Was Creator of 'Bernie Mittens' Taxed Out of Business?
As memes of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wearing hand-crafted mittens at Joe Biden's presidential inauguration plastered the Internet in early 2021, rumors surfaced alleging that the creator of the mittens had stopped selling recycled wool products because of high federal taxes. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders Snopes received numerous inquiries to investigate the validity of the claim, which attempted to expose hypocrisy of people who support the Vermont senator's goals of imposing new taxes to pay for various proposals, including free universal health care. imposing new taxes   Here's some background: Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher, said she made the mittens out of discarded wool sweaters and gifted them to the senator after he lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. "I sent him these mittens kind of as a shoutout to who he is, and I put a note in that said something to the effect of, 'I hope you run again,'" she told Slate. Hillary Clinton Slate  (Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)  The viral image of Sanders wearing Ellis' gift and sitting with his arms and legs crossed made the teacher famous by the viral standards of 2021. She gave multiple interviews to news outlets including NPR and Slate in which she discussed her support for Sanders and reaction to the memes; social media users and other websites republished those comments, in part to harness the virality of the moment. teacher famous NPR Slate republished those comments Among the latter group was The Federalist, an online hub of articles with a conservative bent. Two days after the inauguration, the website published a page with the headline, "Woman Behind Bernie Sanders' Iconic Mittens Quit Making Them Because High Taxes Killed Her Business," reading: page The Vermont school teacher who made Bernie Sanders mittens, featured in the most recent viral meme, said she had to stop making them after the federal government taxed her too much. viral meme To support the claim, The Federalist cited a portion of Ellis' interview with Slate. According to a transcribed version of that conversation, which Slate published on Jan. 21, the elementary school teacher indeed told writer Rachelle Hampton: interview with Slate Hampton: Speaking of bittersweet, you supported Bernie. How did you feel about watching Biden be sworn in as president? Ellis: Oh my gosh, I cried. Im 42 and Ive waited four decades of my life  Im tearing up just thinking about it to see a woman be vice president. I wish that she was president, although I think Biden is pretty great. [...] And then there was this little side nagging thing of every five minutes I was getting several hundred more emails about the mittens. A year ago, when Bernie was on the campaign trail, he was wearing those mittens and Twitter buzzed about it then. Im not really on TwitterI have an account, but I dont really participate  but a lot of my younger colleagues do and they were like, 'Youve gotta check this out.' [...] So I put it out there that I made the mittens, they were a gift, and theyre not knitted, theyre sewn from repurposed and up-cycled sweaters. At that time, I had 30 or 40 mittens for sale and being a little nave about Twitter, I put my Gmail account on that, which someone picked up yesterday and retweeted it. People have been contacting me thinking that they can get mittens, and actually they cant. I dont have any more, and I dont have much of a mitten business anymore because it really wasnt worth it. Independent crafters get really taken for a ride by the federal government. We get taxed to the nth degree, and it wasnt really worth it pursuing that as a business, even as a side hustle. I mostly just make them as gifts. 30 or 40 mittens for sale In other words, Ellis said she did not "have much of a mitten business anymore," or that she previously sold the handmade items for a price and then mostly stopped. She implied that federal taxes were a leading factor in her decision to make that change. On Jan. 20, as social media lit up with the memes following the inauguration, she confirmed on Twitter that she was not selling mittens like the senator's. confirmed on Twitter   Snopes reached out to Ellis to learn more about her history of trying to sell mittens for profit and paying federal taxes as a self-described independent crafter. We have not yet received a response, but we'll update this report when or if we do. All of that said, the size of Ellis' former business was unknown, as well as how long or via what methods she sold the handmade mittens. U.S. tax code requires all independent contractors  no matter if they use online marketplaces such as Etsy to sell handmade products  to pay local and federal taxes based on net profits. U.S. tax code Etsy Also, we should note here: Sanders' proposed changes to the country's tax system would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act so that taxpayers who earn between about $9,500 and $250,000 would pay about 4% more, and taxes on the country's top earners would generate the majority of revenue. Additionally, he wants to impose a new payroll on businesses that earn more than $2 million annually, a change that intends to protect ventures like Ellis' from paying more. (See here for a detailed breakdown of Sanders' tax proposal by Forbes.) 