Did Trump Say 'There's Many Per Capitas'?
During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of Spring 2020, one the familiar features of the daily news cycle was the White House coronavirus task force briefings, at which President Trump frequently spoke and answered questions from the press. Trump regularly boasted at these briefings about how the United States led the world in COVID-19 testing until he finally stomped out of one after being challenged by a reporter to explain why it was important to cast virus testing as if it were a global competition. CNBC reported that: boasted stomped President Donald Trump stormed out of a coronavirus press conference at the White House on Monday after becoming angry with two reporters, one who asked a question about testing, and another who didnt get to ask a question at all. The event in the Rose Garden was meant to give the president a chance to boast about the recent increases in testing, and Trump spoke and answered questions for nearly an hour. At around 5:15 p.m., CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang asked Trump, You have said many times that the U.S. is doing far better than any other country when it comes to testing, to which Trump said, Yes. Jiang, who is Chinese American, continued, Why does that matter? Why is it global competition to you, if every day Americans are still losing their lives, and we are still seeing more cases every day? Theyre losing their lives everywhere in the world, Trump replied, And maybe thats a question you should ask China. Dont ask me. Ask China that question, okay? If you ask them that question, you may get a very unusual answer. As Trump proceeded to call on another reporter, Jiang followed up. Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically? Im not saying it specifically to anybody, Trump responded, growing visibly irate. Im saying that to anyone who would ask a nasty question like that. Trump's boasts about America's being the world leader in testing led to many debates over the tests' accuracy, particularly in how "most" was being reckoned -- was it more accurate to count the gross number of tests being performed (which would generally be higher for countries with larger populations), or to measure the proportion of a country's population that had been tested to date, otherwise known as per capita testing (which is a better gauge of efficiency). CNN reported that: per capita Two giant signs at a White House press conference amplified a claim that President Donald Trump consistently makes: "AMERICA LEADS THE WORLD IN TESTING" "We've prevailed on testing," Trump said, standing between the signs. While the US may have performed the most number of coronavirus tests, it's nowhere near the world's leader in testing per capita, multiple studies show. And health experts say the US isn't close to the rate of testing needed to safely reopen the economy. Some critics asserted that, based on responses offered by Trump when questioned about testing rates, that the president didn't even understand what "per capita" meant:  The remarks offered in the above meme are accurately reproduced. During a May 20, 2020, meeting with Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Governor Laura Kelly of Kansas, Trump reiterated his common pronouncement that increased testing made the U.S. look bad in comparison by revealing a greater number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. than in other countries: meeting increased testing TRUMP: But when you do 14 million tests, youre going to find more cases. If instead of 14 million tests we did 3 million  like, Germany is at about 3 million; South Korea is at 3 million, and theyve done a very good job. Its not a knock, but were at almost 14 million. Were going to be passing 14 million very soon. So youre going to have more tests. If we do 3 million, everyone would say, Oh, were doing great, you know, in terms of cases. Were going to have more cases. If we did 3 million  maybe thats what we shouldve done. I said  if I wouldve done 3 million, theyd say, Oh, they have very few cases. United States is doing well. Were finding a lot of people. By doing testing, youre finding people. So were doing 14, Germany is doing 3, South Korea doing 3, and I think theyre number two and three. So were way ahead of everybody. But when you do that, you have more cases. So a lot of times, the fake news media will say, You know, there are a lot of cases in the United States. Well, if we didnt do testing at a level that nobody has ever dreamt possible, you wouldnt have very many cases. When asked about how U.S. testing compared to that of other countries on a per capita basis, Trump strangely asserted that "there's many per capitas" and questioned "per capita relative to what?": Q: How does [testing] compare to a per capita basis? Obviously, the United States is much larger than a lot of these European countries. How does our testing compare per capita to those nations? TRUMP: And, you know, when you say per capita, theres many per capitas. Its, like, per capita relative to what? But you can look at just about any category, and were really at the top, meaning positive on a per capita basis, too. Theyve done a great job. Trump appeared to be making the point that whichever metric one used, number of tests or per capita testing rate, the U.S. ranked as the highest in the world (although the latter claim was false). But his proclaiming that "there's many per capitas" and questioning what "per capita relative to what" was cryptic beyond explanation. latter claim The term per capita literally means "by heads," or "per person." Many different concepts can be measured on a per capita basis (anything from car ownership to hamburger consumption), but such measurements are always relative to one thing (i.e., number of people), as many commenters pointed out: per capita   Woodward, Aylin and Shayanne Gal.  "Trump Says the US leads the World in Coronavirus Testing, But This Chart Shows How the Country Still Lags Behind in Tests per Capita."
