Raid on Mexican Drug Dealer's House
Claim:  Photographs show the proceeds from drug sales found during a raid of Mexican drug dealers' residence.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2007] $207 Million seized in Mexico ... wonder what they did with all of it! No wonder we aren't winning the war on drugs. This is unbelievable.  RAID ON DRUG DEALERS HOUSE                   Origins:  The photographs displayed above accompanied a March 2007 press release issued by the PGR (Mexico's office of La Procuradura General de la Repblica, or judge advocate general) announcing a successful drug raid on a Mexico City home.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), working in conjunction with Mexican police, made what the DEA described as the "largest drug-cash seizure in history" when they confiscated a total of $205.6 million in U.S. currency, along with other cash, vehicles, and weapons, from a residence used by methamphetamine producers: PGR The money found hidden inside walls, suitcases and closets in one of Mexico City's wealthiest neighborhoods came from the profits of methamphetamines sold in the United States, [DEA chief Karen Tandy]  said. Mexican law enforcement and the DEA worked for a year on the operation, she said. Mexican federal agents also seized eight luxury vehicles,  seven weapons and a pill-making machine during the raid in Lomas de Chapultepec, a neighborhood of walled compounds that is home to ambassadors and business magnates. Seven people were arrested and were ordered Monday to be held for three months while the investigation continues. In addition to the dollars, officials found 200,000 euros and 157,500 pesos. Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora said the money was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. Mora said the ring had been operating since 2004 and was run by a native of China who had gained Mexican citizenship. The alleged gang leader is in hiding, possibly outside of the country, Medina Mora said. The operation should reduce the supply of methamphetamine to the United States, where Mexican drug gangs control at least 80 percent of the market, Tandy said. The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Antonio O. Garza, issued a statement about the raid which was published on the embassy's web site (and included the photographs reproduced here): statement photographs Mexico City, March 20, 2007  With the largest single drug cash seizure by law enforcement officials in history, major narco-traffickers are now US $205 million poorer. This unprecedented seizure of drug money by Mexican law enforcement officials in Mexico City last week also led to the arrest of several important narco-traffickers.  The seizure and arrests underscore our two countries' deep commitment to fighting the drug kingpins who bring corruption and violence to communities on both sides of the border. President Calderons administration has demonstrated firm resolve in fighting the criminals who undermine our societies and terrorize our citizens.  Acting on information supplied in part by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Mexican law enforcement officers on March 15th seized these funds from the Mexico City home of an individual connected to the UNIMED pharmaceutical corporation of Hong Kong, China. Seven individuals have been arrested so far and authorities are looking for more suspects.  U.S. authorities believe UNIMED is connected with attempts, in December 2006 and February 2007, to smuggle large amounts of the toxic chemicals used to produce methamphetamine through ports in Colima and Michoacan.  I am convinced that continued close cooperation between our law enforcement agencies will lead to more arrests and further successes in our common fight against narco-traffickers. In July 2007, Chinese-Mexican businessman Zhenli Ye Gon, who was tied to the March 2007 seizure of drug cash shown in the photographs above, was arrested in Rockville, Maryland: Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora called the arrest "magnificent news" and said Mexican officials had 60 days to file their legal arguments for Ye Gon's extradition. The Chinese-Mexican fugitive is wanted on organized crime, drug trafficking and weapons charges. DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said Ye Gon was arrested on drug smuggling and money laundering charges, adding that he was tracked down by agents and did not turn himself in. Medina Mora said the cash seized at Ye Gon's home was connected to one of the hemisphere's largest networks for trafficking pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamines. He said the ring had been operating since 2004, illegally importing the substance and selling it to a drug cartel that mixed it into the crystal form and imported into the United States. Last updated:  14 February 2014    Grillo, Ioan.   "Alleged Drug Trafficker Arrested in Maryland."   Associated Press.  24 July 2007.
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 December 2021, a number of social media users expressed confusion and skepticism over a series of books that had been published on Amazon about the new COVID-19 omicron variant. How was it possible, these people wondered, for someone to research, write, and publish a book about a strain of COVID-19 that had been discovered just days or weeks earlier.  social media users expressed confusion   Other social media users commented: How can there be so many books knowing all about the #Omicron variant when we only found out about it 2 weeks ago? Amazing how there are 30 books available on Amazon on the Omicron variant when it was just named Nov 26,this one in particular was published on that date..almost like it was planned Go to Amazon and search "Understanding Omicron Variant" How can scientists do any kind of reputable work, write a book, have it peer reviewed, have it proofed, published AND printed in a couple WEEKS? Can you say scam? There are truly a number of books on Amazon about the omicron variant that were published within days of the announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the new strain had been identified. This isn't proof that the pandemic was "planned," or that it is a "scam." Rather, it's proof of just how quick and easy it is to self-publish a book on Amazon.  Self-publishing authors can submit their books to Amazon in as little as 5 minutes and can see their books up for sale the following day.  Amazon in as little as 5 minutes The social media users quoted above all expressed skepticism that a book about something as complicated as the omicron variant could be researched, written, and edited in a span of just a few days. This skepticism is rightfully placed. The omicron variant books on Amazon that were published in December 2021 likely did not go through rigorous research, writing, or editing phases. Unlike a scholarly journal where material has to go though peer review, anybody can self-publish just about anything on Amazon. The material can contain an infinite amount of typos (no editing), the content doesn't have to be factual (no research), and in some cases the text can be artificially generated or plagiarized (no writing). In other words, just because a book exists on Amazon doesn't mean its content is worth reading.  In March 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon was flooded with self-published books about the illness. These books were shoddily put together and often contained plagiarized content. The Guardian reported: Guardian reported As the coronavirus spreads around the world, it is not only health professionals and politicians who are being kept busy. Amazon has been flooded with badly put together, often plagiarised guides to combatting the virus. The retailing giant has already been removing tens of thousands of listings from bad actors attempting to artificially raise prices on items such as face masks and hand sanitiser. Now it is fighting a losing battle against the writers rushing out self-published books to profit from coronavirus fears. Generally shorter than 100 pages, dozens have been published in the last few weeks, promising worried readers ways to prevent or avoid the virus. On Amazon.co.uk on Thursday morning, the top results returned for books about coronavirus included Corbi Yangs Coronavirus, which promised to answer how this virus was identified and what measures have been taken up till now. Running to 44 pages, much of the writing was lifted directly from web pages. While social media users were skeptical of the rash of books published on Amazon about the omicron variant, there was one title that drew special attention. According to social media posts, a book by "Dr. Teresa Bishop" titled "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: All You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed" was copyrighted in 2020, nearly a year before the omicron variant emerged.    How was this possible? How was a book about the omicron variant copyrighted before the emergence of the omicron variant? We reached out to Amazon for some specifics about this title and we will update this article if more information becomes available. For the moment, here's what we know: announced by WHO nonsensical sentences International Standard Book Number database Copyright Public Records Portal   This title is no longer available on Amazon. A few days after this book was removed, Bishop published a similarly titled book "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: Everything You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed Kindle Edition." That book claims a copyright date of 2021.  As Coronavirus Spreads, Hastily Produced Books Capitalize on Fear. Undark Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/. Flood, Alison. Amazon Flooded with Self-Published Coronavirus Books. The Guardian, 12 Mar. 2020. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/12/amazon-flooded-with-self-published-coronavirus-books. Matsakis, Louise. Amazon Quietly Removes Some Dubious Coronavirus Books. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-quietly-removes-coronavirus-books/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Self-Published Book on Omicron Was Not Copyrighted before Variant Was Discovered. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/20/facebook-posts/self-published-book-omicron-was-not-copyrighted-va/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Update on Omicron. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1). In December 2017, a set of photographs posted to Facebook led to accusations that Eddie Bauer clothing stores destroyed leftover clothing instead of offering it for donations or leaving them intact so that they could be worn or resold. The post described several Eddie Bauer-brand clothing items left damaged and discarded outside the manufacturer's store in New York City: post Eddie Bauer in NYC threw out blankets and coats and CUT THEM UP SO NOBODY COULD TAKE THEM! This is capitalism! Imagine a system where you DESTROY excess goods instead of distribute them. This happens while thousands in NYC will sleep on the streets tonight.   The post's author, Dakotah Lilly  an organizer with the advocacy group Students and Youth for a New America  also provided us with a separate picture of a damaged jacket bearing the logo of Eddie Bauer's First Ascent line: group line   Regarding the attention the post has generated, Lilly told us: I didn't think people would be so surprised that a corporation would do something like this in pursuit of profit. But obviously I'm not surprised that people are upset by it. They should be! But they should know that this is routine, and we need to change the way the system works, not just one company. Lilly also said that Eddie Bauer had contacted him regarding his photographs, but he was not confident they would respond to the apparent issue: The way things are, it wouldn't make sense for them to. Our economic system rewards people based on who can screw the little guy the best. A spokesperson for Eddie Bauer told us that the company was aware of the New York store mentioned in Lilly's post "having to dispose of some jackets," but that cutting them up and discarding them was not company policy: All Eddie Bauer products carry a lifetime guarantee; therefore, we receive returned products for various reasons ranging from a normal defect such as broken zipper or small tear, to heavily soiled and damaged items. These returned products that are deemed unsellable are shipped to our main distribution center where they are sorted. Any products that can be donated or salvaged are done so. Eddie Bauer is working with that specific store to determine why the jackets had to be disposed of, and why this seems to be an isolated occurrence at that store. The spokesperson also said that the company donates product samples to a New York City-based charitable group, Delivering Good, which distributes clothing and home-related products to people in need. We contacted Delivering Good to confirm whether there is a partnership between the two groups. group, Lilly is not the first person to accuse the clothing maker of damaging and then discarding unsold products rather than offering them to charity; in March 2010, consumer awareness blog Consumerist published an account from a reader who said she witnessed similar dumping by the company. published 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. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president. Status:  False. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued over the treatment of the middle class, small businesses and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked debate on a different point -- the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas.So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a huge stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year.During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies get when they move jobs overseas.When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.Romney responded, The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.In this fact-check, we'll examine the presidents statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations.In the narrowest sense possible, Romneys rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether its from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad, said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions, Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation.But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS.Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseasWhen an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes.That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country, said McGill. And responsible for its own taxes. Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent companys tax return.The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred.The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S.McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, picked apart the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits.Tax break #2: Selling to yourselfAn American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. Its perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google.In just one quarter, the owner of the worlds most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the companys foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reportedBloomberg News.Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital wizardry to an Irish subsidiary which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings based in Bermuda where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda.These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arms length. Harvey, the former Pricewaterhouse Coopers partner, said they are anything but.It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions, Harvey said. I believe that anyone who believes the IRS can effectively enforce the arms-length standard is an eternal optimist  or delusional.Tallying the costHarvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion to $60 billion a year.Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment.Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said.But the picture is more complicated than that might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and being closer to important markets around the globe.However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivans words, a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow.Our rulingPresident Obama said there are loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms can not. The value of these is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative.We rate the statement True. On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Joe Biden Kamala Harris Donald Trump Mike Pence Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris  the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. George Floyd For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Factba.se transcription Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund  do you know that is?  which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office.  Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: "Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage." Sen. Tom Cotton tweet   Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. one conservative website Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort.  including many celebrities more than $30 million accounts "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota," she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. @MNFreedomFund   In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media  or via any other public statement  that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed "Minnesota Freedom Fund"  debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Federal Election Commission Center for Responsive Politics Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: "No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris." We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) has pledged Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case  or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest  they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: inequities states Weve never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge  and we wont now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness  People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice  Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyds death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings  whether chaotic or peaceful  did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail  and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. American Bail Coalition The Washington Post "We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way," the MFF website said. "[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising werent detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail." said However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. AK-47-style mini Draco pistol woman The Washington Post news reports Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July  a case that was unrelated to the protests  was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to "strengthen our internal procedures" to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. news reports statement In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters "get out of jail and do more damage," like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." Austin voters should doubt mayoral aspirant Mike Martinezs commitment to an affordable city, his opponent in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff maintains. The narrator of a Steve Adler TV ad says that as an Austin City Council member, Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. That statement is made against this visual backdrop:  Source: TV ad from Steve Adler, Austin mayoral candidate,Mike Martinez Record on City Council, posted online Dec. 2, 2014. Martinez has been a council member since June 2006. So its no surprise he would have had a say on taxes and rates charged by the city-owned utilities, though unsaid here is that no single council member controls any such decisions; its been a seven-member body, including the mayor. Martinez also chairs theeight-person boardoverseeing Capital Metro, which provides local bus and limited rail service. So he could have voted on fares charged the elderly. Lets recap Martinezs actions on fares, city taxes and utility rates. Bus fares To our inquiries, Adlers campaign didnt provide comprehensive backup for his ad claim. But by email, spokesman Jim Wick pointed out a September 2010Austin American-Statesmannews storystating the Cap Metro board voted to require bus riders 65 and older to pay 50 cents a ride or $15 for a 31-day bus pass, starting in 2011. The story also said the board was deciding to charge seniors and people with disabilities to ride buses for the first time since 1989. For Capital Metro, spokeswoman Francine Pares told us by email Martinez has been a board member since June 2007 and chairman since January 2010. Pares also confirmed the boards decision to charge the 50-cent fares, though she said that change was adopted at the boards November 2010 gathering, which Martinez didnt attend, she said. According tominutes of the Nov. 10, 2010, board meeting, the six members who were there unanimously approved a resolution authorizing higher fares in part, the resolution said, to generate additional operating revenues while striving to meet growing demand for transportation options. Martinez and another board member were recorded as absent. Pares told us theboard in September 2013approved another increase in senior fares, to 60 cents, effective in 2015. Generally, she said, senior citizens receive 50 percent off regular fares. By phone, Martinez agreed he and fellow board members agreed to charge the fares for elderly residents. But that happened, he said, only after a state panel issued marching orders including a recommendation calling for Capital Metro to raise more money from fares. In a 2010 report, the staff of the Sunset Advisory Commission recommended the authority charge a bus fare of 50 cents for groups currently riding free. The commission had said 30 percent of Capital Metros passengers were riding for free and, it noted, the board had rejected proposed fares in 2008 and 2009. In its finalJuly 2011 reporton Capital Metro, the commission said: While fare increases are difficult, requiring only a portion of its ridership to bear the burden of these increases is not equitable or sustainable, especially in bad financial times. Martinez pointed out the sunset review occurred in keeping withlegislation passed into lawby the 2009 Legislature, which wanted Capital Metro to get its finances in order. City taxes On taxes, Wick of Adlers camp offered as backup news stories indicating thatin 2009, Martinez said taxpayers would have to pay a little more in taxes and fees through 2010 to maintain services andin 2010, the council acting to raise the citys property tax rate from 42.09 cents per $100 of property value to 45.71 cents; the city tax on a median value home was expected to increase $52 to $843. Wick followed up by emailing us achart made by Adlers campaignindicating city property taxes on a median-valued home going up on Martinezs watch. For a non-campaign analysis, we turned to the Travis Central Appraisal District; the chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, emailed us achartindicating city property taxes on a median-value homestead in 2007 were $715; in 2014, the comparable figure was $1,014. We converted the 2007 figure to 2014 dollars, using afederal inflation calculator. Upshot: Adjusted for inflation, city taxes on a median-value Austin homestead went up $278, or 34 percent, from 2007 through 2014, Martinezs council years. Over those years, according to the district, the median taxable value of an Austin homestead went from $177,257 to $228,032. Adjusting for inflation suggests there was a nearly $18,800, 9 percent, increase. Martinez agreed property owners paid more in taxes in his council tenure, results influenced by surging property values, he said. Still, he said, in five of eight years, council members voted to keep the citys property tax rate the same or to lower it. When the rate was raised, he said, the economy was in recession. For another fact check, the city provided this chart of tax rates, which shows the council raised the rate three times in Martinezs tenure, most recently for 2013,  but cut the rate four times, most recently for 2014. In September 2014, the council left the 2014 rate intact for 2015. Utility rates In 2011,we found Mostly Truea claim that Austin Energy, the city electric utility, was considering its first hike in rates since 1994. The base electric rate, covering staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, hadnt changed since 1994. Meantime, residential customers were paying less for electricity than they once had, taking inflation into account. On June 7, 2012, the council unanimously voted to raise the base rate, theAmerican-Statesmanreported. The news story said: The complicated new rate structure will hit customers in different ways; generally speaking, the larger and more energy-hungry the home, the higher the percentage increase, effective October 2012. A typical home, which uses an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month over the course of a year, will see its monthly bill rise by $8, to $113, according to Austin Energy calculations. A home that uses a lot of electricity would see its monthly bill increase by $59, to $332, the story said. How would Adler have voted? We asked Wick how Adler would have voted on the bus fares, tax and utility rate hikes we confirmed. Theres no simple answer, Wick said by email, but Adler favors free fares for senior citizens. Our ruling Mike Martinez has voted to raise taxes and utility rates while ending free bus service for seniors. Austin residents pay more in taxes and could be paying more for electricity thanks to council actions Martinez supported. He also backed a decision by the Capital Metro board to charge half fares to elderly bus riders who had previously not been charged, though Martinez hardly did this by himself; its worth clarifying, too, that Capital Metro was under pressure to improve its finances and that Martinez missed the vote creating the then-50-cent fare. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. '