If Wisconsin's governor cuts perquisites as much as he plans to do, it would still leave (workers) better off than their private sector counterparts.
With national attention focused on a showdown in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to reduce state worker benefits, the issue led to some spirited back-and-forth between union-backer Donna Brazile and conservative columnist George Will during the round-table discussion on ABC'sThis Week.Brazile called the workers who have flooded the state capitol to back union workers an organic movement.Just like the Tea Party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, 'No more,' no more budget cuts on the back of working people. Brazile said.Will responded, Donna, what you call the grassroots is a tiny minority of this tiny minority of Wisconsin people who work for the government. Three hundred thousand public employees in Wisconsin went to work -- while the teachers were clutching their little signs that say it's all about the kids, they're abandoning their classrooms, lying to their supervisors, saying they were sick, and going off to protest in defense of perquisites, which if the governor cuts them as much as he plans to do, would still leave them better off than their private sector counterparts.We decided to check Will's claim that perks or non-wage compensation such as health and retirement benefits) -- if cut as much as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has proposed -- would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector.Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of their pension contributions and to double their share of health premiums to 12.6 percent.Our colleagues at PolitiFact Wisconsin have been all over many of the issues in this contentious debate, and back on Feb. 8, they fact-checked a claim Gov. Walker made in his firststate of the stateaddress,that most state employees could pay twice as much toward their health care premiums, and it would still be half the national average.Here's some of what our friends at PolitiFact Wisconsin found:* AKaiser FamilyFoundationstudy that concluded that employees nationally -- public and private -- pay an average of 29 percent of the cost of the premiums. Among just state and government workers nationwide, the average was 25 percent for family coverage. * A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics2010 health care benefitssurveythat put the employee share at 32 percent for family coverage. Its 21 percent for single coverage. * Astudy by The Segal Co., a private benefits firm, that looked just at state government workers and found that a majority pay between 20 percent and 60 percent of their premium costs for family coverage.In other words, no matter how you slice it, the 12.6 percent share of health care premiums that Walker proposes employees pay is well below what most pay in the private--and public--sectors.That gets us halfway there. The second piece is pensions. Again, Walker's plan would require state workers to pay 5.8 percent of pension contributions. This one is a little more difficult to compare. Most public employees have a pension plan. But fewer than one in five private-sector employees has access to a pension plan. And those who do typically don't contribute anything to it. Much more often, private employees have access to employer-sponsored retirement benefits (such as 401(k) plans), rather than pensions. And a third of the private sector workforce has no access to an employer sponsored retirement plan at all.The 401(k) has become the de facto retirement benefit in the private sector, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.Typically, Brainard said, employers will match about 3 percent to 5 percent of an employee's salary. Employeesmaycontribute to their 401(k), but they aren'trequiredto contribute.So Wisconsin public employees may berequiredto contribute more to the their retirement plan than those in the private sector, but that doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage compared to the private sector. In fact, experts say theywillbe better off.According to a survey prepared by Brainard in October 2009, The retirement security of working Americans presently appears shaky outside the public sector, due not only to the nations heavy use of a retirement plan model that has been found to be undependable in its ability to provide reliable retirement income, but also due to low relative rates of participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans. Conversely, For most states and local governments, retirement security of retired workers is a policy that is being achieved.As always, Brainard said, there are exceptions, such as for those government employees who don't work long enough to become vested in a pension.But Will's comment, as it relates to pension is largely accurate, Brainard said. Overall, the retirement plan typically provided to Wisconsin public employees --whether or not they are contributing 5.8 percent -- provides a larger retirement benefit than private sector employees get.We'd like to cite one more survey, one by theWisconsin Legislative Councilwhich found that even among major public employee retirement systems, most required employee contributions of more than 5 percent. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for government workers with a required plan contribution, the average contribution is 6.3 percent of earnings. So Walker's proposal is in line with the norm for government workers.Now, we'd like to drop one big disclaimer into this whole analysis. Many experts contend that while state workers get better benefits, they get paid less than folks in the private sector. PolitiFact Wisconsin took a closer look at that issuehere. The point is that it's important to consider an employee's total package of wages and benefits when comparing public and private sector compensation. But that's not the issue before us here. Will clearly stated that he was talking about just the benefits side of the equation. And with regard to the changes Walker has proposed -- requiring greater employee contributions to pension and health care -- Will is right that they would still leave public employees better off than those in the private sector. We rate Will's comment True.
