Did Donald Trump 'Save' the NYC Vets Day Parade in 1995?
A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995.
On 21 November 2017, several outlets published articles under irresponsible headlines claiming that ISIS had called for the assassination of Barron Trump. One of the most egregious was published by The Daily Caller, which in addition to stating that the terrorist group had called for the assassination of President Trump's son, also claimed that they had released a "detailed plan" of how the deed would be accomplished: several published published ISIS Calls For Assassination Of Barron Trump, Release Detailed Plan To Kill 11-Year-Old Nearly all of these reports linked back to an article published by The Washington Beacon which in turn cited a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit that provides translations of foreign reports. The claims made in the initial report, however, were far less daunting than subsequent headlines made them appear.  article The MEMRI report was not available on their web site at the time of this writing. The full report, which MEMRI sent to us via email, can be seen below. The MEMRI report states this threat was posted in a "pro-ISIS" channel on Telegram, a popular communication app, by a "supporter of ISIS." The report did not state that the threat came from a known-terrorist, or from a leader of ISIS, or through some form of official communication from the terrorist organization. This lack of verification of the message's original source puts the post on shaky ground, and was omitted from the exaggerated headlines. When we reached out to MEMRI for comment, they emphasized this distinction: Please note the report indicates it was a supporter of ISIS on a pro-ISIS Telegram channel. Popular in the Middle East, Telegram is an encrypted chat application that has been used by ISIS in the past, with The New York Times reporting in February 2017 that one of the Islamic State's most influential recruiters instructs newcomers to contact him on the messaging app. The New York Times reporting Additionally, the message on Telegram did not include a "detailed plan." The Telegram post, which MEMRI shared with us, consisted solely of a photograph of Barron Trump, a map showing the location of his school, and a few hashtags. One of these hashtags, which MEMRI translated to mean "handle the son of the mule of America," appears to be the only reference to a "plan" for an assassination. It should also be noted that the location of Barron Trump's school was publicly known long-before this message was posted on Telegram.  known Here is the full report from MEMRI: On November 21, 2017, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) on Telegram called for the assassination of Barron Trump, and shared the name of the school that Barron attends along with a Google map pinpointing its location. Using the hashtag "handle the son of the mule of America," the supporter, who uses the name "Dak Al-Munafiqeen," Arabic for "striking the hypocrites," wrote: "Barron Trump goes to this school in Washington." The post was followed by a photo of Barron Trump. To widely disseminate the call for assassination, several pro-ISIS Telegram channels have shared and forwarded the post.    Although we have no reason to dispute MEMRI's translation, it should be noted that the group has been accused of biased reporting in the past. In an article entitled "Selective MEMRI," Guardian reporter Brian Whitaker argued that the non-profit has a habit of translating articles that shine a particularly bad light on the Muslim world: Selective MEMRI The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." Threats against the President and the First Family should not be taken lightly, but the outlets reporting that "ISIS Call(ed) for Assassination of Barron Trump" exaggerated the contents of a message posted to Telegram to make it appear as if this were a credible threat sent directly from the terrorist organization. Strauss, Valerie.  "Barron Trump to Attend Private St. Andrews Episcopal School in Maryland This Fall."
  The Washington Post.  15 May 2017. Whitaker, Brian.  "Selective Memri."