  Business Insider.  12 May 2020. Wilkie, Christina.  "Trump Abruptly Ends Press Conference After Reporters Challenge Him on Coronavirus Testing."
  CNBC.  11 May 2020. Yan, Holly.  "Trump Says the US leads the World in Testing. But It's Far Behind in Testing per Capita, Studies Show."
  CNN.  12 May 2020.
Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Claim:  "Obamacare" provisions imposed a 2.3% excise tax as of 1 January 2013. :   Health care legislation imposed a 2.3% excise tax on the sale of medical devices as of 1 January 2013.  The Cabela's chain (and some other stores) mistakenly applied medical excise taxes to some non-medical purchases made on 1 January 2013.   The medical excise tax applies to non-medical items such as archery and sport fishing equipment, tires, coal, and "gas guzzling" automobiles.   Example: [Collected on Facebook, January 2013] OK.... Here comes some of those Obama care taxes on Jan 1, 2013. Soon every purchase you make, there will more taxes. On 103.98 I was charged 8.58 for Texas state taxes. And then Obama care medical tax another 2.39. So the more you spend, the more goes to the "so called free Obama care".   Let the ObamaCare fun begin! Clothing now counts as being taxed under the ObamaCare because it "alters the function of the body" See blurb below. I wish more companies would have the balls to do it the way Cabella's is, but most will bury it the cost of the product.  The new law provides that any device defined in 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that is intended for humans will be taxable. The FFDCA is written very broadly to include instruments, machines, implants and in vitro reagents, among others. 201(h) also includes associated parts and accessories, which are (1) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, treatment or prevention of disease or other conditions, or (3) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body, excluding products relying on a chemical reaction within or on the body or being metabolized to achieve their primary intended purposes. Included is a copy of a Cabela's receipt that charges a Medical Excise Tax of $11.97.  This is what the guy said he bought: 3 pair of hiker socks2 safe door pocket organizers1 pair female boots1 female jacket1 female workout pant1 Lyman sonic brass cleaner  The receipt total was $520.82. 2.3% of that is................................ drum roll please.......................................... $11.97.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation, also known as "Obamacare," instituteda 2.3%tax HR 4872 onthefirstsaleofmedicaldevicesas of 1 January2013.  (Technically the medical device tax is an excise tax which applies only to manufacturers, producers, or importers and is not to be paid directly by consumers, but the costs of such taxes are typically passed along to consumers through higher prices.) The text of the legislation states that the roster of taxable medical devices does not include "eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any other medical device determined to be of a type that is generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use." Anticipating what constitutes a "taxable medical device" under this legislation can be rather confusing, as explained in a July 2012 tax adviser article. tax adviser Under Sec. 4191(b)(1), a taxable medical device is a device, as defined in Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 321(h)), that is intended for humans. The latter provision defines device as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article  including any component, part, or accessory  that meets certain requirements. The device must be: (1) Recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them;(2) Intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; or(3) Intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.  The device must also not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and not depend upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. Sec. 4191(b)(1) limits the definition for purposes of the tax to devices intended for humans. Under what is commonly called the retail exemption, the tax provision does not apply to eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any other medical device determined by Treasury to be of a type that is commonly purchased by the general public at retail for individual use. According to proposed regulations issued by the Internal Revenue Service in February 2012, the medical items that would be exempt from the tax because they are "commonly purchased by the general public at retail for individual use" should be determined as: proposed regulations A device will be considered to be of a type generally purchased by the general public at retail for individual use if it is regularly available for purchase and use by individual consumers who are not medical professionals, and if the design of the device demonstrates that it is not primarily intended for use in a medical institution or office or by a medical professional.  The  following factors suggest that a device is of a type that is regularly available for purchase and use by individual consumers who are not medical professionals:  (A) Consumers who are not medical professionals can purchase the device through retail businesses that also sell items other than medical devices, such as drug stores, supermarkets, and similar vendors.(B) Consumers who are not medical professionals can use the device safely and effectively for its intended medical purpose with minimal or no training from a medical professional.(C) The device is classified by the FDA under Subpart D of 21 CFR Part 890(Physical Medicine Devices). Why the medical device excise tax should have been applied to all the items listed in the receipts pictured above was something of a mystery to viewers when these images were originally circulated back in January 2013.  