Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top.
After a flurry of attack ads in the past two weeks, President Barack Obama this week released aTV adin which he spoke directly into the camera and discussed how his policy approaches differed from Mitt Romneys. He cited taxes as one area where they had different philosophies. Obama said, Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top.Well check whether this is an accurate characterization of Romneys plan.Romney has posted somekey elements of his tax planon his campaign website. Heres a summary of the provisions for individual taxpayers: Cut marginal rates by one-fifth on a permanent, across-the-board basis Eliminate interest, dividend, and capital gains taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income below $200,000 Eliminate the estate tax Repeal the Alternative Minimum TaxTo analyze the Romney tax cut, we turned to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, an independent think tank that evaluates the tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates. The Tax Policy Center looked at two versions of Romneys tax proposal. We will use theanalysisof the more recent of Romneys two plans, which the group published in March 2012.The Tax Policy Center ran two sets of numbers, one that gives Romney credit for extending the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and for an annual adjustment in the Alternative Minimum Tax and one that doesn't. Under the analysis that gives Romney credit for extending the Bush tax cuts and the AMT, people in each of the 11 income ranges in the centers study saw a tax cut, with after-tax income increasing by anywhere from 0.3 percent for people who earn less than $10,000 to 19.8 percent for people earning more than $1 million per year. Under the other measurement, which we find is more appropriate, people in eight of the 11 income ranges got cuts -- all except the income ranges below $30,000. For those earning more than that, after-tax income would increase by anywhere from 0.8 percent for those in the $30,000 to $40,000 range to nearly 12 percent for those earning more than $1 million.So Obama is telling part of the story. Yes, there are substantial benefits for people at the top, but he ignores that most people in the middle and lower reaches of the income ladder would benefit as well. Using the calculation that does not give him credit for the Bush and AMT extensions, people earning from $40,000 to $50,000 would see a cut of $512 on average, while taxpayers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 range would see a cut of $1,122.Still, there is support for Obama's point because the Romney tax cuts are tilted toward the wealthy. The biggest winners under Romneys tax plan are those earning more than $1 million. That group accounts for less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, but would receive 26 to 31 percent of the Romney plans tax benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center's calculations.Our ruling Obama is correct that Romneys plan does indeed cut taxes for high-income Americans -- quite heavily in fact -- but the rich arent the only ones who would see a cut. Taxes would be reduced in lower income ranges, too. Still, the plan gives a large share of the benefits to higher income taxpayers. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.
Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, issued in January 1865 by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, which set aside a coastal strip of land from Charleston, South Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, for the exclusive use of freed slaves, with each freed-slave family receiving a 40-acre chunk of this holding. As Eric Foner noted in his history of Reconstruction: Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005. Claim:  E-mail chronicles various ways scammers might obtain your credit card numbers. POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Information  This was just passed on to me. Seems to make a lot of sense. IT COULD CERTAINLY HAPPEN TO ME EASILY ENOUGH......   SCENE 1:  A friend went to the local gym and placed his belongings in the locker. After the workout and a shower, he came out, saw the locker open, and thought to himself, "Funny, I thought I locked the locker. Hmmmmm."  He dressed  and just flipped the wallet to make sure all was in order. Everything looked okay  all cards were in place. A few weeks later his credit card bill came  a whooping bill of $14.000! He called the credit card company and started yelling at them, saying that he did not make the transactions. Customer care personnel verified that there was no mistake in the system and asked if his card had been stolen. "No," he said, but then took out his wallet, pulled out the credit card, and yep, you guessed it, a switch had been made. An expired similar credit card from the same bank was in the wallet. The thief broke into his locker at the gym and switched cards.  Verdict: The credit card issuer said since he did not report the card missing earlier, he would have to pay the amount owed to them. How much did he have to pay for items he did not buy? $9,000! Why were there no calls made to verify the amount swiped? Small amounts rarely trigger a "warning bell" with some credit card companies. It just so happens that all the small amounts added up to big one!   SCENE 2:  A man at a local restaurant paid for his meal with his credit card. The bill for the meal came, he signed it, and the waitress folded the receipt and passed the credit card along. Usually, he would just take it and place it in his wallet or pocket. Funny enough, though, he actually took a look at the card and, lo and behold, it was the expired card of another person. He called the waitress and she looked perplexed. She took it back, apologized, and hurried back to the counter under the watchful eye of the man. All the waitress did while walking to the counter was wave the wrong expired card to the counter cashier, and the counter cashier immediately looked down and took out the real card. No exchange of words  nothing! She took it and came back to the man with an apology.  