete only faces Social Security taxes for a relative sliver of his income. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7010f3db-ddad-4d0d-98a5-197ed37eab1a UPDATE, April 28:An astute reader pointed out a minor flaw in Grayson's specific talking point. The NBA season starts in the fall, while the tax year begins Jan. 1. As such, James hypothetically would hit the threshold in the second quarter of the first game he played in the new calendar year, not the first game of the season. We've added that information to this story. ButGrayson's point that the uber-wealthy quickly hit the Social Security tax cap remains just as valid.
In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes.  Joe Biden  This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny.  remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College  instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes."  repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign   This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech. Some fathers help their daughters by teaching them how to ride a bike. But if youre Dick Cheney, you do it by attacking her political rival on national television. The former vice president appeared on ABCsThis Weekon Oct. 27, 2013, to discuss national security issues, and was asked about the Republican primary battle in Wyoming between incumbent Sen. Mike Enzi and his daughter, Liz Cheney. ThoughLiz Cheney has previously said her father wouldnt be campaigning for her, he didnt pass on the opportunity to take a few shots at Enzi. He accused the three-term senator of getting about 84 percent of his campaign funds from Washington-based PACs, which Cheney said was more than any senator of either party. Enzi is far from the most prestigious, vocal or well-known lawmakers on the Hill. So we were surprised to hear that the three-term senator from Wyoming, of all places, is the upper chambers leader in percentage of donations from PACs. We decided totake a deeper look. Counting PAC money Off the bat, we ran into trouble with the term Washington-based PAC. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance data, noted that most political action committees, but not all, are based in the nations capitol, and its difficult to separate which of Enzis donors are from D.C. What's probably safe to say is that the vast majority are not based in his home state, Viveca Novak at the center told PoltiFact (which is what Cheney was driving at anyway). According to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the Senate campaign cycle beginning in 2009, Enzi raised $1.64 million, with $1.19 million, or 73 percent, coming from PACs. Thats not the 84 percent figure that Dick Cheney mentioned. Liz Cheneys campaign said they got to 84 percent by including a $74,463 transfer to the campaign from a joint fundraising committee, as well as $826,000 given to Enzis leadership PAC from other political groups. So the Cheney campaign counted those transfers as PAC money, while the center didnt. Using the centers data, Enzis percentage of PAC money is higher than any other senator -- by quite a bit actually. The next closest is Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who has received 66 percent of his donations from PACs in the last five years. The disparity is even larger over the course of Enzis entire career. Nearly 70 percent of the $6.55 million the Wyoming Republican has raised since 1991 comes from PACs. In second is Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, at a distant 52 percent. A large chunk of Enzis PAC money comes from congressional leadership groups who are backing the senior senator over Cheneys challenge. He gets quite a bit from health groups, as well -- which isnt surprising, since he has worked prominently on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for years. Its not that Enzi is taking more money from PACs than all of his colleagues, but a higher proportion of his money raised is from these outside groups Its worth noting that of the 10 senators who have relied the most on PACs this cycle, nearly all hail from states in the bottom third of the population rankings. Candidates from smaller states have a shallower pool of in-state donors to pull from, pushing them to rely on PACs in their increasingly expensive election fights. Cheney has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, pulling in $1 million between July and September, for her contest against Enzi. Doug Weber at the Center for Responsive Politics had another explanation for Enzis reliance on PACs. Enzi hasn't really raised and spent much in the past, Weber said in an email. His 2002 and 1996 elections were the cheapest Senate victories of their cycle. So it may be a function of a modest fundraising effort -- raising from individuals involves a lot more work. (Republican House Speaker John) Boehner raised more from individuals just this year than Enzi has since 1989. And even though Enzi tops this list, hes far from the most prolific fundraiser in Washington. In the current Congress,hes 356th in money raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Enzis campaign didnt deny Cheneys claims. While spokeswoman Kristin Walker noted that two-thirds of Enzis individual donors in the last cycle were from Wyoming, she added he has always raised the money he needed to be competitive. Our ruling While Dick Cheney differed from our nonpartisan sources on the final number, the fact remains he was right: Enzi has received a higher proportion of his money from PACs than anyone in the Senate. Its more a product of circumstancesEnzis from a small state and hes facing a strong challengerthan evidence that Enzi has gone Washington, as Cheney was implying. We rate it Mostly True. In December 2020, right-leaning observers and prominent Republican politicians cried foul after a federal court judge blocked attempts to remove thousands of names from voter rolls in Georgia, ahead of January's two U.S. Senate run-off elections in the state.  On Dec. 28, Politico reported that: Politico A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner  the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state  concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties. The bulk of the registrations that the counties sought to rescind, more than 4,000, were in Muscogee County, which Biden won handily in November. An additional 150 were from Ben Hill County, which Trump won by a wide margin. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by tweeting: "This is absurd. This is an obvious case for recusal. For Stacey Abrams sister to refuse to recuse  and issue this decision despite her indisputable bias  undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system." Donald Trump Jr. wrote "Nothing shady here..." tweeting wrote Doug Collins, the outgoing Republican congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2020, said Abrams Gardner should recuse herself from the case because "her own sister is a party!" said   In reality, Abrams was not a party to the case on which her sister ruled in December 2020. Collins stated a significant falsehood in claiming otherwise.  Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Leslie Abrams Gardner are indeed sisters. Over the years, Abrams has repeatedly confirmed as much, including when she congratulated Abrams Gardner on her U.S. Senate confirmation and appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Georgia, in 2014 and 2015. 2014 2015 The case in question was Majority Forward and Gamaliel Warren Turner vs. Ben Hill County Board of Elections et al. Majority Forward is a non-profit voter registration organization, and Turner is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia. According to Abrams Gardner's Dec. 28 ruling, the basic facts of the case were as follows. Earlier in December 2020, Tommy Roberts  a City Council member in Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County  challenged the eligibility of 328 registered voters in the county. Based on his own cross-referencing of the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database, Roberts contended that those voters had moved out of the state and were therefore no longer eligible to vote in Ben Hill County.  ruling The board of elections in Ben Hill County determined that Roberts' challenge to the eligibility of 152 of those voters was likely valid, and they designated those 152 voters "pending hearing" and contacted them to advise that they would only be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the January 2021 Senate run-off election, and would subsequently have to "cure" those ballots by providing proof of their residency. In Muscogee County, a man named Ralph Russell brought a similar challenge, claiming to have found 4,033 registered voters in Muscogee County who, according to the National Change of Address database, had moved out of state. The Muscogee County Board of Elections determined that Russell's challenge was probably valid, and contacted those 4,033 "targeted voters" to inform them they could only cast provisional ballots, and would have to provide proof of residency. Turner was one of those targeted voters. On Dec. 23, Majority Forward challenged the actions of Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, and filed for a temporary restraining order on Dec. 27. On Dec. 28, Abrams Gardner granted that order, meaning the counties were ordered, for the next eight days, not to remove the targeted voters from registration lists, or require them to cast only provisional ballots. Since that time period covered the Jan. 5, 2021, elections, the targeted voters were therefore allowed to vote as normal in the U.S. Senate run-off elections. Abrams Gardner's reasoning can be examined in the ruling itself.  ruling The defendants in the case filed a motion to request that Abrams Gardner recuse herself. They argued, in part, that Fair Fight  the voting rights group founded and chaired by Abrams  was involved in similar litigation before the U.S. District Court in Georgia's Northern District, and the same lawyers represented Fair Fight and Majority Forward in the cases. They also argued that Abrams Gardner's ruling in the Majority Forward case could have a bearing on the judge's decision-making in the Fair Fight litigation, which directly involved Abrams, since she is the chairperson of that organization. The defendants wrote: motion wrote In addition, any relief rendered in the instant case as it relates to the NCOAR [National Change of Address Registry] would likely be cited as persuasive authority in the Fair Fight Litigation. Abrams interest could therefore be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. For this reason, Judge Gardners impartiality might reasonably be questioned were this case to proceed before her. In a footnote to her Dec. 28 ruling, Abrams Gardner noted the request for her to recuse herself, but stated simply, "The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal." Abrams Gardner added that "an order detailing the court's reasoning" was forthcoming. As of Dec. 31, no such order was available on the case's online docket.  Contrary to Collins' claim, Abrams was not a "party" to the Majority Forward litigation on which her sister ruled in December 2020. However, she is the chairperson of Fair Fight, a voting rights organization that acted as a plaintiff in a very similar case, albeit in a different U.S. District Court, in Georgia, at the same time.  Whether that connection, in combination with her familial relationship with Abrams Gardner, should constitute grounds for recusal, is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation. But Collins undoubtedly erred when he claimed that "Stacey Abramss sister is ruling on a case in which her own sister is a party!" On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the worlds largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States." largest Facebook VK   Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma.  cancers The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: "Donald is on our side! ... He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos '100% safe after application.'" provided These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trumps support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was 100% safe once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." Uralasbest opined In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for new uses of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos. new interpretations rules Milman, Oliver.  "Russian Mining Firm Puts Trump's Face on Its Asbestos Products.
  The Guardian.  11 July 2018. American Cancer Society.  "Asbestos and Cancer Risk.
  Accessed 20 July 2018. Environmental Working Group.  "Russian Asbestos Giant Praises Trump Administration Actions to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal.
  11 July 2018. Goodkind, Nicole.  "Donald Trump Called Asbestos Poisoning a Mob-Led Conspiracy, Now His EPA Wont Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes.
  Huffington Post.  8 June 2018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  "Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Federal Register Notices
  Archived from 19 January 2017. Claim:  The "Cap and Trade energy bill" requires that all existing real estate must meet new energy standards before it can be sold.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] For those of you who have real estate for sale or rent, be advised that the Cap and Trade energy bill that passed Congress has the following provisions: Before any real estate, new or old, commercial or residential, can be sold or rented, the building must meet the new energy standards set forth in the Bill. These standards are about a general 35% increase in what is now required in building codes. It requires such things as requiring solar reflective roofs, double pane windows, energy efficient appliances and lighting, increased insulation, leak test, and on and on and on. In order to sell or rent any building, you will be required to have a certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector (new division of the US Dept. of Energy). No certification, no sell or rent, simple as that.  [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] A License Required for your HOUSE? Thinking about selling your house.  Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill), that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. The caveat is, that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission,you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Cost $200 to start. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements, which easily could cost over $50,000. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.  The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America. The label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. The government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Origins:  HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the "cap-and-trade energy bill"), is a bill intended to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy."  The bill was passed by the Houseof Representatives in June 2009, but it has not yet been voted upon by the Senate. HR 2454 The version of the bill passed by the House sets energy efficiency standards benchmarks that must be met by new buildings, both residential and  commercial, constructed after the bill takes effect (i.e., after the bill was passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law).  Contrary to what is claimed above, however, HR 2454 contains no provisions requiring that existing homes "must meet the new energy standards" before they can be re-sold.  Likewise, the bill includes no requirements that an existing residential property undergo an energy usage-related audit or inspection and be assigned a "certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector" before it can be re-sold or rented. This misinformation about mandatory energy standard retrofits and licensing requirements has been promulgated primarily through a misunderstanding of Section 202 of HR 2454, which is headed "Building Retrofit Program" and calls for the establishment of "standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy."  However, those standards are specifically indicated as being part of the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program, a program intended to establish state programs to provide cash incentives to property owners who voluntarily choose to make their buildings more energy efficient.   REEP The House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has jurisdiction over the implementation of cap-and-trade legislation, notes in their section-by-section explanation of HR 2454 that Section 202: explanation Establishes the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program to provide allowances to states to conduct cost-effective building retrofits. Provides that states may use local governments or other agencies or entities to carry out the work and may use flexible forms of financial assistance providing up to 50% of the costs of retrofits, with funding increasing in proportion to efficiency achievement. Provides additional assistance for the retrofitting of historic buildings. Directs the Administrator of EPA to establish standards and guidelines for the program, in consultation with the Secretary of DOE. Allows federal funds provided to disaster victims to qualify as a building owner's contribution toward matching requirements. Requires states to offer preferential access to at least 10% of dedicated program funding to public and assisted housing. Nothing would require a homeowner to audit or retrofit their home to ensure that it meets building code requirements. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) also noted of that section of HR 2454:  NAR [HR 2454] does not require that buildings be retrofitted. Rather, it provides federal funding for states to offer financial incentives, such as loans or grants, for property owners to voluntarily decide to improve energy efficiency. In order to receive the funding, there are conditions on how states can spend the money, such as verification of energy improvements performed by private contractors, but that is only to ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually spent on the purpose for which it is intended (building efficiency improvements). There is no point-of-sale guideline or any other requirement of any sort in the House passed bill. Nowhere does this bill create a federal requirement that a property owner would have to retrofit a property to any guideline at any time  let alone at point of sale. The bill does stipulate federal guidelines to ensure that states spend and verify that bill funding goes to financial incentives for property owners to voluntarily make improvements. An entirely separate bill would have to be drafted, introduced, passed by committees and both houses of Congress, and signed by the President into law in order for the Federal government to go beyond [HR 2454's] financial incentives for voluntary energy improvements. Last updated:  7 September 2010 <!--    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. In an Aug. 24, 2011,Twitter post, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said of the Congressional Budget Office: CBO says 8 (percent) unemployment till 2014!Well assume the Texas Republican doesnt consider this fabulous news, though the predicted rate would be about a percentage point lower than the July 2011 national jobless rate of 9.1 percent,as reported bythe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.A reminder: The unemployment rate is a measure of the number of jobless people who are available for work and are actively seeking jobs, expressed as a percentage of the labor force.Did Cornyn recap accurately?The nonpartisan CBOssummaryof its latest economic projections says that with modest economic growth expected for the next few years, the office expects the jobless rate to fall to 8.9 percent the fourth quarter of this year and to 8.5 percent the fourth quarter of 2012. And indeed, the report says, the rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.The nations gross domestic product grew 1 percent the second quarter of this year after growing .4 percent in the years first three months, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysisreported in August. According to the CBO forecast, the economy will grow slowly in coming years as the federal deficit shrinks, though the prediction about the deficit assumes, among other things, that Congress will not extend all the tax cuts launched under President George W. Bush and temporarily extended under President Barack Obama.In its full report, the CBO projects the annual unemployment rate to average 8.7 percent in 2012 and 2013, which would be an improvement on the 2010 and 2009 averages of 9.6 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively, but would be worse than the 2008 average of 5.8 percent,according tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics.CBO forecasts the unemployment rate falling to an average of 5.4 percent in 2016 and 5.2 percent in 2017 through 2021, which would be the lowest rate since 2007, when the average was 4.6 percent. The report says the projected 5.2 percent rate in those years would match its expected natural unemployment rate for the period.Economists talk about a natural unemployment rate because even in a strong, healthy economy there is always some degree of employee turnover as businesses adopt new technologies and make other staff changes, and as a certain percentage of workers, for various professional and personal reasons, look for new jobs.Things are unsettled now, the CBO report says, with weakness in the demand for goods and services being the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market  such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers (including their skills and geographic location)  appear to be hindering hiring as well.Other measures also show a great deal of weakness in the labor market, the report says. The number of unemployed workers per job opening averaged about 4 throughout the first half of 2011, down from an average of slightly over 6 in 2009 but still much higher than it was before the recession. In addition, the number of people who are employed part time but want full-time work averaged about 8.5 million in the first half of 2011, slightly below the number in the previous two years but still nearly double the pre-recession figure.The report continues: Likewise, the share of unemployed people who have been out of work for a long time is unusually high. On average, 44 percent of workers who were unemployed in the first half of 2011 had been jobless for more than six months. Moreover, in mid-2011, 31 percent of unemployed workers had been jobless for at least a year. Those rates of long-term unemployment are unprecedented in the post-World War II era.Were not judging here whos responsible for the nations unemployment troubles, but how accurately Cornyn echoed the CBOs projection. His statement rates True. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. As the debt-ceiling crisis deepened, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, lambasted Democrats for failing to put together a public plan to bring down federal spending.Johnson, in anappearance on CNBCs Squawk Box, argued constitutional limits on government spending were the only way to keep politicians hands off the pocketbooks of their constituents. To illustrate his point, the freshman Republican reached way back into the history books.Well increase the debt ceiling, give the president what he wants, and all were saying is, Lets pass a constitutional limitation to the size of government, which by the way is the root cause of the problem, Johnson said. The federal government is spending 25 percent of our entire economy versus 100 years ago, we spent only 2 percent. The problem is the size, the scope, all the regulations and the cost of government.PolitiFact National has tested the current end of this claim andfound it True. But the back end is new territory.Has the federal governments share of the nations economy really jumped twelvefold in a century?A frequently cited source on the history of federal spending is the White House Office of Management and Budget.Itswebsite showsthe federal share of gross domestic product -- the GDP, essentially our total economic output for a year -- was 25 percent in 2009, 23.8 percent  in 2010 and is estimated at 25.3 percent for 2011.In 1930, by contrast, the federal government made up just 3.4 percent of the economy.There are many reasons for the change -- ones that go beyond year-to-year growth in spending for existing programs.Before the 1930s, the federal government was basically the post office, veterans benefits, a small defense department and national-debt payments, according to anofficial government summaryand experts we consulted. Local government was dominant.World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam pushed up the federal role considerably, and when that spending waned, it was more than offset as the country aged into Social Security and the Great Society programs --  including Medicare and Medicaid --  took off.The federal share of the economy went up and down in the 1980s and 1990s, amid recessions, higher debt interest payments, higher health care spending and tax cuts. Homeland security and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks pushed the number up, as did the recession that began in 2007.The largest part of the growth since the 1950s, the Office of Management and Budget reports, came from a category that includes Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, deposit insurance, and means-tested entitlements such as Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portions of the Earned Income and Child Tax Credits.A big part of the difference is that as the U.S. got richer, a lot more services were demanded, and a whole layer of protections unknown in 1910 got assumed by the government, said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.As we noted, the current numbers cited by Johnson are accurate.But what about 100 years ago?The OMB calculations on the federal share of the economy go back only to 1930, because GDP was not calculated before then.But earlier spending numbers are readily available, and several researchers have produced calculations dating back to the early 1900s. They use U.S. Census Bureau data that measured the economy in a different way, but produce comparable numbers, according to the economists we consulted.Johnsons staff pointed us to 1902. We also looked at other years in that first decade of the century, to see if they were consistent with the year in question.Economists Robert Gordon at Northwestern University andRandall Holcombeat Florida State University independently calculated a federal share right around 2 percent in that time period.Our calculations produced a similar result.So Johnsons numerical claim is on target.At the advice of our experts, though, we took one more step: We looked at what the combined local-state-federal share was a century ago compared to today.If local government was predominant and the federal government minuscule in earlier times, is it possible that all government spending combined took up the same share of the economy as today?No, we found.Holcombe said the total government share has gone up markedly, though not on the order of the twelvefold increase in the federal-only share.Gordon confirms that.Lets tally this up.Johnson turned the clock way back in criticizing the size of the federal government. He claimed it took up just 2 percent of the economy a century ago, but 25 percent today. Johnsons reference hearkens back to an entirely different era in American governance -- and its not clear just how far back in time on a percentage basis Johnson thinks we should go.But based on widely available, and generally accepted, historical data, he accurately described the dramatic rise of Washington, D.C., in our economic lives over the last 100 years.We rate his statement True. Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good phishing bait for a number of reasons:     A March 2006 mass phish e-mailing took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that included the IRS logo, advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of $63.80 or $163.80), and invited them to click on a link which took them to an IRS web site form through which they could claim those refunds.   IRS Notification - Please Read This . After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $163.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here here Regards,Internal Revenue Service  Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.   Of course, the links included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; they redirected claimants to impostor IRS sites (hosted on servers in a variety of countries) and instructed them to enter all sorts of sensitive personal information (credit card number, expiration date, CVV code and ATM PIN) into an on-line form so that the putative refunds could be posted directly to their debit/credit card or bank accounts. Any information entered into such forms can be harvested by scammers and used for identity theft and other financial crimes. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers. When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, they send notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation. Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. Miller, Anita.  "Internet Scammers Using IRS Logo for Bait."
  San Marcos Daily Record.  17 March 2006. Speier, Drew.  "E-Mail Scam Uses Fake IRS Web Site."
  WFIE-TV.  2 March 2006. KPHO-TV.  "Consumers Warned of IRS 'Phishing' Scam."
  2 March 2006. KXAN-TV.  "New E-Mail Scam Promises Money From the IRS."
  17 March 2006. WFSB-TV.  "Latest Scam Targets Tax Returns."
  2 March 2006. WHEC-TV.  "IRS Warning Taxpayers About Fake E-Mail Scam."
  2 March 2006. WLNS-TV.  "Beware of Tax Scam."
  7 March 2006.