Has Governor Cuomo recently received a $71,000 salary increase?
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 During the coronavirus pandemic of spring 2020, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York remained at the top of the news cycle for two reasons: His state saw by far the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and his daily press briefings were a staple of television news coverage of the crisis. The New York governor was also praised as a model of political leadership during an emergency by those who were highly critical of President Donald Trump and his handling of the U.S. federal response to COVID-19. largest number During that period, a meme circulated via social media stating that Cuomo had recently requested and been granted a $71,000 pay raise that made him the highest-paid governor in the U.S., and that this activity had taken place "while most NYers were sleeping":   It was true that Cuomo had been granted a pay raise that would make him (at least temporarily) the highest-paid governor of any state. But that pay adjustment had been recommended and enacted a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020), the $71,000 increase was phased in across the span of three years (rather than given all at once), and the matter involved multiple recommendations and approvals from state authorities (largely given because the governor's salary not increased since 1999) which were openly publicized and not hidden from New York residents. On April 1, 2019, both houses of the New York Legislature (Assembly and Senate) approved a pay hike that would increase Cuomo's compensation from $179,500 to $200,000 in 2019, $225,000 in 2020, and $250,000 in 2021. In terms of base salary, that raise created the potential for Cuomo to become the nation's highest-paid governor in 2020, out-earning Gov. Gavin Newsom of California (assuming that no other state raised its chief executive's pay to a higher level before then). Gov. Gavin Newsom The gubernatorial pay hike was one of several salary increases that had been recommended back in December 2018 by the New York State Compensation Committee, which "after months of research and public hearings," advocated substantial pay raises for multiple high-level state officers -- many of whom would, like the governor, would see phased pay increases eventually garnering them well over $200,000 per year: recommended A four-member committee has recommended substantial pay raises for members of the state Legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, state comptroller and state attorney general. The New York State Compensation Committee  consisting of current and former New York state and New York City comptrollers  unveiled their recommendations Monday, December 10, 2018, after months of research and public hearings. The Compensation Committee recommends that, starting on Jan. 1 of 2019, state legislators will receive an annual salary of $110,000. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2020, lawmakers will receive an annual salary of $120,000 and their outside income would be capped at $18,000, which 15 percent of their legislative pay. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, lawmakers would receive $130,000 a year and their outside income would be capped at $19,500, which is 15 percent of their legislative pay. This would be the long-term compensation for state legislators moving forward. The Compensation Committee is also recommending pay increases for the governor, who would receive an annual salary of $250,000 after a three-year phase-in; the lieutenant governor, who would receive $220,000 after a three-year phase-in; and an annual salary of $220,000 for both the state comptroller and state attorney general after a phase-in period. Executive branch commissioners and department heads would also receive pay raises under the plan, with Tier A commissioners making $220,000 after a three-year phase-in. As the New York Post reported, some legislators "grumbled that the [pay raise] measure was thrown in at the last minute" while they were working overtime to pass a state budget, but Cuomo and others defended it by noting that the compensation committee's recommendations had been published and accepted months earlier: reported Because the governor cant sign off on his own pay hike, the raise required legislative action. The state Senate approved the increase at 2:45 a.m. and the Assembly acted a few hours later. Some lawmakers grumbled that the measure was thrown in at the last minute, while they were grappling with the new $175.5 billion state budget. The salary adjustments were done last December by the pay commission which publicized and put out a report, which was accepted by the legislature, Cuomo said. That was published and discussed in December, so theres nothing new on that. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) backed up Cuomo. It has a fiscal component to it, so theres always the realization to do it, Heastie told reporters. We felt that all the statewide officials were able to get raises ... the governor and the lieutenant governors salaries arent fixed by statute, they have to be done by a concurrent resolution between the Assembly and the Senate and thats the reason why they were done. Gormley, James.  "Pay Committee Recommends $50,000 Annual Salary Increase for Lawmakers."
  Legislative Gazette.  11 December 2018. Davis, Dominic-Madori and Marguerite Ward.  "Here's the Salary of Every Governor in All 50 US States."
  Business Insider.  20 April 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Coronavirus Disease 2019 -- Cases in the U.S."
  Accessed 20 May 2020. Feis, Aaron.  "Andrew Cuomo to Become the Highest-Paid Governor in the US."
  New York Post.  1 April 2019. Hogan, Bernadette.  "Andrew Cuomo Defends His Huge Pay Raise."
  New York Post.  2 April 2019.