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act here So while it was true that taxes played a role in Ellis' decision to stop charging people money for mittens prior to her viral fame, it was false to claim that she "quit" making them all together, like The Federalist headline alleged. Between Jan. 23 and 24, she said in a series of tweets that she made three more pairs of "Bernie mittens," two of which she donated to Passion 4 Paws Vermont and Outright Vermont for fundraising and one that she was auctioning off to benefit her daughters college fund. Passion 4 Paws Vermont Outright Vermont daughters college fund   After that, Sanders' official campaign began selling merchandise with the senator's meme-worthy image that Ellis made possible. The so-called "Chairman Sanders" sweatshirts, T-shirts, stickers, etc. helped raise $1.8 million for charitable organizations in Vermont over the course of five days, The Associated Press reported. The Associated Press reported On Jan. 24, Ellis tweeted that the senator called her to tell her that "the mitten frenzy" had raised "an enormous amount of money" for the charities. Besides that evidence, it was unclear how, or to what extent, the teacher was involved in the making or selling of the campaign-official products featuring her mittens. tweeted campaign-official products   As further proof to debunk claims that she had ceased all mitten-making, the teacher on Jan. 27 announced that she had partnered with entities including Darn Tough Socks to make socks inspired by the viral mittens, and the following day she said she was in the process of another project "to get Bernie Mittens for ALL." announced Darn Tough Socks she was "Im not opening a mitten factory or quitting my job as a second grade teacher! However, I am going to choose a new adventure on the side," Ellis said on her official website and GoFundMe page. "Never fear  I will make more mittens, but I won't be selling them for myself. I will be donating them to Vermont Charities to help them fundraise and make up for the funds lost due to the pandemic." official website GoFundMe page In sum, while it was true that, prior to her viral fame, Ellis mostly stopped charging people for handmade mittens due to costs including federal taxes, she was still creating the recycled wool products and people were spending money on them, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truthful and misleading information.
One claim that has often been repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump is that he rebuilt a military that was "totally depleted" by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump's grievance is based on a grain of truth  military spending was reduced during Obama's second term  but Trump's statements on the matter have combined distorted facts with outright falsehoods. The way Trump tells it, the United States military was in a complete shambles when he took office. Over the years, Trump has made a variety of statements in order to perpetuate this notion.  In one oft-repeated story, Trump illustrated his claim that Obama depleted the military by saying that the armed forces had "no ammunition" when he took office. In October 2019, for instance, Trump said: "When I took over our military, we did not have ammunition." said This is not true. The military did not run out of ammunition during the Obama administration (or during any other administration, as far as we can tell). not true In addition, Trump falsely claimed in August 2018, as he was signing the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019, that the military had not received any money for years and years. Trump said: "Weve been trying to get money. They never gave us money for the military for years and years. And it was depleted." This, again, is false. In fact, approximately $600 billion was spent on the military in the year before Trump took office.  President Trump has also mischaracterized his own military spending. On May 22, 2020, during a speech at the "Rolling to Remember Ceremony: Honoring our Nations Veterans and POW/MIA," Trump claimed that he spent trillions on equipment: speech "Weve invested the $2.5 trillion in all of the greatest equipment in the world, and its all made here, right in the USA.  This is not true. The $2.5 trillion figure refers to the total Department of Defense (DOD) budget that was passed under Trump -- comparatively speaking, Obama's budget during was about $3.3. trillion during his first term and $2.7 trillion during his second term -- but only of a portion of the DOD budget is spent on equipment. The amount spent on procurement, or the act of obtaining military equipment and supplies, varies from year to year, but it generally made up about 15% of Trump's total military budget.  not true While Trump has told several falsehoods about how Obama supposedly "totally depleted" the military, there is some general truth to the idea, as overall military spending was reduced during the Obama administration. However, there is a bit more nuance to this issue than is often heard on the campaign trail.  While the military was leaner during the Obama years, the Obama administration still spent trillions on national defense.  