  The Guardian.  12 August 2002. On March 22, 2022, we began investigating a crypto scam on a Facebook page that posed as Crypto.com, a cryptocurrency exchange company, and asked for donations for Ukraine. The Facebook page was named Crypto.com/Nft. However, the company named Crypto.com had nothing to do with it. crypto scam Facebook Crypto.com Ukraine Crypto.com/Nft We notified Meta by email and were told by a company spokesperson that the page would soon be coming down. Meta is Facebook's parent company. Meta The person or people managing the page bought paid advertising on Facebook in order to run the scam. The ad was approved, and was displayed for at least three days. scam The ad The page was created on March 18, and the ad began running the next day. We noted that the same ad was still active as of March 22.  The "Ad Library" for the crypto scam Facebook page showed that it had been active for at least three days.  By March 22, the page had racked up 228 likes and 5,368 followers. The post that was created for the Facebook ad had also been liked nearly 1,000 times. The ad from the Crypto.com/Nft Facebook page asked for donations for Ukraine and provided a specific wallet address. It appeared like this: Ukraine  The scammers pretended to be with Crypto.com in order to execute their plan.  It read as follows: Crypto.com would like to support Ukraine with 100k USDT together with its community!Join us! Every amount you donate in Ethereum we top up to 100k USDT. Donate ETH only to0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854 We will exchange it to USDT while transferring funds to Ukraine.#ukraine #ETHEREUM Once again, this is a scam. The page was created four days before we filed this report. Also, it claimed to be affiliated with Crypto.com, even though it was not. Both of these were red flags. The requested amount of "100k USDT" in the ad is equivalent to about $100,000. According to Blockchain.com, as of March 22, 0x9adBb30BDb95eD70A6C795e6078a118E6e7e1854, the wallet address mentioned in the ad, had received around $32,279.94 in funds since April 2021. It's unclear how much of those funds were brought in based on other scams that had nothing to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which began in late February. equivalent According to Blockchain.com Russia's invasion of Ukraine In previous reporting, we exposed four other crypto scams, all of which were hosted by Facebook or Instagram. We also have seen a handful of others pop up as paid ads. four other crypto scams Instagram We alerted Crypto.com about the scam Facebook page. A company spokesperson said that the address used by the scammers was not a Crypto.com wallet address and that no Crypto.com account holders had transferred funds to it. To make donations to legitimate organizations to help the people in Ukraine, we recommend visiting our previous article that documented four good causes that are accepting funds. Ukraine article Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know Shortly after this story was published on March 22, 2022, a Facebook company spokesperson confirmed to us by email that the page would soon be coming down. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On March 11, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide relief to Americans who have been struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the days leading up to this bill's passage, a number of Republican lawmakers and pundits criticized the bill, arguing that only 9% of the relief package had anything to do with COVID-19.  signed Conservative author Melisa Tate, for example, wrote on Twitter that the bill "only gives 9% to the American people" while the rest went to politicians and their cronies. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said that she voted against the "COVID relief" bill because "only 9% of this bill is COVID-related" while "the rest is allocated to liberal pet projects and blue state bailouts." Twitter voted against   The claim that only 9% of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is going to COVID relief is largely false. The vast majority of this bill will provide financial relief to people, businesses, and governments who have struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The argument that only 9% of the measure will go to COVID relief appears to be an exaggeration of the fact that the American Rescue Plan will provide approximately $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing, protective gear, vaccine production and distribution, and other measures to directly combat the virus. $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing While it's true that only about 9% of this bill goes to fighting the virus directly, that figure does not include the vast majority of funds aimed at providing financial relief to those who have struggled through the pandemic. For example, the 9% does not include the most famous part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals, which is expected to amount to around $400 billion (or about 21% of the total). This 9% figure also doesn't account for items such as unemployment insurance, a child tax care credit, funding for schools to re-open, rent assistance, and other measures aimed at providing relief to Americans.  $400 billion account for items Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told NPR that there were two parts to the American Rescue Plan. The first dealt with combating COVID directly, while the second aimed at dealing with the financial crisis that resulted from the pandemic: NPR "There are really two pieces to this bill. One is directly related to the health crisis, but the other, and the larger piece, is related to the economic crisis that the health crisis has created." The vast majority of the American Rescue Plan is concerned with providing relief to people, businesses, and governments that have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about $300 billion (or 15% of the bill) "is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis." In other words, about 85% of the bill is related specifically to the impacts of COVID-19.  