John McCain's Definition of 'Rich'
Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said high levels of student loan debt motivated his proposal for free tuition at any public university or community college in New York state for students from families earning less than $125,000 a year. It is incredibly expensive, and the debt is so high its like starting a race with an anchor tied to your leg, Cuomo said of paying for college. Average college debt -- $30,000 per student. The governors office projected 210,000 students would seek the benefit. If so, the program would cost the state $163 million annually by 2019. So is Cuomo right about the average student debt load in New York state? The average debt load The Federal Reserve Bank of New York collected 2015 data on student loan debt in the state. The Fed reports 17.9 percent of consumers in New York state have a student loan, and their average college debt is $32,200. Thats higher than the national average of $29,700, the Fed said. The debt steadily increased for a decade. According to a September report from the State Comptrollers office, the average student debt load in New York State increased by more than 47 percent between 2005 and 2015. The national average grew by 56 percent. Total student debt statewide more than doubled during that time period. The Institute for College Access & Success, an independent, non-profit organization, pegged the average debt of the states college graduates in 2015 at $29,320. That ranked 18th highest among the states. Fifty-nine percent of the students graduated with debt, the organization said. The average debt among graduates of State University of New York campuses was generally lower than their private college counterparts. The average debt for University at Buffalo graduates was $26,165, followed by those at Binghamton University, $25,844; SUNY Albany, $25,727; and Stony Brook University, $23,542. The average debt for graduates fluctuated among private colleges in New York state. Among the higher averages were incurred by graduates of Ithaca College, $39,771; Rochester Institute of Technology, $38,198; St. Bonaventure University, $38,073; Fordham University, $37,607; and Syracuse University, $36,500, according to the institute. The average debt was lower - but still significant - for graduates at other private universities: Colgate University, $20,859; Cornell University, $24,394; Clarkson University, $29,000; New York University, $30,480;  St. Johns University, $33,179. Our ruling Cuomo said the average college debt for those who borrowed for college in New York state is $30,000 per student. Cuomo gets it right, according to the Institute for College Access & Success, which analyzed debt for 2015 graduates in New York State. And his claim is about what the Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculates for all New York state consumers with college debt. We rate his claim as True. Political polarization in the news media is a growing concern for Americans, one that liberals often blame on the conservative movement, with the rise of right-wing talk radio and Fox News over recent decades. Case in point, the Christian Left Facebook page posted an interesting set of claims about Ronald Reagan in January 2017, in the form of a meme that has been widely shared over the past couple years.  meme It reads: The Father of Fake News Ronald Reagan's FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine which, since 1949, required media to present both sides' opinions in the rare event they weren't just reporting straight news. A Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Reagan vetoed the bill.  Fox News followed in the 1990s. America is now more polarized and misinformed than ever.   The meme was originally created by K. Scott Schaeffer, a self-described "moderate Democrat" and "theologically-moderate Christian" who runs the Rescuing Religion from Republicans Facebook page.  created Much of the account in the meme is accurate, but it leaves out important distinctions between broadcast and cable television, and is ultimately misleading in claiming that the demise of the Fairness Doctrine cleared a path for the creation of Fox News.  In 1949, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a report that recommended what came to be known as the "Fairness Doctrine." As explained by the Congressional Research Service, the doctrine "consisted of two basic requirements" for anyone given a TV or radio broadcast license: Congressional Research Service (1) that every licensee devote a reasonable portion of broadcast time to the discussion and consideration of controversial issues of public importance; and (2) that in doing so, [the broadcaster must be] fair  that is, [the broadcaster] must affirmatively endeavor to make ... facilities available for the expression of contrasting viewpoints held by responsible elements with respect to the controversial issues presented. And there were additional requirements, under the Fairness Doctrine: The personal attack rule stated that when personal attacks were made on individuals involved in public issues, the broadcaster had to, within one week of the broadcast, notify the person attacked, provide him with a copy of the broadcast (either script or tape), and allow him an opportunity to respond over the broadcasters facilities. The political editorial rule required that when a broadcaster endorsed a particular political candidate, the broadcaster was required to provide the other qualified candidates for the same office (or their representatives) the opportunity to respond over the broadcasters facilities. Part of the rationale behind the doctrine was the scarcity of television and radio frequencies available, especially in the middle of the 20th century. The government had a duty to regulate the operation of scarce frequencies, the argument went, and therefore had a right to use the public interest as the main criterion in granting and renewing broadcast licenses.  