Calculating an exact dollar figure for how much the U.S. spends on the military (and what administration is responsible for that spending) is a complicated proposition. The military budget covers a wide range of expenses across five military branches: the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force. One could also factor in money spent on the Department of Veterans Affairs, on overseas contingency operations, and on other security agencies, such as Homeland Security. Military contracts and budgetary plans also often overlap presidential terms, meaning that spending authorized under one president may end up getting spent under another. Furthermore, each president is faced with different domestic and global threats, which require different approaches and therefore different spending. Lastly, no president has sole discretion over military spending. For instance, sequestration, a provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act that passed congress with bipartisan support, limited the amount that could be spent on the military. military budget covers sequestration The "green book," an annual budgetary analysis put out by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, shows that military spending greatly increased following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks during the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Spending continued to increase after Obama took office. In 2010, there was a slight decrease in military spending, and that trend continued until 2015. Spending increased again during Obama's final year in office and then continued to increase during Trump's administration.  green book The following chart from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) takes a look at the United States' budget stretching back to the 1980s. The green line at the top of this chart is the United States budget for National Defense.  Center for Strategic and International Studies   Trump's military budget for his first four years (approximately $2.9 trillion) was more robust than Obama's budget during his last four years (approximately $2.7 trillion). However, it was smaller than Obama's budget during his first four years (approximately $3.3 trillion). The Marine Corps Times writes: writes The military the president inherited from Obama was not depleted or facing a massive readiness crisis, which resulted from massive underfunding in the Obama years. In fact, according to Gen. David Petraeus ,who commanded our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and also headed the CIA, and Michael OHanlon, there was no readiness crisis and in 2016, the year Trump was elected, the state of our military was awesome. Nor was the defense budget seriously underfunded in the Obama years. If one controls for inflation, in FY2021 dollars Obama spent $3.3 trillion in his first term compared with the $2.9 trillion under Trump. Moreover, while defense spending did decline slightly in Obamas second term, it still amounted to $2.7 trillion, about $200 million, or 7 percent less, than Trumps first-term budget. However, this decline was a result of the Budget Control Act or sequestration (BCA,) which was instituted by his current chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was then a congressman from South Carolina. While the military certainly had ammunition during the Obama administration, and while the Obama administration certainly spent a few trillion dollars more than nothing on national defenses, several aspects of the military were truly reduced during Obama's administration. Todd Harrison, the director of Defense Budget Analysis for CSIS, examined Obama's budget for fiscal year 2017, the budget that would be in place when Trump took office, and found that "nearly every measure of force structure  the number of brigades, aircraft, ships and subs, marine battalions, and end strength  [was] smaller than when the [post 9/11] buildup began." However, this "smaller force consumes a budget more than 50 percent larger in real terms than before 9/11. The military is spending more for a smaller force."  examined Obama's budget Though it is certainly not accurate to say that the military did not receive any funding during the Obama administration, there was truly a reduction in spending. Two major factors resulted in reduced spending. First, congress placed restrictions on military spending in 2011 in an attempt to reduce the national deficit. And second, the Obama administration started to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.  Here's how The New York Times explained the impact of the congressional sequester on military spending: explained In 2011, in response to a debt ceiling crisis, lawmakers reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade. In addition to limits on domestic spending, limits were placed on the Pentagons base budget, but not its wartime spending. Congress increased spending caps by $32 billion in 2013 and $40 billion in 2015, referred to by budget watchers as partial sequester relief. In February, the cap was blown off entirely, when Mr. Trump signed a budget deal that raised it by $165 billion over two years. Effectively, that ended the sequester without repealing the original law. From 2012 to 2017, the Pentagons annual budget had decreased as a percent of the economy. But it still hovered around $600 billion  a far cry from no money at all. Qiu, Linda.  "Trump Goes for Broke on Claim Military Received No Money Before His Watch. (Hes Still Wrong.)."