Verdict: Make sure the credit cards in your wallet are yours. Check the name on the card every time you sign for something and/or the card is taken away for even a short period of time. Many people just take back the credit card without even looking at it, thinking that it has to be theirs.   FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, DEVELOP THE HABIT OF CHECKING YOUR CREDIT CARD EACH TIME IT IS RETURNED TO YOU AFTER A TRANSACTION!   SCENE 3:  Yesterday I went into a pizza restaurant to pick up an order that I had called in. I paid by using my Visa Check Card which, of course, is linked directly to my checking account. The young man behind the counter took my card, swiped it, then laid it flat on the counter as he waited for the approval, which is pretty standard procedure. While he waited, he picked up his cell phone and started dialing. I noticed the phone because it is the same model I have, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary.  Then I heard a click that sounded like my phone sounds when I take a picture. He then gave me back my card but kept the phone in his hand as if he was still pressing buttons. Meanwhile, I'm thinking: I wonder what he is taking a picture of, oblivious to what was really going on. It then dawned on me: the only thing there was as my credit card, so now I'm paying close attention to what he is doing.   He set his phone on the counter, leaving it open. About five seconds later, I heard the chime that tells you that the picture has been saved. Now I'm standing there struggling with the fact that this boy just took a picture of my credit card. Yes, he played it off well, because had we not had the same kind of phone, I probably would never have known what happened. Needless to say, I immediately canceled that card as I was walking out of the pizza parlor.  All I am saying is, be aware of your surroundings at all times. Whenever you are using your credit cards, take caution and don't be careless. Notice who is standing near you and what they are doing when you use your card. Be aware of phones because many have a camera phone these days. When you are in a restaurant and the waiter/waitress brings your card and receipt for you to sign, make sure you scratch the number off.  Some restaurants are using only the last four digits, but a lot of them are still putting the whole thing on there. I have already been a victim of credit card fraud and, believe me, it is not fun. The truth is that they can get you even when you are careful, so don't make it easy for them.  FORWARD THIS TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN THINK OF.  LET'S GET THE WORD OUT! Origins:  The   item quoted above is another example of a "crime warning" message that is difficult to classify as either true or false.  The scenarios it describes are possible, and someone, somewhere, might very well have been victimized by them, but on the other hand the message provides no details of time, place, or person, to use in verifying these tales, and the scenarios proffered are generally too implausible to be of much legitimate concern to the average person. The first two entries describe scammers who supposedly switch expired credit cards for valid credit cards, thereby enabling them to run up thousands of dollars in charges before the victims realize their cards are missing.  This isn't a scheme likely to be successful in most cases, for a number of reasons:  Not all credit cards look alike.  Common credit cards such as VISA and MasterCard vary quite widely in appearance, featuring different logos (based upon the issuing financial institutions), different colors of plastic, and even different (customer-selected) background designs.  For this scenario to work, the putative thieves would have to carry around a plethora of different styles of cards and hope to hit a long shot by coincidentally matching one of their cards to a victim's particular style card.   The deception would be obvious the next time the victim used (or, presumably, even looked at) his card, which wouldn't give the scammers much time to try to run up a huge charge on the stolen card via many small purchases.  Contrary to the claim made above, most credit card issuers will flag as suspect thousands of dollars' worth of charges made on a credit card within a short period of time, even if none of those charges are for large amounts.  Also contrary to a claim made above, a credit card customer could not be held liable for $9,000 worth of charges made to a stolen credit card, whether he reported the card stolen or not.  According to the Federal Trade Commission, under federal law a credit card holder's maximum liability for any unauthorized credit card use is $50. (If the cardholder reports the loss before the credit card is used, he cannot be held responsible for any unauthorized charges at all.) If the loss involves the credit card number, but not the card itself, the cardholder also has no liability for unauthorized use.  liability  Frankly, if you're habitually leaving your wallet unattended in an easily-opened locker, you've got a lot more to be concerned about than potential visits from card-swapping scammers. The third scenario covers a situation we've already written an article about, that of identity thieves supposedly snapping pictures of credit cards with cell phone cameras.  This scheme too is possible but implausible, since: article  It's still quite difficult (given the quality of cell phone cameras, the reflectiveness of plastic credit cards, and the usual lack of contrast between the colors of a card's imprinted numbers and its background) to quickly snap off a clear photo of a credit card.  