Did Sen. Cotton Say Slavery Was a 'Necessary Evil'?
A new school curriculum based on The New York Times' The 1619 Project faced opposition from U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton in July 2020, after he called it racially divisive and revisionist. based As the U.S. grappled with its history of racism amidst police custody killings of Black people in 2020, The 1619 Project, an ongoing initiative named for the year that the first slave ship arrived on American shores, became the center of a debate. The educational curriculum was launched alongside The New York Times Magazine's August 2019 special issue and aims to "reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of our national narrative." Partnering with the Pulitzer Center, the curriculum is freely available online and is being used by teachers across the country. It includes essays, poems, photographs, and fiction from contributors, and was praised for its examination of slavery's impact on the present day. The 1619 Project launched special issue aims curriculum praised As Cotton launched an attack on the initiative by introducing legislation that would prevent the use of federal funds to spread the optional curriculum in classrooms, Snopes readers asked us if in his criticism of the project he had actually called slavery a necessary evil. launched He did use those words. But he also claimed his meaning was misinterpreted.  In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Cotton said [emphasis ours]: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we cant understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction. Later, Cotton took to Twitter and appeared to clarify that he himself wasnt backing the idea of slavery being a "necessary evil": Twitter   Although Cotton claimed he was citing the views of the founding fathers, there did not appear to be a record of them saying this exact phrase, according to CNN. But historians argued that some of the founding fathers believed slavery to be necessary, and more believed it to be evil, while others reported there was little overlap between the two perspectives. did not appear CNN historians argued others reported But Nikole Hannah-Jones, writer and creator of The 1619 Project pushed back on his characterization of his own words and the views of the founding fathers, citing historian Joshua Rothman who categorically stated that slavery was a choice defended or accepted by white Americans for generations. Hannah-Jones argued that Cottons use of the word as denoted agreement with the statement. She also said that the curriculum was meant to be "supplementary" and was not intended to "supplant U.S. history curriculum." pushed back citing supplementary In summary, given that Cotton himself defended and clarified his use of the phrase "necessary evil," we rate this claim as Correct attribution. Foran, Clare. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Pitches Bill to Prohibit Use of Federal Funds to Teach 1619 Project."
 CNN. 24 July 2020. Jesuthasan, Meerabelle. "The 1619 Project Sparks Dialogue and Reflection in Schools Nationwide."
 Pulitzer Center. 20 December 2019. Lockwood, Frank E. "Bill by Sen. Tom Cotton Targets Curriculum on Slavery."
 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. 26 July 2020. Porter, Tom. "GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Called Slavery a 'Necessary Evil' in an Attack on a New York Times Project Exploring America's History of Racism."
 Business Insider. 27 July 2020. Pulitzer Center.  "The 1619 Project Curriculum."
  Accessed 29 July 2020. The New York Times.  "The 1619 Project."
  14 August 2019. Zurcher, Anthony. "US Senator Tom Cotton Defends Slavery Remarks."
 BBC News. 27 July 2020.
Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II.  Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys.  Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals.  Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish.  (It didn't work.)  The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits.  (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) White Day Green Day However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas.  Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century.  (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is a primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias.  The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it, however.  The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual is reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss.  The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, (both secular and religious) in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,  a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure Santa Claus nailed to a cross.  It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West.  It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. Examples:  A few Decembers ago a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernised and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display, featuring a life-sized Santa Claus, crucified upon a cross.1  The granddaddy of cultural faux pas [in Japan] occurred just after World War II, when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix.2  A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon which had a Santa Claus prominently displayed on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been doing the rounds in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend, is unclear.3  [An American Motorola executive] recounted a famous story of 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and they wanted to capitalize on it.  "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," [he] said. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes."4  A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus.5 However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect.  No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location.    As well, in true urban legend fashion the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling:  Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to  "a few years ago." As well, the mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians.  Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet.  Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity.  As parody it's believable; as an honest mistake we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing.  Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American, dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world economy) by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center.  Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus.  This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997:  Anderson, Walter Truett.  The Truth About the Truth.
  New York: J P Tarcher, 1995.  ISBN 0-874-77801-8. The Truth About the Truth Conry, Kieron.  "A Time Not to Forget the Suffering Figure on the Cross."
  The [London] Independent.  27 December 1994  (p. 15). Gaskell, John and Adam Hock.  "Our Memories of Christmas Past Lost to Japanese."
  The Sunday Telegraph.  6 January 1991  (p. 7). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  "Urban Myths #67: Santa Sleighed."
  The Guardian.  23 December 1993  (p. 43). McCarthy, Terry.  "Christmastime for Everyone."
  The [London] Independent.  19 December 1993  (p. 77). McKibben, Bill.  "Christmas Unplugged."