  The New York Times.  13 August 2018. Plinkington, Ed.  "Barack Obama Sets Out Plans for Leaner Military in Historic Strategy Shift." 
 The Guardian.  5 January 2012. Ewing, Philip.  "Fact Check: Has President Obama 'Depleted' The Military?"
  NPR.  29 August 2016. Korb, Lawrence.  "Trumps Misleading Claims on Military Readiness and Veteran Care."
  Marine Corps Times.  14 September 2020. Harrison, Todd.  "Analysis of the FY 2017 Defense Budget."
  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  April 2016. Robertson, Lori.  "Trumps False Military Equipment Claim.'"
  FactCheck.org.  2 July 2020. On 21 August 2017, the conservative non-profit organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) posted a meme juxtaposing a 42-year-old quote by then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan with a 2016 photograph of anti-fascist protesters in Dover, England, intended to create the impression that "antifa" demonstrators represented fascism coming to the the United States in just the way that Reagan had predicted decades earlier:   That quote was taken from a December 1975 interview of Reagan conducted by Mike Wallace for the 60 Minutes news magazine television program:  We've found no record of anyone, other than Reagan himself, having made the "profound" statement that "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism." Most likely the future President was recalling a variant of a maxim (commonly misattributed to author Sinclair Lewis) holding that "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis TPUSA shared the Reagan meme on their official Facebook feed at a time when anti-fascist activists, or "antifa," had garnered both notoriety and heightened media scrutiny following violent incidents at white supremacist rallies in Berkeley, California, and Charlottesvile, Virginia (in April and August 2017, respectively). After white supremacists (who have adopted the moniker "alt-right") were widely condemned for an outbreak of deadly violence at a protest in Charlottesville, some conservatives responded by claiming "antifa" protesters deserved equal condemnation. antifa The bottom image in the TPUSA meme (which has been shared thousands of times) wasn't taken in the United States, despite the implication created by its inclusion here. The photograph was taken in Dover, England, on 30 January 2016 by Press Association photographer Gareth Fuller and depicts anti-fascists who clashed with nationalists during an anti-immigration rally in the Kent County town. rally The connection between "liberals" and the "antifas" suggested by this meme isn't quite so apt, as most "antifa" activists are anarchists and/or subscribe to political philosophies that are much further left on the political spectrum than those of mainstream "liberals." Likewise, although the Reagan quote sought to draw a connection between liberalism and fascism, the latter is generally considered to be a form of extreme right-wing ideology. anarchists extreme !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/ucxbq"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video": "v3t27p","div": "rumble_v3t27p","autoplay":2}); ITV.  "Far-Right and Anti-Fascist Groups Clash at Protests in Dover."
  30 January 2016. Penny, Daniel.  "An Intimate History of Antifa."
  The New Yorker.  22 August 2017. Beinart, Peter.  "The Rise of the Violent Left."
  The Atlantic.  September 2017 issue. KentOnline.com.  "Dover Riots of January 30, 2016  Police Hunt for Far Right and Anti-Fascist Thugs Goes On."
  30 January 2017. Sepulvado, John, and Bert Johnson.  "Californian Who Helped Lead Charlottesville Protests Used Berkeley as a Test Run."
  KQED-TV.  14 August 2017. McCreesh, Shawn.  "Antifa and the 'Alt-Left': Everything You Need to Know."
  Rolling Stone.  18 August 2017. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. Forbes Progressive Insurance When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion.   This success spawned chain emails and memes decrying Lewis' supposed political leanings and involvement:  This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. Theyre the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels "guilty" for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance Peter Lewis personally donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.") Case Western Reserve $7 million $8 million Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. America Coming Together MoveOn.org Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) letter Marijuana Policy Project charitable However, the "heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance" reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance's CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity's single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: regulations [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test  even if that "injury" resulted from being punched by a student.The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board's now defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs  and who have never been suspected of using drugs  have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. defend Clarke, Josie.  "Eccentric Billionaire Has High Profile at Home."