Although some states   allow sellers to pass along the expense of the new medical device excise tax to customers by "separately stating a line item charge on the invoice or receipt given to their customers for 'Federal Excise Tax' or something similar,"the vendor in this case, Cabela's, is a retailer of hunting, fishing, camping and related outdoor recreation merchandise not known for selling medical devices, and the items listed in the receipts (such as a Ruger Attache Pistol Case) would not seem by any stretch of the imagination to fit FDA definitions of medical devices.   Cabela's Ruger Attache Pistol Case The answer was that vendors typically use upgraded sales software at the beginning of each year which is programmed to handle changes in tax laws that have just gone into effect,  and on 1 January 2013 Cabela's found that their upgraded software was improperly applying the medical device excise tax to all purchases rather than just those of qualifying items: A companywide glitch in Cabela's cash register system that added a 2.3 percent Medical Excise Tax to customers' purchases  everything from boots to bullets  was an error and will be refunded, a company spokesman said. The error was discovered last week after consumers in several states notified the company that the surcharge appeared on their sales receipt and had been applied to all of their purchases. "It was a glitch in the system, said Cabela's spokesman Joe Arterburn said. The error was limited to transactions that occurred Jan. 1 and was caught that same day by the Sidney, Neb.-based hunting and outdoor outfitter. Images of Cabela's sales receipts showing the surcharge have appeared on various websites prompting several rumors. One rumor alleged that retailers had begun passing their employees' insurance coverage costs onto consumers in the form of a medical excise tax. Other sites claimed that because the tax had been applied to shoes and shirts that clothing and footwear are now considered medical devices under the new law. Both speculations are false. Some readers have incorrectly interpreted the listing of federal excise taxes on forms of sport fishing equipment, archery equipment, tires, coal, and gas guzzlers in Chapter 5 of IRS Publication 510 as evidence that those items are now being taxed as medical devices.  This interpretation is incorrect: those items are all subject to excise taxes that were enacted well prior to, and have nothing to do with, the excise tax on medical devices created by the PPACA.  The excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, for example, were enacted in the 1950s through the Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the excise tax on archery equipment was enacted in 1975 to help support the Wildlife Restoration Program.  Publication 510 Sport Fish Restoration Act Wildlife Restoration Program Last updated:  28 June 2013 On the 2020 presidential campaign trail, California Sen.Kamala Harrisoften describes the economic hardships faced by American families. She cites statistics on the cost of housing, college, healthcare and how, if elected president, her policies would lessen the burden. Harris took the same approach while speaking on the Pod Save Americapodcastthis week, where she made this claim about economic instability: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. Weve seen similar versions of this claim before and wanted to know whether Harris statement was accurate. We set out on a fact check. Our research In January, PolitiFact ratedMostly Truea similar claim by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. He claimed in a 60 Minutes interview that Over 40 percent of the American people don't have $400 in the bank. Schultz had relied on a May 2018 Federal Reservereporton the well-being of U.S. Households in 2017. It found that Four in 10 adults, if faced with an unexpected expense of $400, would either not be able to cover it or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money. Those findings generally support Harris contention of almost half of American families facing hardship with a $400 cost. A Harris campaign spokeswoman said the senator relied on the Fed report. But we took a deeper look at the survey to examine her contention this would really lead to complete upheaval for almost half of American families. What did the survey ask? Heres the survey question that led to the finding that 40 percent of adults couldnt immediately pay for a $400 unforeseen cost. EF3. Suppose that you have an emergency expense that costs $400. Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for this expense? If you would use more than one method to cover this expense, please select all that apply. a. Put it on my credit card and pay it off in full at the next statement b. Put it on my credit card and pay it off over time c. With the money currently in my checking/savings account or with cash d. Using money from a bank loan or line of credit e. By borrowing from a friend or family member f. Using a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft g. By selling something The findings show that 59 percent of adults in 2017 said they could easily cover (the $400 expense), using entirely cash, savings or a credit card paid off at the next statement. Among those who couldnt easily pay it, 43 percent said they would put it on a credit card and pay it off over time; 26 percent reported they would borrow from a friend or family member; 19 percent said they would sell something; 9 percent responded that they would use a bank loan or line of credit; 5 percent said they would use a payday loan, deposit advance, or overdraft; and 4 percent said they would fined an undefined or other way to pay. And 29 percent said they would not be able to pay the expense right now. Respondents were able to select multiple answers. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Reserve,Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017, May 2018 Experts weigh in Daniel Schneider, a UC Berkeley sociology professor whose research specialties include economic instability, reviewed Harris statement, along with the survey and its findings. I think it is an open question about how those other options  map with complete upheaval. Is putting something on your credit card to pay off over time complete upheaval? Maybe, he wrote in an email. One could certainly imagine that facing an expense shock and having to resort to (those options) would be stressful. The overall idea behind Harris statement is accurate, Abdur Chowdhury, an economics professor emeritus at Marquette University told us in an email. Chowdhury added, however, that the percentage of people who face a hardship due to a $400 unanticipated cost may be lower today. The survey, from which the figure was quoted, was conducted a few years ago. With the low unemployment rate and increases in wage rate, fewer people are in that 'close to bankruptcy' category, the professor added. A spokeswoman for the Harris campaign provided a written statement: Millions of hard-working Americans can't cover an unexpected $400 expense. They are a medical bill, a car repair, or a rent increase away from having to make painful choices like turning to a neighbor hat in hand to ask for a loan, putting themselves in spiraling credit card debt, selling their car, or heading to a pawn shop with their wedding ring. To presume any of these things would not upend someone's daily life is out of touch. Our rating Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed: It's clear in our country right now, almost half of American families are a $400 unexpected expense away from complete upheaval. The portion of Harris statement about almost half of families is on the right track. A 2018 Federal Reserve report found 40 percent of adults surveyed could not easily pay for an unforeseen $400 cost. But the report doesnt describe complete upheaval for that group. Instead, it found many would place that expense on a credit card and pay it off over time, borrow money from a friend or family or sell a possession. Those represent very real hardships for families. But to characterize them as leading to complete upheaval is not supported by the facts and takes the survey results out-of-context. We rated Harris claim Half True. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. RELATED: Kamala Harris calls her LIFT plan the most significant middle-class tax cut in generations. Is it? Kamala Harris gets it mostly right on Americas rapid growth of student loan debt Are paychecks failing to keep up with inflation? Does teacher pay fall short of the living wage in 30 states, as Kamala Harris said? Claim:  E-mail reproduces a 1999 newspaper article warning about potential troubles with Fannie Mae. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Right out of the pages of the NY Times!!!And look at the date..!!!  September 30, 1999Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending  In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets  including the New York metropolitan region  will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  In any crisis, one of the most common reactions is to ponder the question, "How did we get into this mess?"  People begin to search for explanations about who was responsible for bringing about the current state of  affairs, who had the ability to head it off (but failed to act or was thwarted), and who foresaw the looming danger (but declined to speak up or was ignored).  With the United States currently in the throes of an economic crisis, of which one symptom was the September 2008 government takeover of the foundering Federal National Mortgage Association (commonly known as Fannie Mae), a nine-year-old warning about the home mortgage underwriter's being vulnerable to economic problems that could require government rescue was bound to pique public interest. On 30 September 1999, the New York Times published an article entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" by Steven A. Holmes.  The complete text of the article is available online, but in a nutshell the Times reported that Fannie Mae was easing its credit requirements for home mortgage loans in response to increasing pressure from a variety of groups: text  Clinton administration officials who wanted Fannie Mae "to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people" (particularly minority groups).  Stockholders who wanted Fannie Mae "to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."  Banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies (from whom Fannie Mae purchases loans) who wanted the company to facilitate  "more loans to subprime borrowers." In light of recent events, what caught the attention of most readers was a couple of paragraphs in the middle of the article cautioning about the possible consequences of Fannie Mae's loosening its credit requirements: In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.  "From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." Another New York Times article that has attained a significant amount retrospective interest is an 11 September 2003 article entitled "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" by Stephen Labaton, which reported on the efforts of the Bush administration to create a new regulatory agency to assume oversight of those mortgage lenders: article The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt  is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. Of especial interest to current readers were the following paragraphs about Congressional resistance to the Bush administration's regulatory proposal: Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. "These two entities  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Last updated:  2 October 2008    Sources:   Holmes, Steven A.  "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending."   The New York Times.  30 September 1999.    Labaton, Stephen.  "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae."   The New York Times.  11 September 2003. Following the arrest of Cesar Sayoc on charges that he sent mail bombs to prominent Democrats and anti-Trump media figures, the pro-Trump conspiracy contingent attempted to paint the suspect as a Democrat who posed as a Republican  innuendo suggesting that Sayocs true goals were to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump and his agenda. Representative of this claim was a 26 October 2018 Facebook meme that labeled Sayoc as a Democrat posing as a Republican and asserted he had recently put his infamous pro-Trump stickers on his van, describing those (false) claims as suspicious: meme   No evidence documents that Sayoc was a "lifelong Democrat"  all signs point to his being relatively apolitical until 2015, although it appeared he attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012. And Sayocs van had sported pro-Trump stickers since at least 2017, and it had contained pro-Trump material since at least 2015. appeared Although news reports have stated that Sayocs relatives are Democrats, Cesar Sayoc has never been registered as a Democrat. His only known voter registration listed his political affiliation as the Florida Republican Party, and it was filed two weeks before Trump won that states GOP primary. Additionally a public records request yielded documents indicating that Sayoc had attempted to register as a Republican twice in October 2012 but failed to complete his application in both cases: reports documents Records from the Miami-Dade County Elections Department show that on two occasions in October 2012  Oct. 9 and Oct. 26  Sayoc initiated, but didnt complete, new voter registration applications. Both times, he checked the box next to "Republican Party" as his party affiliation. On Oct. 9, 2012, he checked the box that said his was a "new registration," but it appears he left blank the answer to a question about whether hed ever been "adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to voting." On Oct. 26, 2012, he didnt check any of the boxes indicating the reason behind his registration application (i.e. new registration, address change, name change, party change, etc.) Near the top of that form, someone scribbled, "INCOMP," indicating it was incomplete. According to news reports, most people who interacted with Sayoc prior to 2015 stated he did not appear to be overtly political. Ronald Lowy, a lawyer for the Sayoc family who represented Cesar during a 2002 case in which he threatened to bomb an electric company over a bill he disputed, told the New York Times that Sayoc seemed to have no outspoken partisan views during the 2002 case. told Daniel Lurvey represented Sayoc against theft charges in 2013 and 2014, and he told the Washington Examiner that he could not recall Sayoc's ever discussing politics. Instead, it appears that Sayocs chief interests during this time were bodybuilding and wrestling. told The pattern appeared to have changed by 2015. Sayoc showed up at a Brevard College alumni event for his soccer team that year, where former team members stated that he quickly made clear he was a fanatical supporter of Mr. Trump, and bombarded them with racist and misogynist conspiracy theories. Since that time, Sayoc had been an outspoken and fanatical supporter of Donald Trump and an equally outspoken opponent of Democrats online: stated On Twitter and Facebook, he railed against former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey with misspelled racial epithets, threatened former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and praised President Trump and conservative causes. His social-media feeds were an electronic version of the white van carted away by law-enforcement officials on Friday morning, which was covered in stickers praising Mr. Trump, condemning liberals and putting cross hairs over an image of Hillary Clinton. In 2015, as part of a likely effort to make a false insurance claim, Sayoc reported to police that $45,000 worth of suits and costumes he needed for his business were stolen from his van. According to the New York Times, the police report noted that of the 139 pieces he said were taken, 11 were the presidents clothing brand. police report It is unclear exactly when the outside of Sayoc's van was first festooned with pro-Trump political stickers, but the van had been a common sighting in the South Florida region since at least New Year's Eve of 2017, as reported by the Sun Sentinel: reported I saw this van dozens of times. It always struck me, always unsettled me. It appeared that somebody at times was in the van, though it was hard to tell because of the windows, said David Cypkin, a documentary film producer who co-produced 2006s Cocaine Cowboys" ... Cypkin encountered the van regularly when he lived near the Shoppes at the Waterways in Aventura, where it was regularly parked. Cypkin believed someone could be living in the van, and finally, on the morning of New Years Eve 2017, he snapped a few quick pictures so he could get a better look at some of the stickers later. I had seen it there at least a year, Cypkin said. Assertions that Cesar Sayoc had lifelong Democratic political leanings or that his van was covered in stickers only immediately before his mail-bombing attempts do not hold up to any level of scrutiny. ORourke, Ciara.  "Pipe Bomb Suspect's Florida Voting Records Show Only Republican Affiliation." 
  PolitiFact.  5 November 2018. Healy, Jack et al.  "Cesar Sayoc, Mail Bombing Suspect, Found an Identity in Political Rage and Resentment." 
  The New York Times.  27 October 2018. Nelson, Steven.  "Mail Bomb Suspect Cesar Sayoc Was a 'Big Muscle Head' Stripper, Says Former Boss." 
  Washington Examiner.  26 October 2018. Sweeney, Dan.  "'I Thought He Looked Like a Shooter': Why People Took Pictures of Cesar Sayoc's Van." 
  Sun Sentinel.  26 October 2018. Michael Richard Pompeo represented Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives between 2011 and 2017 and then served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until April 26, 2018, when he was tapped by U.S. President Donald Trump to succeed the departed Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. As The New York Times observed of Pompeo in March 2019, "no secretary of state in recent decades has been as open and fervent as Mr. Pompeo about discussing Christianity and foreign policy in the same breath. That has increasingly raised questions about the extent to which evangelical beliefs are influencing American diplomacy." observed That questioning of Pompeo's mixture of religiosity and policy was reflected in a meme circulated in January 2020, amidst escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran over the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad: airstrike  The quote reproduced in this meme  about continuing to fight battles and struggle until the moment of the Rapture  was taken from a talk Pompeo delivered at a "God and Country Rally" held at Summit Church in Wichita, Kansas, on June 28, 2015. The event was just a few days after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision holding that same-sex couples have a constitutionally protected right to marry. Rapture Obergefell v. Hodges The words reproduced above were excerpted from a portion of Pompeo's speech, as captured here:  However, that short clip doesn't provide the full context of Pompeo's remark, which was not specifically about military or political battles. We reproduce the surrounding context below, as taken from a video of the complete speech (beginning around the 23:19 mark): complete speech On Friday, just hours after the Supreme Court's [Obergefell v. Hodges] decision, my wife entered a retail establishment here in Kansas. She went to the counter to pay for the products that she had purchased, and the man behind the counter saw the credit card that she was using and said "Are you related?" And before he could finish she said, "Yes, yes, yes, I'm his wife," and he teared up and he said, "Thank your husband for what he's doing; thank you for allowing him to go do that. Have strength, Susan, and remember always that no matter what happens in Washington, D.C. or in Topeka, it is the Lord that is in control." This was a stranger to Susan. This was a man who[m] she had not met before, but he took time from his role to pray for her and to thank her and to make clear that his Christian understanding of our nation was not just in her heart but his, and that he would work every day to make sure that the Lord's work govern our actions each and every day. It was a remarkable moment. We are blessed to live in Kansas where there are so many people that understand that. We will continue to fight these battles. It is a never-ending struggle. Until that moment Pastor Fox spoke about, until the Rapture be part of it, be in the fight. Ask for forgiveness seek His wisdom, and heed your pastor's call to actions, and great things will be bestowed upon our nation and our world. Wong, Edward.  "The Rapture and the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy."
  The New York Times.  30 March 2009. In a Nov. 13, 2013, campaignpress release, Debra Medina pledged that as Texas state comptroller she would resist growth in government spending, saying, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans. An earlier version of the claim sent out viaemailsaid simply greater debt burden, not local; the campaign posted an updated release online. We looked at state debt in a July 24, 2011, fact-check on Gov. Rick Perry, rating asMostly Truehis claim that Texas had the fourth-lowest debt per capita of any state in the nation, and we are the lowest of any of the big states. How does debt shake out at the local level? Medina, a tea-party favorite from Wharton, got 19 percent of the vote in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary against Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. The Medina campaign told us via email that her Texas-New York comparison was based on a Sept. 26, 2012,report, Your Money and Local Debt, issued by the current state comptroller, Susan Combs. In 2009, Texas had $7,983 in local debt per capita, the report said, placing Texas second among the 10 most populous states. New York was first with $8,744 in local debt per capita; California was third with $6,469 per capita. Texas comptrollerreport, Your Money and Local Debt, Sept. 26, 2012, based on 2009 data: The report relied on 2009 U.S. Census Bureau data, which Combs spokesman R.J. DeSilva told us via email was drawn from the December 2011 annual report of the Texas Bond Review Board. That agency oversees the issuance of state bonds used to fund activities as varied as making housing loans to veterans and helping local governments finance water projects. State and local debt are defined in the bureaus July 2013summaryof 2011 data as all interest-bearing short-term credit obligations and all long-term obligations incurred in the name of the government and all its dependent agencies, whether used for public or private purposes. U.S. states divide local and state responsibilities in different ways. Texas spends little at the state level; local costs may be borne by hospital districts, school districts and the like in addition to city and county governments. The Census and Board both presented local debt estimates alongside state debt. We next looked for comparisons using more recent data and all 50 states. The Bond Review Board offers its own annual estimate of local debt in Texas. In the most recentreportthat was available when Medinas release was sent out, published in December 2012, the agency said Texas local debt per capita was $7,507 in the fiscal year that ran through August 2011. Board spokesman Robert Latsha told us by phone that, though he wasnt certain exactly what the Census included in its figures, its likely the largest difference between the Census and board estimates comes from debt set up by quasi-governmental agencies such as local housing finance corporations or economic development corporations. Only debt from bonds and shorter-term securities issued by local governments is reported to the board, Latsha said. He said the board didnt calculate comparisons with all 50 states. Census Bureau spokesman Joseph Dalaker told us by phone that the bureau didnt either, but he helped us find data comparable to what the board probably used when comparing the 10 biggest states. Using those Census estimates oflocal debtandstate population-- from the most recent data sets available when Medina spoke in November 2013 -- we found Texas was third among all 50 states and, again, second among the 10 most populous. Highest local debt per capita among all 50 states: Sources: U.S. Census Bureaupopulation estimates, July 12, 2012, andlocal debt estimates, Dec. 6, 2012 In the boardsDecember 2013 report, which came out after Medina made her statement, the state board updated local debt per capita in fiscal 2012 to $7,514 by its own estimation and $8,431 according to Census data, keeping Texas in second place among the 10 most populous states. Medinas claim referred to the debt burden falling on citizens. But state residents might not be directly on the hook for the whole amount. Dalaker told us, You really have to tease out whos paying. For example, taxes on tourists can help pay for projects, he said. Moodys Investors Service spokesman David Jacobson told us by phone, Whats more important is your ability to pay back that debt and how it is structured. Many Texas entities have good credit, he said. Our ruling Medina said, At present spending levels, only citizens of New York have a greater local debt burden than Texans, but without mentioning that her comparison was based on the 10 most-populated states. Texas is second among the big states and third among all 50 in recent estimates. We rate her statement as True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. The alternative minimum tax indeed was started to tax the rich  specifically rich people avoiding income taxes. On Jan. 17, 1969, Treasury Secretary Joseph W. Barr told Congress that 155 taxpayers making $200,000 or more found a legal way to not pay any taxes on their 1966 income. That shook lawmakers into creating the alternative minimum tax in the Tax Reform Act of 1969. (For comparison's sake, $200,000 in 1966 is nearly $1.3-million in 2007, according to government-run inflation calculators.) Because of the law, people who are able to use deductions and legal shelters to lower their tax bill too much must pay a minimum income tax, the AMT. Under the law, taxpayers who meet the AMT threshold must pay the higher tax bill, whether it's their actual bill or the