Austin is burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation.
An activist expressed elation after Austin voters rejected a $1 billion rail-and-roads proposition, going on to say the rail part of the plan would have been a financial headache. Jim Skaggs, founder ofCitizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014,news story, that the rail costs would have been imposed on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation. Mark Nathan, a consultant to Lets Go Austin, which advocated for the proposition, asked us to check Skaggs claim. All aboard! To our inquiry, Skaggs said by email he believes he learned of Austins dubious status from anAustin Business Journalstory. I do not have time to research it at the moment, Skaggs wrote Nov. 5, 2014. City spokeswoman: Mild ratechanges We hunted unsuccessfully for such a story while to our nudge, a city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado,said by emailthe city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since:  Source:Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1,page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014) Alvarado continued: Please keep in mind the city is only one taxing jurisdiction. Theres also the county, school district, health district and then more, depending on where exactly someone lives. Also, she said, appraisals are a factor for taxes, not just the tax rate. (She noted the 2015 tax rate is the same as the 2014 rate.) Indeed, surging property values are a driver in local government revenues, theAustin American-Statesmanhas noted; of late, an April 2014 news story quoted Travis Countys chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, saying taxable residential values  a homes market value minus property-tax exemptions  were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans. Austin versus other big Texas cities Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austinsproposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a bigger burst in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or Houston. Specifically, Quintero said, the percentage of median family income spent on property tax bills for median-value homes in the Austin area represented a little less than 1.1 percent in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2014, that figure had increased to just under 1.5 percent, representing an increase of 0.4 percent. The other big Texas cities demonstrated smaller increases over the period. National comparisons Then again, Skaggs said Austins tax increases were No. 1 among major cities nationally. We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-basedLincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study. Kerr, drawing fromthe latest study, issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and also that by one gauge, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most-populous cities. One institute analysis looked at how much revenue per resident different cities have taken in. Our takeaways: From 2006 to 2011, per-person property tax revenue collected in Austin by all local government units (including school districts, the city and the county) decreased 4 percent, as measured in constant 2011 dollars. Then again, per-person revenue from city property taxes alone went up 6 percent; Austin ranked 35th among the 50 largest cities for that rate of increase. Higher rates of increase were recorded by cities including Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Chicago, which had a 60 percent spike in per-person property tax revenue. Over a longer span, 2001 to 2011, Austin ranked 27th nationally for its 26 percent increase in per-person revenue from city property taxes. The Texas capital was outpaced in percentage growth by cities including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, New York and Los Angeles. Austin experienced a 2 percent increase in per-person revenue from all taxes from 2006 to 2011, ranking 25th in this way. Its increase trailed hikes occurring in the more populous cities of San Jose, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Another institute breakdown highlighted by Kerr shows Austin ranking among cities with the greatest increases in taxes on a median-valued home. Our snapshots: From 2009 to 2013, Austins effective tax rate on a median-priced home increased from 1.93 percent to 2.22 percent; that bump amounted to the 11th-greatest increase (0.29 points) in the 50 biggest cities. As of that year, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Jacksonville and Chicago were the cities more populous than Austin that ranked higher by this indicator. In this instance, the effective rate is not the rate by which a government unit can generate the revenue it raised the year before. Rather, the study defines the effective rate as the total tax on a median-priced home divided by its total value, which takes into account variations in assessment rates and value exemptions across localities. While Austins effective tax rate in 2013 was ahead of its rate in 2009, it was less than the 2.44 percent rate of 2005. In 2013, property taxes on a median-value Austin home ran $1,049 ahead of those taxes on such a home in 2005, up nearly 26 percent. That percentage increase placed Austin 10th nationally in this way behind Portland, San Jose, Denver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Albuquerque, Columbus and Cleveland -- and only San Jose, Portland and Philadelphia had greater dollar increases than Austin. Among, say, the 15 largest cities as of that time, Austin ranked third behind San Jose and Philadelphia for the percent change in net tax 2005-2013. Over a shorter period, 2009-2013, Phoenix, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, New York and Jacksonville experienced greater increases in net property tax on a median-value home. (Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston and Indianapolis had smaller increases.) Our ruling Skaggs said Austin has the fastest-growing tax increases of any major U.S. city. Among the nations largest cities, Austin appears to have had the third-fastest growth in its property-tax bite on a median-valued home from 2005 to 2013. It seems reasonable to speculate local taxpayers feel the pinch. However, Skaggs didnt provide nor did we find a sign of Austin ranking first in tax growth among the countrys major cities. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain:  Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons:  After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020  as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk  who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump  said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers:   To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income"  and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet  aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post  we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund  profits of which go to these unemployed people  or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income  a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for  a guaranteed income for  people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks  not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks.  May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks.  In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs)  not social security numbers  to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there.  Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic  a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants  she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons  as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers  we rate this claim as "false."   Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
 The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
 MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
 YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
 CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
 Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
 Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
 Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
 Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
 Accessed 11 May 2020. In December 2015, we looked into a bit of text being shared on social media which was said to represent the final words of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. We hoped our article helped to put the kibosh on that false rumor, but in January 2019 a nearly identical speech was circulated anew, only this time attributed to a different billionaire with an eerily similar name: Steve Gouves. final words The "Steve Gouves death bed speech" was shared by many social media users in January 2019, with one of the most popular postings being that of Joshua Feurstein, an evangelical internet personality who has previously spread misinformation and is perhaps most famously known for railing about Starbucks' Christmas cups.  postings previously misinformation Fuerstein's posting included a photograph of a bearded man, presumably Mr. Steve Gouves, and the following text: posting   From my friend David Norrie Steve Gouves dies a billionaire, with a fortune of $ 7 billion, at the age of 56 from pancreatic cancer, and here are some of his last words: In other eyes, my life is the essence of success, but aside from work, I have a little joy, and in the end wealth is just a fact of life to which I am accustomed. At this moment, lying on the bed, sick and remembering all my life, I realize that all my recognition and wealth that I have is meaningless in the face of imminent death. You can hire someone to drive a car for you, make money for you - but you can not rent someone to carry the disease for you. One can find material things, but there is one thing that can not be found when it is lost - "life". Treat yourself well, and cherish others. As we get older we are smarter, and we slowly realize that the watch is worth $ 30 or $ 300 - both of which show the same time. Whether we carry a purse worth $ 30 or $ 300 - the amount of money in the wallets are the same. Whether we drive a car worth $ 150,000, or a car worth $ 30,000 - the road and distance are the same, we reach the same destination.If we drink a bottle worth $ 300 or wine worth $ 10 - the "stroller" will be the same. If the house we live in is 300 square meters, or 3000 square meters - the loneliness is the same.Your true inner happiness does not come from the material things of this world. Whether you're flying first class, or economy class - if the plane crashes, you crash with it. So, I hope you understand that when you have friends or someone to talk to - this is true happiness! Five Undeniable Facts- 1. Do not educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be happy. - So when they grow up they will know the value of things, not the price. 2. Eat your food as medicine, otherwise you will need to eat your medicine as food. 3. Whoever loves you will never leave you, even if he has 100 reasons to give up. He will always find one reason to hold on. 4. There is a big difference between being human and human being. 5. If you want to go fast - go alone! But if you want to go far - go together! And in conclusion,The six best doctors in the world.1. Sunlight2. Rest3. Exercise4. Diet5. Self-confidence6. Friends Keep them in all stages of life and enjoy a healthy life. "Love the people God sent you, one day he'll need them back." ??Something worth sharing!?? The man in this photograph is not "Steve Gouves" but rather James R. Kirouac, a "Level 2 Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique Practitioner" with the company "Leading Edge Thought," who, as best we can tell at the time of this writing, is still very much alive: James R. Kirouac Leading Edge Thought   The first half of this text (everything preceding "Treat yourself well and cherish others) is a nearly verbatim copy of the fake deathbed speech falsely attributed to Steve Jobs back in 2015. That speech appears to have originated on a random blog and was never connected to Jobs in any real way. (You can read more about the actual last words of Steve Jobs here.) here The second half of this text has been circulating independently from the first since at least September 2015, when it was posted to a Chinese language blog at xuite.net. That posting was not attributed to Jobs, Guoves, or any other billionaire, and it was not shared as if it were a deathbed speech. September 2015 The fake Steve Jobs deathbed speech started making its way around the web in November 2015 and readers, apparently, have revised and expanded it over the years. At some point the text posted to xuite.net was tacked  onto the end of the original fake speech, Jobs' name was changed to Guoves, and an image of an unrelated bald man was employed to depict the fictional billionaire. tacked In short: Steve Guoves did not make this speech on his death bed because Steve Guoves does not exist. Much of this text was previously attributed to Steve Jobs, but the Apple co-founder did not utter those words on his death bed either. In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. Claim:  Account describes President Obama's August 2009 town hall meeting in Montana.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2009] By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Bill and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on. On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date. On about Tuesday Bill found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Bill knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$ During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession.  $$$$$     Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th,  they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday. Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm..... 900 tickets just DISAPPEARED. This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana  has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think... with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for. On Friday Bill and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.   The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them... professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs.  (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area) Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.  So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest. If you are wondering about the press.... Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds.  We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media... they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head. It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes..... the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors... EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!  I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Bill and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!   KathyBozeman, Montana Origins:  On Friday, 14 August 2009, President Obama held a town hall meeting in Bozeman, Montana, to discuss his proposed health care reforms. That town hall meeting was one of three that week, the other two being held in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Aug. 11), and Grand Junction, Colorado (Aug. 15). At this time, the author of the e-mailed account purporting to have been written by someone who attended the town hall meeting in Bozeman is unknown. Some versions are signed "Kathy" and mention that the writer's husband's name is Bill, but others are signed "Sue" and identify the husband as Joe. Some additionally describe the husband as a former Navy pilot and Delta Airlines captain. Many are prefaced by claims that the author is a friend who lives in Montana, or that she is the wife of a cousin.  Puzzlingly, though we combed through the hundreds of copies of this piece we received, none of those e-mail forwards provided a surname for Kathy/Bill or Sue/Joe (although a concatenation of the name and location listed at the end has misled some to believe the writer is named Kathy Bozeman). In just about every other case we've tackled where e-mailed eyewitness accounts have gone viral, at least a handful of the earliest forwards provided clues to the surname of the sender, if not the sender's actual name.  Questions of authorship aside, the account asserts four primary criticisms: That thousands of dollars worth of lobster was shipped in for the President, that the majority of tickets for the event were not distributed to the town's citizens but instead were used to pack the hall with Obama supporters, that the media did not cover the protests taking place outside the meeting, and that there was a dust-up between two groups of protesters, resulting in the arrest of one person. Let's start with the lobsters. The whole of that claim arises from the e-mail, which states: "This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama."  