And because so few companies licensed a frequency, it was important to ensure that the viewing and listening public were exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints on important issues.  However, the rise of cable and satellite television channels like CNN and HBO, especially in the 1980s, changed the American broadcasting landscape.  Traditionally, broadcast (or "terrestrial") television involved the distribution of content between broadcast towers and household antennas or tuners, on particular frequencies. For several decades up to the 1980s, television was dominated by the "big three" networks  ABC, CBS and NBC  which were free to watch. By contrast, cable television programming was distributed via cables, and satellite television via satellites orbiting the earth. Unlike watching broadcast television, viewers had to pay for cable and satellite subscriptions.  These new methods of distribution undermined the "scarcity" principle that underpinned the Fairness Doctrine. Cable and satellite television offered a new, wider range of programming and viewpoints and later, so did the internet. They did not ensure heterogeneity or a universally open "marketplace of ideas," though. Exposure to cable and satellite television was confined to those who could afford to pay for it. Those who could not were still limited to the broadcast networks.  By 1987, amid growing criticism, Reagan's FCC came to believe the Fairness Doctrine should be abandoned, because it believed that "the doctrine chilled the speech of broadcasters and inhibited free and open debate on the public airwaves," as the Congressional Research Service put it. In an effort to pre-empt such a repeal, Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings introduced the Fairness in Broadcasting Act in March 1987, which would have fully enshrined the Fairness Doctrine in law. The Senate was split 55-45 in favor of the Democrats at the time, and the bill passed the Senate by 59-31. A similar bill was passed by 302 votes to 102 in the Democrat-controlled House in June, but President Reagan vetoed it. bill bill The Facebook meme is somewhat muddled when it comes to the sequence of events, here. The vote in Congress was not an attempt to "re-instate" the Fairness Doctrine, it was a pre-emptive effort to fully codify the existing doctrine before the FCC could abolish it later in 1987 (which it duly did.) Likewise, Reagan's veto did not prevent the re-instatement of the doctrine, it prevented the doctrine from being fully codified.  In August 1987, the FCC put an end to the Fairness Doctrine by a unanimous vote.  vote But did the the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine clear the way for Fox News, as the meme implies? Not really.  As we've outlined, the Fairness Doctrine applied to broadcast licensees. Fox News is a cable TV channel which launched in 1996. The distinction between broadcast and cable TV is crucial, here. As the Congressional Research Service wrote: It does not appear that the Fairness Doctrine may be applied constitutionally to cable or satellite service providers. The Supreme Court has held that content-based restrictions on the speech of cable and satellite providers are subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires that the restriction at issue advance a compelling government interest and that the restriction be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Content-based regulations of speech in the print media are accorded strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has recognized that regulations similar to the Fairness Doctrine, when applied to the print media, are not constitutional. If regulations similar to the Fairness Doctrine could not withstand strict scrutiny when applied to the print media, it appears unlikely that similar regulations would withstand such scrutiny when applied to cable or satellite providers. So even if the Fairness Doctrine had persisted until the era of Fox News, the FCC would, in all likelihood, have been restricted to regulating the content of public broadcasters, leaving Fox News to its own devices, like hundreds of other cable and satellite channels. Ruane, Kathleen Ann.  "Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues."
  Congressional Research Service.& nbsp; 13 July 2011. Hollings, Sen. Ernest F.  "S. 742 -- Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987."
  Congressional Record.  12 March 1987. Dingell, John D.  "H.R. 1934 -- Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987."
  Congressional Record.  2 April 1987. Hershey Jr., Robert D . "F.C.C. Votes Down Fairness Doctrine in a 4-0 Decision."
