Consider before you contribute!
When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed.
On Dec. 15, 2023, we received reader mail that asked about a purported giveaway on Facebook that promised one winner a 2023 Toyota Tundra pickup truck. The many Facebook pages that promoted the supposed giveaway were named 2023 Tundra, TRD. One of the posts read as follows and directed users to a sites.google.com website: Christmas surprise! This Toyota Tundra wasn't sold so we're giving it to someone by December 19th who $hared and Register here. Another post asked users to enter the giveaway in the comments by typing "@" and then clicking on "highlight." In the pinned comment under the post, users were directed to visit a website to "validate" their entry. post  However, none of these posts hosted a genuine giveaway for a 2023 Toyota Tundra. All of this was a scam apparently designed to entice users to fill out surveys, sign up for "free trials" on websites and perform other tasks, at least partially in order for the scammers to obtain an affiliate-marketing commission. In other words, it was a waste of time  and a potentially dangerous one at that  for users who hoped to win a free pickup truck. Unfortunately, as of Dec. 15, over 450,000 users had commented on just one of the posts. It's unclear how many of these users continued with the scam by clicking on one of the links. The reason why the scammers asked users to type "@" in the comments and then click "highlight" was to boost the page's following. This would potentially help the scammer to sell the follower-filled page in the future, if that was the goal. (We previously reported about the "highlight" feature on Facebook.) reported about Based upon the actions of scammers over the last several years, it's likely that they will attempt the same fake giveaway strategy in the future using the makes and models of other cars. For any users who fell for these scams and gave away their financial information (e.g. a credit card number), we recommend retracing your steps and ensuring that any "free trials" that were signed up for are canceled, so that no future charges appear on your statement. Call your credit card company for further advice. For further reading, the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) published an article about how to spot fake giveaways on social media. One of those tips mentioned to find out if the Facebook page that's offering the giveaway has a verified badge or not. If it has a verified badge, it's likely a legitimate giveaway. However, scammers have been known to seize on accounts with verified badges in order to advertise their scams, so bear in mind that this is not a foolproof tip. article verified badge BBB Scam Alert: How to Spot a Fake Social Media Giveaway. U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB), 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/23522-scam-alert-how-to-spot-a-fake-social-media-giveaway. Liles, Jordan. Does Typing @ in a Facebook Comment and Clicking Highlight Reveal Page Watchers? Snopes, 27 Nov. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-highlight-page-watchers/. A day after a Florida man landed a gyrocopter on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol to demand campaign finance reform, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson talked up his own efforts to focus on small donations and his potential U.S. Senate bid. Grayson, an Orlando Democrat, told a reporter forDemocracy Nowon April 16 that he will probably run in a primary againstU.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, for Marco Rubios Senate seat in 2016. As Democratic Party activists and leaders consider their best path to winning that seat, Grayson wants to remind them of his populist fundraising: Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200, he said. We decided to check if Grayson holds a record in the House for contributions of less than $200. (A spokesman for Grayson told PolitiFact Florida that he is likely a few weeks away from making his decision but reiterated that he has said he willprobably run.) Counting small donations The Federal Election Commission considers donations of less than $200 as small donations, which dont have to be individually reported. Instead, candidates report a total amount of money from small donors. In the House for the 2013-14 election cycle, those who received the largest share of their campaign revenue from small contributions were Democrats -- andGraysonwas indeed No. 1, according to a November 2014analysisby the Center for Responsive Politics. Graysons small donations totaled about $1.8 million and equaled 57 percent of his $3.1 million donations. The House member who raised the next highest amount in small donations was FloridasDebbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, and head of the Democratic National Committee. She raised $1.2 million in small donations, which equaled 47 percent of her contributions. (Wasserman Schultz recently ruled out running for Senate in 2016.) The third place House finisher wasU.S. Rep. Keith Ellisonof Minnesota who raised about $850,000 in small donations, or 41 percent of his pot. On theSenate sidefor the 2013-14 cycle, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota topped the list with $11.7 million in small donations, equaling about 40 percent of his donations. (During his Democracy Now interview, Grayson mentioned U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a leader in the Senate in raising small donations. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and was re-elected in 2012, raised almost $5 million in small donations, or about61 percent.) Who racks up small donations and why? So why are some member of Congress small donor leaders? In the case of Franken, a formerSaturday Night Livestar, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that name recognition in combination with hailing from a state with a strong grassroots tradition doesnt hurt. Graysons persona as a Democratic firebrand likely contributes to his fundraising abilities. The most successful small-money fundraisers mix media exposure with partisan taunting and ideological appeals,Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, wrote in 2011. Graysonis famous for his provocative taunts against Republicans, such asdescribing the GOPhealth care plan as if you do get sick, die quickly, orcomparing Dick Cheney to a vampire. Michael J. Malbin, director of the Campaign Finance Institute and a political science professor at the University at Albany,saidpolarization alone wont get candidates a lot of money in small donations. In many cases, candidates are tapping into political organizations with an existing network of small donors. Grayson, for example, has received money bundled through ActBlue, an online Democratic fundraising group that focuses on competitive races. Candidates got their boost from national organizations that created support for the candidates by recommending them to donors who trusted the bundling organization(s) and who probably would not otherwise have known who the candidates were, Malbin wrote. Our ruling Grayson said, Im the only member of the House of Representatives who raised most of his campaign funds in the last election from small contributions of less than $200. Graysons small donations equaled 57 percent of his donations during the most recent cycle, putting him ahead of second-place finisher Wasserman Schultz at 47 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. We rate this claim True. In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice:   The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know. The House of Representatives passed a 2.6 percent pay raise for all civilian federal employees in response to a government shutdown that left hundreds of thousands of federal workers either furloughed or working without pay. Some Republican lawmakers decried the move. U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., sent out atweetsaying, Where I come from you dont get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to #SecureOurBorder. Where I come from you don't get a pay raise just for showing up to work. Today Dem leaders pushed a $5B pay raise for federal workers who are paid well above the HOUSEHOLD income in southern Missouri. Retweet if you think that money would be better spent to#SecureOurBorder On Feb. 1, Smith repeated the claim in hisWeekly Capitol Report. The raise in question matches an increase in pay for military personnel that was passed in 2019. If passed by the Senate, the bill would undo a pay freeze instituted by President Donald Trump on Dec. 28. We decided to take a closer look to see if federal workers really do make that much more than southern Missourians and if so, why. Smiths claim focuses on two different metrics  the income of an individual federal civilian employee and the income of households in southern Missouri. This distinction is important, because household income can include the wages and salaries of multiple people. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis supports Smiths claim that individual federal employees bring in more pay than southern Missouri households. The mean household income in Missouri is $70,144, a figure already lower than the mean income of a federal civilian worker, which is $90,811. When asked for data supporting the claim, Smiths communications director Joey Brown pointed to census data compiled by congressional district. To determine the average household income in southern Missouri, we looked at the two congressional districts that cover the states southernmost counties  districts 7 and 8. Smiths district, Congressional District 8, encompasses the southeast corner of the state, stretching from Ozark County to Jefferson County and extending into the Bootheel region. There, the mean household income is $54,393. In neighboring Congressional District 7, which covers the southwest corner of the state, the mean household income is $62,145. There are many explanations for why federal employees are paid more than the average southern Missourian household. Experts told us that any comparison should also take into account education, training, skills and experience that increase worker productivity and typically result in higher incomes. The federal governments 2.2 million civilian workers tend to be older, more educated and more concentrated in professional occupations than private-sector workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress. About 51 percent of federal workers have attained at least a bachelors degree. In Smiths district, about 16 percent of constituents 25 and older have a bachelors degree, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Office of Personnel Management. A report by the Congressional Budget Office that accounted for these differences found that there is a disparity between how federal and private workers are paid. But this disparity depends on levels of education. Theres very little question that the top people in government are being paid quite a bit less usually than the top people with those kinds of skills in the private sector, said University of Missouri economics professor Peter Mueser. Federal workers with a professional or doctorate degree earned roughly 24 percent less than their privately-employed counterparts. But federal workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more than similar workers employed outside the federal government. Federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree earned 5 percent more. Another factor worth considering is benefits, said Iowa State University economics professor John Winters by email. In addition to salaries and wages, workers are compensated with benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans and job security. However, benefits are more difficult to quantify, because they are in part based on future predictions and less-detailed data is available on benefits than wages. The CBO study found that for federal employees whose highest level of education was a bachelors degree, benefits were 52 percent higher. Average benefits were 93 percent higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education. For employees with a doctorate or professional degree, average benefits were about the same in the two sectors. The bare bones of Smiths claim hold up to scrutiny. Federal workers do take home more in income than the average household in southern Missouri. But Smiths statement doesnt take into account differences between southern Missourians and the average federal employee that help explain income disparity, such as education. We rate this statement Mostly True. On 23 December 2016, a woman identifying herself as Catherine Elizabeth Clennan created a GoFundMe