  Christianity Today.  9 December 1996  (p. 18). McQueen, Anjetta.  "Artist's Crucified Santa Draws Fire."
  Associated Press.  22 December 1997. Shweder, Richard.  "Why Do Men Barbeque?"
  Daedalus.  Winter 1993. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Dashing Through the Dough."
  The Washington Post.  22 December 1995  (p. A21). Watanabe, Teresa.  "Japanese Parade for St. Patrick, Whoever He Was."
  Los Angeles Times.  16 March 1993  (p. 6). Yates, Ronald E.  "Japanese Merrily Leave the Christ out of 'Kurisumasu.'"
  Chicago Tribune.  22 December 1985  (p. 16). The Buffalo News.  "Buffalo's Favorite Santa Stories."
  24 December 1995  (p. M8). The Economist.  "Santa Christ."
  25 December 1993  (p. 77). Financial Times.  "A Cultural Clash of Symbols."
  27 December 1984  (p. 8). Fortean Times.  "Strange Days."
  December 1994  (p. 5). The Hartford Courant.  "Santa on a Cross."
   23 December 1997  (p. F2). Amid tense talks between Congressional Republicans and Democrats over the 2018 federal budget, the attention of many observers turned to each side's record on government spending, benefits and entitlements, and fiscal priorities.  In that vein, a widely-shared Facebook meme took aim at Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, accusing him of supporting a modified version of a long-standing liberal bte noire  drug-testing for welfare recipients.  On 21 January 2018, Facebook user Ken Stanley wrote: wrote Tom Cotton calls for every person who receives Social Security to be drug tested those who test positive will lose benefits.     This claim is false. We searched Cotton's speeches, op-eds, and press releases, as well as the Congressional Record and news archives, and found no evidence of the Senator ever having advocated such a policy. In an e-mail, a spokesperson for Cotton told us the meme was "completely false": Senator Cotton does not support (nor has he ever supported) drug testing for Social Security recipients.  Indeed, even those who call for drug-testing for welfare recipients do not typically propose the same policy for Social Security. This is because Social Security is more widely regarded as an earned benefit (workers contribute to it through payroll taxes), while programs such as housing assistance or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are regarded as welfare. Senator Cotton does, however, have a record of making statements and advocating policies around welfare assistance which have raised eyebrows.  In 2015, Salon and Raw Story headlines accused Cotton of "blaming" drug addiction on Social Security benefits, and claiming that receiving Social Security disability benefits causes individuals to "spiral" into drug addiction. The articles, as well as Cotton's actually comments were more nuanced.  blaming spiral In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, Cotton advocated for reform of the Social Security disability system, and drew a link between population decline and social ills (including drug addiction) in certain counties and regions, and rates of Social Security disability insurance uptake:  It's hard to say what came first or caused the other: population decline or increased disability usage. Or maybe economic stagnation caused both. Regardless, there seems to be  at least at the county and regional level  something like a disability tipping point. When a county hits a certain level of disability usage, disability becomes a norm. It becomes an acceptable way of life and an alternative source of income to a good-paying, full-time job...After a certain point, when disability keeps climbing and becomes endemic, employers will struggle to find employees, or begin  or continue  to move out of the area.  Population continues to fall, and a downward spiral kicks in, driving once-thriving communities into further decline. Not only that, but once this kind of spiral begins, communities could begin to suffer other social plagues as well, such as heroin or meth addiction and associated crime. In 2014, while running for the Senate, a Huffington Post writer accused Cotton of "calling food stamp recipients addicts." Again, his comments were much more nuanced than that description.  accused According to a Huffington Post transcript of a virtual town hall hosted by Cotton in July 2014, the then-Congressman defended voting down a Democratic bill relating to agricultural payments and federal food aid, on the basis that it did not sufficiently reform the food stamps program, including by requiring drug testing for applicants: voting I dont think that we should be using farmers as a way to pack more welfare spending into Barack Obamas government, Cotton said. Nor should we have a food stamp program that isnt reformed, that doesnt have job training and work requirements, that doesnt have drug testing requirements, so we can get people who are addicted the help they need. Or make sure that long-term addicts or recidivists are not abusing taxpayer dollars. In March 2017, Cotton joined with Republican Senate colleagues in voting to nullify an Obama-era Department of Labor rule which limited the circumstances under which states could conduct drug-testing for individuals applying for unemployment insurance.  voting rule President Donald Trump later formally reversed the guideline, effectively giving states greater powers in conducting drug screening for jobless benefits. So Senator Cotton has certainly supported drug testing for welfare programs  but never for Social Security.  reversed Gauthier, Brendan. "Tom Cotton Blames Social Security for 'Heroin and Meth Addiction' Because Reasons."