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget In short: The American Rescue Plan is a multi-faceted, $1.9 trillion to bill that provides financial relief to those struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it's true that only 9% of this funding will be used to directly combat the virus (via vaccine distribution and other health measures), this bill provides relief to Americans in several other ways. The $1,400 COVID-19 relief checks, for example, account for more than 20% of this $1.9 trillion bill. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Claim:  Axel Springer CEO Mathias Dpfner wrote an editorial for Die Welt blasting Europe for its timidity in confronting Islamic fanaticism. Status:  True. Example:  [Dpfner, 2004] A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe  your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany. I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake  literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice. Origins:   The editorial reproduced above, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," was written by Mathias Dpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004. Axel Springer published However, many of the English-language translations of this editorial that have been circulated via the Internet (such as the one reproduced above) include alterations or additional invective not present in the original.  Here is our own translation, which we have prepared to be as faithful to the original as possible: A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe  thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.  Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.   What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.  Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush  supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair  recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.  In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.  For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy  because everything is at stake.  Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive.  We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice. Last updated:  29 July 2006    Sources:   Dpfner, Mathias.  "Europa  Dein Name Ist Feigheit."   Die Welt.   20 November 2004. Negative campaign ads: most people say they hate them, but studies show that many people are swayed by them.Thus, major races can get pretty nasty, and there's a fear that the presidential contest this year will break all records for nastiness, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010Citizens United decision. The court upheld the right of persons, organizations and corporations to spend as much as they would like on political advertising -- while hiding their involvement -- through the use of organizations known as super political action committees (Super-PACs).To shed some light on who is behind such attack ads, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI,  has been promoting the DISCLOSE Act. The name is an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.When you don't have accountability, there's no limit to the things that people will say,Whitehouse said during a debateon the floor of the Senate. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the filth that so often is part of the American political debate is that candidates have to stand by their ads.And if you say something that is awful, if you engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may charge you a price for that, Whitehouse said. Well, that of course disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living person or corporation. It's just an entity, it's a sham, it's a phony, it's a shell.The DISCLOSE actwould requiresome tax-exempt groups that engage in political advertising to reveal individual donors who gave $10,000 or more.Critics saythe act discriminates because it wouldn't apply to unions. They also say disclosure might open donors up to intimidation and ridicule, inhibiting free speech.During an unsuccessful push to bring the proposal to a vote in the Senate -- a drive blocked twice by Republicans, on July 16 and 17 -- Whitehouse said the Citizens United decision was already sparking a giant increase in negative political advertising.An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008, he said.That's a big jump in negative advertising. We wondered if it were true.The contextWhen we contacted Whitehouse's office, spokesman Seth Larson sent us toa studyreleased May 2, 2012, by the Wesleyan Media Project at Wesleyan University. It defined a negative advertisement as an ad in which the candidate's opponent is mentioned.The study looked only at TV ads in the presidential races and only ads broadcast from January 1 through April 22 of 2008 and the same period in 2012.It turns out that Whitehouse quoted the study accurately. The researchers said that 70.0 percent of all ads in 2012 were negative during that period, compared with 9.1 percent in 2008.But Whitehouse also said that the Citizens United decision is responsible for that increase in negative ads, so lets look at that aspect.The political scientists we spoke with said the Supreme Court decision is having a huge effect on the tone and rhythm of the 2012 campaign.The Wesleyan study suggests that the effect was already clear in the first four months of this year.Consider the ads purchased by special-interest groups or SuperPACs.Of the 10,062 special-interest group ads aired during the first quarter of 2008, 75 percent were rated positive and 25 percent were rated negative.By 2012, the number of special-interest ads had exploded, jumping more than 12-fold to 123,062. In addition, the mix of ads had reversed, with only 14 percent positive and 86 percent negative.Meanwhile, the number of ads bought by candidates themselves plummeted, from 289,622 in the first quarter of 2008 to 74,267 this year, an indication that they were letting the special interest ads carry the ball for promoting their candidacies.AsMichael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in the report, That's a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.Other factors affect rateBut Franz and the other experts we consulted cautioned that additional factors are also at work.The first four months of the 2008 race were very different from the same period in the 2012 contest.In early 2008, one reason the number was so low was because the [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton campaigns didn't really attack each other on TV that much, said Franz, now at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. They did off the air, and they were obviously quite ruthless. But in the ads themselves, there wasn't a lot of sniping back and forth against each other. They promoted themselves primarily.That changed for Obama in the general election, Franz said. He was a very negative candidate and once the general election started, it became an overwhelmingly negative campaign, as it usually is in the general election.During the first four months of 2012, SuperPACs drove up the percentage of negative ads, he said, but also candidates have been overwhelmingly negative against each other in the [2012] Republican primary.So let's look at the types of ads placed by the candidates themselves.In 2008, only 9 percent of the ads placed by all the candidates in the first four months of the year were negative.By 2012 that number had grown to nearly 53 percent.The first four months of a presidential election year are not necessarily the best guide to the rhythm of the rest of a presidential campaign. I really don't think they're indicative of what's to come, said Mary Ellen Balchunis, a political scientist at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. It's how close the polls are, it's whether your opponent is going negative, it's whether you are responding.Early in the contest, the ads are generally more about who the candidate is and what the candidate would do. That's particularly true for a challenger, saidStephen Farnsworthof the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., a key swing state. There are always some negative ads, but they are really sprinkled in the mix. In the fall, when people are really turning their attention to the election, that's when the number of negative ads escalates.In this election cycle, things are already so negative, it's hard to imagine that there's much room for them to get more negative between now and November, said Farnsworth, author of Spinner-in-Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves.Our rulingSheldon Whitehouse said, An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.He is correctly quoting the study, but the context of his comment makes it clear that he blames the SuperPACs, which were freed up by the Citizens United decision.Those special-interest groups are certainly playing a much larger role this year, in part because they have become the major source of TV ad purchases.But the data also reveal that the candidates are being far more negative earlier in the campaign than they were four years ago, and that also drove up the percentage of negative ads in the beginning of 2012.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate the claim asMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) For a while there, Gov.Scott Walkerwas coyabout whether he would run for a third four-year term in 2018. But now hisintentions are all but official, and he is repeatedly sounding themes that could show up as part of his campaign platform. On May 18, 2017, Walkerwas interviewedby Jeff Wagner, a conservative talk show host on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. Wagner opened by asking about one of the governors favorite topics: property tax reform. Walker responded by declaring that property taxes on a median-value home are lower right now than they were in December 2010, the month before he took office. Hes correct, though theres a caveat. Prior fact checks Theres no question property taxes, though they might increase for some individual property owners and decrease for others, have generally been on the decline since Walker took office and his fellow Republicans took control of the Legislature in 2011. In 2015,we rated Mostly Truea Walker claim that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. In January 2017, when Walker said that property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II,our rating was True. An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. And on ourWalk-O-Meter, which tracks Walkers campaign promises, weverated In the Workshis pledge to cut property taxes so that the levy on a typical home in 2018 is lower than it was in 2010. Current claim Walkers new claim refers to a specific measure -- an estimate of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued, or typical, Wisconsin home. The estimates are done by the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau. That tax was $2,963 for 2010-11, just before Walker took office; and its $2,832 for 2017-18. 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 $2,963 $2,953 $2,943 $2,926 $2,831 $2,849 $2,852 $2,832 $2,831 A caveat Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, told us its important to note that levies -- the total property taxes collected -- have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure, even though the the tax on a median-valued home is lower than before he took office. The reason is that compared to commercial and manufacturing properties, residential values have lagged. As a result, more of the property tax burden has shifted to commercial and manufacturing and away from residential, Berry said. Our rating Walker says property taxes are lower right now than they were in December 2010 on a median-valued home in Wisconsin. Estimates done regularly by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau show that the hypothetical property tax bill on a typical Wisconsin home is $2,832 for 2017-18 -- $131 lower than the year before Walker took office. But its worth noting that the total amount of property taxes collected have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure. And that the drop in residential property taxes is due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II.  Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys.  Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals.  Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish.  (It didn't work.)  The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits.  (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) White Day Green Day However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas.  Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century.  (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is a primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias.  The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it, however.  The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual is reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss.  The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, (both secular and religious) in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence,  a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure Santa Claus nailed to a cross.  It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West.  It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. Examples:  A few Decembers ago a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernised and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display, featuring a life-sized Santa Claus, crucified upon a cross.1  The granddaddy of cultural faux pas [in Japan] occurred just after World War II, when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix.2  A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon which had a Santa Claus prominently displayed on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been doing the rounds in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend, is unclear.3  [An American Motorola executive] recounted a famous story of 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and they wanted to capitalize on it.  "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," [he] said. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes."4  A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus.5 However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect.  No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location.    As well, in true urban legend fashion the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling:  Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to  "a few years ago." As well, the mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians.  Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet.  Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity.  As parody it's believable; as an honest mistake we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing.  Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American, dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world economy) by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center.  Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus.  This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997:  Anderson, Walter Truett.  The Truth About the Truth.
  New York: J P Tarcher, 1995.  ISBN 0-874-77801-8. The Truth About the Truth Conry, Kieron.  "A Time Not to Forget the Suffering Figure on the Cross."
  The [London] Independent.  27 December 1994  (p. 15). Gaskell, John and Adam Hock.  "Our Memories of Christmas Past Lost to Japanese."
  The Sunday Telegraph.  6 January 1991  (p. 7). Healey, Phil and Rick Glanvill.  "Urban Myths #67: Santa Sleighed."
  The Guardian.  23 December 1993  (p. 43). McCarthy, Terry.  "Christmastime for Everyone."
  The [London] Independent.  19 December 1993  (p. 77). McKibben, Bill.  "Christmas Unplugged."
  Christianity Today.  9 December 1996  (p. 18). McQueen, Anjetta.  "Artist's Crucified Santa Draws Fire."
  Associated Press.  22 December 1997. Shweder, Richard.  "Why Do Men Barbeque?"
  Daedalus.  Winter 1993. Sullivan, Kevin.  "Dashing Through the Dough."
  The Washington Post.  22 December 1995  (p. A21). Watanabe, Teresa.  "Japanese Parade for St. Patrick, Whoever He Was."
  Los Angeles Times.  16 March 1993  (p. 6). Yates, Ronald E.  "Japanese Merrily Leave the Christ out of 'Kurisumasu.'"
  Chicago Tribune.  22 December 1985  (p. 16). The Buffalo News.  "Buffalo's Favorite Santa Stories."
  24 December 1995  (p. M8). The Economist.  "Santa Christ."
  25 December 1993  (p. 77). Financial Times.  "A Cultural Clash of Symbols."
  27 December 1984  (p. 8). Fortean Times.  "Strange Days."
  December 1994  (p. 5). The Hartford Courant.  "Santa on a Cross."
   23 December 1997  (p. F2). In April 2018, social media posts claiming "Donald Trump and U.S. Congress voted yesterday on a bill" to end all child support in the U.S. by 11 June 2018 were widely shared. posts  These posts were just variants of a similar hoax from September 2017 created using the prank generator React365 which suggested that President Trump and Congress had effectively ended all child support payments as of 2018, blaring "No more child support after 2017!" and "CHILD SUPPORT SAID TO END BY BEGINNING OF 2018": React365 child support The word salad "news" content originated with React365, a prank generator whose sole purpose is to enable users to generate fake news and share it on social media:   React365   On the footer of each page, a poorly-worded disclaimer explains that its headlines are "created by users" and are not a "source of information":   Fake news about child support typically spreads with alacrity. However, there have been no legitimate news reports of either the President or Congress ending (or even intending to end) child support. It is simply false information generated by a prank web site. child support