campaign destined for viral attention, in which she asked donors to supply her with US$5,000,000 in order to fulfill her "lifelong dream" (of having five million dollars). Clennan's bid for money stated that at 27, she dreamed of one day being independent of her family who "pay for everything" for her. Although she said that she hoped to raise $2,000,000 to buy a home in California, the campaign's goal was set at more than twice that amount: My name is Catherine Elizabeth Clennan and my whole life I have been trying to live by other's definitions of who I 'should be'. I have been trying so hard to live this lie that I came face to face with a choice: either live as others definitions of you and die OR strike out on your own and find for yourself who you really are. Well I chose life. I chose to live by my own definition ... With this choice I am in the process of turning my life in a new direction. Currently I live in Laramie, Wyoming. in a property owned by my family. They pay everything for me - and I am 27 years old. I feel that as long as I live by their definition I am 'taken care of', but this definition is leading me to deaths door - it forces me to live a lie - to turn my back to who I really am; a free spirit, an artist, a woman, a lesbian, a civil rights activist, a woman who goes against the grain, a woman who knows that not everything is as it seems. I need $2,000,000 dollars to purchase my dream home in California. I need the money to help me walk out of the lie that I am living, but more importantly I need the money to live my dream - which is to live as much as my life in the spiritual dimension as possible. The money will go towards the purchase of a new home, new transportation, and the various fees and taxes that accumulate with a move across the country. These funds will help me live the life that I feel I am meant to live, the life I want to live - the life defined not by other people - but by me. These funds will help me break free from the tyranny of what other people think is 'right'. The 'right' job, the 'right' education, the 'right' way to earn a living...   Although GoFundMe marked the campaign as "trending" as of 28 December 2016, Clennan had only received $21 of that goal on that date:   Although she has not indicated that her campaign is a hoax or prank (and GoFundMe has not flagged or removed it), Clennan does not appear to have much of an online footprint other than this campaign, aside from a LinkedIn profile and what may be a Huffington Post contribution (which as of April 2016 indicated she was an active student). That single article led some social media users to claim Clennan worked for the Huffington Post, but it looked as if she had submitted only one piece as a contributor. LinkedIn contribution In that article, Clennan expressed a desire to "be a public figure": Exposing my vulnerabilities publicly and confidently gave that girl the strength she needed to participate. Thats when I knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life  I want to use computer science to inspire other women to explore computer science. I want to be a public figure in computer science that is the exact opposite of what you would typically expect to find in the field. I want to be that girl who no one thought she could, who had all the odds against her, that everyone thought was dumb, and yet she becomes incredibly successful in computer science. Then I want to turn that success around and use it as a pedestal to expose every wound, every failure, every painful vulnerability I have, even with my hands trembling, Clennan invited potential donors to visit her Facebook page for more information, but few additional details were available there. It remains possible that her goal is genuine and presented honestly with no expectations that it would go over poorly or go viral, but also within the realm of possibility that the GoFundMe request was a step in her stated aim to become a public figure. Facebook Clennan, Catherine.  "The Benefits Of Being A Dumb Girl In Computer Science."
  Huffington Post.  12 April 2016. Claim:  A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales.  Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry & Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will be a $15,200 tax. Remember Obamas battle cry  take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day  the day they sell their house and buy a new one.   Origins:  One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872 The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions.  This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households.  Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount.  As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: response In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"  if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit.  Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale).   The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude  a)  The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level.  b)  The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure  would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion).   The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900.  (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount.   In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. median Additional information:      The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples  The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated:  15 March 2012    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay."   CNNMoney.com.  25 March 2010. On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook   Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway.  study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program:  EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time.  Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period.  Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven.   Government of Canada.  "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." 
  Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.  "Parental Benefit." 
  19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees.  "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave."
   Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization.  "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 
  2015.  Sanders, Bernie.  "Real Family Values." 
  berniesanders.com. In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. In April 2007, a dark brown leather sofa set (couch, loveseat, and chair) obtained from Vanaik Furniture and Mattress store in Toronto was discovered by the Brampton family that purchased it to bear a startlingly racist descriptor, tags pronouncing the items' chocolate shade to be "Nigger-brown":  The set had been manufactured by a furniture maker operating in Guangzhou, China. The offensive labels escaped notice both at the Toronto furniture store and at its supplier, Cosmos Furniture in Scarborough. Each of the three pieces had a similar label affixed to the woven protective covering wrapped around them.  A Chinese software company, Kingsoft Corp., acknowledged their translation program was at fault. When the Chinese characters for "dark brown" were typed into an older version of their Chinese-English translation software, the offensive description came up. (The program's 2007 version no longer produce that result.) The software had been programmed with terms garnered from a Chinese-English dictionary.  A similar controversy erupted in 2017 when consumers reported seeing a wig base cap offered for sale on web sites such as Amazon.com and Walmart.com whose description identified it as being "nigger brown" in color:  Words aren't dropped from a language in the blink of an eye: While new terms can swiftly become part of the common lexicon, that which has fallen from linguistic favor departs far more slowly. Though now widely regarded as one of the words one must not say, it wasn't that long ago that Western society routinely used "nigger" as a color descriptor of various goods, even well after it was no longer used as a descriptor of people. Around 1914, Lady's Pictorial a London magazine, routinely presented ads for soft taffeta hats in "nigger-black." A 1915 edition of the British Home Chat magazine described cloth as "nigger-brown." Writers D.H. Lawrence and John Dos Passos wrote about "nigger-grey" and "nigger-pink." And, as late as 1973, The Times of London wrote of autumnal colours in a shade that "used to be nigger brown." While Western society has now eschewed the word, in some parts of the world it continues to be used as a descriptor of an item's color. In China, "nigger-brown" pigment was available for purchase in 2007 from the Wenzhou Kunwei Pearly-Lustre Pigment Co., Ltd., and men's shoes from the Nanhai De Xing Leather Shoes Habiliment Co., Ltd., were described on its web site as: "This product is comfortable for wearing, it looks very simple and artistic. Size: 39#-46# Color: nigger-brown." described Such are the pitfalls of dealing with a global economy: goods produced and labeled in one part of the world are sold internationally, and terms that are irredeemably offensive in some places barely give anyone pause in others. Until the epithet falls out of use everywhere, look for more gobsmacked Western consumers ending up with "nigger brown" couches and shoes. Other descriptive labels commonly used in times past have since been dropped by the wayside as awareness of their potential to offend grew. In 1962, Crayola renamed as "peach" the crayon it had until then vended as "flesh," and in 1999 it changed to "chestnut" what had previously been labeled "Indian Red." (The company asserted Indian red was not meant to represent the skin color of Native Americans, but rather referred to a reddish-brown pigment found near India.) Kopun, Francine.  "Seeing Red Over Brown."
  The Toronto Star.  14 April 2007  (p. A1).
 Noronha, Charmaine.  "Racial Slur on Couch Label Blamed on Chinese Company's Faulty Software Program."
  Associated Press.  19 April 2007. Wilkes, Jim.  "Racial Slur on Sofa Label Stuns Family."
  The Toronto Star.  6 April 2007  (p. B1). Willis, Kiersten.  "Amazon and Walmart Investigating After N Brown Hair Cap Sparks Backlash."
  Atlanta Black Star.  17 July 2017. PolitiFact has rapped Rob Portman for certain claims made during his U.S. Senate campaign. Weve credited Portman, too, for truthful statements. Thats the nature of the Truth-O-Meter: We play it as it lays.Which brings us to Portmanslatest television ad.In the 30-second spot, Portman points to out-of-control federal spending, dangerous deficits and an economic stimulus plan that he says isnt working. Since the $800 billion stimulus passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs, Portman says in the commercial.The claim about the stimulus program not working has been batted about repeatedly. The White House said when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. Yet it is now 9.6 percent nationally, and 10.7 percent in Ohio.A number of economists say that even more jobs would have been lost were it not for the government spending to stimulate the economy. TheCongressional Budget Offices last quarterly evaluationsaid the stimulus increased national employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. There have been mistakes, missteps and gaffes documented in the spending programs, however, and Portman and other Republicans say the spending was poorly focused. This central question will be for historians and economists in the future to settle.Were merely taking note of Portmans claim because of this: He uses a lower number -- 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio since the stimulus passed -- than he used previously. When he put the figure at 150,000 in June,the Truth-O-Meter ruled it Half True-- because only 127,900 jobs had actually been lost, judging by the most widely accepted measure.That was based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures through May, the most current at the time. The numbers come from surveys of employers and are adjusted as the data becomes more complete. Using updated data, BLS now shows the post-stimulus job losses in Ohio came to 130,000 for the period Portman claimed in his earlier statement..But now its October and Portman is using a lower figure when he speaks. As he said in his newest ad, and repeated during an Oct. 8 debate at the City Club of Cleveland, since the stimulus bill passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.Yet heres the thing: Portmans rhetoric might actually be too cautious now. As measured by the latest BLS figures, which go through August and are preliminary, Ohio has 149,200 fewer jobs now than when the stimulus passed. Thats exquisitely close to 150,000.What happened?The state steadily lost jobs through 2009 but the numbers started improving early in the year, continuing through May. The summer saw a retraction, however, reducing Ohios employment count by a total of 19,200 jobs during June, July and August.So Portman was accurate and then some with his recent, more cautious statement. The Half True ruling nevertheless stands for his June claim, because PolitiFact doesnt believe in fortune-telling and Portmans numbers were in fact off when he made that statement.But we give credit where credit is due. So the Truth-O-Meter takes a turn to the right and rules on Portmans newest claim: True. Comment on this item.