 Salon. 10 November 2015. Edwards, David. "Sen. Tom Cotton: Social Security Benefits Cause People to 'Spiral Downward' Into Heroin Addiction."
 Raw Story. 9 November 2015. Lachman, Samantha. "GOP Senate Candidate Tom Cotton Calls Food Stamp Recipients 'Addicts.'"
 Huffington Post. 17 July 2014. Brady, Rep. Kevin. "House Joint Resolution 42 -- Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Department of Labor Relating to Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Congressional Record. 31 March 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. "Final Rule --Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemployment Compensation Applicants."
 Federal Register. 1 August 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. "President Trump Nullifies Drug Testing Rule."
 U.S. Department of Labor. 31 March 2017. What happens when the sitting President of the United States can no longer carry out his duties due to death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacitation?  That was one of the issues addressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution back in the 18th century, but unfortunately not thoroughly so  ambiguities of wording and unanticipated circumstances have required that the Constitution be amended several times to cover situations not originally foreseen. Even today, some questions about presidential succession and eligibility remain, giving rise to various thought exercises such as the following: thought exercises  Although the particular scenario outlined in the above meme is a hypothetical, we can say that its  description of how to restore to office a President who has been impeached and removed from office would almost certainly fail in real life for practical and/or legal reasons. For openers, let's summarize the process of removing a President from office.   The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to discuss the charges against the President (similar to a grand jury pondering an indictment), prepares articles of impeachment outlining those charges, and (if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles), sends them to the full House for debate and vote.  If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment based on one or more of those articles, then the President must stand trial in the Senate.  If two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict at the culmination of that trial, the President is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be barred from holding any high governmental position again. But could the removed President's successor make use of constitutional powers to pardon him and engage a scheme to reinstall him to the presidency by appointing him Vice President?    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."  So if the Senate voted to convict a sitting President and thereby remove him from office, they could also vote to permanently disqualify him from holding federal office again.   However, none of that judgment could be undone by a presidential pardon, because Article II, Section 2 (which establishes the presidential pardon privilege) states that "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (If this were not the case, then a sitting President facing impeachment could simply pardon himself and thus avoid any punishment.) What if the Senate voted to remove a President from office but did not also vote to bar him from holding office again?  That's where the practicality part of this exercise kicks in. Let's imagine a President is impeached and removed from office, and the Vice President thereby assumes the presidency.  Now the office of Vice President is vacant and needs to be filled.  Could the just-removed President step into that role? Amendment XXV of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."  Theoretically, anyone who was  constitutionally eligible to hold office could be nominated for the VP slot.  But how likely is it that the same Congress that just voted overwhelmingly to oust a politician from the highest office in the land would then turn right around and approve appointing that same person to the second-highest office?  We'll go with "not very likely." About the only way this scenario could conceivably play out in real life would be if the following sequence of events took place: 1) A President were impeached and removed from office but not permanently barred from holding office.2) An election that altered the makeup of Congress intervened before a new Vice President could be nominated and approved.3) The results of that election tilted Congress in favor of the recently deposed President.4) The newly seated Congress opted to make one of their first acts of business the audacious re-installation to power of a President who had just been drummed out of office. All of the maneuvering described above would only get the former President as far the vice presidency.  Elevating him back into the position of chief executive would require that the current President be so pliant as to willingly step aside to make room for someone who had just been kicked out of office  an act that would have no obvious upside to it for the recently installed President (given that   achieving the presidency is generally considered the pinnacle of any politician's career).   All in all, it's possible that under an extremely contrived and convoluted sequence of events, a President who had been impeached and removed from office could regain the White House without standing for election again ... but the likelihood of circumstances lining up just right to make that happen are practically zero.   And the presidential power to pardon would be irrelevant to that process. On 24 August 2016, the discredited food alarmist known as "Food Babe" posted an image showing the ingredient list on a box of Cheez-It brand snack crackers, along with the claim that the product contains TBHQ, a "toxic synthetic preservative created from butane": discredited Food Babe  Are you buying these? You cant get much more toxic than TBHQ. This synthetic preservative is created from butane (a very toxic gas) and has been linked to vision disturbances, liver enlargement, childhood behavioral problems, and stomach cancer in animal studies. New research coming out of Michigan State University links it to the rise in food allergies, which has prompted more research. Although the FDA allows this in America, this additive is banned for use in food in other countries including Japan, and is on the Center For Science in The Public Interests list as one of the worst additives to be avoided in our food. Please share! #FoodBabeArmy TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a synthetic antioxidant that is commonly used as a food preservative. Although TBHQ does contain a butyl moiety, this does not mean that the preservative is "created from butane" (which is commonly used as lighter fluid). In response to a similar claim made in 2007 about McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, the ScienceBlogs web site explained