Has Biden made a promise to get rid of the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Tax?
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.
On 6 April 2016, the Facebook page "Worldwide Infidels United" published the above-reproduced meme, along with the following text: published This is Sajid Muhammed, a Muslim man living in the UK. In 2002 he set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwitch and only got 2 year in prison! He was released early to appease the local Muslims protesting against his arrest! SHARE if you think he should be hung! The text included a photograph of theactor Ian Hart, who portrayed Professor Quirinus Quirrell in the film adaptation ofHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Professor Quirinus Quirrell    The meme achieved tens of thousands of shares; alarge number of those sharing were in on the joke, but not all of them.Some were outraged: I'm not sure on the death penalty but he should served his sentence then been deported n not allowed a passport again pure evil the system over here stinks It's unbelievable what these Muslims get away with in our country what is our government trying to do .God Help Us Others were offended for different reasons: Whoever put up this post should be prosecuted for using a misleading image from Harry Potter and The Philosophers stone to promote racist comment whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself! And you need to apologise to the Muslim community for peddling such lies! Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence! Putting asideany individual reader or commenter's interpretation, "World Infidels United" was not ananti-Muslim page, nor was its content meant to be taken literally. Additional content on the page clarifiedits satirical nature:  Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016  Please share to help spread the word! Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016 The meme's maker was mocking British people who shared similar (but serious) anti-Muslim memes on Facebook, and wasn't literally claiming that Professor Quirrell set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwich. In April 2021, as Florida congressman Matt Gaetz was being investigated for lewd and potentially illegal behavior involving underage women, some social media users started to mockingly share a picture of Gaetz with unusually tall hair: investigated   This is not a genuine image of Gaetz' hair.  It comes from a July 2020 hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee concerning the online dominance of companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. Here's a genuine screenshot of Gaetz from this hearing (left) and the doctored image (right). It's clear that the height of his hair was embellished in the fake image. House Judiciary Committee   A video of the full "Online Platforms and Market Power: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google" hearing can be seen below. Gaetz speaks several times during this hearing. He can be glimpsed, for example, around the 3:03:00 mark: A chorus of Democratic lawmakers and supporters has been increasingly vocal in pushing Gov. Nathan Deal to expand Medicaid in Georgia. One of those voices is the Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Atlantas Ebenezer Baptist Church, the former pulpit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock, the keynote speaker at this years MLK Commemorative Service at Ebenezer, used the occasion -- with political heavyweights of both sides of the aisle in the room -- to demand an expansion. He cited a statistic weve seen others mention to make his case. Georgia has the fifth-highest number of uninsured people of any state in the union, he said. Is this correct? PolitiFact Georgia was curious for a few reasons. U.S. census figures show Georgia has the eighth-highest population in the nation, so the Peach States ranking would be higher than some states that have more residents, if Warnock is correct. Weve also heard similar claims in the past from others who support the expansion, so PolitiFact Georgia thoughtnow is a good time to find out if theyre right. As part of the federal health care law, also known as Obamacare, the federal government pays for the full cost of newly eligible Medicaid recipients under expansion for the first three years. Its share then drops to no lower than 90 percent of the cost. In Georgia, its estimated that as many as 650,000 additional residents would be eligible for Medicaid. Deal, whose last vote as a congressman was against the health care law, has been adamantly opposed to the Medicaid expansion. The governor has said hes wary of expanding coverage for fear that Uncle Sam will be unable to fulfill its funding pledge for the additional Medicaid recipients. Deal has estimated the expansion would cost the state $4 billion over a decade, but supporters of the health care law say the cost would likely be closer to half of that. Medicaid expansion supporters contend Georgia could get about $30 billion over 10 years from the federal government. Deal, who spoke at the MLK service, had left by the time Warnock addressed the audience. The pastor  who called Deal courageous for his position on other issues, such as prison re-entry  told us, Id like to see the same courage on Medicaid expansion. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution statewide poll done in September found nearly 60 percent of Georgians dont like the health care law, but approximately the same percentage of respondents believe Medicaid should be expanded. Warnock said he had done some research on where Georgia ranked nationally in terms of uninsured residents and believed he was in the ballpark on his claim. He forwarded a two-page fact-sheet by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, which supports an expansion, that says Georgia ranks fifth in the number of uninsured residents. He shared a 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation report that ranked Georgia tied for fifth in the percentage of uninsured residents, at 19 percent, along with Alaska and California. In order, the top four states were Nevada, Florida, New Mexico and Louisiana. A 2013 Gallup poll found Georgia ranked sixth nationally in that category, with approximately 22.5 percent of its residents uninsured. The top five were Texas, Louisiana, Nevada, California and Florida. The results were based on telephone interviews conducted as part of a yearlong survey of a random sample of adults across the nation. Some interviews were done in Spanish. The Corporation for Enterprise Development, an organization that works to alleviate poverty, released a study that found nearly 22 percent of Georgians under the age of 65 were uninsured in 2011. That was the fourth-highest total in the nation, behind only Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. The corporation used data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its findings. The U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey has a breakdown of uninsured residents by state. In 2012, Georgia ranked sixth, with about 19 percent of its residents uninsured, slightly above the national average of 16 percent. The top five states were Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Louisiana. Georgia State University associate professor Bill Custer said there are several factors concerning why Georgia ranks consistently among the states with the highest percentage of uninsured residents. Georgia, he said, has a larger percentage of residents who cannot afford health insurance because their wages are low or they are unemployed. We recently fact-checked a claim by state Sen. Jason Carter, D-Atlanta, that the average Georgia family makes $6,000 less than the average family did 10 years ago when inflation is factored in. Carters claim was ratedTrue. Another factor, Custer said, is many Georgians live in rural parts of the state and work in industries such as agriculture and retail where their employers cannot afford to provide health care. Custer wrote a report in February 2013 that concluded the expansion would support 70,343 jobs statewide over a 10-year span. About half of those jobs would be in the health care industry, Custer said. For us not to accept the Medicaid expansion is a barrier to economic growth, Warnock said in a telephone interview. Youll produce jobs. If you provide that health care (to those additional Medicaid recipients), someone has to provide that health care. To sum up, Warnock said Georgia has the fifth-highest number of uninsured residents. Our research showed hes indeed in the ballpark. We rate his claim True. False accusations alleging protesters at confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid as part of a nefarious liberal conspiracy to block his confirmation resulted in intense harassment for two people whose images were posted online along with misleading information. Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings.The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action:Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation).Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned."These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police."Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy.Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us:Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money.Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars.RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.)The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle.A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back:Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group:I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why.I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below.During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors.She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that.Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over.We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest.  Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings. first post and forfeit The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action: website video Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018 The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."   While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation). Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned. "These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police." Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy. Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us: Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money. Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars. users Gateway Pundit Your News Wire Infowars RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.) RealClearPolitics The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle. popped up repeatedly A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back: Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation #KavanaughConfirmation  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018  On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group: authored I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why. I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below. During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors. She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over. boogeyman We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest. Schindler, Adam.  "Story Behind Kavanaugh 'Paid Protesters.'
  AdamSchindler.com.  6 September 2018. Hulse, Carl.  "A New Reality for Court Confirmations: Pandemonium, Protesters and Partisanship."
  The New York Times.  4 September 2018. Brown, Emma. "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault."