  The New York Times.  5 August 1987. After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020. FACT CHECK: Do crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into slavery?     Claim: Crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into sexual slavery.   MOSTLY  Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] Crown Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning https://t.co/u0fabfCANc https://t.co/u0fabfCANc  Phillip Hernandez (@Flipy602) September 8, 2015 September 8, 2015  Origins: On 8 September 2015, the web site IJ Review published an article with the misleading headline "'Crown' Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning": article For thousands of women across the United States their tattoos are a constant reminder of the men who enslaved them for profit. Sex trafficking in the United States affects countless women, and many are left with the scars and marks of their former pimps. A CNN interview with a victim and survivor of sexual slavery and addiction named Jennifer Kempton helped shed light on these tattoos. The article (and several subsequent republications of it) attributed its claims to a 2 September 2015 CNN piece titled "Sex-trafficking survivors use new ink to reclaim their lives." That report profiled Survivor's Ink, a group devoted to assisting victims of sex trafficking to remove or cover tattooed brands acquired in the course of their victimization: piece [Founder Jennifer] Kempton said the new ink changed the way she looked at herself, but she still had three other brandings. There was one on her neck, one on her back and one right above her groin that said "Property of Salem," a trafficker who played a major role in bringing Kempton into the life she had now left behind. She told a human trafficking advocate about the "property of" tattoo. The advocate contacted a family member who agreed to pay for her to have the rest of her brandings covered. This was the beginning of Survivor's Ink. Kempton wanted other survivors to experience the freedom she had found, so she started a nonprofit organization that pays for trafficking survivors to have their branding tattoos covered by new tattoos of their choosing. Both CNN and IJ Review linked to Survivor's Ink's Facebook page, which contained photo albums illustrating before and after tattoos. Notably, only a single crown was featured among the tattoos depicted, casting the "here's what it means" headline into doubt.  photo albums It's likely that some pimps chose a crown as the brand forcibly inked upon their victims. But nothing in the CNN report suggested that crowns are universal (or even common) among tattoos forced on unwilling sex workers. Moreover, crown tattoos are a popular choice among the inked. We found no evidence that crown tattoos were linked to sex trafficking before 7 September 2015; however, we located a number of proudly-displayed, intentionally-chosen crown tattoo examples: crown tattoos #Blue Crown #Tattoo By Iuri Chmel #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP #Blue #Tattoo #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP  Tattoo Ideas (@tattooideas__) August 24, 2015 August 24, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black-And-Grey Crown and Scepter pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) August 20, 2015 August 20, 2015  Upper back tattoo of a crown by Murat Bilek. Tattoo artist: Murat Bilek#littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w #littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w  Little Tattoos (@little_tattoos) August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown One Love pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3 #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) July 14, 2015 July 14, 2015  Even if a small fraction of the crown tattoos (shared across the internet in body modification galleries) were coerced, the vast majority of folks with a crown tattoo were not victims of sex trafficking; the presence of one is definitely not "disturbing" proof its owner was once enslaved.  Last updated: 8 September 2015 Originally published:  8 September 2015 After Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, some pundits and news organizations suggestedwithout evidencethat woke investments contributed to the collapse. Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to BLM Movement, one March 15 Newsmaxheadlinecirculating on social media read. Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson andJesse Wattersalso made similar claims. Silicon Valley Bank  brace yourself  spent more than $73 million on donations to BLM and related organizations, CarlsonsaidMarch 14. The Newsmax article and similarpostswere flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Newsmax article pointed to adatabasefrom the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. The database tracks pledges and contributions to the BLM movement and related causes, according to the institute. In the databases explanatory notes, the institute said its definition of the BLM movement includes organizations such as Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation; Movement for Black Lives; grassroots groups; independent BLM chapters; the fiscal sponsors of BLM organizations; and BLM partners such as the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Claremont Institute defined Black Lives Matter related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. However, Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda. It is a decentralized international activistmovementwith no formal hierarchy. The Claremont Institute and Silicon Valley Bank did not respond to PolitiFacts requests for comment. An institute spokespersontold MarketWatchthat most of Silicon Valley Banks roughly $70.5 million in contributions fell in the related causes category. He also said the bank donated to the NAACP and ACLU. The banks charitable contributions included in Claremonts $70 million-plus total went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear tie to the Black Lives Matter movement: A 2021 pledge to invest more than $50 million over five years into the banksAccess to Innovation program, which works to connect people who are often underrepresented in the innovation economy  including women, Blacks and Latinos  with hiring, mentorship, educational and networking opportunities. A $20 million donation that the banksaidwould be used to support COVID-19 relief; a needs-based scholarship program; economic development; and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. A 2-to-1 matchingcampaignthe bank created in 2020 for employees who donated their money or time to social justice organizations. A $250,000 allocation from the Silicon Valley Bank Foundation to support grants for social justice organizations where bank employees volunteer. A prominent Black Lives Matter organization, Black Lives Matter Global Foundation Network, told PolitiFact in a statement that the Black Lives Matter movement includes thousands of organizations, so there is no way for the group to say with certainty whether Silicon Valley Bank donated to any one of them. The group also said the banks possible contributions to Black causes are irrelevant to what caused the banks collapse. Flags fly in Black Lives Matter Plaza as President Joe Biden is sworn in during 59th Presidential Inauguration, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021, in Washington. (AP) A report in the newsletterPopular Informationfound an error in the databases calculations: Nearly $3 million in contributions that the database had initially counted occurred in 2019, not 2020. The Claremont Institute, which started tracking this data in 2020, updated the database to reflect that information, meaning the banks total contributions for 2020 were $70.65 million, rather than over $73 million, as the initial claims said. As of March 22, Newsmax had not corrected its headline to reflect that change. Facebook posts claimed Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to 'BLM Movement.' The claim stemmed from a database kept by the Claremont Institute. It showed that since 2020, Silicon Valley Bank had donated or pledged to donate more than $70 million to causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The institute defined related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda; it is a decentralized international activist movement with no formal hierarchy. A close look at the Claremont list shows that Silicon Valley Banks charitable contributions went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear association to the Black Lives Matter movement. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Was Silicon Valley Bank demise caused by Trump easing regulation, 'woke' efforts, or something else? On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. That bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records, and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Presidents 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." H.R. 1233 press release A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress' attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), held that Cummings' bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed":  First of all, the above meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed"  that is, records that would ordinarily be accessible by the public have been restricted via court orders (see example below of such records):  In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration); are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records); or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Illinois state Senate records Selective Service registration college records Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above  with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years now  is federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included a number of provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed": Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Confirming that Federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form. Granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record. Authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic Federal and Presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the President. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems. Empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal. Codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review Presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings' bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overriden by the incumbent president or by court order: Amends the Presidential Records Act to require the Archivist of the United States, upon determining to make publicly available any presidential record not previously made available, to: (1) promptly provide written notice of such determination to the former President during whose term of office the record was created, to the incumbent President, and to the public; and (2) make such record available to the public within 60 days, except any record with respect to which the Archivist receives notification from a former or incumbent President of a claim of constitutionally-based privilege against disclosure. Prohibits the Archivist from making a record that is subject to such a claim publicly available unless: (1) the incumbent President withdraws a decision upholding the claim, or (2) the Archivist is otherwise directed to do so by a final court order that is not subject to appeal. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records: National Coalition for History For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administrations Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989 which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Executive Order 13233 Executive Order 13489 Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation there [was] nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former-president as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (HR 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013 creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, in essence codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. HR 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president, and grants to the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records, not to "keep Obamas records sealed." The National Coalition for History.  "HR 1233 'Presidential and Federal Records Act.'"
  Accessed 7 May 2019. Congress.gov.  "Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  Accessed 6 May 2019. National Archives.  "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Records Management."