TBHQ's relationship to butane: ScienceBlogs TBHQ contains a butyl moiety (a tert-butyl moiety, more accurately), but so does butter, which contains esters of the blameless butyrate (when degraded to free butyrate, its the origin of the smell of rancid butter, esterified, as in fresh butter, its not a problem). Butter is not lighter fluid, nor is TBHQ. A butyl group does not butane make. Its worth noting that preservatives might not be entirely benign (you also encounter BHT and BHA, your cereal boxs cardboard is probably impregnated with one of these). However, none of these are lighter fluid by a long shot. While it's true that TBHQ has been banned in Japan, it is not "toxic," as the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority both classify TBHQ as a safe food additive in the small amounts present in foods such as Cheez-It snack crackers. FDA European Food Safety Authority In response to the message posted by "Food Babe," Cheez-It stated on their Facebook page that they have been testing natural alternatives to TBHQ:  While synthetic preservatives may not be the healthiest of options, TBHQ is not "created from butane," it is not "toxic, nor is it been deemed by the FDA to be dangerous to consume in moderate quantities. An image purportedly reproducing a CNN graphic comparing Presidents Trump and Obama "by the numbers" -- with the former seemingly recording a significantly higher job approval rating than his predecessor -- received a viral push on 8 August 2018, when Donald Trump, Jr. shared it with his 1.2 million followers on Instagram:   However, the image was a doctored version of a graphic that was originally used during a CNN fact-checking segment regarding a tweet posted by President Trump about his approval numbers: Presidential Approval numbers are very good - strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018  CNN's John King fact checked this tweet by comparing Presidents Obama and Trump "by the numbers" from around the same point of times in their presidencies. The image posted by Trump Jr. showed his father with a 50% job approval rating, but the genuine graphic aired by CNN showed President Trump's approval rating at only 40%. Here's the original segment from CNN:  A side-by-side comparison clearly shows how a "50%" was digitally edited (quite poorly) in place of the "40%" number in the original graphic:   The job approval statistics used by CNN for this graphic were taken from Gallup. According to that polling company, which samples presidential approval ratings every week, President Trump had never held a 50% approval writing up to the point of the CNN segment. Gallup. Donald Trump, Jr. later removed the doctored image from his Instagram page. An expanded version of the chart began making the rounds in September 2018 in the form of a meme shared by Turning Point USA, a conservative group whose stated mission is "to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." shared stated Apart from repeating the inaccurate "50 percent" approval rating for Trump and substituting year-to-date federal deficit figures with first-year-in-office totals for both Trump and Obama, the Turning Point USA chart faithfully copies the information provided in the August CNN segment.   As CNN correspondent John King pointed out in that segment, the numbers reflect favorably on Trump. In terms of comparing Trump to Obama, however, the meme omits important contextual information. First, the figures cited were snapshots of a particular point in each president's administration. They didn't reflect longer-term fluctuations and trends. Second, unlike Trump, Obama entered office in the midst of a devastating economic collapse. Trump inherited an economy that was already strong and growing. It's meaningless to compare the two without taking these factors into account. Unemployment rate: As stated in the meme, the unemployment rate in July 2018 was 3.9 percent, as compared to 9.4 percent at the same point in Obama's first term in office (July 2010). But that number fell during 2011 as the economy began to recover, and, apart from minor fluctuations, fell steadily every year thereafter. By December 2016 (Obama's last full month in office) the unemployment rate was down to 4.7 percent and still falling, as illustrated in this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph: rate   Jobs added: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm employment in the U.S. grew from 145.7 million in January 2017 to almost 149 million in June 2018 -- an increase of approximately 3.2 million jobs. The same source reported that by the exact same point in Obama's first term, the economy had lost some 3.5 million jobs since January 2009 (.6 million more than was claimed by CNN and the Turning Point USA meme). But, again, the recession was underway, and the economy had already shed nearly 3.6 million jobs during the 12 months before Obama took office. The employment rate began to improve in 2011 and did so steadily throughout the rest of Obama's two terms: employment   First year deficit: The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2018 that the federal deficit stood at $665 billion (equivalent to 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product) at the end of 2017, Trump's first year in office. At the end of Obama's first year, 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion (9.9 percent of GDP, the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945). It was mostly attributable to spending on the stimulus package meant to rescue the U.S. economy from the recession. Deficit spending didn't remain that high throughout Obama's tenure, however. In fact, the deficit during each of the last three years of his term of office ($485 billion in 2014, $438 billion in 2015, and $585 in 2016) was lower than the 2017 deficit, as well as the projected $833 billion deficit for 2018. reported $1.4 trillion deficit GDP growth: The growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product reflects the health of the economy in terms of the value of all goods and services produced in a given time period. As of the end of the second quarter of 2018, the rate of GDP growth was 4.2 percent (revised upward from 4.1 percent), as compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, Obama's second year in office. The quarterly GDP growth rate can be volatile, however. It reached or surpassed the 4 percent mark on four separate occasions during the Obama administration, including hitting a high point of 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014: 1.6 percent source: tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com Changes in economic indicators are a valid way of evaluating the effectiveness of presidents and their policies, but, as in the examples above, when they are taken out of context and oversimplified they can be more misleading than enlightening. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recessions and Events: The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929."
 The Balance.  2 August 2018. Gstalter, Morgan.  "Trump Jr. Falsely Claims That GDP Growth Never Passed 2 Percent Under Obama."
 27 July 2018. Nance-Nash, Sheryl.  "Revision of Second Quarter GDP Shows Slowing Economy."
 ABC News.  27 August 2010. Selk, Avi.  "Trumps Approval Hits 50 Percent  In a Doctored Poll Graphic Shared by His Son."
  The Washington Post.  10 August 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic."
 5 March 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009."
 6 November 2009. CNN.  "MAGIC WALL: Trump vs. Obama, By the Numbers."
  6 August 2018. NPR.  "GDP Is Up 4.1 Percent: What That Means."
 27 July 2018. Trading Economics.  "United States GDP Growth Rate - 1947-2018."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Department of Treasury.  "Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government."
 12 July 2018. Update [17 September 2018]: Added analysis of expanded Facebook meme circulating on September 2018. While his critics decry his economic policies, President Barack Obama keeps insisting that hes had economic success. In a speech in Wilmington, Del., last week, Obama offered several pieces of evidence that, in his view, suggests that the country is rebounding from the recession. Unemployment is at its lowest rate since 2008, he noted; the auto industry is booming, America is making more oil than it imports, and the deficit has been cut in half, he added. All told, Obama said, weve recovered faster and come farther than almost any other advanced country on Earth. That final claim got our attention, so we took a closer look. The evidence We asked the White House for evidence to back up Obamas claim, and they pointed us to theirannual economic reportto Congress. According to the report, the United States is one of only two of the 12 countries that experienced systemic financial crises in 2007 and 2008 but have seen real (gross domestic product) per working-age person return to pre-crisis levels. The 12 countries are France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. Germany is the only other country of these 12 in that category -- that is, that has seen its GDP per person age 16 to 64 return to its pre-recession level. Heres the summary chart from the White House report:    This provides evidence for Obamas claim, because, aside from Germany, all the other countries in this category havent yet returned to their pre-recession level at all. So, case closed? Not quite. There are many ways to measure the economy beyond real GDP per working age. And while the 12 countries studied in the report all experienced bank crises during the recession, Obamas statement was broader than that -- he said almost any other advanced country on Earth. (The list of the most advanced countries on Earth also usually doesnt include Ukraine.) So we ran this measurement past some experts. In general, they agreed with the tenor of Obamas claim, but said it wasnt as simple as relying on the chart the White House provided. The general sentiment is quite right, said Jeffrey Frankel, an economist at Harvard University. But to evaluate the statement in its sweeping form, one would have to look at more countries, and one should look at other possible measures of economic performance. Additional measurements On the experts recommendations, we looked at inflation-adjusted gross domestic product, as well as unemployment rates, in a wider selection of advanced countries. We used data from the International Monetary Fund, which considers 36 economies to be advanced. For each of these 36 countries, we calculated the growth between their worst point in GDP and unemployment to 2013, the last year for which full data is available. Positive growth in GDP is good, while negative growth in unemployment is desirable. Each value that is better than the United States (the last country on the list) is highlighted in bold-italic. (The raw data ishere.) Country GDP Unemploym. Country GDP Unemploym. Australia 13.01% 1.49% Korea 15.98% -16.11% Austria 5.93% 2.45% Latvia 15.36% -36.44% Belgium 4.25% 1.82% Luxembourg 6.93% 17.72% Canada 9.96% -14.58% Malta 8.57% -6.14% Cyprus -6.66% 155.94% Netherlands 0.39% 54.15% Czech Republic 2.37% -4.48% New Zealand 9.18% -6.22% Denmark 2.55% -6.25% Norway 5.30% -2.26% Estonia 17.76% -48.36% Portugal -3.90% 50.52% Finland 3.76% -2.87% San Marino -15.98% 61.78% France 4.08% 11.14% Singapore 29.34% -37.19% Germany 8.93% -32.12% Slovak Republic 10.51% -2.20% Greece -16.92% 117.47% Slovenia -1.72% 39.40% Hong Kong 16.96% -40.30% Spain -2.79% 31.38% Iceland 7.10% -45.41% Sweden 12.39% -6.71% Ireland 1.98% -5.83% Switzerland 7.98% -14.67% Israel 19.48% -32.10% Taiwan 19.58% -28.55% Italy -2.09% 45.31% United Kingdom 4.86% -3.13% Japan 7.31% -20.30% United States 9.32% -23.64%  So the United States has clearly done better in expanding GDP and lowering unemployment than most of the economies deemed advanced by the IMF. Still, some countries have fared better, particularly in Asia. It is also worth nothing that some countries, like Estonia, have seen an improvement in GDP, yet their GDP has not yet returned to pre-recession levels. Among the countries beyond the United States that are doing well are Canada, Germany and Switzerland. Israel and some Asian countries, such as Korea and Singapore, have seen improvements as good or better than the United States' in recent years, but they were not as dramatically affected by the recession as North America and Europe. Austan Goolsbee, Obamas former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (which prepares the White Houses annual economic report), pointed to an IMF paper from April,World Economic Outlook: Recovery Strengthens, Remains Uneven. Overall, the report suggests that the United States forecast for economic growth is better than it is for many