Benefits of parental leave available in Europe.
On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook   Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway.  study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program:  EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time.  Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period.  Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven.   Government of Canada.  "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." 
  Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.  "Parental Benefit." 
  19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.  "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave."
   Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization.  "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 
  2015.  Sanders, Bernie.  "Real Family Values." 
  berniesanders.com.
Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Claim:  The FBI's "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads" is sending out automated warning messages via e-mail.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Subject: You use illegal File Sharing... Ladies and Gentlemen, Downloading of Movies, MP3s and Software is illegal and punishable bylaw. We hereby inform you that your computer was scanned under the IP 94.195.57.211. The contents of your computer were confiscated as an evidence, and you will be indicated. In the next days you will receive the charge in writing. In the Reference code: #34510, are all files, that we found on your computer. The sender address of this mail was masked, to protect us against mail bombs. - You get more detailed information by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -FBI-- Department for "Illegal Internet Downloads", Room 7350- 935 Pennsylvania Avenue- Washington, DC 20535, USA- (202) 324-3000 Origins:  The address and phone number given at the foot of the message quoted above are real (they belong to the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters), but that's the only thing genuine about this e-mail. headquarters The FBI may have an interest in tracking illegal downloads of copyright-protected material on the Internet, but they don't have a "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads," and they aren't sending out automated messages like the one quoted above to serve notice that "your computer was scanned" and the "contents of your computer were confiscated."  If nothing else, the poor grammar and spelling  "an evidence" rather than "evidence";  "indicated" rather than "indicted"  should be an obvious giveaway that the message is a phony, and likely crafted by a non-native speaker of English. (The latter point is probably confirmed by the fact that similar messages stemming from the same source are sent out with subject lines in German.) The FBI has issued the following denial: denial Attention  FBI e-mail hoax alert! Have you recently received an e-mail, purportedly from the FBI, with the subject "Your IP was logged," warning you about illegal downloading of movies and software and saying you are under FBI investigation? If you have, please be advised that the e-mail is a fake  the Bureau, even though it does investigative violations of Intellectual Property laws, does not investigate or notify persons under investigation as outlined in the e-mail. It may also contain a virus. If you've received the e-mail, please contact the FBI at www.ifccfbi.gov. This message (which also arrives with subject lines such as "Preliminary investigation were started" [sic] and "Your IP was logged" is actually a carrier for an executable attachment which harbors the Sober.C virus, a mass-mailing worm that affects systems running any version of Microsoft Windows (other than Windows 3.x).  When activated for the first time on a target PC, the worm displays a fake error message similar to the following: Sober.C  Symantec offers a removal tool for Sober.C on its web site. removal tool Last updated:  29 October 2007    Sources:   Varghese, Sam.   "Invoking the FBI to Spread Malware."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  6 January 2004. On 18 April 2018 Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections: Newly Press meme   A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates:    However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented monies to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member: Roll Call A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the  midterm elections. Targeting [people of color, young people, and women] is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in the previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and dont build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative  which the coalition is calling Win Justice  are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization: Planned Parenthood Votes  Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend monies on political activities.   According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors: prohibited Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities which are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." involved stipulates The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." Super PAC In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law.  Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage is such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections. Bois, Paul.  "Planned Parenthood Spending $30 Million on Midterm Elections."
  Daily Wire.  18 April 2018. Bradner, Eric.  "First on CNN: Planned Parenthood to Target 8 States, Spend $20 Million as Part of Midterm Battle Plan."
  CNN.  1 March 2018. Connolly, Griffin.  "Planned Parenthood, Other Groups to Spend $30 Million on Midterms."
  Roll Call.  16 April 2018. Federal Election Commission.  "Types of Nonconnected PACs."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. IRS.gov.  "Social Welfare Organizations."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Ballotpedia.  "Planned Parenthood Votes."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood.  "nformation For Attorneys And Other Professionals."
  Accessed 20 April 2018. Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  "Planned Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund Launch 2018 Electoral Program."