  Accessed 7 May 2019. National Archives.  "National Archives Welcomes Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  1 December 2014. Evaluations of crime and fraud warnings always generate several related questions. Is this form of scam possible? Is it plausible? Is it common? Has it ever occurred at all? Those are the questions we applied to the following social media meme, which posits a "scam" involving the theft of wallets from purses sitting in grocery carts and related residential burglaries:  The meme contains no detail that would allow tracking its narrative to a particular crime, and we've turned up no verified reports of a similar occurrence. What we can say is that although the theft of purses effected while their owners' attention is focused elsewhere is not uncommon, the burglary aspect of this warning seems to be based on long-outmoded premises about how Americans live and work that would render it extremely unlikely today. purses For starters, you're a prospective burglar. You've lifted a woman's wallet from her purse. Now you need to call her to lure her out of her house, but ... what phone number do you call? This "scam" seemingly hearkens back to the days of landlines, when one could often tie information gleaned from a driver's license (i.e., full name and address) to a phone number through the use of a phone directory or directory assistance. But no similar mechanism exists for now-ubiquitous cellphones. (Possibly one could use the internet to quickly match up a name and address with a phone number, but the odds aren't good.) Moreover, this scheme relies on the out-of-date notion that if a woman is away from home in the middle of the day, her residence will then necessarily be unoccupied (because, of course, the man of the house will be out working somewhere, and the kids will be in school). But a variety of different domestic scenarios are common these days that would place other people at home in the middle of the day: a woman might be living with roommates or parents or adult children; some 40 per cent of Americans work mostly during nonstandard times and are therefore home during the daytime; working at home is becoming increasingly common, etc. 40 per cent at home As well, just because a residence is unoccupied by human beings doesn't preclude the possibility that a security system, barking dog, attentive neighbors, or some other impediment to a broad-daylight burglary isn't present. And in fact, as police routinely point out, most residential burglaries are crimes of opportunity and involve very little planning on the part of the thief (like the type posited here). police All in all, a crook who has successfully lifted a woman's wallet is much more likely going to be content with the bounty found within (e.g., cash, debit cards, credit cards) than with trying to parlay that score into a risky residential burglary. And your residence is far more likely to be the target of an opportunistic, spur-of-the-moment burglary than of one involving an elaborate scheme to lure you away from home. The best advice to be gleaned from this warning is to be sure not to leave purses (or other valuable items) unwatched  even for the briefest of moments  in shopping carts, in restrooms, and in automobiles. And engage in some simple security precautions to make your home less of an inviting target for theft. shopping carts restrooms automobiles precautions Consumer Reports.  "14 Ways to Make Your Home More Secure."
  21 June 2014. Population Reference Bureau.  "A Demographic Profile of U.S. Workers Around the Clock."
  18 September 2008. Kopf, Dan.  "Slowly But Surely, Working at Home Is Becoming More Common."
  Quartz.  17 September 2018. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True. Not long after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, an image began circulating online claiming that a Mexican supermarket chain was collecting "donations" toward his proposed border wall between the two countries. On 10 November 2016, a YouTube video claimed to show a picture of a receipt from a Soriana Hiper market in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon that included a 10-peso charge for an "additional donation [for] Trump wall." The image then spread online, with one version containing the caption: a YouTube video online, Look what Soriana is doing. Save the picture and share it before it's deleted. Soriana, which operates more than 800 stores around Mexico, refuted the picture in a statement released on 15 November 2016, saying the photo in question was false and "tendentiously manipulated":   The translation reads, in part: We reaffirm our position and commitment with our country as a 100% Mexican company, as one of the biggest job-generators in the country and with an important business platform for our suppliers and commercial partners. Our commitment has always been and will always be with our country, particularly with the Mexican family economy. The "Trump wall" receipt was based off of another fake photo that circulated in 2013, accusing the company of charging customers for a "additional donation" to the Teletn, the annual national fundraiser for childrens' healthcare: 2013 Teletn,   One of Trump's campaign promises was that his administration would not only build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but make the latter country pay for it. That statement is still on his campaign website. He has since stated:  website. stated It could be some fencing. However, it should be noted that an unmistakable wall already exists along much of the border between Mexico and the United States. wall "Muro de trump esta siendo cobrado en soriana." De Todo Un Poco Consejos Practicos. YouTube. 10 November 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D1ROTY1SA La Rancherita del Aire, S.A. de C.V. "Circula en redes sociales supuesto ticket de compra con cobro extra por muro de Trump." rancherita.com.mx. 11 November 2016. sdpnoticias.com. "Cobran indebidamente Teletn en tickets de compra." www.tolucanoticias.com. 6 November 2013. Stahl, Lesley. "President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes." CBS News. 13 November 2016. Delano, James Whitlow. "This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like." National Geographic. 4 March 2016. In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth: claim     Earlyview.net is one of many "prank" web sites. These sites allow you to create your own fake news story with a few clicks. Users choose a picture, write a headline and description, and then the web site formats the information so that it resembles a genuine news item, which you can then share on Facebook:   April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube: YouTube We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp  April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017 May 1, 2017  April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media: Fox