Taking a picture of the front of a credit card won't capture the CVC2 or CVV2 security code required for most CNP (i.e., "card not present") purchases. (American Express, however, is an exception to this, as their security codes are printed on the cardfaces.) security code CNP  Retail clerks and others who typically handle customers' credit cards in the course of business transactions have many, many ways of recording card numbers that are better and easier (and less obtrusive) than literally pointing a camera at a card and taking a picture of it. The admonition to "take caution and don't be careless" with your credit cards is generally sound, but then again, it's also rather obvious advice that applies to just about every aspect of life. Last updated:  22 July 2011 Negative campaign ads: most people say they hate them, but studies show that many people are swayed by them.Thus, major races can get pretty nasty, and there's a fear that the presidential contest this year will break all records for nastiness, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010Citizens United decision. The court upheld the right of persons, organizations and corporations to spend as much as they would like on political advertising -- while hiding their involvement -- through the use of organizations known as super political action committees (Super-PACs).To shed some light on who is behind such attack ads, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI,  has been promoting the DISCLOSE Act. The name is an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.When you don't have accountability, there's no limit to the things that people will say,Whitehouse said during a debateon the floor of the Senate. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the filth that so often is part of the American political debate is that candidates have to stand by their ads.And if you say something that is awful, if you engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may charge you a price for that, Whitehouse said. Well, that of course disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living person or corporation. It's just an entity, it's a sham, it's a phony, it's a shell.The DISCLOSE actwould requiresome tax-exempt groups that engage in political advertising to reveal individual donors who gave $10,000 or more.Critics saythe act discriminates because it wouldn't apply to unions. They also say disclosure might open donors up to intimidation and ridicule, inhibiting free speech.During an unsuccessful push to bring the proposal to a vote in the Senate -- a drive blocked twice by Republicans, on July 16 and 17 -- Whitehouse said the Citizens United decision was already sparking a giant increase in negative political advertising.An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008, he said.That's a big jump in negative advertising. We wondered if it were true.The contextWhen we contacted Whitehouse's office, spokesman Seth Larson sent us toa studyreleased May 2, 2012, by the Wesleyan Media Project at Wesleyan University. It defined a negative advertisement as an ad in which the candidate's opponent is mentioned.The study looked only at TV ads in the presidential races and only ads broadcast from January 1 through April 22 of 2008 and the same period in 2012.It turns out that Whitehouse quoted the study accurately. The researchers said that 70.0 percent of all ads in 2012 were negative during that period, compared with 9.1 percent in 2008.But Whitehouse also said that the Citizens United decision is responsible for that increase in negative ads, so lets look at that aspect.The political scientists we spoke with said the Supreme Court decision is having a huge effect on the tone and rhythm of the 2012 campaign.The Wesleyan study suggests that the effect was already clear in the first four months of this year.Consider the ads purchased by special-interest groups or SuperPACs.Of the 10,062 special-interest group ads aired during the first quarter of 2008, 75 percent were rated positive and 25 percent were rated negative.By 2012, the number of special-interest ads had exploded, jumping more than 12-fold to 123,062. In addition, the mix of ads had reversed, with only 14 percent positive and 86 percent negative.Meanwhile, the number of ads bought by candidates themselves plummeted, from 289,622 in the first quarter of 2008 to 74,267 this year, an indication that they were letting the special interest ads carry the ball for promoting their candidacies.AsMichael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in the report, That's a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.Other factors affect rateBut Franz and the other experts we consulted cautioned that additional factors are also at work.The first four months of the 2008 race were very different from the same period in the 2012 contest.In early 2008, one reason the number was so low was because the [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton campaigns didn't really attack each other on TV that much, said Franz, now at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. They did off the air, and they were obviously quite ruthless. But in the ads themselves, there wasn't a lot of sniping back and forth against each other. They promoted themselves primarily.That changed for Obama in the general election, Franz said. He was a very negative candidate and once the general election started, it became an overwhelmingly negative campaign, as it usually is in the general election.During the first four months of 2012, SuperPACs drove up the percentage of negative ads, he said, but also candidates have been overwhelmingly negative against each other in the [2012] Republican primary.So let's look at the types of ads placed by the candidates themselves.In 2008, only 9 percent of the ads placed by all the candidates in the first four months of the year were negative.By 2012 that number had grown to nearly 53 percent.The first four months of a presidential election year are not necessarily the best guide to the rhythm of the rest of a presidential campaign. I really don't think they're indicative of what's to come, said Mary Ellen Balchunis, a political scientist at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. It's how close the polls are, it's whether your opponent is going negative, it's whether you are responding.Early in the contest, the ads are generally more about who the candidate is and what the candidate would do. That's particularly true for a challenger, saidStephen Farnsworthof the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., a key swing state. There are always some negative ads, but they are really sprinkled in the mix. In the fall, when people are really turning their attention to the election, that's when the number of negative ads escalates.In this election cycle, things are already so negative, it's hard to imagine that there's much room for them to get more negative between now and November, said Farnsworth, author of Spinner-in-Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves.Our rulingSheldon Whitehouse said, An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.He is correctly quoting the study, but the context of his comment makes it clear that he blames the SuperPACs, which were freed up by the Citizens United decision.Those special-interest groups are certainly playing a much larger role this year, in part because they have become the major source of TV ad purchases.But the data also reveal that the candidates are being far more negative earlier in the campaign than they were four years ago, and that also drove up the percentage of negative ads in the beginning of 2012.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate the claim asMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Sweden is often the subject of fierce political debate, with some championing it as an example of a well-run, successful social democracy, while others point to what they see as problems endemic throughout the country. It has also long been the target of misinformation and confusion relating to its integration and assimilation of immigrants, something we have written about in detail in the past.  in detail In the spring of 2018, a meme went viral which presented some of the positive aspects of Swedish society, in particular its health care system. On 25 April, the "Medicare for All" Facebook page shared this meme: meme I live in Sweden. We have social security, affordable health care, strict gun laws, 5 weeks paid annual leave, and [one] year maternity leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10. Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. We're not a communist country, or even strictly socialist. We're socio-democratic, and our freedoms are not inhibited.    The meme cites the Twitter handle @SweResistance as its source. In March 2018, that Twitter user posted a series of tweets making the case for Swedish health care:  posted For example, health care can cost a maximum of around $130 per year for visits to health care centrals etc, hospital.nights costs $12 per night with a $175 roof per month. Prescription drugs have a yearly roof of $250. #healthcare #healthcare  Caroline ?????? #FBR #RESIST (@SweResistance) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018  It appears that "Medicare for All" actually changed some of the details in its meme for reasons unknown. We have fact-checked the claims made in the meme, rather than in @SweResistance's Twitter thread.  Strict gun laws While there is no objective definition of "strict," Sweden does stringently regulate gun ownership and usage by comparison with the United States. According to an analysis by GunPolicy.org, a research project hosted at the University of Sydney, Australia: analysis 5 weeks paid annual leave According to Section 4 of the Annual Leave Act, employees are legally entitled to 25 days' paid leave each year. Section 4 One year's maternity leave This is not quite right. Sweden doesn't have maternity leave, exactly; instead, it offers its inhabitants exceptionally generous parental leave. Parents of a newly born or adopted child are entitled to 480 combined days of parental leave, which they can split between themselves in whatever way they choose regardless of gender. In 2017, fathers claimed 28 percent of all parental leave days, according to government statistics.  statistics For 390 of the 480 days available, parents are paid at a rate of almost 80 percent their normal salary, according to Swedish government figures. The parental leave doesn't need to be taken right away, either. Parents in Sweden can continue to take days off until their child turns eight years old. figures The claim of one year of maternity leave ignores the reality of how the Swedish system works, but it is absolutely possible that a new mother  depending on the agreement she has with the child's other parent  could claim 365 days or more paid leave. A stay at the hospital for one night costs about $10 This is true. According to official government figures published on the Sweden.se web site, the maximum fee for a hospital visit is 100 Kroner (SEK.) Based on the exchange rate on 26 April 2018, that's $11.56, which is closer to the $12 stated by @SweResistance. figures Prescription drugs have an annual cap of $210. This is also basically true, although the dollar amount again depends on the exchange rate. According to Swedish government figures, "nobody pays more than SEK 2,200 in a given 12-month period" for prescription medication. (That's the equivalent of $254 as of April 2018.) Again, that's very close to the $250 figure provided by @SweResistance. It's not clear where the figure of $210 originates.  figures Overall, the meme accurately states some of the details of Sweden's social democratic institutions. However, like most politically-charged social media content, it leaves out important context. The most obvious thing to know about Sweden's famous "cradle to grave" social safety net and good working conditions is that they are largely paid for by Sweden's equally famous high taxes. Nonetheless, polling shows that Swedes are largely satisfied with the public services they receive in return. high taxes. satisfied Palma, Bethania. "Crime in Sweden, Part I: Is Sweden the 'Rape Capital' of Europe?"