When we saw the Oct. 18 edition ofTimemagazine  its higher education issue  we found TennesseeGov. Bill Haslamlisted as one of eight people the magazine consulted for 8 Ideas to Improve Higher Education. Haslams article: Tie Funding to Graduation Rates.The governor described the big changes in the focus and funding of Tennessees public higher education system brought about by theComplete College Tennessee Act,which was approved by the Tennessee legislature in 2010 at the behest of then-governor Phil Bredesen.CCTA did several things, all with a goal of improving the rate at which Tennesseans attain college degrees or post-high school certificates to help prepare them for the modern workforce. Toward that end, the law revised how the state allocates taxpayer funding among its public universities, community colleges and technical institutes, away from the old model based mostly on enrollment and to an outcomes-based formula to reward institutions that perform well in helping students advance through their programs and graduate.Haslamwrote:States have traditionally funded their public institutions of higher education based on enrollments. This means the more students attending an institution, the more money that institution receives from the state. While this may incentivize colleges to expand access, it does nothing to incentivize efficiency and productivity. Institutions are rewarded for admitting more students and keeping them enrolled as long as possible, not for ensuring that every student is making progress toward a degree and ultimately leaving with a credential that has value in the labor market.Instead of funding  based on enrollments, states should use a formula that pays institutions for success in key areas like progress toward and completion of degrees and credentials. Tennessee remains the only state to have a 100 percent outcomes-based model  (and) we are already seeing this model changing the way our postsecondary institutions do business.We decided to look at Haslams claims.Its a given that the 2010 legislation changed the funding formula to a performance and outcomes based model. ATennessee Higher Education Commission summarysays, The outcomes-based funding formula bases the entire institutional allocation of state appropriations on the basis of outcomes including degree production, research funding and graduation rates at universities, and student remediation, job placements, student transfer and associates degrees at community colleges.Higher education officials agree that 100 percent of the variable funding component of the formula is based on outcomes. That variable funding is about 80 to 85 percent of the total state appropriation for public higher education. There is also funding allocated for fixed costs like routine building operating expenses and utility costs that are based on square footage and type of space. But the bulk of the funding is allocated totally on performance.Dr. Richard Rhoda, executive director of theTennessee Higher Education Commissionsays its also true that Tennessee is the only state in which the funding formula for higher education is totally outcomes-based.Perhaps the most important part of the discussion for students is whether and how the institutions they attend are, in the governors words, changing how they do business.On that point, officials agree: a lot, particularly by committing more resources to help students succeed. Most universities, including theUniversity of Tennesseeand theUniversity of Memphis, have establishedstudent success programsand centers and academic support centers where students can get individual and group tutoring, advising centers where advisers review students majors and recommend what courses they need to take, and career centers that help students figure out what they want to do and what majors they need to get there. Those centers and advisers constantly remind students and their parents during orientation and enrollment that the advising services are available. UT has consolidated itsstudent success centerin new offices in Greve Hall, and has established a one-stop shop for success counseling and tutoring in the newly renovatedCommonsat the main library. It has also createdUT LEAD, a program to promote undergraduate success, academic excellence and persistence to graduation for selected students awarded the Tennessee Pledge or Tennessee Promise scholarships.This has indeed changed the way we do business. It is fair to say that each of our institutions is looking at how they allocate financial resources and assessing how those allocations will contribute to outcomes, saidChancellor John Morganof theTennessee Board of Regents, which governs U of M,Southwest TennesseeandPellissippi Statecommunity colleges, and all other institutions outside the University of Tennessee System. Since the outcomes under the formula are heavily weighted toward student progression and program completion, there is an intense focus on spending money in a way that will promote student success.Rhoda at THEC agreed: The changes we are seeing are in the forms of more intentional and direct assistance to students in selecting courses and majors; getting students to focus on completing programs and earning credentials; new programs that lead to credentials and skills that employers are seeking; and targeting adults with some college experience but no degree.On that last group, adults with no degree, Rhoda says THEC is advocating Prior Learning Assessment on all state campuses  which helps adults earn college credit for skills they have acquired in the workplace. Rhoda said the University of Memphis appears further along in that than other institutions, offering experiential learning credit.Our rulingSo, funding is outcomes based and the institutions are changing the way they operate, by focusing more resources on students. We rate this claim True. 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 Dec. 15, 2020  the day after the U.S. Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden as America's 46th President  the tweet displayed below alleged Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Biden's victory over President Donald Trump before U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. U.S. Electoral College Joe Biden tweet Donald Trump  The claim was accurate, and we unpack why below. It followed weeks of both leaders' remaining quiet on the election's outcome amid court battles and an aggressive misinformation campaign by Trump to try to overturn his loss. misinformation campaign Let us lay out the timeline. At 10:20 a.m. Moscow standard time, which is 2:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) in the U.S., on Dec. 15, the Kremlin released a statement in which Putin congratulated Biden on winning the presidential race and wished him "every success." The statement read: released a statement In his message, Vladimir Putin wished the President-elect every success and expressed confidence that Russia and the United States, which bear special responsibility for global security and stability, can, despite their differences, effectively contribute to solving many problems and meeting challenges that the world is facing today. The President of Russia noted that with this in mind, Russian-American cooperation, based on the principles of equality and mutual respect, would meet the interests of both nations and the entire international community. 