AMT. But because of the way the law calculates who meets the threshold, more and more people have been swept into the program. By 2006, 3.5-million taxpayers fell under the AMT, which equates to about 4 percent of American taxpayers, according to the Congressional Research Service. That brought in $24-billion in taxes. But that was with a patch by Congress that limited how many taxpayers are affected. Without a change for 2007, 23.4-million taxpayers are going to be paying the AMT, sending $70-billion to the federal government, according to an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Policymakers have been talking for years about changing the formula that triggers the AMT so that it only catches the very wealthiest taxpayers, but so far the rewrite hasn't happened. A new mailer about a referendum to fund a transportation overhaul for metro Atlanta makes it appear as if voters had a hand in this plan to raise their taxes.Voters will decide July 31 whether they want to pay a 1 percent sales tax to build an estimated $7.2 billion worth of roads, highway interchanges, mass transit infrastructure and other projects to ease traffic in a region thats choking on it.More than two dozen local leaders spent months hammering out that list of projects through state-created regional roundtables. The mailer, which appeared in a PolitiFact Georgia reporters home mailbox April 3, said the average Joe had a say, too. [O]ver 200,000 ordinary citizens were given the opportunity to identify projects they preferred, it said.Its enough to make a populist swoon. But 200,000 people? Is that even possible?PolitiFact Georgia called up the Metro Atlanta Voter Education Network, which sent out the mailer on the proposed transportation special local option tax, or T-SPLOST. The nonprofits mission is to educate voters about the referendum.A MAVEN spokeswoman said the Atlanta Regional Commission, the regions planning agency, contacted 1.3 million residents last year for telephone town hall meetings about the plan.Part of ARCs mission is public outreach, so it regularly tallies the number of residents it involves, spokeswoman Julie Ralston said.Our research shows ARC has a track record for doing so. It counted residents who participated inPlan 2040, which identified transportation projects the region will need in the next three decades. It posted numbers on the projects website.T-SPLOSTs website, news accounts and ARC news releases chronicle the series of 10 evening telephone town hall meetings in June.ARC contracted with Telephone TownHall Meeting, a Denver-area company that uses Web and telephone technology to hold virtual meetings. Members of Congress often use the meetings to connect with voters back home.Telephone TownHall Meeting owner Curt Cerveny told us how the meetings typically work:The company calls tens of thousands of land lines and cellphones for their target households. Some numbers dont work. Others send the call to voicemail or a fax machine. Sometimes, people hang up.About 15 percent to 20 percent of the time, someone picks up and listens in for at least one minute, Cerveny said. Usually, listeners spend eight to 10 minutes on the line.The T-SPLOST town halls attempted to reach 1.3 million registered voters, an ARCreportsaid. The town halls took place by county.It was the biggest call we had ever done, Cerveny said. It was kind of ahead of its time.Some 134,400 households participated. They stayed on the line for an average of 10.59 minutes. Presenters took 213 live questions. (This PolitiFact Georgia scribe received one of those calls on her cellphone. She was in her car, stuck in gridlock. )This number does not include calls that went to voicemail. These households received messages telling voters how they can have a say in the project. The report did not state the number of listeners per call.This amounts to about 10 percent participation, or slightly less than what Cerveny said was typical.ARC launched other outreach efforts. In March and April 2011, 126 residents of the affected counties participated in a series of 12 focus groups. In July, about 200 attended a 3 -hour town hall meeting. In September, 12 public meetings were attended by about 1,700 people, according to ARC meeting notes.An online survey generated9,600 responses. Interested residents could also consult the projects website,www.atlantaregionalroundtable.com.Local governments and private organizations also conducted their own outreach. ARC collaborated with more than 80 of them to get the word out, Ralston said.One is the Livable Communities Coalition, an Atlanta nonprofit that works on regional growth strategies. A very conservative estimate is that its efforts reached 5,000 people, said Jim Stokes, the groups interim executive director.To conclude:Since ARC tried to reach 1.3 million people through its telephone town halls and managed to get about 10 percent of them, we think its safe to say that more than 200,000 were given the opportunity to participate.In addition, some 20,000 participated in meetings, online surveys and other outreach efforts organized by the planning agency. Local governments and other organizations performed outreach as well.This is a lot of ordinary citizens, but their influence had limits. The decision rested with the regional roundtable. Members could accept -- or ignore -- public comments as they saw fit.That said, MAVENs mailer stopped short of saying that these voters controlled the process. Furthermore, its participation estimate is conservative. Its statement earns our highest rating -- True. In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled