Was it suggested by Sanders to increase taxes to 52% on incomes exceeding $29,000?
In February 2020, a text meme concerning Sen. Bernie Sanders' health care plan and his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour was circulated on social media. The meme contained several arithmetic equations that supposedly showed how the pay increase for minimum wage workers would be negated by the hike in taxes needed to pay for Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan:   Bernie Sanders said at the debate last night he wants minimum wage to be $15 an hour. 15$ x 40 hr work week = $600600$ x 52 weeks per year = $31,200 Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was to raise taxes 52% on anyone making over $29,000 per year. 52% of $31,200 = $16,224 in tax$31,200 - $16,224 = $14,976 is your pay$14,976  52 weeks = $288 per week$288  40 hr week = $7.20 per hour But there's no need to check the arithmetic in this meme. The general claim here  that Sanders' health care plan would raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year  is egregiously false. In short, no. One proposal offered by Sanders would raise the tax rate to 52% on earnings over $10 million. Sanders also proposed that the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes, and a 4% income-based premium would be applied to earnings over $29,000. The meme asserts that Sanders made this claim "at the debate last night." As this meme started circulating in mid-February 2020, we'll assume that timing refers to the Democratic presidential debate held in Las Vegas on Feb. 17, 2020. Although Sanders did say that he wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 during that debate, he did not say that he would pay for his health care plan by raising "taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 a year." Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg did maintain that "taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000" under Sanders' tax plan, but Buttigieg did not claim that the tax rate would increase to 52% for these individuals. Sanders disputed Buttigieg's claim during the debate, saying the latter was "not being honest" and that any tax increase for low-wage workers would be offset by lower health care costs. Here's an excerpt of the exchange between the two men (a full transcript of the debate is available here): here BUTTIGIEG: [Sanders] was a congressman at the time. And the qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a great deal. I never said that I agree with every part of his policy views, then or now. But I appreciate that at least he's straightforward and honest about them. He's honest about the fact that taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000 to fund his health care plan, although, again, a little bit vague about how the rest of that gets ... SANDERS: You're not being honest. Premiums would be eliminated. BUTTIGIEG: But you're still raising those taxes. And when you do it... SANDERS: But we're saving people money because they don't pay any premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, co-payments, or deductibles. They're going to be much better off. [applause] BUTTIGIEG: But where is  where is the other $25 trillion supposed to come from? At a certain point, you've got to do the math. SANDERS: Well, we got it all up there on the internet. It's a payroll tax  a payroll tax... [crosstalk] BUTTIGIEG: Well, no, but even after the payroll tax, you still have a hole. [crosstalk] SANDERS: Because we have a wealth tax. Elizabeth [Warren] has a good one. Ours is a little bit tougher on Mr. Bloomberg than hers. We're going to raise it in a progressive way, which deals with income and wealth inequality, and makes certain, finally, that health care in this country is a human right, not a privilege. Although Sanders did not reference it during that debate, we did find mention of a 52% tax rate on a document he released to explain various "options to finance Medicare for All." That document stated that the 52% tax rate would be applied to earnings over $10 million, not $29,000 as claimed in the meme. Here's the relevant excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): document Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market. Progressive income tax rates. Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be: Sanders mentioned the $29,000 figure in another document entitled "Financing Medicare for All." This documented listed a few additional ways to pay for Medicare for All, including a 4% income-based premium on incomes over $29,000. Here's an excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): Financing Medicare for All As the wealthiest country in the world, we have a variety of options available to support a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system that guarantees high quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege, to every man, woman, and child in this country. Those options include, but are not limited to: Sanders elaborated on this portion of his plan during a September 2019 appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert": September 2019  Sanders made a similar statement during a town hall in New Hampshire in November 2019. Sanders again said that the first $29,000 of an individual's earnings would be exempt from taxes and then a 4% tax rate would apply on earnings over $29,000: town hall What we will do  what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," Sanders told his supporters. "All right, good. You  youre better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means were going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent. We were unable to find any instance of Sanders' proposing a 52% tax rate on "anybody making over $29,000" per year, something that appears to be an erroneous conflation of Sanders' proposing a 4% tax rate on earnings over $29,000 and a 52% tax rate on earnings over $10 million. A counter-meme offered a more accurate (although still not entirely accurate) look at Sanders' actual expressed plans:  This meme, too, makes a mistake. Sanders' tax proposal uses a marginal tax rate (or a progressive tax rate), which means that a different tax rate is applied to different portions of a person's income. The percentage taxed starts relatively small, but grows as income increases. In Sanders' case, the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes. When a person's income crosses the $29,000 threshold, a 4% tax will be applied to earnings OVER$29,000. This tax rate continues to grow as income increases. Income over $10 million, for instance, would be taxed at 52%. But the above-displayed meme applies a 4% tax rate to ALL $31,200. Under Sanders' plan, however, the first $29,000 would be exempt and the 4% tax rate would only apply to the remaining $2,200. We reached out to Sanders' campaign for comment on the claim that the candidate was planning to raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year. A spokesperson told us "the meme is false."  Kangadis, Nick.  "Bernie Sanders Says Tax Hike on Lower, Middle Classes Will Pay for Medicare for All Plan."
  MRCTV.  26 November 2019. Frazin, Rachel.  "Colbert Questions Sanders on Middle-Class Tax Hike After Pressing Warren on the Same Topic."
  The Hill.  27 September 2019. NBC News.  "Full Transcript: Ninth Democratic Debate in Las Vegas."
  19 February 2020. Updated [24 February 2020]: Added information to clarify the marginal tax rate structure and correct an inaccurate portion of a secondary meme.
FACT CHECK: Does a photograph depict Mexican immigrants who were coerced into "donating" kidneys to enter the United States?      Claim:  A photograph shows several Mexican immigrants who were forced to surrender  kidneys in order to enter the United States.    Example:   [Collected via Facebook, July 2015] Take notice, the scar on the side of each Central American immigrant going through Mexico to get to the USA, they are forced by local authorities in the state of Coahuila which borders with Texas to "volunteer" a kidney, of course the government of such state sells the kidneys to US agencies for hundreds of thousands of dollars, this is the price they pay to be allowed to cross through the Mexican territory...The cost of wanting a better life and freedom must be worth it for these people...I am originally from Mexico, however at this time I'm not proud of it.......Please shere with all your friends in the US, these is only made public in digital newspapers in Mexico, PLEASE SHARE!!!! Origins: On 12 July 2015, a Facebook user published a status update consisting of the photograph seen above along with the claim that it depicted Mexican immigrants who each had to "donate" a kidney to local Mexican authorities in order to be allowed to cross through into the United States. published However, the photograph in question was at least two years old by July 2015, and it does not match the claim now appended to it. The picture was published in April 2013 as part of an article about the 2013 documentary Tales from the Organ Trade. While the photograph was originally taken to illustrate the impact of a coercive black market for organs, the individuals depicted were identified as Filipino (not as Mexican or Central American), and the circumstances under which their organs were taken did not involve immigration to the United States from Mexico (or any other country): article Steering well clear of sensationalist tales of men and women waylaid by bio-buccaneers who snatch people's chloroformed kidneys while they sleep, the director tells the stories of those who "willingly" exchange their bodily integrity for another year's worth of food and shelter for their families. [The filmmaker] takes us to a village in the Philippines where nearly every adult male sports a nephrectomy (kidney removal operation) scar. Through candid interviews, we learn how badly these people (in places around the globe) are counting on continued demand for the only moderately valuable assets they possess  pieces of their own bodies.   Both the above-quoted excerpt and an HBO page about the film reference a classic urban legend in which an unwitting individual is incapacitated and robbed of a kidney by black market organ traders. HBO urban legend Although individuals attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally often face genuine and serious dangers, coerced organ donation is not documented among those risks. dangers Last updated:  13July 2015 Originally published: 13July 2015 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 Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform  WinRed  changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. reported changed March 2020 shift September 2020 The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." late October Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.  Speaking From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim  the money In his latest film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore takes more than a few swipes at President Ronald Reagan, essentially asserting that under Reagan's watch, the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. During the Reagan era, he said, the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. Moore is correct that the top marginal tax rate  the rate of income tax charged to an individual on their last dollar of earnings  decreased from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1989. That's not the same as saying the richest had their taxes cut in half. In 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent on earnings over $161,300. The rate was substantially lower for the income earned below that. For example, that year, there were no taxes on the first $2,300 of income; 14 percent on income between $2,300 and $4,400; and on up via a graduated scale. So if you made $162,000 in 1980, for example, you paid far less on average than 70 percent of your income in federal taxes. The marginal tax rate also doesn't take into account various available deductions and tax credits, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. When Reagan revamped the tax code and dropped the top marginal tax rates to 50 percent in 1982, and then down to 28 percent by 1988, he also closed some of the tax loopholes available to people at the top. It's much fairer, we think, to look at effective individual income tax rates. That's the actual percentage of income that people paid in income taxes, factoring in not only the graduated percentages along the marginal tax rate scale, but also the deductions and tax credits that people were entitled to. In 1980,the effective individual income tax ratefor the top 1 percent of earners was 22.3 percent. In 1989, that rate dropped to 19.9 percent. That's a decrease of 2.4 percentage points, which works out to an 11 percent drop. That's sizable, but nowhere near 50 percent. If you widen the field and consider the top 10 percent of earners, instead of just the top 1 percent,the drop in effective individual income tax rate was about the same, just over 10 percent. For middle incomes, the effective individual income tax rate also dropped, from 8 percent to 6 percent. That's a 25 percent decrease. In other words, it wasn't just the rich who saw their income tax rates drop under Reagan. One more thing. When the top marginal tax rate dropped between 1980 and 1989, it went from 70 percent on earnings over $161,300 in 1980 to 28 percent on earnings over $128,810 in 1989. Obviously, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Did the rich get richer during the Reagan years? Yes. And Moore is technically correct when he says that the richest Americans had their top income tax rate cut in half. But we suspect some may mistake that for the richest having their taxes cut in half. In fact, we first began to look at this claim from a fact sheet provided on Moore's Web site before the movie was publicly released. And in the fact sheet, it states that the richest had their taxes cut in half. We were prepared to give that a False, as the effective tax rate for the richest was cut by about 10 or 11 percent. But in the movie, Moore describes it as the top income tax rate, apparently referring to the highest marginal rate. As we said, some may misinterpret that, but we think Moore has been careful enough with his words to get a Mostly True. Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1). On Nov. 19, 2022, the Facebook page Video Pivot posted a video with the caption, "With a heavy heart at the tearful farewell to 'Dwarf' Amy Roloff, goodbye Amy Roloff." However, Roloff was not dead, nor was there any indication she had just experienced a stroke, as the narrator in the video claimed. This was nothing more than a death hoax. Roloff is one of the stars of the TLC reality TV series, "Little People, Big World," which has often been referred to by fans with the acronym, "LPBW." The Facebook page that posted the death hoax was managed from Indonesia. Its purpose may have been "like-farming," something that the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has warned about in the past. If the page is able to build up a large following without being removed by the platform, it's possible that it will be sold on the black market in the future. It may also be stripped of its past posts and start promoting scammy products. warned As for the misleading video about Roloff, the thumbnail was doctored to show her ex-husband, Matt, holding a picture of her next to men carrying a casket. As of Nov. 21, the video had been viewed more than 53,000 times.  Note: It's unclear what the photograph originally showed, as a reverse image search for the men carrying the casket didn't find any matches for the picture. Days earlier, a video was posted to YouTube that also falsely claimed Roloff had died. The video had the title, "10 minutes ago / We announce very sad news about 'dwarf' Amy Roloff, She has been confirmed as." We found no shortage of these YouTube videos, either. Other examples of misleading YouTube videos from past months that we found were titled as"Official News/ R.I.P/ Amy Roloff Passed Away Last Night At The Hospital After A Health Battle," "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye," and "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye."  One good way to check whether a celebrity has truly died is to check the person's verified presence on social media. While Roloff hasn't posted on her Facebook or Instagram pages since Nov. 18, we note again that the misleading YouTube videos we found were all published prior to that date. We found no credible reporting that said anything about Roloff recently experiencing a stroke or dying. We previously published another story that debunked a death hoax for the Roloff couple's son, Zach.We also reported about misleading online ads that claimed the cast of "Little People, Big World" had experienced a "sudden loss." story reported "Amy Roloff." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/amyroloffofficalpage/. "---." Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/amyjroloff/. BBB Tip: Like-Farming Is a Facebook Scam Still Going Strong. 10 June 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/17149-like-farming-a-facebook-scam-still-going-strong. Grinberg, Emanuella. "Stars of 'Little People, Big World' File for Divorce."CNN.Com, 6 June 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/06/entertainment/matt-amy-roloff-little-people-big-world-split-feat/index.html. Liles, Jordan. "'Little People, Big World' Posts About a 'Loss' Are Misleading." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-people-big-world-loss-death/. ---. "Zach Roloff Death Hoax: False Suicide Claims Came from Obscure Website." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zach-roloff-death-hoax/. As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General. ...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION.   The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes  including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees  as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report.  Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy  then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company  appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house.     Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members  Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars  since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars  DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.  home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy  that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below)  took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly     That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together  this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service  which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses  faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year  or the end of September  without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services.  XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics   As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly  but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes  contradicting previous rules for deliveries  and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:  contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that  temporarily  we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do  [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this  it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day  even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner  an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing. ...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined. ... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party. ... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020  a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays  although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
 The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
 NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
 Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
 USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
 The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
 The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
 NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
 News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
 Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
 Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
 The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
 Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
 The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
 The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
 The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
 The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
 The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
 Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." Claim:   A KKK chapter successfully sued a black-owned bakery for refusing to make them a birthday cake.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] The following article has been making it's way across theinternet.  I'm curious to know if it's fake or not.  Origins:   On 23 August 2013, the satirical Tribune Herald web site published a fake news article titled "KKK Wins Lawsuit Against Bakery for Discrimination" (which languished in relative obscurity until April 2015), reporting that the KKK had successfully sued a baker named Elaine Bailey because she refused to provide a cake for the organization's birthday party: article A Georgia court has ruled in favor of Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter, in a lawsuit stemming from two years ago when a local bakery denied him service. The three judge panel concluded unanimously that the bakery had violated civil rights laws by discriminating against Saxby when they refused to sell him a cake for his organization's annual birthday party. Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a cake for the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs. On 1 April 2015, a controversy involving personal beliefs and catering erupted following a widely-shared local news interview with the owners of the Memories Pizza restaurant in Indiana in which they stated they would (hypothetically) decline to provide pizza for a gay wedding.  An ensuing national debate over the balance between personal beliefs and equitable treatment under the law led many pundits to seek out real-life examples of such scenarios having gone awry. Memories Pizza Among the many editorials published during the Memories Pizza controversy was an article that appeared on the web site Inquisitr on 3 April 2015. That article (titled "Ku Klux Klan Forces Black Baker to Make Racist KKK Cake, So Does Memories Pizza Lose Religious Freedom?") originally referenced the Tribune Herald's  fake news article from 2013 several times: article If the Ku Klux Klan can force a black baker to make racist KKK cakes, does this mean Memories Pizza should automatically be forced to serve gay weddings? If that is the case, should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to force gay bakers to make cakes with "God hates f*gs" written upon them? These questions may be rhetorical, but in the case of the former example the event really happened.  In the case of the Ku Klux Klan we already know the answer in Georgia. According to the Tribune Herald, Elaine Bailey, who owns Bailey Bakeries, refused to bake a birthday cake for Marshall Saxby, the Grand Wizard of a local KKK chapter. In response, the Ku Klux Klan leader sued and won by claiming that Bailey's refusal of service was discriminatory against his religious beliefs. The KKK celebrated the decision by saying that "the law says that it's wrong to discriminate against people if you run a business, and that means she was wrong in discriminating against our organization by refusing us service." References to the 2013 Tribune Herald hoax article were subsequently replaced or elided in the Inquisitr's piece: If the Ku Klux Klan can force a black baker to make racist KKK cakes, does this mean Memories Pizza should automatically be forced to serve gay weddings? If that is the case, should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to force gay bakers to make cakes with "God hates f*gs" written upon them? These questions may be rhetorical, but if these scenarios did ever occur there is already disagreement over how they should be handled. So what does this mean for supporters and opponents of Indiana's religious freedom law? The first version of the Inquisitr piece referenced "Elaine Bailey" (subject of the 2013 fake news article) as a "black baker," but the original Tribune Herald article on which it was based did not. It's possible that that minor embellishment furthered interest in the original fake news story, as the notion of a black person being "forced" to serve the KKK underscored the debate's polarities.  The Tribune Herald site has since been abandoned, but a disclaimer featured on the site clearly stated that: disclaimer Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes. All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories.   Last updated:  14 April 2015 A photograph which appears to show representatives playing solitaire on their laptops during a legislative session has certainly struck a chord among many viewers, undoubtedly because it seemingly confirms a widely held view of elected representatives as paid fat cats frittering away their time at frivolous pursuits rather than engaging in serious governmental problem solving efforts.  The photograph is real, although it has erroneously been attributed to a number of different legislative bodies, from the U.S. Congress to a variety of state legislatures: This picture is worth a trillion $$ This was sent to me showing our Congress at work. It was said that this was while Congress was in session, appears to be true, and that it was during the health care debate. Even if it wasnt during the health care debate, if this is how they spend their time while they are supposed to be deciding on important issues, then I not only want a rebate on my tax dollars, I want to see some new people who actually care about what is happening and are paying close attention to the matter at hand sitting in those seats. Seems like we dont need to be sending them on any more expen$ive vacations, theyre already on one. It seems to me that if all we are doing is paying these congressmen and women a gigantic salary to sit in congressional session and play solitaire or whatever, its time to bring most of them back home by replacement. Democrats, republicans, independents  it makes no difference. The bills theyre passing by playing solitaire instead of voting for us are taking away our freedoms with every key stroke Fire 'em all! Folks we need to forward this to everyone we know to get the word out about these people that are being paid by our tax dollars. Nothing else needs to be said. This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for. I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms. No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc. These are the folks that can't get the budget out by Oct. 1, Seriously!!! So, we've got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat. I guess this makes it easy for the news 'reporters' as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo's will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!! The picture was actually snapped in the Connecticut House of Representatives on 31 August 2009 by photographer Jessica Hill, while Rep. Larry Cafero was delivering a lengthy speech on the state budget. The photo was captioned by the Associated Press as follows: "House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, far right, speaks while colleagues play solitaire on their computers as the House convenes to vote on a new budget for the fiscal year in the Capitol, in Hartford, Conn." Jessica Hill Ms. Hill described the reaction to her photograph as follows: I have received a great deal of mail and even a few calls from people all over the country over the last couple of months about the photograph I have as a lead off image on my member page. Some viewers have even gone so far to say they believe the photograph is not authentic. I take my profession very serious. There is nothing staged or altered in the photograph and it is insulting to me to have been accused of otherwise from people who do not even know me. Rep. Jack Hennessy (D-Bridgeport), one of two Connecticut legislators shown in the photo playing solitaire on a laptop computer (the other was Rep. Barbara Lambert [D-Milford]), issued a letter of apology to his constituents: apology It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game even for just a few minutes during the final House session on the budget. I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state. My actions were inexcusable. I do want my constituents to know that my poor judgment for a few moments in no way means I ignored your interests in representing you on this very serious matter. Over the past seven months, as a member of the General Assembly's Finance Committee, I have participated fully in the budget process and have played an active role in crafting a budget that provides the necessary services that our communities so desperately need while at the same time minimizing any negative impact on the city of Bridgeport and its people. I sincerely apologize to each of you. I look forward to having the continued privilege of representing you and your interests in Hartford. I thank you in advance for your understanding and have been humbled by those of you who have already expressed your understanding and forgiveness. Brown, DeNeen L.  "For a Day, First Lady Becomes a Lunch Lady."
  The Washington Post.  6 March 2009. Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence What We Eat, Too?"
  Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009. Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."
  The Australian.  7 March 2009. In March 2022, social media users, and in particular right-leaning commentators, protested what they characterized as a decision by Congress members to award themselves a 21 percent pay rise, while U.S. residents endured inflation and record high gas prices. record high gas prices For example, former Republican Congressional candidate Buzz Patterson wrote: candidate wrote While you are paying record prices at the grocery store and gas pump, our politicians in Congress voted for a 21% pay raise for themselves.   For his part, Donald Trump Jr.  the son of and adviser to former President Donald Trump  tweeted: "What the hell has Congress done to deserve a 21% raise?" Similar claims were made by various right-leaning commentators. tweeted were made various commentators On March 10, the right-wing FrontPage Magazine posted an article with the headline "Americans Can't Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise": posted an article   On Facebook, screenshots of that headline went viral, as shown in the image below: went viral   In reality, Congress members did not award themselves a 21 percent pay raise in 2022, but they did vote to increase their operating budgets and expenses by that much. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "false." What those claims actually referred to was something called the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), which the non-partisan Congressional Research Service describes as follows: describes as follows Members of the House of Representatives have one consolidated allowance, the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), with which to operate their offices... While Representatives have a high degree of flexibility to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, they must operate within a number of restrictions and regulations. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA), the allowance provided to Members of the House of Representatives to operate their DC and district offices, may only support Members in their official and representational duties. It may not be used for personal or campaign purposes. The MRA can be used to pay office staff, but does not include the salary of House members themselves, which has not changed since 2009 and is $174,000 for a typical member. Usually, representatives spend their MRA on travel, paying staff, printing services, office supplies, and so on. has not changed since 2009 On March 15, President Joe Biden signed into law the massive omnibus spending bill. H.R. 2471. Around halfway through the 2,700-page text of the bill, the following stipulation can be found: signed into law text of the bill Members' Representational Allowances Including members' clerk hire, official expenses of members, and official mail For Members' representational allowances, including Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, $774,400,000. In other words, the collective MRA for the House of Representatives is just over $774 million for the 2022 fiscal year. For the 2021 fiscal year, the MRA was $640 million, which means a year-on-year increase of $134.4 million, or exactly 21 percent, as highlighted by Roll Call. 2021 fiscal year Roll Call Senators, who also typically have a salary of $174,000, avail themselves of a roughly equivalent allowance, called the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA). For the record, that too increased in the 2022 omnibus spending bill: from $461 million in 2021 to $486.3 million in 2022  a 5 percent increase. SOPOEA $461 million $486.3 million Americans Cant Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise - Frontpagemag. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/americans-cant-afford-gas-congress-just-gave-daniel-greenfield/. Accessed 16 Mar. 2022. Kelly, Stephanie. U.S. Gasoline Prices Edge Lower after Hitting Record High Last Week. Reuters, 13 Mar. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gasoline-prices-edge-lower-after-hitting-record-high-last-week-2022-03-13/. Legislative Branch Bill Boosts Members Representational Allowance, Capitol Police. Roll Call, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.rollcall.com/2022/03/09/legislative-branch-bill-boosts-members-representational-allowance-capitol-police/. Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The White House, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/15/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-h-r-2471-consolidated-appropriations-act-2022/. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014