We looked at numerous news accounts about the event (far, far more than are listed in the Sources section at the end of this article) and failed to find any mention of lobsters (shipped in or otherwise) in any of them, or of staffers and/or town hall attendees chowing down on lobster dinners.  Regarding the distribution of tickets for the event, most press accounts seem to agree there were 1,300 ticket-holders in attendance at the Bozeman town hall meeting held in a hangar at the airport. Many news articles mention 700 tickets having been handed out (a limit of two to a family) at Bozeman's city hall, and some mention an additional 150 having been distributed on the same basis at the city hall in the nearby small town of Belgrade.  According to the Big Sky Weekly, for example: "The vast majority of tickets were general admission (split roughly 80/20 between Bozeman and Belgrade respectively, based on their populations). Tickets were limited to two per person and were distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at Bozeman City Hall and Belgrade City Hall. The remaining tickets were distributed by the White House to elected officials and community leaders."  If the reported attendance figures are accurate, they would suggest that about 450 tickets were given out through means other than first-come, first-served public distribution, more than the "few" mentioned in other press accounts (e.g., "A few tickets were distributed by the White House to elected officials, community leaders and local supporters" [Associated Press] and "the state's two Democratic U.S. senators each ... said they had a 'handful' of tickets to hand out to friends and supporters" [Billings Gazette]), but less than the "majority" claimed in the e-mail.  (While the e-mail asserts 1,500 tickets were printed, press accounts agree there were 1,300 ticket-holding attendees. It's worth noting that organizers of events for which no admission fees are charged often print extra tickets to allow for factors such as spoilage, changes in venue capacity, no-shows, etc.). Away from the hangar that housed the meeting, rallies hosted by various groups were held. Some of these protests were well organized, with supporters having been bused in and armed with professionally-rendered signs, and others weren't. They were not ignored by the press, though (e.g., a Billings Gazette article covered the protests, as did television station KULR in the video linked below), albeit the focus of the journalists in attendance that day was upon the questions being put to the President in the meeting and how he was handling them rather than whatever those not actually part of the town hall meeting were getting up to in a nearby field: article  As to how the protesters behaved, various groups shook signs and shouted at one another. There were no reports of violence, although police did arrest one man for disorderly conduct. The unnamed man was released later that afternoon. Regarding the e-mail's suggestion that law enforcement was ineffective in controlling the protesters ("Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd"), at the end of the video linked to above, KULR reporter Nick Lough (who was on the scene during the demonstrations) says: "Bozeman police, the Gallatin County Sheriff's Department, and the Montana Highway Patrol were all within a few yards of the protesters just to make sure nothing grew too out of control." Barbara "controlled response" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 August 2009    Dennison, Mike.  "Crowd Gathers Early for Obama Montana Visit."   Billings Gazette.  14 August 2009.    Johnson, Charles.  "Demonstrators Have Field Day Near Airport."   Billings Gazette.  14 August 2009.    Lough, Nick.  "Demonstrators Outside Obama Town Hall."   KULR-TV [Billings, MT].  14 August 2009.    Mayrer, Jessica.  "Civil Discourse."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  15 August 2009.    Person, Daniel.  "Obama to Talk Health Care at Airport Friday."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  12 August 2009.    Schontzler, Gail.  "Its Showtime."   Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  14 August 2009.    Sidoti, Liz.  "Civil Exchanges at Obama's Health Care Forum."   The Star-Ledger.  15 August 2009  (p. A3).    Associated Press.  "Good Manners in Obama's Montana Audience."   14 August 2009. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan blasted Gov. Scott Walkers ability to keep his No.1 campaign promise during the Democratic Party of Wisconsins annual convention. Pocan, D-Madison, attacked Walker and Republican lawmakers on job growth and other issues during his 15-minute speech, at one point focusing on the governors failed 2010 campaign promise to add 250,000 private-sector jobs within his first term. Seven years later, (Scott Walker) has not hit his first campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs,Pocan said halfway through his June 2, 2017 speech. The convention took place as state Democrats seek to ramp upsupport among its basebefore the 2018 mid-term elections. Walker is expected to be on the ballot again, seeking a third term. So the promise is likely to come up again  and again. Here, well briefly revisitWalkers original promise, and see where the jobs tally currently stands. The promise In 2010, Walker first sought the governors office on the promise that