 Snopes.com. 29 March 2017. Government of Sweden. "Annual Leave Act."
 Government of Sweden. Accessed 26 April 2018. TT/The Local. "Dads in Sweden Took More Paternity Leave Than Ever in 2017."
 TT/The Local. 17 January 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "10 Things That Make Sweden Family-Friendly."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices. "Health Care in Sweden."
Swedish Institute/Swedish Government Offices/Sweden.se. Accessed 26 April 2018. Pomerleau, Kyle. "How Scandinavian Countries Pay for Their Government Spending."
 Tax Foundation. 10 June 2015. TT/The Local. "Here's How Happy Swedes Are With the Services Their Taxes Pay For."
 TT/The Local. 16 December 2016. On 25 February 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted to complain that the news media were not reporting his success in reducing the national debt during his first month in office: tweeted The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017 February 25, 2017  As noted by news media from the Los Angeles Times to the Washington Post, the tweet appeared closely after a "Fox & Friends" segment in which guest (and former presidential candidate) Herman Cain reported the same numbers. That story appeared to have its origins in a post on the conservative blog Gateway Pundit ("Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month") which took credit for the Trump tweet in an update to their story. Los Angeles Times Washington Post took credit There are two claims implicit in the tweet. The first claim is simply the factual nature of the figures reported. The second is that the numbers represent an item worthy of coverage. The numbers are factual in a literal sense, according to the online debt history search application offered by the US Treasury Department: application   Though the numbers regarding the debt at the end of Trumps and President Obamas first month are factual, their significance as a reportable bit of information or as an indicator of the impact or success of Trumps policies is questionable. Speaking to CBS News, Maya MacGuineas, director of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, said: said It is true the debt outstanding declined by $12 billion in the first month of Donald Trumps presidency. We applaud the president for focusing on the debt as an important metric of success and economic health, but would point out that the improvement this early in his term has to do with normal fluctuations in spending and revenues rather than new policies he has implemented. Indeed, in terms of newsworthiness (or lack thereof), sporadic reductions of the debt are not uncommon (in red, below) on a month-to-month basis, according to The "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" reports released during the course of President Obama's second term in office: reports     In fact, the Washington Posts Wonkblog reports that, even on a day-to-day basis, fluctuations even greater than the one Trump referenced are not unheard of: reports The Gateway Pundit article says that the change in debt under Trump translates to a 0.1 percent reduction in the U.S. debt burden. Actually, it's .06 percent between Jan. 20 and Feb. 21  a very small change. (The national debt has gone up or down by as much .19 percent on single days this year.) Secondly, there are few mechanisms by which any actions Trump has taken as president would affect the national debt thus far, as he has not signed into law any financial measures related to federal borrowing. While there are arguments to be made that other factors related to Trumps presidency could affect the debt, the Post has said it is unlikely, and also impossible to quantify: Its impossible to know whether Trumps election has really had time to filter through to concretely affect the economy. Congress has not passed any of his policies yet. The stock market has certainly continued to boom, but it was already rising before the election. While it's possible anticipation of tax cuts or regulatory relief is heating up the economy and leading to increased government receipts, investors might also be choosing not to sell assets to avoid current capital gains tax rates and waiting to see whether the Republican-dominated Congress successfully slashes rates. Keith Hennessey, a former director of the U.S. National Economic Council appointed by George W. Bush, wrote a hypothetical memo to Congress analyzing the 45th Presidents tweet. In this document, he stated that neither Obama nor Trump had any effect on the national debt in their first month in office: hypothetical memo document Government borrowing in January and February is the byproduct of spending and tax policies set by Congress the year before. President Obama signed the fiscal stimulus law on February 17, 2009, but it took months before that began to change government cash flows and borrowing requirements. President Trump has so far not measurably affected fiscal policy in general or government borrowing in specific. Its unfair to assign any responsibility for borrowing in the first month to either president. Hennessey added that it is equally unfair to compare the 2009 economic situation with the 2017 one: GDP was plummeting when President Obama took office. Tax revenues were down, automatic stabilizer payments (e.g., unemployment insurance and safety net spending) were up, and funds were being spent from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In early 2009 government was borrowing a lot because the economy was weak, not because of President Obamas policies. In contrast, the U.S. economy is now growing. The smaller borrowing requirement for this month is mostly a result of this economic difference, and may also in part be simply an artifact of choosing such a short timeframe for comparison. More to the point, however, the fact that the day-to-day and month-to-month fluctuations of the national debt are so volatile, he argued, is why analysts dont typically look at the data for these time periods, accordingo to Hennessey: Had the president / Mr. Cain ended his timeframe one day earlier this tweet would have been invalid and debt would have increased (by just $1 B) in the first month. This is why analysts look at debt on an annual basis rather than daily/weekly/monthly. It should also be noted that, as the Fox and Friends segment aired on one of the nations most popular national cable news networks, "the media" did indeed report on this story. The reason it didnt pick up much steam is that the numbers were not newsworthy because they were taken out of context and are likely irrelevant to President Trump's actions in office. UPDATE: 28 February 2017 -- Modified the status of this article to "" to better explicate the difference between the accuracy of the debt figures and their newsworthiness. Hennessey, Keith.  "Memorandum for a Member of Congress: The Presidents Debt Tweet."