In April 2022, a lengthy piece of text claiming that officials in the Australian state of Victoria were pushing legislation that would ban people from growing food circulated on conspiratorial websites, which presented the alleged bill as a nefarious plot to starve Australian citizens. The headline of an article on XYZ.Net.au, for example, read: "Psychopath Daniel Andrews (Premier of Victoria) Plans To STARVE Victorians." lengthy piece of text article on XYZ.Net.au On social media, the claim was boiled down to digestible memes and brief tweets, including the following:  The claim was not true, however.  This rumor centered on a genuine proposal by Victorian lawmakers called the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. That bill  which had bipartisan support, as of this writing  dealt with invasive species and other potential threats to Australia's agriculture industry. In a fact sheet about the bill, the state government explained its purpose and addressed the false claim that the legislation would prohibit Australians from growing their own food: Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 In a fact sheet This Bill aims to help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets which are vital for Victorias economy. Claim: The State Government is passing a bill now which means you won't be allowed to grow your own food, they can forcibly come in and rip it all out.  Facts: * The amendments will help safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. For example, by preventing contamination of food from pesticides.* The amendments will not result in the destruction of crops, nor will they prevent people growing their own food.* Information circulating online misinterprets and misrepresents amendments in the Agriculture Legislation Amendment Bill. Professor Paul Martin, director of the Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, told AAP FactCheck: told AAP FactCheck What the legislation does do is provide a way of dealing with potential biodiversity issues and invasive species problems that have emerged or could emerge. Some of these are serious, real threats, and laws are being tightened in response, to make existing controls easier to enforce." Reuters spoke to a Victoria Government spokesperson, who also said of the bill: "No one will be prevented from growing their own food as part of these changes."  The news agency continued: news agency continued [The spokesperson] added that the bill was designed to support the agriculture sector, as well as safeguard food security, food safety and access to export markets. Professor Michael Blakeney, from the University of Western Australias Institute of Agriculture (here), said he couldnt find anything within the bill that prevents people cultivating food crops on their own properties." here The claim that Australian lawmakers were considering the purported food-growing ban was shared in articles that also pushed other debunked conspiracy theories. The article on XYZ.Net.Au, for example, falsely claimed that there had been an unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year and that the U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops.   unusual amount of fires at food processing plants this year U.S. government was paying people to destroy crops While the rumor about Australian legislation gained traction on social media, it reached a larger audience thanks to podcast host Joe Rogan. In an episode that aired in mid-May 2022, he talked about the claim like Australian officials really were pushing a policy package that would prohibit people from growing their own food. Then, another person on mic presumably looked up online whether any reputable news outlets had reported on the alleged initiative and came up empty. In other words, the conspiratorial podcast was once again spreading misinformation.  spreading misinformation  It's important to note that this claim was part of a baseless conspiracy theory that the government (either Australia's or the United States' or the "New World Order") was purposefully creating a food shortage in order to starve people so that a nefarious group of elites could enslave them. These conspiracy theories are often connected to white supremacist ideals as they pit "regular" Australian farmers attempting to grow their own food against "others" who are competing for the food supply.  New World Order The XYZ article, for example, ended like this: "Well also need to defend our food supply, and a network of solid friends to help us. Time to tribe up, White man." Claim Victorians Will Be Banned from Growing Food a Load of Crop. Australian Associated Press, 12 May 2022, https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claim-victorians-will-be-banned-from-growing-food-a-load-of-crop/. Fact Check-Amendments to Legislation in Victoria, Australia, Will Not Prevent Citizens from Growing Their Own Food. Reuters, 12 May 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-australia-agriculture-idUSL2N2X40ZQ. Hiscox, David. AFTER THE PANDEMIC, IS FAMINE NEXT? Richardson Post, 29 Apr. 2022, https://richardsonpost.com/davidhiscox/26794/after-the-pandemic-is-famine-next/. ---. Psychopath Daniel Andrews Plans To STARVE Victorians - XYZ. https://xyz.net.au/2022/04/psychopath-daniel-andrews-plans-to-starve-victorians/. Accessed 17 May 2022. Claim:  President Obama has canceled July 4 celebrations at U.S. military bases to save money. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] Supposedly the president has cancelled 4th of July celebrations for the troops on military bases to save money.   Origins:  This item about President Obama's having cancelled Independence Day celebrations at U.S. military bases scheduled for 4 July 2013 began circulating a few days before that holiday.  It is true that some of the U.S. military bases which typically stage larger July 4 shows cut back or canceled their 4th of July celebrations that year, but those bases individually chose to do so due to budgetary constraints, not because President Obama directed all U.S. bases to skip celebrating Independence Day that year to "save money." The mandatory $85 billion budget cut imposed by sequestration as of March 2013  an outcome for which Congress and the President shared some measure of blame due to their inability to resolve deficit reduction issues  affected many federal departments, including the military.  Therefore, some U.S. military bases had to make the choice of scrapping annual fireworks shows (which can cost upwards of $100,000) or other Independence Day events in order to allocate funds to more vital areas:  sequestration The Fourth of July won't have a patriotic boom in the sky over some military bases because budget cuts and furloughed workers also mean furloughed fireworks. Independence Day celebrations have been canceled at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and at the Army's Fort Bragg, both in North Carolina. The annual July Fourth celebration also has been scrapped at the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga. The reason is money  namely the lack of it. The failure in Washington to follow up a 2011 budget pact with additional spending cuts meant $85 billion across-the-board cuts that began  in March. Budgets tightened, the military took a major hit and many federal workers absorbed pay cuts through forced furloughs. When the decision was made to forgo fireworks at Camp Lejeune, the commanding general, Brig. Gen. Thomas Gorry, said the cancellation would "ensure that we can mitigate the fiscal challenges we are currently facing." Last year's Independence Day at the base cost about $100,000, including $25,000 for the fireworks. The big issue is paying the overtime to personnel for security, transportation, logistics and safety. Base officials said they couldn't justify paying overtime when federal workers are losing pay while furloughed. Marines and their families at Lejeune will instead be able to participate in some free activities  golf, bowling, skeet shooting, archery and movies. Other bases that are canceling ceremonies to mark the nation's birthday:  Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where the annual Jammin' July 4th put on by the 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw and local city and county officials has been scrapped. The base plans a smaller "freedom bash" on July 3 with pool games, face painting and bouncy castles.   The Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii, which is scaling back by canceling the fireworks and instead hosting a daytime celebration featuring the Pacific Fleet Band and the Air Force Band of the Pacific.  New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Last updated:  8 June 2015    Kerr, Jennifer C.   "A Fourth of July with No Fireworks for Some Military Bases."   The Washington Post.  1 July 2013. Former U.S. President Donald Trumps first wife, Ivana Trump, was laid to rest at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, based on media reports and photographs taken of the site.  laid to rest New York Post reporters visited the golf club and photographed Ivana Trumps grave. Their report included a number of shots from different angles, including one revealing a wooded area near the site.A source told the New York Post that Ivana was buried not too far from the club house. According to the report, she was buried in a place that was not visible to golfers as they tee off for a round of golf. The small section of the club where she was buried is below the backside of the first tee. New York Post wooded area source  A number of memes consisting of edited versions of those photographs went viral in late July 2022, with one in particular getting tens of thousands of likes and comments on Instagram. The image  posted by Instagram account homegrownterrorists   showed a golf cart rolling past what appeared to be Ivana Trump's gravesite. homegrownterrorists  It's clear that this photograph is fake when it's compared to the pictures published in the New York Post article. The gravesite has been inserted into a wider shot of a golf cart on a golf course fairway. Unlike the Post's photographs, the manipulated image doesnt show a wooded area immediately adjacent to the grave. New York Post article A separate rumor speculates that Trump used the burial site for tax break purposes. Indeed, the New Jersey tax code does exempt cemetery land from all taxes, rates, and assessments. Potentially, her grave could save the property from paying a significant sum in a state with high tax rates. According to the code, a cemetery company is exempt from paying real property taxes, income taxes, sales and use taxes, business taxes, and inheritance taxes; cemetery trust funds are also exempt from taxes. tax code code Trump has expressed his desire to be buried at the New Jersey golf course for years. His company even described it as his favorite property in a 2014 filing with the state. A 2017 Washington Post report revealed how he had been trying to convince local authorities to let him build cemeteries at the golf course since 2007. After numerous attempts, two of his plans were approved around 2017, but construction for them had not begun. The 2017 report said that the Trump Organization still needed to apply for state approval to make the land a public cemetery.  Washington Post However, Ivana Trump is the first known family member to be buried at the Bedminster golf club. Brooke Harrington, a sociology professor at Dartmouth and tax researcher, pointed out that the tax code has no stipulation for a minimum number of human remains needed for the tax breaks to apply. known Brooke Harrington tax code  Documents published by ProPublica show that the Trump Family Trust had sought to designate a property in nearby Hackettstown, New Jersey, as a non-profit cemetery company.  ProPublica However, this was not the first time Trump had been accused of trying to reduce his taxes on the property by varying its use. A 2016 Wall Street Journal report found that the golf club benefited from a farmland tax break because part of the land was designated for agricultural purposes  specifically for hay production and a small herd of goats. The Huffington Post reported in 2019 that he had saved around $88,000 that year. Wall Street Journal Huffington Post New Jersey laws state a landowner must have no less than five acres of farmland actively devoted to an agricultural or horticultural use for the two years immediately preceding the tax year being applied for and meet specific minimum gross income requirements based on the productivity of the land. New Jersey laws A representative for the Trump Organization told Fortune magazine that the links being drawn between Ivana Trump's gravesite and tax laws were truly evil. Fortune While it is unknown if the choice of this location for her grave had any connection to taxes, the Trump family has a history of seeking ways to reduce tax bills. Furthermore, given the photographs, and an acknowledgement from a Trump representative regarding the location of her grave while denying the rumors connecting it to tax laws, we rate the overall claim as True. "Cemeteries, Funerals & New Jersey Taxes." New Jersey Division of Taxes, https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/sales/anj22.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. "Department of Agriculture | Soil Evaluation Mapping Tool." Nj.gov. https://www.nj.gov/agriculture/home/farmers/farmlandassessment.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Fahrenthold, David A. The Mystery of Donald Trump and the New Jersey Cemetery. Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2017. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-mystery-of-donald-trump-and-the-new-jersey-cemetery/2017/03/10/7823f63c-facb-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Helmore, Edward. Will Ivana Help Donald Trump with Tax Breaks from beyond the Grave? The Guardian, 31 July 2022. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/31/donald-ivana-trump-cemetery-golf-course-taxes. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. How Trumps Goats Likely Save Him $88,000 A Year. HuffPost UK, 15 Aug. 2019, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golf-goats_n_5d546ebce4b08385506719f1. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Photos Show Ivana Trumps Grave at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, NJ. New York Post, 28 July 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/photos-show-ivana-trumps-grave-at-trump-national-golf-club-in-bedminster-nj/. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Roberts, Ken Schwencke, Mike Tigas, Sisi Wei, Alec Glassford, Andrea Suozzo, Brandon. Trump Family Trust - Nonprofit Explorer. ProPublica, 9 May 2013, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/465718872. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Rubin, Richard. Goat Herd Helps Trump Lower Tax Bite. Wall Street Journal, 20 Apr. 2016. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/goat-herd-helps-trump-lower-tax-bite-1461191607. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. Will Ivana Trumps Burial at Donalds Golf Club Give the Former President a Tax Break? Fortune, https://fortune.com/2022/08/01/does-donald-trump-get-tax-break-by-burying-ivana-trump-at-trump-national-golf-club/. Accessed 1 Aug. 2022. 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 As the U.S. federal government and states clashed over how to respond to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020, workers on the frontlines of helping virus patients reported widespread shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 masks and gowns. Hospital and state leaders described a chaotic and highly competitive market for securing supplies from vendors  disarray that critics of President Donald Trump blamed on his ad-hoc approach to addressing the shortfall. COVID-19 ad-hoc shortfall Meanwhile, several news reports surfaced, claiming federal officials seized PPE shipments from local agencies or stopped the deals between vendors and states by offering higher bids. Snopes received numerous inquiries from readers about the validity of the assertion.    To get to the root of the claim, we first researched from where the news reports originated. From The New York Times to the Boston Globe to The Intelligencer (a blog within New York magazine), several media outlets highlighted the experience of Dr. Andrew W. Artenstein, an infectious disease physician in Springfield, Massachusetts, who said the pandemic has forced him into PPE supply-chain work. On April 17, 2020, he published a letter in a peer-reviewed medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, about his apparent travails of getting a large shipment of face masks and respirators from a warehouse in a mid-Atlantic state. (He told The New York Times he would not publicize the location of the transaction out of fear of jeopardizing his relationship with the supply vendor.) The letter read: The New York Times Boston Globe The Intelligencer letter Before we could send the funds by wire transfer, two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived, showed their badges, and started questioning me. No, this shipment was not headed for resale or the black market. The agents checked my credentials, and I tried to convince them that the shipment of PPE was bound for hospitals. After receiving my assurances and hearing about our health systems urgent needs, the agents let the boxes of equipment be released and loaded into the trucks. But I was soon shocked to learn that the Department of Homeland Security was still considering redirecting our PPE. Only some quick calls leading to intervention by our congressional representative prevented its seizure.  It is unclear why federal officials may have targeted the Massachusetts delivery or where they would have allegedly redirected the supplies. Citing a policy of not confirming or denying specific investigations, the FBI declined to comment on Artenstein's account in an April 20 New York Times story, saying only that the agency had been working to ensure that PPE "is not being unlawfully distributed or hoarded" during the coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, the Boston Globe could not reach the Department of Homeland Security, which encompasses FEMA, to comment on the doctor's story. story Though widely circulated online, Artenstein's story was not the only report of federal interference in the procurement of PPE in spring 2020. On April 7, the Los Angeles Times reported health care officials in seven states said the federal government seized their shipments and did not give guidance on how or if the local agencies would someday get the supplies they ordered. "Are they stockpiling this stuff? Are they distributing it? We dont know," one unidentified official told the LA Times. "And are we going to ever get any of it back if we need supplies? It would be nice to know these things.  reported Additionally, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti told The New York Times that FEMA stepped in at the last minute of a deal the city had with "one of its usual suppliers" to buy 1 million masks; a New Jersey county official told local media an order of 35,000 N95 and other masks were "commandeered" by the federal government; and a leader of the private health care company Kaiser Permanente told staff members that the company had found 20 million masks to purchase, "but the feds actually seized that shipment before we were able to acquire it," the Times reported. The same news story said: local media Kaiser Permanente In Massachusetts, state leaders said they had confirmed a vast order of personal protective equipment for their health workers; then the Trump administration took control of the shipments. In Kentucky, the head of a hospital system told members of Congress that his broker had pulled out of an agreement to deliver four shipments of desperately needed medical gear after the supplies were commandeered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado thought his state had secured 500 ventilators before they were swept up by FEMA. Adding to those reports are worries by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker that if he publicly discusses how he's obtaining masks and gloves for his state, federal officials may catch wind and seize the materials, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. "The supply chain has been likened to the wild West, and once you have purchased supplies, ensuring they get to the state is another herculean feat," a spokesperson for the governor told the news outlet.  Chicago Sun-Times likened to the wild West, The reports began surfacing around the time the Trump administration launched a new public-private partnership to quickly distribute mass shipments of protective gear to the U.S. from factories overseas. The so-called Project Airbridge initiative (championed by Jared Kushner, the presidents son-in-law and senior adviser) came after repeated requests from the president for states to handle the supply issue themselves, allegations from some local leaders that the federal government was distributing the equipment unfairly, and Trump choosing FEMA to replace the Department of Health and Human Services as the leading agency to respond to the crisis, a move that changed how states submit formal requests for supplies from the national stockpile. some local leaders national stockpile. Explaining the spring 2020 initiative, FEMA said in a statement that the agency redirects roughly half of each international shipment to U.S. locations it has deemed in highest need, using COVID-19 data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Simultaneously, the agency said it is sending the remainder of orders to businesses, health care facilities and counties that have placed orders in the past. statement Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  Yet despite the claims from state and hospital leaders, the federal government has not explicitly said it is confiscating or blocking PPE orders at the local level  nor explained why it would. It also has not outlined a long-range plan for the alleged intervention efforts, or how the supplies would be divvied up. FEMA officials' response to the allegations include, in chronological order: Gov. Charlie Baker confiscated masks Given the amount of reports from state officials and health care leaders claiming that federal officials seized or blocked PPE orders, and those accounts' level of specificity and apparent validity, we rate this claim "true"  with the caveat that the intervention efforts appear to be a part of a broader distribution plan that purportedly aims to get supplies to regions with the most urgent needs. Arango, Tim, et al.  Doctors and Governors Vie for Masks in Cloak-and-Dagger Deals.
 The New York Times.  20 April 2020. Artenstein, Andrew.  In Pursue of PPE.
 New England Journal of Medicine.  17 April 2020. Rosen, Andy.  Mass. hospital executive says he was questioned by FBI while buying equipment.
 Boston Globe.  19 April 2020. Healy, Beth.  Miscommunication, Missing Supplies Strain COVID-19 Coordination Between Mass. And FEMA.
 WBUR.  11 April 2020. Wallace-Wells, David.  The White House Has Erected a Blockade Stopping States and Hospitals from Getting Coronavirus PPE.
 New York Intelligencer.  19 April 2020. FEMA.  FEMA COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force: Supply Chain Stabilization.
 8 April 2020. WCVB.  3 million masks ordered by Massachusetts were confiscated in Port of New York, leading to creative alternative.
 2 April 2020. Main, Frank.  Pritzker arranging secret flights from China to bring millions of masks and gloves to Illinois.
 Chicago Sun-Times.  14 April 2020. Bowman, Bill.  Feds Take All Of Countys 35,000 Mask Order Targeted For Health Care Workers.
 Franklin Reporter and Advocate.  3 April 2020. Nicas, Jack and Kanno-Youngs, Zolan.  Swept Up by FEMA: Complicated Medical Supply System Sows Confusion.
 The New York Times.  6 April 2020. Olorunnipa, Toluse, et. al.  Governors plead for medical equipment from federal stockpile plagued by shortages and confusion.
 The Washington Post.  31 March 2020. Rose, Joel.  A War For Medical Supplies: States Say FEMA Wins By Poaching Orders.
 National Public Radio.  15 April 2020.

 DePillis, Lydia.  Heres Why Florida Got All the Emergency Medical Supplies It Requested While Other States Did Not.
 ProPublica.  20 March 2020. Levey, Noam.  Hospitals say feds are seizing masks and other coronavirus supplies without a word.
 Los Angeles Times.  7 April 2020. Claim:  List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson:   If you don't know the answer make your best guess  Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A.  Karl MarxB.  Adolph HitlerC.  Joseph StalinD.  None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A.  LeninB.  MussoliniC.  Idi AminD.  None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A.  Nikita KhrushevB.  Josef GoebbelsC.  Boris YeltsinD.  None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A.  Mao Tse DungB.  Hugo ChavezC.  Kim Jong IlD  None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A.  Karl MarxB.  LeninC.  MolotovD.  None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A.  PinochetB.  MilosevicC.  Saddam HusseinD.  None of the above Answers: (1) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/29/2004(2) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  5/29/2007(3) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(4) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(5) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  6/4/2007(6) D.  None of the above.  Statement was made by Hillary Clinton  9/2/2005 Be afraid.  Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins:  This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements.  Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made.  (All of these entries  date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)  "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer.  Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters  some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend  to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity."   The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.  When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.  "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.  The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:  Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy  you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally.  "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said.   Last updated:  30 March 2015    Fouhy, Beth.  "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."   Associated Press.  29 June 2004.    CNN.  "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum."   4 June 2007. Claim:  Target is distributing free $500 vouchers or $1000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] There is a Facebook post that states if you share a Target ad that says get a free $500 Target voucher, write the comment, "Thank you Target" and the click like you will get a voucher for that amount. Get Free $500 target voucher Now (97 Left)  text message received: "Your entry last month has WON! Go to https://targetcontest.com/ and enter code 4787 to claim your FREE $1000 Target Gift Card within 24 hours!"   Origins:  In mid-November 2012, a survey scam purporting to offer free $500 Target vouchers or $1000 gift cards to those who followed particular links then did as told once there spread via e-mail, Facebook, and text message. Those links led to web pages (which were not operated or sponsored by Target) that asked the unwary to click what appeared to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which was really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who followed such instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" gift card offer stated that by accepting its terms, the user agreed to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies. Other recent survey scams of similar construction include:  $500 or $1,000 Target gift cards [November 2012] Target  $100 or $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple Last updated:  24 November 2012    CBS 4 [Denver].  "Walmart Gift Card Text Hits Phones Across Denver Metro Area."   7 March 2012. Controversial changes to North Carolinas tax code passed under Thom Tillis leadership are now a target in his Senate campaign. In 2013, the North Carolina government received national attention for a wave of conservative legislation. The Republican-dominated General Assembly -- with Tillis as speaker of the House -- passed laws increasing voter ID requirements, lowering business regulations, upping restrictions on abortion providers,tightening education spendingand trimming unemployment benefits. Now, Patriot Majority USA, a liberal political action committee, hasreleased a television adsaying Tillis policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The ad notes in particular thetax legislationenacted last summer -- which Tillis touts in his campaign against incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. The ad says Tillis is cozy with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who cofounded Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative PAC. And his policies are designed to benefit people like them. Thom Tillis thinks the wealthy, like the Koch brothers, deserve tax breaks, while teachers get a pay freeze, the ad says. Tillis thinks corporations like the ones owned by the Koch brothers should also get tax breaks, while seniors see their pensions taxed and pay more for prescription drugs. Thom Tillis: He may not be a Koch brother, but he certainly treats them like family. At one point, text on the screen says the Tillis tax plan will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. We looked into it and found that the law does not overtly harm those at lower-income levels, but the wealthy reap more of the benefits. Lets go to the numbers. Income taxes Supporters of the tax plan most often point to the reduced income tax rate, which they say cuts taxes for people in every income bracket. Thats true. However, people in higher-income brackets get bigger cuts than those in the lowest brackets. The income taxpart of the law sets the rate for everyone at 5.75 percent. Previously, the state had a graduated three-tier system, with rates of 6 percent for the lowest earners, and rates of 7 percent and 7.75 percent for higher earners. The lowest earners tax rates shrunk only marginally -- 0.25 points, while higher earners rates went down 1.25 and 2 points, respectively. Lower earners get a small break, though, in the income tax changes. The child tax credit goes from $100 to $125 per child for those earning below $40,000. The North Carolina Legislatures Fiscal Research Divisioncalculated how muchpeople in various scenarios would owe on average based on the changes to the income tax (other tax changes not included). Heres a sample of what they found: Scenario Tax owed before change Tax owed after change Change in taxes owed Married, two children, $20,000 income $40 $38 -$2 -5% change Married, two children, $250,000 income $15,832 $13,398 -$2,434 -15% change Married, no children, $20,000 income $540 $288 -$252 -47% change Married, no children, $250,000 income $16,142 $13,398 -$2,744 -17% change Single, $20,000 income $870 $719 -$151 -17% change Single, $250,000 income $17,858 $13,786 -$4,072 -22% change  In none of the scenarios examined by the Fiscal Research Division do people owe more in income taxes than they did under the previous tax code. But some benefit more than others. Theres no question who benefits the most -- the people at the upper end of the income distribution, said Lawrence Zelenak, a tax law professor at the Duke University School of Law, which is in North Carolina. For most people, it hardly makes any difference. But the people who get the major decrease have incomes of $200,000 or more. Other changes Critics say the new tax law also disproportionately benefits the wealthy because the Legislature did not renew -- effectively eliminating -- the State Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable tax credit for low-income workers. In 2011, about 907,000 North Carolina tax filers claimed the state EITC, according to theNorth Carolina Justice Center, a liberal advocacy group. The maximum credit ranges between $24 for a single person and $302 for a family with three or more children. Additionally, the Legislature expanded the sales tax base -- making more goods and services subject to the tax, which everyone pays regardless of income. The tax base widened to include natural gas, electricity and some entertainment services, including admissions charges. The law also eliminated North Carolinas sales tax holidays and several sales tax exemptions, such as those for newspapers, vending machines and meals sold in schools. Opponents of raising the sales tax andother regressive taxessay they are unfairly burdensome on lower-income people because a higher percentage of their income is subject to these taxes than wealthier people. For example, if two people -- one making $500 a week and the other making $2,000 a week -- spend $100 each on groceries, the person with the lower income is spending a greater share of their income on these taxed items than the person with a higher income. Its worth noting that in 2011 -- Tillis first year as speaker -- the Legislature reduced sales tax rates from 5.75 percent to 4.75 percent. Tillis andother Republicansalso say the new laws reductions in corporate tax rates (down from 6.9 percent to 5 percent, and 3 percent if certain parameters are met) will bring business and jobs to North Carolina, which will benefit everyone and bring in more revenue over the long term. In total, the new tax code will reduce tax-collected revenue by about $684 million between 2013 and 2015, according to the Fiscal Research Division. Less revenue means less money for the state to spend on social programs, which hurts people in low income brackets, Zelenak said. Even if the law does not obviously harm poor people, this is a possible indirect effect. Our ruling A Patriot Majority USA ad said Tillis tax plan would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. North Carolinas tax code saw a wide array of changes in 2013 under Tillis leadership. We found that changes to the income tax code reduced taxes for everyone, but much more for wealthier people than lower-income people. Additionally, sales tax expansions, less government revenue and eliminating the state EITC are especially burdensome on poorer people. But some changes -- such as the increased child credit for lower-income tax filers and the possibility of more jobs and business due to lowered corporate tax rates -- could benefit the whole. Overwhelmingly is a strong word. For that reason, we rate this claim Mostly True. Democrat Timothy M. Kaine launched his 2012 U.S. Senate campaign on April 5 by touting his record as Virginias governor.Kaine said Virginia was named the best-managed state, best state for business and best state in which to raise a child during his term from 2006 to 2010. (Virginia law bars governors from serving consecutive terms).We wondered if Kaine had his facts right.We turned to Governing magazine. Since 1999, it has been publishing a report by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States that grades each state on the strength of its management.Under Kaine in 2008, Virginia was one of three states to earn an A- grade, topping the rankings alongside Utah and Washington.The Pew report does not assign one-to-50 rankings to the states, meaning Utah and Washington can also claim to be best managed.Virginias reputation for well-managed government hardly begins with Kaine, however. Each of the four governors who preceded Kaine also claim credit for having run the best-managed state. That includes Republican George Allen, who is also running for Senate in 2012.The state earned the best grades in Governing  in 2005 when Democrat Mark Warner was governor and in 1999 under Republican Jim Gilmore.Financial World magazine researched and published similar ratings -- independent of Pew -- in the 1990s. Virginia received the top management grade in 1995 and 1996 under Allen, and in 1992 and 1993 under the governorship of Democrat Doug Wilder.The Pew report looks at a states performance and resources in four major categories: money, infrastructure, people and information. The diverse topics means a states record is dependant on many people, including elected officials and state employees. The states 2008 mark under Kaine was unchanged from the A- grade received in 2005 under Warner.Virginias ranking as the top state for doing business comes from Forbes, the financial magazine. The state took first place each year from 2006 to 2009. In 2009 the publication said Virginia earned the top spot thanks to a highly-trained workforce, a favorable regulatory environment and high quality of life.As governor, Kaine had only indirect control over most of these factors. Although he certainly had a say in tax rates and regulations, he had little sway over how many Virginians earned college degrees during his term and many quality-of-life issues.But the facts match Kaines claim about the state being rated best for business during his tenure.Last year the state surrendered the top spot to Utah and placed second in the Forbes survey. Despite the drop, the magazine still had high praise for Virginias business climate. Utah had narrowly trailed Virginia in 2009.The claim about Virginia being the best state to raise a child comes from a 2007 report by Education Weekand the Pew Center on the States. The survey examined education test scores, high school graduation rates, family income and even the education level of Virginia parents. Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Maryland rounded out the top five.Like the other categories, Kaine cant claim credit for all of these successes. He certainly didnt play a role in how many Virginians went to college during the years or decades before he became governor.Lets review our findings.Virginia has long-earned top marks for state management, finishing at or near the top of virtually every survey in that category for 20 years. Kaine built upon a strong legacy of management established by his predecessors from both parties. He deserves credit, however, for keeping the state near the top. He was handed a Cadillac and drove it well.We rate his statements True. Imagine America as a sweaty, scruffy, cigarette-smoking dude -- with a drug problem.That vision comes to life in anew political ad: America could learn a lot from a drug addict, says Addicted Dude. Even though this countrys $14  trillion in debt, Washington raised the debt ceiling 10 times in the last 10 years. Each time  its like another hit  another spending hit. But youre the junkies.41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. So China is like your dealer, and your addiction and your dealer control your life. To borrow less, you need to spend less. Yeah  Washington could learn a lot from a drug addict.The ad was paid for by the Public Notice Research & Education Fund, a sister organization to Public Notice. In apress release, Public Notice said it was airing the ads in hopes that the super committee in Congress working on a new budget would adopt more spending cuts.Public Notice says its mission is to increase the publics awareness and understanding of the economic issues that affect their daily lives, communities, and children and grandchildren. That sounded rather generic to us, and we wanted to know more about Public Notice. However, as a 501(c)(4), Public Notice isnot requiredto disclose its donors. Public Notices executive director, Gretchen Hamel, is a former spokesman for the  House Republican Conference.We decided to fact-check the ads claim that 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China.To check this item, we turned to two government agencies that monitor the economy.We consulted the most recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to see if 41 cents of every dollar is borrowed.The numbers show that for fiscal year 2011 (which ended Sept. 30, 2011), the federal government took in $2.3 trillion and spent $3.6 trillion. So the shortfall between receipts and outlays was about $1.3 trillion. That means about 36 cents of every dollar spent was borrowed.Thats pretty close to the 41 percent the ad cited. When we contacted Public Notice, they told us they took their numbers from an earlier report published in June 2011 that included numbers for fiscal year 2010. The numbers we used were for fiscal year 2011 and published Nov. 7, 2011.Next, for the sake of thoroughness, we checked how much U.S. debt is held by China. China is the number one foreign country holding U.S. debt, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.China holds $1.15 trillion in U.S. debt, followed by Japan with $957 billion; the United Kingdom with $422 billion; and a group of oil-exporting countries that collectively hold $230 billion. (See the entire list. )So is Addicted Dude a good analogy for our budget situation? If China is our drug dealer, Chinas offering us the good stuff at an extremely low mark-up -- interest rates on U.S. Treasuries are near rock-bottom right now. On the other hand ...thats how they get you hooked.So well leave it up to you to decide whether the metaphor is apt.The ad from Public Notice says, 41 cents out of every dollar you spend is borrowed from places like China. China is indeed the country that holds the most U.S. debt. But the most recent numbers on U.S. debt put the borrowed amount slightly lower, at 36 cents on the dollar. So we rate this statement Mostly True. From single-payer health care to free college tuition for all, Bernie Sanders policy proposals have been both dismissed and lauded as radical. But when it comes to reparations for slavery, some fault the Vermont senator and presidential candidate for holding a more conventional view. Sanders opposition to reparations has been the subject of some controversy after Ta-Nehisi Coates called him out inThe Atlantic,writing, Unfortunately, Sanderss radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations  job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education  is well within theOverton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd followed up with Sanders about Coates columnJan. 24, asking, Why aren't you for reparations because of slavery for African-Americans when you're calling for economic justice on so many other levels? Why do you stop short on that issue? Well, for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason, I believe, that Hillary Clinton has, Sanders responded. And that is, it is absolutely wrong and unacceptable that we have so much poverty in this country and it is even worse in the African-American community. Todd chided Sanders for not answering the question, but Sanders again deflected that it was for the same reasons as Obama and Clinton. Is it true that his position against reparations is the same as Clinton and Obamas views? Sanders is right that Obamas opposition echoes his own. (Coatescallsthis the conventional Democratic philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats.) Clintons stance is less direct but largely follows the same rationale. Sanders case against reparations First, lets explain why Sanders is opposed to reparations for African-Americans. When first asked about the issue byFusionat the Jan. 11 Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Forum, Sanders stressed the political impracticability and polarizing nature of the proposal, and suggested prioritizing current economic inequality in lieu of compensating for past injustices. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African-American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African-American community, we have a lot of work to do. So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most, and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African-American and Latino. OnMeet the Press, Sanders pretty much dropped the pragmatism argument (though he pushed back on the notion that his economic proposals are politically impossible) and focused instead on the second part of his rationale about improving economic conditions and schools for minorities. So how does this mirror, if at all, the approach by Obama and Clinton? Obamas opposition In 2007 and 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama voiced his opposition to reparations, arguing that the best way to amend for the past is to focus on the present and future. I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools, Obama said in aJuly 2007 CNN debate. Obama couched his opposition somewhat differently in a 2007NAACP presidential questionnaire. He said that nothing, including reparations, can fully compensate for the stain of slavery before arguing that reparations could lead to negligence on other matters of racial injustices: I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say 'weve paid our debt' and to avoid the much harder work of enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing; the much harder work of making sure that our schools are not separate and unequal; the much harder work of providing job training programs and rehabilitating young men coming out of prison every year; and the much harder work of lifting 37 million Americans of all races out of poverty. These challenges will not go away with reparations. So while I applaud and agree with the underlying sentiment of recognizing the continued legacy of slavery, I would prefer to focus on the issues that will directly address these problems  and building a consensus to do just that. Obama explains he will not pursue reparations because the action could be used as an excuse not to work on other lingering problems for minorities. Here, Obamas comments sound different from Sanders. Sanders and Obama sound more aligned in thesecommentsby Obama from July 2008, which both Obama and the Sanders campaign pointed out: You know, I have said in the past  and I'll repeat again  that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And, you know, I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy. You know, the fact is, is that dealing with some of the  some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen. And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about, how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job? How do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect? And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college. Obama, as far as we can tell through searching Nexis, has not changed or revisited his stance on reparations since 2008. Clintons position Clintons recent and past comments suggest her ideas for helping the black community are no different from Sanders and Obamas. Clinton didnt directly answer the question about reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum, but she alsosuggestedinvesting in black communities and addressing poverty: I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in communities to help individuals and families and communities move forward. And I am absolutely committed to that. There are some good ideas out there. Theres an idea in the Congressional Black Caucus about really targeting federal dollars to communities that have had either disinvestment or no investment, and have had years of being below the poverty level. Thats the kind of thing Id like us to focus on and really help lift people up. In October 2015, she provided a similar response when asked by the hosts of theBuzzFeedpodcast Another Round: Ill tell you what, I think we need to make many more investments in everything from pre-school education to affordable housing, thats my form of trying to give people the chance to be empowered, to make the most out of their God-given potential. As Fusionpointed out, this was largely Clintons answer in 2000 as well. When she was asked about reparations during her Senate campaign, shesaidAfrican-Americans deserve an apology for slavery before pivoting to economic conditions. But I think that the people I know and the people I work with want us to stay focused on the future, keep our economy going, keep providing good public education, quality affordable health care  do the things that will enable people to have the best futures for themselves, and thats what Im committed to doing. Our ruling Sanders said he opposes reparations for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason, I believe, that Hillary Clinton has. The reason, he said, is the need to focus instead on addressing current economic problems in the black community by improving education, providing jobs and addressing poverty. That is basically what Obama and Clinton has suggested in lieu of reparations. Its worth noting that Sanders previously suggested that reparations were politically impractical and divisive. Obama and Clinton have not made comments to this effect. In 2007, Obama said reparations could be used an excuse not to do more for African-Americans. We rate Sanders' claim Mostly True.