he would bring 250,000 private-sector jobs to Wisconsin by the end of his first term. (Scott Walker will) get government out of the way of employers ... who will then help Wisconsin create 250,000 jobs by 2015, and as we create those new jobs, we will be able to add 10,000 new businesses,his campaign said at the time. For the years 2011 through 2014, Wisconsin added 130,153 private-sector jobs, meaning Walker fell short of his first-term promise by about 100,000 jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. For this tally, we used the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which surveys nearly all state businesses, to get the most accurate picture for Walker's years in office. We made comparisons using the fourth quarter reports from the QCEW. On the Walk-O-Meter, which we use to track the governors campaign promises, we rated Walkers pledge as a Promise Brokenwhen economists saidin September 2014 that it was impossible to reach his the target by the end of his first term. The picture since Wisconsins economy has continued to add jobs throughout Walkers second term, but at a much slower pace. The fourth quarter numbers for 2015 and 2016 from the BLS show Wisconsin added 38,077 and 11,548 jobs respectively. The 2016 growth numbers were the worst during Walkers tenure and the worst since the economy rebounded after the 2008-09 recession. In total, Wisconsin has added a total of 179,778 private sector jobs during Walkers near seven years as governor, which puts him 70,000 short of the pledged 250,000 new jobs. Pocan spokesman David Kolovson said in an email that the congressmans claim was based on a March 12, 2017Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, which stated the governors promise remains elusive. The Journal Sentinel story listed the total number of jobs under Walker as 185,208, which differs from the total offered here because that article was published before the BLS released final numbers covering the end of 2016. Walker spokesman Tom Evenson also pointed to the same story and Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development numbers, saying in email we dont have anything to add. Wisconsins business climate has consistently improved from one of the worst in the nation to one of the best under Governor Walker, and our states economy is in the best shape its been in 16 years, Evenson saidquoted as saying in the March story. Weve seen more people employed than ever before, wages are up, and Wisconsins labor force participation rate continues to be one of the best in the country. And yet, the topic of job creation under Walker lingers. President Donald Trump ran on the platform of being a jobs president, famously sayingIll be the greatest jobs president God ever created. In a June 13, 2017 visit to Wisconsin, President Donald Trumphinted at a major manufacturer locating to Wisconsin. The Journal Sentinelreportedon June 15 that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company that assembles Apples iPhones and other electronics, is considering Wisconsin as the site for a 1,000-acre manufacturing plant, which could generate thousands of jobs. Our rating At the Democratic Party of Wisconsins state convention, Pocan said, Seven years later, (Scott Walker) has not hit his first campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs. Pocan is right to say Walker hasnt hit his first campaign promise. In 2014, we rated Walkers campaign pledge as a Promise Broken. The number of jobs created still falls short of that promise. We rate Pocans statement True. Since at least August 2013 a message has been circulated via Facebook claiming the social networking site was removing posted photographs of military veterans who had lost limbs due to amputation or injury, reportedly because Facebook has deemed such images to be "offensive" and a violation of the company's community standards: Facebook is removing Veteran Amputees photos' and calling them offensive and against the Community Standards of Facebook. Please like and share.  However, there is absolutely no basis for asserting that Facebook has taken such an action or implemented such a policy. No published Facebook guidelines make reference (directly or indirectly) to this class of photograph being unacceptable, and many images featuring amputees and other persons with missing limbs (including both military personnel and civilians) have long been plainly viewable on that social networking site. (In fact, one of the more popular images commonly shared on Facebook in recent years is one that is identified, albeit incorrectly, as showing a group of female veteran amputees.)  amputees amputees Moreover, the content of the warning message itself belies its claim, as it has been posted and shared on Facebook countless times despite its inclusion of a supposedly-banned photograph of a military amputee. The image shown above is a picture of Casey Owens, a U.S. Marine whose legs were amputated after he was injured by shrapnel from an anti-tank mine while he was taking part in a rescue mission in Iraq in September 2004. This particular photograph was taken while Owens was attending the inauguration of President George W. Bush in January 2005: inauguration Casey Owens, a wounded Marine, salutes as his mother Janna Owens cries during the inaugural speech by President Bush. The president pledged to work to heal a country divided by the Iraq war. "We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes, and I will strive in good faith to heal them."  Sydiongco, David.  "Don't Bother Posting the 'Facebook Privacy Notice' That's Spreading Around."
  Slate.  5 June 2012. During a visit to Howell, Mich., President Joe Biden touted key agenda items under negotiation in Congress. One of the proposals he wants to see receive final Congressional approval is support for child care, which he said would benefit both children and their parents, including mothers who want to take jobs outside the home. How can we compete in the world if millions of American parents, especially moms, cant join the workforce because they cant afford the cost of child care or elder care? They have to stay home, Bidensaidin the Oct. 5 speech. He went on to say that the United States had fallen behind its industrialized peers in the percentage of women in the labor force. Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce, Biden said. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. Twenty-two countries have a higher percentage of their women in the workforce making a competitive wage than the United States. While our competitors are investing in the care economy, were standing still. Has the United States really fallen so far behind in womens participation in the labor force? Our research shows it has. We asked the White House for a source, and they pointed to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank that studies advanced industrialized nations. The data broadly supports how Biden characterized the shifts between 1990 and 2020. There are multiple ways to measure the phenomenon Biden addressed  notably, what age ranges are used. If you look at the labor force participation rate for all women at least 15 years of age, the United States ranked seventh in 1990, behind Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Canada. But by2020, the United States ranking had fallen to 17th. (Labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of a given group that is either employed or is actively seeking work.) An alternative statistic  the labor force participation rate for women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54  shows an even steeper U.S. decline. In1990, the United States ranked seventh, behind the same six countries. But by2020, the U.S. had fallen to 31st. The White House used a slightly different version of the OECD data than we did, which accounts for the differences in the U.S. rankings. But multiple economists told us that the differences in rankings were minor, and that the trend line was much more important. Specifically, the U.S. percentage of women working basically stagnated over those 30 years, even as 13 nations leapfrogged the U.S. between 1990 and 2020: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However you define it, I think the president is highlighting genuine trends, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. Historically, women in the U.S. gravitated to the labor force earlier than women in other countries did. Right after World War II, only about one-third of U.S. women were in the labor force, but by the late 1990s, that percentage had risen steeply, to the low-60% range. Since then, however, it has plateaued and even fallen modestly overall. By the early 1990s, the United States ranked higher on this measurement than most of its economic peers. Since the 1990s, the downturn has been driven mostly by married women with a college degree, particularly those married to high-earning men, said Stefania Albanesi, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh. Albanesi said her research suggests that a rise in earnings of college-educated men, particularly those at the top of the income distribution, has reduced the pressure for married women to take paying work outside the home. As the U.S. rate began to fall, other nations caught up. Several factors drove these international shifts, economists say. One is that women in other countries have belatedly made gains in educational attainment, giving them a boost in the labor market. But perhaps the biggest difference comes from the lack of social policies in the United States that enable women with children to take jobs. The policies that are common in other industrialized countries but not in the U.S. include publicly provided child care services, an entitlement to paid parental leave, laws giving workers the right to demand a change to a part-time work schedule without exception and without being discriminated against, said Mihaela Pintea, an economist at Florida International University. The upshot of the lack of such policies in the U.S. is that its costly or burdensome for women with kids to remain in the workforce after they have a child, Burtless said. Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University economist, cautioned that its tricky to make cross-national comparisons on labor-force participation. Perhaps the biggest factor complicating Bidens comparison is that countries define part-time work differently. Generally speaking, when looking only at participation among women who work full-time hours, the U.S. ranks higher in international comparisons, Goldin said. If you did this comparison just for full-time work, wed be up there, she said. If you weighted by hours, wed be up there. Pintea added that, despite grim statistics like those cited by Biden, U.S. women who are working may still be better positioned in some ways. Effectively, the U.S. labor market environment pushes women to either skip working entirely or take a full-time job, rather than finding a middle ground. In a lot of other countries, women might work part-time as opposed to full time and may be less likely to be promoted into managerial positions, or may have lower wages than their male counterparts because of their career path, she said. Biden said, Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. The specific rankings vary a bit depending on what measure one uses, though by one measurement, the U.S. position is even worse than Biden said. The general conclusion is the same: The United States used to rank near the top of the pack of industrialized countries in womens participation in the labor force, but over the past 30 years, many other countries have leapfrogged the U.S. in that measurement, as the rate in the U.S. stagnated or even fell. Economists say the U.S. rate has been lagging for several reasons, including a lack of government policies encouraging child care and paid leave and other countries catching up to the United States earlier gains in womens educational attainment. We rate the statement Mostly True. On 6 September 2016, the Thug Life Videos web site published an article reporting that an Arizona woman named Shania Jones was arrested for cutting off the tip of her partner's penis after he refused to look at her during sex:  A woman in Scottsdale, Arizona, has been arrested after she cut off her partners penis in a fit of fury. Shania Jones, 34, told detectives that she was sick of the man  who has been named locally as Bruce Fox  refusing to make eye contact with her during sex. Fox is currently in intensive care at Scottsdale Liberty Hospital, where he is expected to make a recovery. There was no truth to this report.  Thug Life Videos is an entertainment web site that frequently publishes "satire" (i.e., fake news) articles, as noted in their disclaimer: "As well as more serious content, we sometimes share the odd satire stories for your entertainment." In addition to this story's dubious source, the image accompanying the article was merely a doctored version of a mug shot taken in 2013 by the Ada County Sheriff's Department in Idaho of a woman who was arrested for shoplifting: mug shot Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal.