Is Pelosi advocating for ensuring a minimum income for undocumented immigrants in the upcoming COVID-19 stimulus package?
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.
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 In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Since at least January 2021, actor Anthony Hopkins was featured in an online advertisement about the height of Hollywood celebrity men. The ad read: "Some of the Shortest Men in Hollywood Today."   Readers who clicked the online ad were led to a 95-page story on Cleverst.com. Its headline read: "These Short Male Celebrities Remind Us That Height Doesn't Matter In Hollywood." The lengthy article began with a picture of actor Dave Franco, who is purported to be 5 feet 7. We clicked "next page" 95 times until we realized we had clicked "next article" at the end. Hopkins didn't even show up in the story. Anthony Hopkins' height is listed at 5 feet 9 on various sources, including on his IMDb page. The actor is anything but "short." his IMDb page Hopkins is perhaps best known for his work in the 1991 classic, "The Silence of the Lambs." He won the best actor Oscar for playing the role of the terrifying cannibal, Hannibal Lecter. The long story of "short male celebrities" also featured a 6-feet-tall Vin Diesel, a 5 feet 10 Jason Statham, and 5 feet 9 actors Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Hardy. This was hardly a list of "some of the shortest men in Hollywood today." The Cleverst.com story appeared to be a strategy known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal was to make more money on ads that were displayed on all 95 pages than it cost to display the original Hopkins clickbait picture. The Hopkins photograph lured the readers. Readers then clicked "next page" in a search for Hopkins, who never appeared. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." They also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins The same strategy employed for Hopkins' height was used by other advertisers in the past who placed an ad about Pierce Brosnan's net worth. The ad claimed that "Pierce Brosnan's final net worth left his family in tears." Not only was Pierce Brosnan still alive, but he also did not appear in the lengthy slideshow story that resulted. Pierce Brosnan's net worth Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us On Sept. 19, 2016, theWisconsin Democratic Partycalled onDonald Trumpto release his tax returns, issuinga statementthat quoted U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., as saying: The time is way past due for Donald Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major party nominee has done for the past 40 years. So, lets see if thats what every Democratic and Republican presidential nominee since 1976 has done. Wayback machine Baldwin has taken aim at Trump before, since he became the GOP nominee. In August 2016, werated Half Trueher claim that Trump has a long history of exporting jobs overseas. Trump-brand products such as his clothing have been made overseas, but those jobs were always abroad, not U.S. jobs that were moved. To back her current claim, Baldwins campaign cited editorials from theNew York Timesand theWashington Post, both of which said Trump would be the first major party candidate since 1976 -- 40 years ago -- not to release his tax returns. Also cited was an editorial from theBoston Globe, which said its been more than 40 years. But there is an exception. We checked anarchive of presidential tax returnsmaintained by the Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy. It shows that going back to 1976, all but one major-party nominee released at least one return. Only Republican Gerald Ford, who lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, did not release returns (he released summary tax data), the archive shows. FactCheck.org also found Ford to bethe one exception. Joe Thorndike, the Tax History Project director at Tax Analysts, told us that Fords summaries were clearly not the same as tax returns. For instance, they didnt provide detailed information on things such as sources of income and charitable contributions. Moreover, its impossible to know what might be in a return unless you see the return. It's also worth noting that while some nominees have released numerous years of returns  1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole provided30 years worth others have not. In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan released onlyone returnand in 2012, Republican Mitt Romneyreleased two. In the 2016 race,Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has released returns from 2000 through 2015. As for Trump, he has said he hasnt released his taxes because he is being audited. When he claimed he released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics. You don't learn much in a tax return, PolitiFact Nationalsrating was False. Trump did release an extensive (and legally required) document detailing his personal financial holdings. But experts say tax returns would offer valuable details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his assets. Our rating Baldwin says that except for Trump, every other major party nominee for the past 40 years has released their tax returns. Shes almost right. During that period, the only major-party presidential nominee who didnt release returns was Ford, the Republican nominee in 1976. It's also worth noting that many nominees have released numerous years of returns, but some have released only one or two. We rate Baldwins statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3b799eb7-8454-41ff-a343-3c13c44e9c78 When Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was denied a spot in a debate just days before the New Hampshire primary,she took to Medium to argue her case. Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, compared herself to some other Republican candidates in the race, including Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey, John Kasich of Ohio and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. She wrote, Despite what the media is telling you, it is clear that Carly deserved to be on the debate stage, both according to their arbitrary metricsand the ones that actually matter: In an actual contest of voters, Carly came out ahead of Governors Christie and Kasich. She has the same number of delegates as Governor Bush. Governor Christie has 0. Carly is 6th in hard dollars raised and has more cash on hand than Governors Kasich and Christie combined. Fiorina never managed to snag a spot at the debate, but we decided to take a look at the third of Fiorinas bullet points -- the one about about her fundraising totals. (For the record, she was right on both of the previous two bullet points.Fiorina got 3,485 votes in Iowa, or 1.9 percent, which was ahead of Kasich by 11 votes and ahead of Christie by 201 votes. That translated into one delegate each for Bush and Fiorina and none for Christie.) For fundraising data, we turned toopensecrets.org for the latest presidential fundraising data. Heres the table, in descending order, for hard dollars raised, defined as money raised by the candidates own campaign committee. The most recent data available at the time of her Feb. 6 statement was through Dec. 31, 2015. (Opensecrets.org does not have data for one Republican candidate still in the race, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.) Candidate Hard dollars raised 1.Ben Carson $54,036,610 2.Ted Cruz $47,086,857 3.Jeb Bush $31,922,100 4.Marco Rubio $29,710,092 5.Donald Trump $19,405,217 6.Carly Fiorina $11,349,057 7.John Kasich $7,582,365 8.Chris Christie $7,159,329 So Fiorina was indeed sixth on the list. Thats not saying a whole lot -- she was ahead of only two candidates, and she had barely half the amount of the fifth-place finisher. How about cash on hand, which means money raised minus money already spent? Candidate Cash on hand 1.Ted Cruz $18,734,794 2.Marco Rubio $10,398,593 3.Jeb Bush $7,589,858 4.Donald Trump $6,964,325 5.Ben Carson $6,567,647 6.Carly Fiorina $4,484,307 7.John Kasich $2,537,301 8.Chris Christie $1,126,158 Fiorina was right that she had more cash on hand than Kasich and Christie combined; they totaled $3,663,459. Here too, thats no great shakes -- she still ranks sixth of the eight candidates in cash on hand Our ruling Fiorina said she is 6th in hard dollars raised and has more cash on hand than Governors Kasich and Christie combined. While its worth noting the context that she ranks far back in the pack, Fiorina is right on both counts, according to the most recent public filings. We rate her claim True. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True. 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. As state Sen. Barbara Buono kicked off her campaign to unseat Gov. Chris Christie, state Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski said she had a record on which to run.That record, he said, belongs to the Republican governor.With supporters holding up Buono signs behind him, Wisniewski sounded off on Christies tenure during a Feb. 2 campaign kickoff rally at New Brunswick High School. Buono forms the perfect contrast to Christie, said Wisniewski, a state assemblyman from Middlesex County.We have a governor whos vetoed measures like increasing our minimum wage and restoring the Earned Income Tax Cut, Wisniewski said, eliciting boos from the crowd.The assemblymans charges are pretty solid. By different means, Christie has vetoed bills to raise the minimum wage and to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit after reducing that benefit in his first state budget.But Wisniewskis statement ignores the fact Christie also has offered alternatives to both.First, lets talk about the minimum wage.In late 2012, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed a bill to increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 and implement annual cost-of-living increases. But on Jan. 28, Christie conditionally vetoed the legislation and recommended certain changes, including scrapping cost-of-living increases and phasing in over three years a $1 increase.Democrats have rejected that plan and vowed to ask voters in November to amend the state Constitution with a minimum wage hike tied to annual cost-of-living increases.Now, well address the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income residents who work.As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget, the state tax credit was reduced from 25 percent to 20 percent of the federal amount. That reduction began with tax year 2010.The Legislature passed a bill in June 2011 to restore the credit to the original 25 percent figure, but Christie later vetoed the bill without proposing any changes. In June 2012, Christie vetoed a second bill to restore the credit.However, around the same time, he offered to restore the credit as part of a plan to provide an income tax cut That proposal was outlined in Christies conditional veto of a separate bill that would have raised the income tax rate on taxable income of more than $1 million.The Legislature has not acted on the governors proposal.More recently, Christie agreed to increase the tax credit as part of his conditional veto on the minimum wage bill.So, while its correct the governor vetoed two bills to restore the Earned Income Tax Credit, he also has offered at least two proposals that included increasing the tax credit.Alicia DAlessandro, a spokeswoman for Wisniewski, said in an e-mail that the governors alternative proposals are not worth acknowledging.The conditions attached to his vetoes undercut the purpose of the bills and do not even merit acknowledgement, she said. In what world would the Democratic state chairman give credit to the Republican governor for alternative measures that were clearly offered only for show?Anyone who believes that would happen at a campaign rally must think this election is happening in Fantasyland.Our rulingAt a campaign rally for Buono, Wisniewski said: We have a governor whos vetoed measures like increasing our minimum wage and restoring the earned income tax cut.Wisniewski is right about those vetoes. Christie conditionally vetoed a bill to raise the states minimum wage and issued absolute vetoes on two bills to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit.But the governor has offered alternatives to increase the minimum wage and restore the tax credit to its previous level.We rate the statement Mostly True.To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Scam:  Accounts of check fraud being perpetrated at Walmart stores by employees and customers. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2007]    Origins:  The image displayed above supposedly reproduces a 26 July 2007 memo (circulated as a PDF) from an official with Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) warning employees about a multi-city check theft ring operating out of Walmart stores. According to the memo, Walmart employees had been using cell phones to photograph customer checks, then employing the information obtained from the images to produce fake checks that are used to buy gift cards. PDF As for the question of whether this memo actually was written by a Louisiana official, we note that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) disclaimed the memo's appropriateness without denying that it originated within the DPSC:  LSP On Thursday, July 26, 2007, an unauthorized letter was distributed to employees in the Baton Rouge field office of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles, concerning an alleged multi-city fraud and theft ring operating at Wal-Mart involving Wal-Mart employees. It was alleged in the letter that the employees of the store would obtain a customer's checking account information, and the information would be used to create fraudulent checks. This letter was not official or sanctioned in any way by the Department of Public Safety; unfortunately this letter was made public. The Department will be conducting an internal investigation and, at the conclusion of the investigation, will take the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. Members of the public should not rely on information contained in the letter. As always, consumers are cautioned to take steps to limit disclosure of their personal information and to be aware of their surroundings. As for the content of the memo, we note that instances of check fraud have been tied to a then-new practice (used in some Walmart stores) of processing checks not by the "traditional" method of retaining them and submitting them to banks for deposit, but by using them as authorizations to initiate electronic funds transfers (EFTs) and immediately returning them to customers.   In some cases, dishonest sales clerks have abused this procedure by deliberately failing to return checks to customers, then re-scanning the checks multiple times and using the ill-gotten proceeds to purchase gift cards and other merchandise. For example, TV station KTRK in Houston reported the following check-theft scam by a Walmart employee in December 2006: A former Wal-Mart employee is behind bars for her role in what authorities are calling a check fraud scheme. When you write a check at Wal-Mart, you hand it to a clerk who then runs the check through an electronic scanner and hands it back to you. Unfortunately some Wal-Mart shoppers did not get their checks handed back to them and it cost them thousands of dollars. Pam Davis never thought writing a $37 check at Wal-Mart would cost her thousands of dollars, but that's exactly what happened. She said, "I had gone to Wal Mart and written a check for $37 and did not realize I did not get that check back, which is the custom with electronic transfer. You are supposed toreceive the check back." Davis says  and authorities confirm  a clerk at Wal-Mart never returned Davis' check at the time of purchase, [so] the clerk was able to re-run the check through the electronic reader again and again.  Five times, they changed the amounts each time," Davis claimed. "It was almost $3,000." Authorities believe the clerk gave the checks to other people who then went on shopping sprees inside the store. Capt. Mark Herman with Precinct 4 said, "In some of the cases they were getting $300 Wal-Mart gift cards, clothing, just all kinds of purchases." Constables say the clerk did the same thing with checks written by other Wal-Mart customers. February 2016 also saw the sentencing of a Walmart customer who (along with his wife) defrauded other customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars through the method of peeking over their shoulders to obtain personal information which the couple used to create counterfeit checks: A man who cashed $300,000 worth of counterfeit checks using personal information stolen by peeking over the shoulders of hundreds of Wal-Mart customers was sentenced to prison. Robert MacVittie and his wife lined up behind customers trying to cash payroll checks at "dozens and dozens" of Wal-Mart stores in 20 states and recorded them providing their Social Security numbers, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Melucci said at the hearing where MacVittie received a 34-month sentence. The couple would then use the victims' identities to create counterfeit checks, which they cashed at other Wal-Marts. Melucci called MacVittie, 35, and his wife Jennifer, 32, "the Bonnie and Clyde of counterfeit checks." More than 400 people had their identities used on the successfully cashed counterfeit checks, Melucci said. Although it is possible a similar type of fraud could be effected by clerks' surreptitiously using cell phones to photograph customer checks, we have not been able to verify that this specific form of theft is occurring, much less that is taking place on a multi-city level by organized rings of Walmart employees.  photograph A few tips can be helpful to shoppers to avoid falling victim to this sort of fraud:  Be aware of how the stores you patronize process checks.  If they scan checks to use them as EFT authorizations, be sure your check is returned to you before you leave the checkout counter.  Use your bank's web site to monitor your checking account transactions online and notify your bank immediately if you spot any suspect transactions.  Using credit cards (or debit cards) rather than checks generally makes it easier to challenge fraudulent transactions and limit your liability for illegitimate charges.   Last updated:  7 February 2016  Mandak, Joe.  "'Shoulder Surfing' Husband Gets Prison in Walmart Check Scam Targeting Hundreds."    WTAE [Pittsburg].  4 February 2016. As the number of confirmed cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease surpassed 2 million in early June 2020, the campaign to reelect U.S. President Donald Trump ended its monthslong pause on large, in-person events and announced it would host a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the coming weeks. COVID-19 coronavirus disease Despite public health officials' recommendations at the time to avoid group gatherings and crowds to limit the spread of COVID-19, the Trump campaign announced on June 10 that it would host a rally at the Bank of Oklahoma Center, which seats almost 19,200 people, on June 19. Trump told reporters at the White House: public health officials told reporters Were going to start our rallies back up now. Weve had a tremendous run at rallies. ...The first one, we believe, will be probably  were just starting to call up  will be in Oklahoma  in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A beautiful, new venue  brand-new. And were looking forward to it. Theyve done a great job with COVID, as you know, in the state of Oklahoma. Beyond the event's potential threat to attendees' health, critics including high-profile Democrats and historians saw the announcement as a call to white supremacists during a national reckoning over racism following the death of George Floyd for two reasons: Tulsa is home to one of the worst acts of racial violence in American history  the 1921 Tulsa race massacre  and the event's originally scheduled date of June 19, or Juneteenth, is a day in many communities that traditionally celebrates the end of U.S. slavery in 1865. So two days after the initial announcement from the Trump campaign, the president yielded to that backlash and said he would delay the event and instead hold it on June 20. He tweeted: Democrats George Floyd Tulsa race massacre Juneteenth He tweeted   But as critics pointed out, the massive gathering still held the potential to expose large numbers of people to COVID-19. As if to confirm the danger, reports appeared saying the Trump campaign was asking attendees to agree in advance not to hold the campaign liable for coronavirus exposure:   To investigate the claim that attendees were asked to agree to a liability waiver, we went through the steps of reserving a spot at the Tulsa rally in the days before the event. To receive a digital ticket for the event, attendees had to complete the following form:   At the bottom of the registration page, the following text appeared: registration page By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury. In other words, to reserve an entry ticket for the Tulsa rally, people had to agree that they would "assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19" and agree not to sue Trump or any organizers of the event if they got sick. That agreement essentially clears the campaign of any responsibility should attendees catch the virus. At first, campaign leaders declined to elaborate on their plans to protect attendees' health once they were at the event. Then, on June 14, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters that attendees should wear masks. And campaign manager Brad Parscale said the following day that event organizers will hand out hand sanitizer and face masks (though they're not necessarily required) and check attendees' temperatures for fevers. He tweeted: Larry Kudlow should wear masks. said tweeted   Still unclear is if, or to what extent, the event will promote social distancing. It's possible people will stand or sit less than six feet apart from each other, despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to avoid that close of contact with people to prevent the virus' spread. Additionally, as of June 16, the CDC urged everyone to wear cloth face coverings when they leave their homes, stating on its website: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Considering the ongoing health risks due to COVID-19 and an upward trend in cases statewide, Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart said he would rather the president hold the event at a later date. He told Tulsa World: an upward trend in cases statewide Tulsa World I think its an honor for Tulsa to have a sitting president want to come and visit our community, but not during a pandemic. ...Im concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event, and Im also concerned about our ability to ensure the president stays safe as well. As of June 15, Oklahoma had tallied 359 deaths and 3,417 non-fatal cases due to the virus. The Trump campaign had last held a big rally on March 2 in Charlotte, North Carolina, before much of the country shut down to curb the pandemic. In sum, given the substantiating evidence that, in order to receive a ticket for the Tulsa event, people must click a box agreeing they would not hold the Trump campaign or event organizers liable should they catch COVID-19 at the June 20, 2020, rally, we rate this claim "True". Fox, Joe, et. al.  "At Least 112,000 People Have Died from Coronavirus in the U.S."