advanced European economies, with others roughly comparable. In general, the United States is expected to have the highest growth in the coming year -- a projected 2.75 percent. In fact, the report found that the United States economy accelerated faster than anticipated in 2013, while many advanced economies in Europe are still struggling with high unemployment, debt and other financial issues. Canada, too, has seen some growth, but sluggish exports and business investments have kept the growth fairly slow. The strengthening of the recovery from the Great Recession in the advanced economies is a welcome development, the report says. But growth is not evenly robust across the globe. In many advanced Asian economies, for instance, the recovery is steady due in large part to growing exports, domestic demand and strong labor markets. (Japan, which is undergoing structural reforms, is an exception.) Australia and New Zealand -- neither of which was included in the report the White House cited -- have growth classified as stable. Laurence Ball, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, said another factor to consider is thelong-term damagecaused by the recession. Ball looked at 23 countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and compared how much they thought they could grow in 2007 to how much they think they can grow now, based on OECD estimates. Ball found that, on average, these countries sustained an 8.3 percent blow to their potential output for growth. While some countries, Australia and Switzerland, took a very small hit to their potential output, Greece, Hungary and Ireland absorbed blows of roughly 30 percent compared to their GDP prospects before the recession. For the United States, the figure is 5.3 percent -- lower than the rate for most advanced countries, but higher than Australia, Switzerland and Germany. This shows that even though the United States has recovered well compared to other countries, it has still lost potential output as a result of the recession, Ball said. Our ruling Obama said the United States has recovered faster and come farther than almost any other advanced country on Earth since the end of the Great Recession. The White Houses supporting data is pretty narrow, but other measurements show that the United States has generally fared better since the recession than many -- though not all -- of its peers among the worlds advanced economies. On balance, we rate this statement Mostly True. On Nov. 1, 2022, the official White House Twitter account suggested that an increase in the amount of money provided to seniors via Social Security benefits occurred "through President Biden's leadership." Several users on Twitter, including Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, Ky., took issue with the suggestion that specific actions taken by the Biden administration could have led to an increase in the value of these benefits, in large part because the adjustment to benefits "is an automatic formula." including  This critique, also spelled out beneath the White House tweet when it was flagged through the crowd-sourced misinformation Twitter initiative Birdwatch, is valid. In short, no action performed by the Biden administration could plausibly hold any direct bearing on the size of the increase in Social Security payments. This is because the amount of increase from year to year  as a result of a law passed50 years before Biden took office  is directly tied to a standardized index. The White House deleted its tweet the following morning. Birdwatch Biden administration Social Security 50 years tied to Prior to 1975, the only way to adjust the size of Social Security payments was through an act of Congress. Without regular acts of Congress, then, the effective value of Social Security benefits would decline over time due to inflation. Beginning in 1975, thanks to legislation passed in 1972, the benefit size increased based on anautomatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). inflation The CPI is calculated each month by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and "represents changes in prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households." Their data come from "75 urban areas throughout the country, " from "about 23,000 retail and service establishments," and also from a survey on rent prices collected from around 50,000 landlords or tenants." calculated The COLA update for 2023 is 8.7%, which makes it the fourth-largest increase since COLAs were introduced. The three higher adjustments occurred in 1980 (14.3%), 1981 (11.2%), and 1979 (9.9%) is 8.7% three higher Such adjustments are standardized, and the causes of inflation are myriad, complex, and  at least in part  international in nature. As a result, the assertion by the Biden White House that its leadership was responsible for larger Social Security payments to seniors in 2023 is untenable. causes of inflation Claim:  Federal regulations require states to upgrade all street name signs to use mixed case lettering.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] A friend heard this on the radio today.  It was reported that there will be a federal mandate in 2012 that street signs must have a capital letter only at the beginning and the rest of the street sign must be in lower case.  He said the report stated that baby boomers were apparently having a difficult time reading the signs printed in all caps. I find this idea a little preposterous.  He indicated that it would cost Milwaukee, WI over a million $ to make the change.  it was also reported that there would be no federal grants available to assist in paying for the new signage.  Can this possibly be true?  Is there nothing more important for the federal government to worry about than street signs? They have mandated... without any funding... that all municipalities change traffic signs to a combination of upper and lower case letters... have we not been able to read our signs until now? Have we been eternally lost?? Government needs to get a life ...vote  I heard a gentleman telling a friend that President Obama was in New York City and didn't like the fact that the street signs were spelled in all caps.  He requested that Mayor Bloomberg change ALL the streets signs so they only began with a capital letter and he agreed, to the tune of $1mil+.  The conversation at the local scrap yard was about a mandate either Federal or Washington State requiring the change of all the street signs to ones that contain upper and lower case lettering (I guess most have all upper case lettering). This seemed so absurd I did not believe it but the scrap recyclers were excited about the huge amount of aluminum scrap that would be coming. Given the huge budget shortfalls and proposed cutbacks by most everyone, I find it offensive that someone is even payed to think about the font of the street signs. I sure hope this is just a rumor. Origins:  In October 2010, news outlets reported on new federal regulations regarding street and road signs that would be taking effect before the end of the decade, as exemplified by the following excerpt from the USA Today national newspaper: In a nod to the fading eyesight of the nation's growing number of aging Baby Boomers, the federal government is requiring communities around the USA to change street name signs from all capital letters to a combination of capital and lowercase letters. The government says that makes them easier to read. Cash-starved localities also will have to dig deep for new, more reflective traffic signs to make them easier to see at night, especially by older drivers. Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations, communities have until 2015 to improve the nighttime visibility of roadside signs  such as stop, yield and railroad crossing signs. The issue is how well a sign redirects light from an automobile's headlights back toward the vehicle. Signs that fail to meet minimum standards must be replaced. Communities will be allowed to change the street name signs as they wear out. Unfortunately, the wording of some of these articles left readers unclear about exactly what the new federal regulations entail, leading to (mistaken) claims that officials in every state must upgrade all their street signs to used mixed case lettering by the year 2015. One of the new Federal Highway Administration regulations, as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), addresses the retroreflectivity of traffic signs: MUTCD For many years vehicle operators and the transportation industry have realized the importance of legible traffic signs and quality pavement markings for the purpose of highway safety and economical traffic flow, especially in low-light conditions. Light from a vehicle's headlights striking retroreflective traffic control devices bounces back to the driver's eyes allowing them to more easily see the road. Therefore, most traffic control devices are covered with retroreflective materials. These include transparent decals with embedded microprismatic reflectors for traffic signs and paint that has small sunken glass beads in the pavement markings.  Retroreflectivity is used to allow drivers to more easily see vital traffic control devices in nighttime and low-light conditions. The FHWA regulations require that states must upgrade post-mounted guide signs (e.g., stop signs, speed limit signs, pedestrian crossing signs) to meet minimum retroreflectivity standards by 2015.  States must also upgrade street name signs and overhead guide signs to meet minimum retroreflectivity requirements by 2018. A second  and distinctly different  FHWA regulation requires that newly-installed street name signs (or replacements for existing street name signs) must use a combination of upper and lower case letters rather than all upper case (i.e., capital) letters.  Signs executed in predominantly lower case letters are  generally easier to comprehend than signs written in all upper case letters (because the shapes of lower case letters have greater distinctiveness between them), so the new lettering requirements should make road signs easier for drivers (particularly older motorists) to read. The conflation of regulations regarding these  two new types of standards for signage  retroreflectivity and mixed case lettering  has created the  impression that all states must change every street name sign to used mixed case lettering by the year 2015 (at considerable cost to those states). This impression is false.  The only connection between these two standards is that if states have to replace some of their street name signs to meet the new retroreflectivity standards (which they are required to do by 2018), then those replacement signs must use mixed case lettering.  Otherwise, there is currently no requirement that states remove and replace street name signs which use only upper case lettering  such signs may remain in place until they reach the end of their service lives. Last updated:  14 November 2010 Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. Not only has U.S. Rep. Alan Graysonendorsed presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, he also has echoed one of the senatorsmain platform planksthat the rich should help shore up Social Security. At a Senate campaign debate with U.S. Rep. David Jolly, R-Indian Shores, in Orlandoon April 25, 2016, Grayson said the Social Security payroll tax cap on earnings needs to be lifted in order to make the program solvent. He used the mind-boggling salary of professional basketball superstar LeBron James to illustrate his point. Let's talk about LeBron James. Do you know when he stops paying his Social Security taxes? He stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season, Grayson said. Rest of the game, pays nothing. Rest of the 81 games of the season, pays nothing. The offseason, still pays nothing. That's ridiculous. The Cleveland Cavaliers forward rakes in an average of$23.5 million per yearas part of his current two-year contract, so its not like hes going to depend on Social Security in his twilight years. But is Grayson right that James is done paying into the program before halftime of the first game of the season? Its not a slam dunk, but the Orlando Democrat does score points with this one. Tax tip-off Lets start by reviewing what Grayson is talking about. The federal government imposes a payroll tax of6.2 percent on wagesto pay into the Social Security fund. But theres a limit of how much income can be taxed. This maximum amount, which is periodically adjusted upward, was$118,500 in 2016. That means the most any employed person pays into Social Security annually is $7,347 (6.2 percent of $118,500). If you make less than $118,500, you obviously are taxed on that amount and pay less. Employers match that amount, so a single workers total contribution to Social Security is essentially a maximum of $14,694 per year. Benefits, for the record, also are capped. In the case of self-employment, the person pays both halves of the $14,694 contribution, or 12.4 percent of $118,500. Well come back to this in a moment. If you make more than $118,500 in salary from an employer  say, $23.5 million or so  youre still only on the hook for taxes on the maximum of $118,500. Thats the highest amount on which the government can tax anyone, LeBron James or otherwise. Grayson has said that this limit is exacerbating projected Social Security deficits as more people retire. Not only would lifting this cap keep the program solvent, it would allow the government toincrease benefits for seniors. President Barack Obama also has proposed lifting this cap, which has rated aPromise Brokenon our Obameter. Some argue that raising the maximum taxable wage basewouldnt fix the system on its own. For his James example, Grayson broke down the NBA 82 regular-season games into their 328 respective quarters, then divided that against James $23.5 million average salary. That amounts to $71,646.34 per quarter, which is almost $6,000 per minute, with 12-minute quarters. Not bad for a nights work. Using that math, James hits the $118,500 taxable earnings cap somewhere before the eighth minute of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Youre probably only on your second (maybe third) $11 beer by then. Now, this interpretation is obviously just to make Graysons point easier to understand. Its kind of likeTax Freedom Day, ostensibly the day people earn enough to pay their total tax bill. How James gets paid depends on the structure of his contract. We'll also note that the NBA season starts in October, with the playoffs running through June. The tax year starts Jan. 1 and runs the calendar year. That makes the actual timing of when taxes are deducted from James' pay different than what Grayson said  a minor detail in a broad example. The Cavaliers' first game of 2016 was onJan. 2, and was their 31st contest of the 2015-16 season. They beat the Orlando Magic, 104-79, by the way. It may sound minor to those of us not making millions annually, but while Grayson is sticking to the game clock, he understates James time commitment. This example doesnt include the hours James spends practicing, traveling, giving interviews, attending team events or anything else that goes along with a superstar athletes life. It also doesnt include preseason games, overtime, playoff games (which bring in more money) or the value of his endorsements, whichForbesestimated at $48 million. PKF OConnor Davies sports accountant Robert Raiola also cautions that Graysons example doesnt mention other taxes James must pay. Raiola pointed out James faces a1.45 percent Medicare taxthat includes no cap, plus a0.9 percent Medicare surchargeon all the income he makes over $250,000. Which is a lot. And dont forget that self-employment tax. James possibly also must pay that in some form, depending on how his income is structured, Raiola said. How that affects James depends on how he conducts his finances, so its not really possible to say without getting a peek into his books. (LeBron, if youre reading, email us and well talk.) But Graysons talking point  that no matter how much the mega-rich earn, they are only taxed on the maximum of $118,500 in income  holds up. If you make less than that, you pay less, but James isnt required to pay Social Security payroll taxes on his income beyond $118,500. Our ruling Grayson said James stops paying his Social Security taxes at the beginning of the second quarter of the first game of the season. Thats a broad statement meant to draw attention to the fact that Social Security taxes are capped at $118,500 of a persons income, no matter how much they make. There are a lot of factors that go into how much James is paid, and how much of that goes to various taxes. But the bottom line is that the athlete only faces Social Security taxes for a relative sliver of his income. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7010f3db-ddad-4d0d-98a5-197ed37eab1a UPDATE, April 28:An astute reader pointed out a minor flaw in Grayson's specific talking point. The NBA season starts in the fall, while the tax year begins Jan. 1. As such, James hypothetically would hit the threshold in the second quarter of the first game he played in the new calendar year, not the first game of the season. We've added that information to this story. ButGrayson's point that the uber-wealthy quickly hit the Social Security tax cap remains just as valid.