  1 March 2018. Claim:  McDonald's will stop serving overweight customers beginning 1 January 2015.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is this article true? "McDonald's Will Stop Serving Overweight Customers Beginning 1/1/15"   Origins:  On 4 December 2014, Daily Buzz Live published an article claiming the McDonald's fast food chain would stop selling food to overweight customers as of 1 January 2015: article Obesity in America has more than doubled over the last 2 decades and has become the leading public health issue in the U.S. With more than two-thirds of the adult population overweight, McDonald's has decided to become part of the solution  not the problem. According to reports, beginning January 1, 2015, McDonald's will no longer serve customers with a weight capacity over 170 lbs for women and 245 lbs for men. Children's weight restrictions will vary depending on age and height. McDonald's is currently running campaigns to shake its "junk food" image, insisting they sell nothing but good quality food. They are are branding themselves from "A dining experience of fast food" to "Good food served fast." McDonald's has taken a few steps to make its menu healthier, but the restaurant chain has not announced any plans to stop serving customers based on their weight. In addition to the logistical menu  impossibilities of weighing drive-thru customers, the potential lawsuits for discriminating against obese people, and the likelihood of McDonald's losing millions of dollars in profits, the article can be debunked simply by considering its source:  According to the Daily Buzz Live disclaimer page, all articles published on the site are meant for "entertainment purposes only." Some articles are inspired by "real news events," but the content of these articles is "complete fiction." disclaimer Last updated:  5 December 2014 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently attacked President Donald Trump over his trade policy, saying it is hurting American workers. The California senator then said as many as 300,000 auto workers were expected to lose their jobs this year, suggesting Trump was to blame. Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came in office, making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers, Harris said in aCNN interviewon Aug. 12. He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year. Trumps trade policy, especially the tariffs hes placed on China, have been blamed by economists forhurting farmers. But are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year as Harris claimed? Two recent fact-checks called that figure into question. Well review the facts and place a rating on the senators claim. Checking the facts After the interview, Harris campaign told CNN the 300,000 number is from aFebruary study by the Center For Automotive Research, CAR. The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts except on Canada, Mexico and South Korea. It estimated that between about 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trumpdelayed for six monthshis decision on whether to impose the tariffs. Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at the research center, or CAR,told FactCheck.orgin an email: 300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting. FactCheck.org added thatDziczekconfirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect. Auto workers produce vehicles at Volkswagen's U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. in 2017. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig) The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry.Dziczektold CNN the (auto) sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see. The only industry specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships.Dziczektold PolitiFact California there would an overall net loss in auto assembly and parts sectors. How big of a loss depends on how willing consumers would be to switch brand preference from imports to vehicles made in the United States, she wrote in an email. FactCheck.org described Harris claim as wrong, while CNN said it was false. Harris campaign did not respond to our request for comment, including whether the senator has corrected, or plans to correct, her statement. Our ruling Sen. Kamala Harris claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers may lose their jobs by the end of this year. She relied on a study that predicted, in a worst-case scenario, that between 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs could be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but in no way all from the auto industry. The losses would take place one year after President Trump imposes a proposed 25 percent tariff on imported cars and auto parts. Trump has delayed his decision on those tariffs until later this year, meaning the one-year later impact would not be felt until well into 2020, and not by the end of this year as Harris said. Harris claim far overestimates potential job losses for the auto industry, the timing of them and ignores the fact that no decision has been made on the tariffs. We rated her claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families. She cites statistics on the cost of housing, college, healthcare and how, if elected president, her policies would lessen the burden. Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. Weve seen similar versions of this claim before and wanted to know whether Harris statement was accurate. We set out on a fact check. Our research In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank. Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money. Those findings generally support Harris contention of almost half of American families facing hardship with a $400 cost. A Harris campaign spokeswoman said the senator relied on the Fed report. But we took a deeper look at the survey to examine her contention this would really lead to complete upheaval for almost half of American families. What did the survey ask? Heres the survey question that led to the finding that 40 percent of adults couldnt immediately pay for a $400 unforeseen cost. EF3. Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply. a. Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement b. Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time c. With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash d. Using money from a bank loan or line of credit e. By borrowing from a friend or family member f. Using a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft g. By selling something The findings show that 59 percent of adults in 2017 said they could easily cover (the $400 expense), using entirely cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Among those who couldnt easily pay it, 43 percent said they would put it on a credit card and pay it off over time; 26 percent reported they would borrow from a friend or family member; 19 percent said they would sell something; 9 percent responded that they would use a bank loan or line of credit; 5 percent said they would use a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft; and 4 percent said they would fined an undefined or other way to pay. And 29 percent said they would not be able to pay the expense right now. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018 Experts weigh in Daniel Schneider, a UC Berkeley sociology professor whose research specialties include economic instability, reviewed Harris statement, along with the survey and its findings. I think it is an open question about how those other options  map with complete upheaval. Is putting something on your credit card to pay off over time complete upheaval? Maybe, he wrote in an email. One could certainly imagine that facing an expense shock and having to resort to (those options) would be stressful. The overall idea behind Harris statement is accurate, Abdur Chowdhury, an economics professor emeritus at Marquette University told us in an email. Chowdhury added, however, that the percentage of people who face a hardship due to a $400 unanticipated cost may be lower today. The survey, from which the figure was quoted, was conducted a few years ago. With the low unemployment rate and increases in wage rate, fewer people are in that 'close to bankruptcy' category, the professor added. A spokeswoman for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: Millions of hard-working Americans can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. They are a medical bill, a car repair, or a rent increase away from having to make painful choices like turning to a neighbor hat in hand to ask for a loan, putting themselves in spiraling credit card debt, selling their car, or heading to a pawn shop with their wedding ring. To presume any of these things would not upend someone's daily life is out of touch. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. The portion of Harris statement about almost half of families is on the right track. A 2018 Federal Reserve report found 40 percent of adults surveyed could not easily pay for an unforeseen $400 cost. But the report doesnt describe complete upheaval for that group. Instead, it found many would place that expense on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow money from a friend or family or sell a possession. Those represent very real hardships for families. But to characterize them as leading to complete upheaval is not supported by the facts and takes the survey results out-of-context. We rated Harris claim Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. RELATED: Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it? Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debt Are paychecks failing to keep up with inflation? Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said? Claim:  Message accurately summarizes Charles Krauthammer's talk at the Center of the American Experiment.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. You would do well to read and pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us & our children. To my Friends & Associates: Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.  The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not 'drunk the Kool-Aid', feel free. A summary of his comments: 1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a 'cool customer' who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's 'behind the mask'. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time. 2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES! 3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling  capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to 'level the playing field' with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada. 4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid. 5. He's surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they're going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama's not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says. 6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies! 7. He's now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not 'come due' until after he's reelected in 2012. He'd like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. 8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're 'pining' for another Reagan, but there'll never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she's to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and states' rights. 9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We're spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyper inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package . These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above. 10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of 'change' caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising is was as close as it was. 11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it'll be a dogfight. It'll all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There's a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late. Origins:  Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a political commentator and syndicated newspaper columnist whose work earned a Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary in 1987.   The article quoted above supposedly provides a second-hand accounting of the substance of remarks Dr. Krauthammer made regarding President Obama during a 1 June 2009 talk at the Annual Dinner of the Center of the American Experiment. Pulitzer Prize Annual Dinner No transcript or recording of Dr. Krauthammer's remarks on that occasion is available to compare against the above-quoted summary, as Dr. Krauthammer "does not disseminate comments made at private events," so it's difficult to objectively determine how much of  the e-mailed account conforms to what Krauthammer actually said and how much of the account reflects the subjective viewpoint of its anonymous author.  Dr. Krauthammer himself said, in a statement posted to the Center of the American Experiment's web site, that: statement This account is neither accurate nor authoritative. My views on Obama are well known. I've explained them in a series of five columns.   This email is somebody putting his own ideological stamp and spin on my views.  One giveaway of the superimposition of someone else's views on mine is the rather amusing use of phrases that I never use. To take just a few examples randomly: "God forbid," "far left secular progressive," "this is the first president ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!" "no country had ever spent themselves into prosperity," and, the real doozy, "states rights."  My views are clearly spelled out in that series of columns and subsequent writings. Anyone who wants to know my views should consult those and not this email. Articles by Charles Krauthammer that directly explicate his views on President Obama are listed below: Obama: The Grand Strategy  April 24, 2009 Obama: The Grand Strategy  April 24, 2009 The Sting, In Four Parts  April 17, 2009 The Sting, In Four Parts  April 17, 2009 Obamas Ultimate Agenda  April 3, 2009 Obamas Ultimate Agenda  April 3, 2009 The Great Non Sequitur  March 6, 2009  The Great Non Sequitur  March 6, 2009  The Obamaist Manifesto  February 27, 2009 The Obamaist Manifesto  February 27, 2009 Last updated:  29 June 2009 In October 2016, an image appeared on social media accusing Indiana's governor (and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's running mate) Mike Pence of supporting "gay conversion" therapy, particularly the use of electric shocks as part of the practice:  The allegation dates back to 2000, when Pence was running for Congress. His campaign web site at the time touted his call to add a stipulation to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, a 1990 law providing funding for HIV/AIDS treatment for patients living with the disease lacking either the income or the necessary insurance to pay for it on their own: campaign HIV/AIDS treatment Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. Although he didn't say so outright, the position has been widely interpreted as signaling Pence's support for "gay conversion" therapy, which seeks to "cure" patients of being attracted to members of the same sex. According to the American Psychological Association, electric shocks were one of the techniques used to address homosexuality through "aversion therapy" prior to the group's decision in 1973 to stop classifying it as a mental disorder. By the time Pence made his statement regarding the Ryan White CARE Act, that group and several others, including the American Psychiatric Association, had rejected the practice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or repair homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of cures are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to changeindividuals sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm. The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. "Conversion therapy" has been banned by law in five states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont) as well as in Washington, D.C. We contacted Pence's office seeking comment on his stance regarding the issue but did not receive a response. Republicans were hit with a similar accusation in July 2016, when their national platform included the phrase "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children." accusation platform When asked whether that statement represented support for "conversion therapy," Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus replied that "It's not in the platform." replied 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 Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.