  The Washington Post. Accessed 12 June 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "How to Protect Yourself & Others."
 Accessed 12 June 2020. Sprunt, Barbara.  "Upcoming Trump Rally In Tulsa Faces Backlash Over Race, Coronavirus."
  National Public Radio.  11 June 2020. Bierman, Noah. "Trump Says He Will Resume Campaign Rallies June 19 in Tulsa."
  Los Angeles Times.  10 June 2020. White House.  Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable Discussion.
  10 June 2020. Oklahoma State Department of Health.  "Current Situation."
  Accessed 12 June 2020. Chiacu, Doina.  "Trump Economic Adviser Urges Wearing of Masks at Tulsa Rally."
  Reuters.  14 June 2020. The governors mansion -- a kingly abode for the governor and his family, right?Dont think like a peasant. It isso much more.Executive residences, as the National Governors Associationcalls them, are regarded as an important symbol of the states culture and heritage. As state treasures, executive residences provide an appropriate setting for official state entertaining and are often highly valued as a venue for community functions.Oh.The NGA goes on:Given the critical role executive residences play in official state and cultural activities, considerable care is required in managing, staffing and maintaining the executive residence.Gee, sounds like that could get kinda expensive. Just how much does it cost taxpayers to run the Wisconsin governors mansion -- ahem,executive residence?Too much, says state Sen.Bob Wirch, a Democrat from Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County. Echoingacallhe made in 2002, when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle was elected, Wirch wants Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker to sell or lease the 34-room manor.Over the course of one four-year term, Wirch claimed in anewsreleaseNov. 15, 2010, it costs taxpayers more than $1 million simply to operate.Wirch also noted Walkers owncall tocitizensfor ideas on how to make state government run more efficiently. After all, with astructural deficit, lost revenue because of a state Supreme Courtdecisionand other issues, the new governor faces a projected shortfall of$3billionfor the 2011-13 budget.It is hard to set a good example, Wirch said in his statement, if you are living in a mansion.Walker, who will beinauguratedJan. 3, 2011, plans to move with his family from Wauwatosa into the residence, said his spokesman, Cullen Werwie.He said Walker has no comment on Wirchs recommendation to sell or lease the mansion, which is perched on the shores of Lake Mendota.The homes replacement value is $1.63 million, according to the state Department of Administration. But Wirch believes that with its 3.7 acres of land, the estate is worth more than $2.5 million.Perhaps, like us, youve never been to the mansion (although you can see it inpictures).Well, according to the Department of Administration, the state Historical Society and the office of first lady Jessica Doyle, it: Nice. So, who takes care of it?Seven employees, according to Vicki Heymann, the mansions residence director. Full-timers include Heymann, a chef, a gardener and a facilities maintenance specialist. The part-timers are a housekeeper, a laundress and flower arranger, and the head of the waitstaff, who has worked at the mansion for more than 32 years.OK, now lets get to Wirchs claim that operating the mansion costs more than $1 million during a four-year term.Wirchs office said the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau put the operating costs at $265,000 per year. That would come to $1.06 million over four years.The senators per-year number is a touch high, but his four-year figure of more than $1 million is on target.The fiscal bureau told PolitiFact Wisconsin that the mansions operating expenses are budgeted at $262,500 in 2009-10 and the same amount for 2010-11, nearly all of which is salaries. Thats a total of $1.05 million over four years.In fact, actual expenditures are running higher, according to the state Department of Administration. They were $290,462 in 2008-09 and $273,340 in 2009-10. If that were carried out over four years, the total would be $1.13 million.Wisconsin is one of 44 states that provided a governors residence as of 2004, according to the most recentsurveydone by the National Governors Association.Heres how three of the other six treat their governors: OK, lets bring all this mansion talk home.In calling on Governor-elect Scott Walker to save taxpayer dollars, state Sen. Bob Wirch said selling or leasing the governors mansion would enable the state to cut more than $1 million over four years on the cost of operating the mansion. Based on the latest budget and expenditure figures, the operating costs do exceed $1 million over four years.We rate Wirchs statement True.