  The New Zealand Herald.  31 August 2000.

 Edsall, Thomas B.  "Soros-Backed Activist Group Disbands as Interest Fades."
  The Washington Post.  3 August 2005.
 Healy, Rita.  "Mellowing Out on Marijuana."
  Time.  8 November 2007.
 Kranish, Michael.  "Rich Activists, Hoping to Sway Voters, Give Vast Sums to 527s."
  Boston Globe.  21 September 2003  (p. A8).
 Leinwand, Donna.  "Super-Rich Trio Put Cash into Marijuana Initiatives."
  USA Today.  5 November 2002  (p. A8).
 ACLU.  "Individual Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation."
  18 July 2001.
 ACLU.  "$8 Million Gift Will Boost Campaign to Fight Bush Administration's Assault on Civil Liberties."
  15 January 2003.
 Forbes.  "The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009."
  30 September 2009.
 The Nation.  "The Beat-Bush Brigades."
  26 April 2004.
 USA Today.  "Partisan Groups' attack Ads Dodge Disclosure Rules."
  16 March 2004  (p. A12). As the federal government debated the contents of the high-profile Build Back Better infrastructure bill in late fall 2021, social media memes portrayed what was said to be elements of the legislation. One such claim asserted that a journalism tax credit would allot funds of up to half of a journalists salary, or a maximum of $50,000 annually.  Some media publications and social media users inaccurately reflected the contents of the bill and exactly how the tax credit works. social media  One such report came in September 2021, by the right-leaning publication The Daily Signal, which claimed that the media hid a secret in $3.5 trillion spending bill. right-leaning The Daily Signal Theres one piece of the $3.5 trillion spending bill that the media is unlikely to tell you abouttheir bailout.  The massive, bloated $3.5 billion spending bill has so much pork that fiscal hawks could eat it for weeks. One piece that hasnt received much attention yet is a special journalism tax credit equal to 50% of the salary of each journalistup to $50,000 per journalist annually. Yes, thats correct, your tax dollars would be paying 50% of the salary of many journalists, whether you like their reporting or not. First, such claims are misleading. The news media do not write, regulate, or pass legislation, and therefore, could not hide additional funds in a spending bill.  It is true that in fall 2021, two pieces of legislation each introduced in the House and Senate aimed to create a tax credit that would incentivize local news subscriptions and advertising, as well as credit local publications that employed journalists for a limited time up to a certain amount. However, the legislation was ultimately excluded from the infrastructure spending bill, and memes depicting its core components are somewhat misleading.  As we have previously reported, just because legislation is introduced does not mean that it will be passed and enforced. Furthermore, the bill language as presented above was not included in the high-profile Build Back Better (BBB) infrastructure bill that has been at the heart of a congressional stop-and-go debate.  In short, similar language was introduced in the BBB (more on those exact nuances later), but the tax credit was not included in its final passage. A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of income tax owed. If approved, that credit would essentially lower the income tax owed by local newsrooms. As is the case with most legislation, the bill was not as cut-and-dry as the meme made it out to be and was instead made up of three major components that were outlined in detail by the Nieman Journalism Lab. The three points were summarized in a letter issued by the office of the U.S. Senate by Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, who co-sponsored the bill.  Nieman Journalism Lab letter There were differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Below is the language for the House's H.R. 3940, the Local Journalism Sustainability Act, which was introduced in June 2021. Local Journalism Sustainability Act This bill allows individual and business taxpayers tax credits for the support of local newspapers and media. Specifically, individual taxpayers may claim an income tax credit up to $250 for a local newspaper subscription. The bill also allows local newspaper employers a payroll tax credit for wages paid to an employee for service as a local news journalist and certain small businesses a tax credit for local newspaper and media advertising expenses. That version of the bill did not move past the House Committee on Ways and Means and was ultimately dropped; but it was proposed again by the Senate in November 2021 under S.2434., reported by Poynter at the time. It read: S.2434 Poynter This bill allows individual taxpayers a tax credit up to $250 in any taxable year for subscriptions to one or more local newspapers for the taxpayer's personal use. It also allows a local news journalist employer a payroll credit for wages paid to local news journalists. The bill allows certain small businesses a tax credit for amounts paid for advertising in a local newspaper or through a broadcast of a radio or television station serving a local community. Roughly speaking, the credit would have cost around $1 billion in the first year, and as News Media Alliance pointed out, the bipartisan legislation was only available to local news organizations with 51% or more of its audience in a state or single area within a 200-mile radius of the news operation. Regardless, neither body passed the legislation. pointed out We also read through the text of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which passed Congress in Dec 2021 and has since become law. (The entire bill can be viewed here and here.) A word search revealed that there was no mention of journalism, and nearly all mentions of the word media referred to ways in which the government could conduct advertising or outreach, like the example below: passed Congress here here  Screengrab/Govtracks.org  Govtracks.org   Although some publications mischaracterized the contents of the proposed legislation and failed to mention that it was not passed by Congress, it is true that the bill as it was introduced included allocating a tax credit to, at least in part, subsidize the salaries of some local journalists. As such, we have rated this claim as Mixture. Sources Boyle, Paul J. Bipartisan Bill Introduced to Provide Tax Incentives in Support of Local Journalism. News Media Alliance, 22 July 2020, https://www.newsmediaalliance.org/bipartisan-bill-introduced-to-provide-tax-incentives-in-support-of-local-journalism/. Cantwell, Maria. Local Journalism Sustainability Act. S.2434, 22 July 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2434?s=1&r=17. Local Journalism Sustainability Act . https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Local%20Journalism%20Sustainability%20Act%20One%20Page%20Summary%20July%2023%202021.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. Https://Twitter.Com/Alaskanpatriot_/Status/1441416781747212305. Twitter, https://twitter.com/alaskanpatriot_/status/1441416781747212305. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. Local Journalism Sustainability Act . H.R.3940, 16 June 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3940/actions?r=86&s=1. Some Questions (and Answers) about the Local Journalism Sustainability Act. Nieman Lab, https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/09/some-questions-and-answers-about-the-local-journalism-sustainability-act/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. Text of H.R. 3684: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Passed Congress Version). GovTrack.Us, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3684/text. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. GovTrack.Us, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3684/text. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. The Tax Credit to Pay the Salaries of Local Journalists Is Back in the Budget Bill. Poynter, 4 Nov. 2021, https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2021/the-tax-credit-to-pay-the-salaries-of-local-journalists-is-back-in-the-budget-bill/. You Searched for the Daily Signal. Media Bias/Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/search/the daily signal/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2022. 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 On Nov. 23, 2020, U.S. General Services Administrator Emily Murphy  an appointee of President Donald Trump  wrote a letter to President-elect Joe Biden that allowed him to start a formal transition of power. The paperwork, obtained by Snopes and displayed below, was the first formal recognition by Trump's government of a Biden presidency. letter formal transition of power The document from the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), an executive branch agency that oversees presidential transitions, raised questions about whether it meant that Trump himself acknowledged defeat to Biden. Concession statements to Americans or phone calls to winning candidates represent an informal step in the country's election process that typically occurs when one candidate secures the majority of electoral votes. Biden reached that milestone  winning key battleground states, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, by comfortable margins  weeks before Murphy's letter. However, Trump broke democratic norms by refusing to concede publicly. electoral votes.   Instead, the president's campaign filed a barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions across the country and accelerated a misinformation campaign online that denied or falsely presented the election results. While legal experts said the litigation did not contain enough evidence to reverse Biden's win, Trump's supporters viewed the effort as a commendable, tough, not-going-to-back-down approach to electoral politics. barrage of lawsuits in local jurisdictions misinformation campaign "It is not a stain on our national honor for a candidate to refuse to concede when there are open and compelling disputes about an electoral outcome," read a Nov. 23 statement by supporters of the Conservative Action Project, an initiative founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III. statement Despite not receiving Trump's concession, Biden filled his Cabinet for the White House, addressing the country under the "Office of the President Elect," and states certified results of the popular vote in order to begin the process of voting for president through the Electoral College. Office of the President Elect states certified results Cue Murphy's letter on Nov. 23. The document carried out the government's obligation under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act to allow presidents-elect and their appointees, aids, and other staff  otherwise known as a transition team  to access millions of federal dollars and set up White House operations before swearing-in ceremonies that would take place the January after general elections. 1963 Presidential Transition Act       Murphy submitted the paperwork after election officials in Michigan certified Biden's win there, and a conservative Republican judge in Pennsylvania shot down a Trump campaign lawsuit, The Associated Press reported. Pennsylvania Murphy's letter said: [Because] of recent developments involving legal challenges and certifications of election results, I have determined that you may access the post-election resources and services described in Section 3 of the Act upon request. The actual winner of the presidential election will be determined by the electoral process detailed in the Constitution. So, in short, a member of the Trump administration, Murphy, filed paperwork to change Biden's official title in government systems to "apparent president-elect" and, as a result, granted him new privileges that only someone with that job title in federal government gets. But it was a wrong interpretation of that procedural step to claim Trump had therefore conceded the 2020 presidential race. Let us note here: No constitutional mandate or federal law requires losing presidential candidates to acknowledge defeat in order for the election's processes to continue. Rather, concession speeches have been an informal tradition that often symbolized a losing candidate's willingness to help with a peaceful transition between presidencies.  transition between presidencies The Associated Press reported: reported In recent days, senior Trump aides including chief of staff Mark Meadows and White House counsel Pat Cipollone had also encouraged him to allow the transition to begin, telling the president he didnt need to concede but could no longer justify withholding support to the Biden transition. [...] Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the GSA action is probably the closest thing to a concession that President Trump could issue. Even after Murphy's letter, the Trump campaign sent supporters emails promoting false claims about the election outcome to solicit donations, including messages to sell "COUNT ALL LEGAL VOTES" T-shirts.   Additionally, on Twitter the president said: "Remember the GSA has been terrific, and Emily Murphy has done a great job, but the GSA does not determine who the next President of the United States will be."   The tweet accurately suggested that presidential elections are technically unfinished until the Electoral College casts its votes and Congress certifies that count, no matter what the administrator does or says. However, it was a misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes to regard those post-Election Day procedures  steps that officially cement Americans' pick for president  as an opportunity to defy the will of the voters without providing compelling evidence of error or fraud. Hours after that tweet, Trump called reporters to a White House briefing room. He gave one-minute remarks about the economy and exited the room without taking questions from reporters. As he walked out, journalists shouted questions about his lack of a concession, and the president did not acknowledge them, White House footage of the event showed. White House footage In short, while a government agency under Trump's administration for the first time officially acknowledged Biden the "apparent president-elect" in a letter that grants him access to federal assets before his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20, 2021, it is false to claim that Trump had conceded defeat to the president-elect. Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 In 2012, PolitiFact twiceratedTrueclaims that President Barack Obama failed to keep a promise to cut federal deficits in half by the end of his first term. At that point, the budget gap topped a trillion bucks and Republican congressmencalled out Obamabecause the deficit had been reduced by just 15 percent. But there was the president atLaborfest 2014in Milwaukee proclaiming we cut our deficits by more than half. In his Sept. 1, 2014speech, the president ticked off for union supporters a list of major policy decisions he contends helped boost the economy and improve the governments bottom line. We cant cover all of those here, but the deficit claim grabbed our attention. Has it really been cut in half? The White House Office of Management and Budget pointed us to achart prepared by that officein 2013 as proof of Obama's claim. It compares the yearly deficits under Obama, expressed -- as they often are -- as a share of the nations entire economy, which is measured by the Gross Domestic Product. At the start of Obamas term, the chart showed, the figure was 9.2 percent. The latest figure was 4.1 percent. That appears to back Obama's statement. But let's examine this in detail. To do that, we reviewed figures published by the Congressional Budget Office as well as theWhite Houses Office of Management and Budget. We also consulted with independent fiscal experts. The baseline year for comparison is fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year. This was the last budget from President George W. Bush, as Obama took office in January of that year. The most recent complete fiscal year is 2013. Those are the same years Obama's chart showed. Our analysis showed the drop easily topped 50 percent, and was actually somewhat higher than Obama's chart would indicate. As a share of the economy, we found -- and our experts confirmed -- the drop was from 9.8 percent in 2009 to 4.1 percent in 2013. Obamas chart actually reflects a lower deficit figure for 2009, and therefore a lower share of GDP, 9.2%. Thats because instead of using the actual 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion, Obama lowers it by the $200 billion in increased deficit spending that he -- not Bush -- pushed through in the stimulus plan to address the crisis that became the Great Recession. That resulting figure is what Obama calls the deficit he inherited from Bush. But no matter which figure is used, the deficit as a share of the economy still fell by more than half. Show me the money There's another way to look at this. That is, in raw dollars -- the way attendees at the union event probably would. Indeed, deficits are often expressed that way as well. The White House and CBO figures each show that in 2009 the deficit reached $1.4 trillion. As a share of GDP, it easily topped any year since World War II, said Steve Ellis, vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. By the end of fiscal year 2013, the deficit figure had fallen to $679.5 billion in dollars unadjusted for inflation. Thats a 52 percent drop. Heres the year-by-year trend in 2009 dollars: Fiscal year Deficit Deficit as share of GDP 2009 1,412,688,000,000 9.8 percent 2010 1,294,373,000,000 8.8 percent 2011 1,299,593,000,000 8.4 percent 2012 1,086,963,000,000 6.8 percent 2013 679,502,000,000 4.1 percent There is one wrinkle. When you use Obama's methodology to compare the deficit Obama inherited -- the 2009 result minus the stimulus package to that in 2013 --  the drop in the deficit is slightly under half, at 48%. Ellis and Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both included an additional year, the 2014 fiscal year, which is just a month from completion. The Aug. 27, 2014CBO estimate for this years budget,fiscal year 2014, is a continued shrinking of the deficit to $506 billion, or 2.9 percent of GDP. Those figures would put Obama's claim over the top no matter the number-crunching method. Looking ahead Ellis cautioned that talking about deficit amounts in raw dollars doesnt really give a good sense of the scale: A $400 billion deficit in a $10 trillion economy is a lot bigger than a $400 billion deficit in $17 trillion economy. And he and Goldwein emphasized that while the deficit has been halved, its been halved from a skyscraping peak. In the decade before deficits exploded in 2008 and 2009, they averaged just over 1 percent of GDP, including three years of surpluses, we calculated. As of 2013, that figure was at 4.1 percent. The growth in the deficit from 2007 to 2009 was due mainly to factors related to the Great Recession, said Goldwein. Tax collections fell as people lost jobs and corporate profits dropped; spending on food stamps and other aid programs rose with increased need; stimulus and tax break legislation passed, as did bailouts of financial firms. The economic recovery, wind-down of stimulus, reversal of TARP/Fannie transactions, and lower interest rates are really what has caused our deficit to fall so much, Goldwein told us. He mentioned cuts in discretionary spending as well. Looking ahead, the CBO warns that later in the next decade deficits as a share of the economy will grow and federal debt will climb without changes in current policies. But Obama, its fair to say, was speaking of the change during his presidency. And his claim dovetails with one PolitiFact National checked in July 2013, ratingTrueObamas claim that the deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. Our rating At a union rally on Labor Day, Obama declared We cut our deficits by more than half. The numbers back up Obamas claim:  Thanks to income tax revenues rising and spending on emergency assistance dropping, Americas deficit has fallen by more than 50 percent from its highest point since World War II to a level $733 billion lower. We rate the claim True. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled 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.