  The Washington Post  16 September 2018. Claim:  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky penned an opinion piece about the 2012 U.S. presidential elections entitled "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire." CORRECTLY  ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Just wondering if you can verify whether the following waswritten by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, NJ: Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Rabbi fromTeaneck, N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtfulexplanation of how our nation is changing. The article appeared in TheIsrael National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of AmericanJews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in thatregard.  The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 isthat Americans voted for the status quo  for the incumbent Presidentand for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship,incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.And fewer people voted.2008 total.  But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didnt get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues  the traditional American virtues  of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness  no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the Reagan Democrat is one clich that should be permanently retired. [Rest of article here.] here  Origins:  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky describes himself on his web site biography as: biography [T]he spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun, a synagogue consisting of nearly 600 families located in Teaneck, New Jersey, and one of the most vibrant centers of Orthodox Jewish life today. He has served since August 1994. Previously, Rabbi Pruzansky was for nine years the spiritual leader of Congregation Etz Chaim in Kew Gardens Hills, New York. While in New York, he served a two-year term as President of the Vaad Harabonim (Rabbinical Board) of Queens. On 7 November 2012, the day after the 2012 U.S. presidential election, Rabbi Pruzansky (a Romney supporter) published the opinion piece referenced above on his blog under the title "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire," offering his viewpoint on why the election turned out the way it did and what the results augur for the future. published Last updated:  15 March 2013 On 20 April 2019, the verified Facebook page belonging to the non-profit organization Turning Point USA posted a meme containing a statement falsely attributed to George Washington. Facebook page Turning Point USA meme The statement attributed to the first U.S. president reads, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. Firearms are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." Much like the cherry tree legend about him, however, the quote appears to be a fabrication.The statement, which is often referred to as the "liberty teeth" quote, is listed by Mount Vernon (Washington's historical estate) under "spurious quotations" attributed to Washington. It "does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote," per the estate. cherry tree  spurious quotations Nevertheless, the quote gets trotted out with some regularity. In 2013 the progressive media watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) noted it was employed in a Playboy magazine article as far back as 1995, and was thus the subject of a subsequent retraction. The quote was also one of several erroneous ones included in the language of a Washington state bill dubbed the "firearms civil rights act" in 2016. employed erroneous ones One of the most famous myths about the first president is probably the story of the cherry tree. In the story, a young Washington takes a hatchet to a cherry tree. When confronted about it by his father, the boy says, "I cannot tell a lie" and confesses. Although the tale is meant to demonstrate the virtue of honesty, it is an invention of biographer Mason Locke Weems. The Mount Vernon estate notes that "Weems biography, The Life of Washington, was first published in 1800 and was an instant bestseller. However the cherry tree myth did not appear until the books fifth edition was published in 1806." Santos, Melissa."Fake Founding Fathers Quotes Make Their Way Into Gun Bill in Washington."
Sacramento Bee.6 February 2016. Rendall, Steve."George Washington on GunsAccording to Sean Hannity."
FAIR.9 January 2013. Mount Vernon."Spurious Quotations." Mount Vernon."Cherry Tree Myth." In a debate that featured rehashed candidate positions, one new policy emerged: Sen. John McCains proposal to have the government buy and renegotiate what his top adviser later said would be literally millions of mortgages on houses whose values have dropped and whose owners are struggling to keep up with payments. Taxpayers would cover the difference between the original loan and the new one, at a cost the McCain campaign estimated to be at $300-billion. Is it expensive? Yes, McCain said during the debate on Oct. 7, 2008. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, were never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And weve got to give some trust and confidence back to America. In announcing the plan amid the question-and-answer of a town hall meeting, McCain sought to make clear that this was a bold, new idea all his own: And its my proposal, its not Sen. Obamas proposal, its not President Bushs proposal. The question is whether or not McCain's proposal is as original as he claims. But first, some details on the plan. Mechanically, the initiative is very simple, said Doug Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser for the McCain campaign. A homeowner would initiate the process by calling a mortgage broker or other originator and basically saying, 'Id like to refinance my home, and they would start the underwriting process, verify incomes. The government loans would be available to mortgage holders who:  Live in the home as a primary residence. Can prove their creditworthiness (and made a down payment at the time of the purchase). The FHA would then issue a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at a rate Holtz-Eakin estimated would be in the low 5 percent range. Mortgage rates for 30-year fixed home loans are currently about 5.82 percent. Taxpayers would pick up the difference between the value of the two loans. While at least part of the expense of McCains plan would be borne by the recently approved $700-billion bailout plan, the initiative also would tap some of the $300-billion tied to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act passed this summer. Thats a plan that seeks to refinance loans for low- to moderate-income homeowners struggling to pay for homes they bought for more than they are now worth.The McCain plan outlines a dramatic shift in emphasis for the $700-billion bailout plan. While the bailout contained provisions to allow the Treasury to purchase mortgages directly, the legislation primarily was intended as a means for the government to buy troubled assets from financial institutions that might otherwise fail and that could later be sold when the markets recover. The hope, said Holtz-Eakin, is that McCains bottom level up plan will offset the need for some of that $700-billion. When McCain announced the plan at the debate, Obama supporters were quick to note that Obama had in previous weeks recommended that the bailout plan include the option of buying individual mortgages. We cant simply bail out Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure  or, for that matter, are seeing their home values decline, Obama said. McCain argued, during the debate and afterward, that his proposal is nothing like what Obama talked about. And after hearing details the next day, the Obama campaign agreed with McCain. Obama has always supported plans to have the government buy loans at market prices (in other words, the loan companies would have to swallow some loss), said Obama campaign economic policy director Jason Furman. And homeowners would have to share some of the profits should the value of the home rise. But McCain's proposal wouldn't do either of those things. The government would refinance homes at their new, lower value and absorb the loss in propoerty values entirely. Okay, so who's idea is it? Charlie Black, a senior adviser to McCain, told theNew York Timesthe mortgage renewal idea actually originated with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who borrowed it from a Depression-era New Deal agency, the Home Owners Loan Corp. Clinton spoke about her plan before Congress on Sept. 18, 2008. A new government entity like the HOLC with a focus on attacking the source of the problem can serve the purpose of clearing a lot of those toxic mortgage securities from the market, Clinton said. We know there will not be any semblance of a normal or orderly marketplace until we have found a way to resolve these mortgage securities that are metastasizing in the bottom of our markets. By taking this paper out of the market and quarantining it in this new entity we will be able to give the market breathing room to recover. We will also be able to set the stage for an orderly sale of these securities and in turn allow some of them to recover and actually regain some of their value. Perhaps just as importantly, not only would our financial markets stabilize but so would our housing markets. Although Clinton did not offer specifics of her plan, she seemed to suggest that it would entail buying mortgages at discounted current market rates, and that taxpayers might ultimately turn a profit on them. That's not McCain's plan. So here's where we stand: It's true that terms of the $700-billion bailout plan first initiated by President Bush contains authority for the Treasury to purchase mortgages directly. And it's true that Obama has called for a component of the buyout plan to include direct purchase of mortgages to alleviate homeowners struggling to make payments. Finally, it's true that Clinton sketched out a plan last spring that shared some of the goals and traits of McCain's proposal. The method McCain proposes  buying mortgages at their original value and renegotiating at the current market value (with taxpayers picking up the difference)  is indeed new. But while McCain can rightly take credit for the details of his proposal, he is by no means alone with the idea of having the federal government buy mortgages directly. We rate his statement Mostly 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. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. When Susan Goodman Komen died of breast cancer at the age of 33 in 1980, her younger sister, Nancy Goodman Brinker promised she would do whatever she could to help end that disease.  Brinker fulfilled that promise by founding The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (later known as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, then just Susan G. Komen) in 1982, a group that has since become the largest and most well known breast cancer organization in the United States: breast cancer Brinker fulfilled a promise to her sister that she would do everything she could to help eradicate the disease  a disease that Brinker also was diagnosed with and successfully fought. "At that time, there was a stigma and shame around breast cancer," Brinker said. "You didn't talk about it. There were no 800-numbers, no Internet. Our government didn't spend much on breast cancer research. There were few major cancer centers with expertise about breast cancer. That's the world we faced when Suzy was diagnosed. It's a world I watched her suffer in, and it's a world she wanted us to change." In 2012, Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker became the focus of controversy when she announced Komen would be pulling the grants the organization had been providing to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, then quickly reversed that decision.  Several months later Brinker announced she would be stepping down as Komen's CEO, but the following year she was again the focus of controversy when news outlets reported that not only did she still hold her CEO position, but she had received a hefty raise to boot that brought her annual compensation up to $684,000 per year: In early 2012, Komen announced it was pulling its grants for breast-cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood, drawing an immediate backlash from Komen supporters and abortion rights advocates. Within days, Nancy Brinker, the groups founder and CEO, reversed the decision to defund the organization. Then, in August, Brinker announced that she would be stepping down. But 10 months later, Brinker still holds her position and tax documents reveal that she received a 64 percent raise and now makes $684,000 a year, according to the charitys latest available tax filing.  Komen says the raise came in November 2010, prior to last year's controversy. Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates and rates charities, called Brinker's salary "extremely high." "This pay package is way outside the norm," he said. "It's about a quarter of a million dollars more than what we see for charities of this size. This is more than the head of the Red Cross is making, for an organization that is one-tenth the size of the Red Cross."  The American Red Cross had revenue of about $3.4 billion, while Komens was about $340 million last year.  Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern makes $500,000, according to the most recent financial documents available for the charity. Charity Navigator's last compensation figure for Nancy Brinker was $560,896 per year, which at the time put her below Komen president Elizabeth Thompson's reported annual compensation of $606,461.   In June 2013, Komen finally announced that Brinker would be stepping down as president and CEO of that organization and named Judith A. Salerno, M.D. as her successor.  In June 2015, Brinker reportedly resigned from her paid position to assume an unpaid role role as a top volunteer with Komen. Dr. Salerno's most recently reported compensation (in August 2017) was $479,858, while Nancy Brinker was still listed as a "founder" receiving a salary of $397,093. compensation announced unpaid In September 2017, Paula Schneider took over as president and CEO of Komen, with compensation of $137,155 reported as of the end of the fiscal year in March 2018. Paula Schneider The reference to Komen's applying only 20% of donated money to breast cancer research likely comes from a pie chart displayed in the "Use of Funds" section of Wikipedia's article about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which showed Komen's 2009-2010 Expenses: Use of Funds  While it may have been true that breast cancer research comprised only a 21% share of Komen's program expenses (Charity Navigator puts the figure at 28.8% as of March 2018), citing that figure as a criticism of the organization reflects a common misbelief that groups dedicated to addressing particular diseases (e.g., the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association) exist solely or primarily to fund and direct research into curing and/or preventing those diseases.  This perception is inaccurate: Komen and other groups like it have goals that include delivering a wide array of services to the communities they support beyond the funding of research, such as funding educational awareness and outreach programs, providing screening and diagnostic procedures, and arranging medical treatment and home care for persons currently living with those diseases.  A more relevant metric for assessing a charity's overall financial effectiveness is the percentage of the organization's budget that is actually spent on all the programs and services the charity delivers, and in this area the Charity Navigator charity evaluation site gives  Komen an 80.3 rating (as well as a 96.0 rating for Accountability & Transparency).  Charity Navigator does rank many other breast cancer charities higher than Susan G. Komen for the Cure, however. Komen breast cancer Regarding the seemingly excessively high level of CEO salaries at some charities, Charity Navigator advises that: advises While there are certainly some charities that overpay their leaders, Charity Navigator's data shows that those organizations are the minority. Among the charities we've evaluated (those being mid to large-sized charities), the typical CEO's annual compensation is in the low to mid six figures. Before you make any judgments about salaries higher or lower than that range, we encourage you to keep in mind that these charities are complex organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, hundreds of employees, and thousands of constituents. These leaders could inevitably make much more running similarly sized for-profit firms. Furthermore, when making your decision it is important to consider that it takes a certain level of professionalism to effectively run a charity and charities must offer a competitive salary if they want to attract and retain that level of leadership.