  keithhennessey.com.  25 February 2017. Swanson, Ava.  "Trump Is Upset the Media Is Not Reporting a Meaningless Statistic About the National Debt."
  The Washington Post.  25 February 2017. Hoft, Jim.  "Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month  UPDATE: Trump Tweets Our Numbers"
  thegatewaypundit.com.  23 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It." Shabad, Rebecca.  "Fact-Checking Trump's Claim About Debt Dropping by $12b in Last Month."
  thegatewaypundit.com.  25 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) and Downloadable Files." Morin, Rebecca.  "Former Economic Council Director Derides Trump's Debt Tweet."
  Poltico.  25 February 2017. Wilber, Del Quentin.  "Trump Brags About the National Debt, But His Comparison Is Misleading."
  Los Angeles Times.  25 February 2027. ABCsThis Weekspent much of their show Sunday discussing race issues, from affirmative action to racist comments allegedly made by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling to economic disparity. During a roundtable segment on the difference between the middle class in the United States and Canada, Fusion reporter Alicia Menendez argued that differences in wealth arent just generational, theyre racial. We also know that there is a racial component to this, that a white family is likely to have about six times as much wealth than a black or Hispanic family coming out of the recession, she said. PunditFact finds her ratio correct. Menendez pointed us to anApril 2013 reportfrom the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan social policy think-tank. The institute measured mean wealth by race. Using 2010 data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, the Urban Institute looked at assets including cash savings, homes, retirement accounts and subtracted any debt. TheUrban Institute concluded that, post-recession, for every $1 an average black or Hispanic person has in wealth, an average white person has $6. Thats up from 1983, the farthest back the study goes, when the ratio was 5-to-1. Thomas Shapiro, a Brandeis University social policy professor who studies the wage gap, said the 6-to-1 ratio is correct, but represents the lower end of the wealth gap range researchers have come up with. At the higher end of the spectrum,Pew Research citeda 20-to-1 ratio in 2011. They took median wealth from the Census Bureaus Survey of Income and Program Participation 2009 data. So the data varies by survey used, year and measure of average (mean vs median). Theres debate among economists and social scientists about which ratio is the most accurate. Darrick Hamilton, an urban policy professor at The New School,said the Census Bureau surveys more low-income families, while the Survey of Consumer Financesoversamples high-income families where minorities arent as well represented. Overall, any ratio from 6-to-1 to 22-to-1 could be considered an accurate measure of the wealth gap, Shapiro told us. Our ruling Menendez said, A white family is likely to have about six times as much wealth than a black or Hispanic family coming out of the recession. A study from the Urban Institute supports her statistic. Other research shows an even wider gap, further proving her point that race is a factor in U.S. wealth. Menendez's statement is accurate, and might even understate the issue. We rate her claim True. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic In particular, Pence said the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said: We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height, we've already added back 11.6 million jobs, because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this. In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in summer and fall 2020, regaining nearly half the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." said To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households. compiled When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls  661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. 661,000 new workers We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed:   According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior  the steepest decline since the Great Depression. since While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. Then, after that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here: The monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision, as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 millions jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September  and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses  both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. March Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shut down. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S.  not Trump.  Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan  which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act  helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. Paycheck Protection Program Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act stimulus package All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies  whether related to taxes or trade  that "added back" the jobs but rather economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak, during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy  especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs  no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration: wrote The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy.  Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic.  For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies  or that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation and unleashed American energy, fought for free and fair trade," like Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs.  Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim   Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020."
 Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."
 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded."
 Accessed 12 October 2020. Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.