'For my part, I am ready for interaction and contacts with you,' Russias Head of State stressed. Hours later, McConnell, a Republican, acknowledged the victory for Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for the first time in a prepared speech on the Senate floor. Kamala Harris According to a video of the remarks on the Majority Leader's YouTube channel  footage that was uploaded to the video platform around 11 a.m. EST and also appeared on his official website as a Kentucky senator  McConnell said: official website as a Kentucky senator The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden. The President-elect is no stranger to the Senate. He has devoted himself to public service for many years. I also congratulate the Vice President-elect, our colleague from California, Senator Harris. Beyond our differences, all Americans can take pride that our nation has a female Vice President-elect for the first time. News outlets, including MSNBC, first reported on McConnell's remarks around 10:20 a.m. (ET). A tweet from McConnell's press team with a link to the YouTube video posted less than 30 minutes later, at 10:47 a.m. tweet   Some onlookers on social media speculated McConnell purposefully waited for Putin's statement on the election before making his own. "It has always been Putin pulling their strings, not Trump," one Twitter user alleged, referring to Republican leadership. Twitter user But there was no evidence to explicitly explain why or under what rationale the senator made his comments on the Senate floor, congratulating Biden more than a month after he was announced the next head of the White House. Also unknown was if or to what extent he at all considered Putin's statement hours prior signifying a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations.  All of that said, the Kentucky Republican recognized a Biden presidency roughly eight hours after the Russian leader. For that reason, we rate this claim In remarks from the Senate floor, newly elevated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that his partys takeover of Senate control appears to coincide with recent good economic news. After so many years of sluggish growth, were finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope, McConnell said. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administrations long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. McConnell stopped short of saying the Republican Senate takeover actuallycausedan economic improvement, though manymediaobserversassumedthat was what he was trying to imply. In the liberalNew Republic, Brian Beutlerjoked,It absolutelydoescoincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Relatedly, things that coincide are called coincidences. But is McConnell even right that the economic data and the political expectations coincided? We focused on two questions. First, when did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually solidify? And second, was there an uptick in economic data that actually coincided with that time frame? Well also briefly address the question of causation, even though McConnell didnt explicitly claim that. The data we found suggest McConnell is engaging in some wishful thinking. When did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually emerge? To answer this question, we checked with political analysts who handicapped the 2014 battle for the Senate and also looked at poll-based forecasting models. McConnell said expectation, a stronger word than possibility and one that requires a reasonable degree of consensus. Going into the 2014 Senate elections, most observers expected the GOP to gain seats, due primarily to a favorable map for the GOP (far more Democrats were up for re-election, especially in conservative states) combined with the longstanding history of six-year-itch midterm elections bedeviling second-term presidents, in this case Democrat Barack Obama. But whether the GOP would actually manage to win enough seats to seize control of the chamber -- six -- was less certain. Going into the election, the Democrats held a 55-45 edge (counting two Democratic-caucusing Independents as Democrats). With many individual races rated as highly competitive right through Election Day, winning a net six seats was no slam dunk. Jennifer Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said different political experts settled on a Republican takeover at different times but added that she felt pretty comfortable with a gain of six seats around Labor Day, which was on Sept. 1 last year. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, agreed that Labor Day was a turning point, though he added that there were slivers of doubt right up until the end. We formally called the Senate for the Republicans the week before the election, but we also suggested that a GOP Senate was likely in the months prior to the election. The forecasters atfivethirtyeight.comsuggested the toss-up lasted past Labor Day. They calculated the likelihood of a GOP takeover at just over 50 percent as late as mid September, before rising again, ultimately to 76 percent on the eve of the election. TheNew York Times in-house forecast saw much the same pattern, narrowing to essentially a coin flip in mid September before climbing to a 75 percent chance of a GOP takeover by Election Day. All told, this suggests that an expectation of a GOP takeover didnt emerge until the beginning of September at the earliest, and possibly as late as the second half of September. This leads to our next question. Has there been an economic uptick that appears to coincide with this timeline? McConnells office pointed us to the announcement that the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent rate in the third quarter of 2014, the biggestexpansionin more than a decade. So well start there. Thefigurewas indeed impressive. But there are two problems with citing this as evidence for McConnells point. First, the third quarter covers July, August and September. So the bulk of this growth occurred before the expectation of a GOP Senate began to jell. Second, GDP growth for thesecondquarter -- covering April, May and June of 2014 -- was almost as impressive, 4.6 percent. And that was well before the expectation of a GOP takeover seemed to take hold. (In fact, for much of that quarter, theNew York Timesmodel showed the Democrats likelier to win control than the Republicans.) Indeed, the longer-term trend for GDP growth shows that three of the past five quarters -- that is, since mid 2013 -- have exceeded 4 percent growth, and another quarter came close to that. Only one quarter, the first quarter of 2014, was a dud. So its not as if the impressive third-quarter growth of 2014 came totally out of the blue. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis We also looked at another major yardstick for the economy -- the monthly change in employment. During 2014,total monthly employment gainsaveraged 241,000. In October -- the month after the expectation of a GOP takeover would have taken hold -- the gain was almost exactly that, 243,000. The November total was 321,000 -- the highest of the year, but not far out of line when compared with the general trend for job creation since early 2011 (see chart below). Its too soon to tell whether Novembers figure kicks off a new, higher threshold or whether the number settles back again into the 240,000 range. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The strongest evidence for McConnells point is consumer confidence. TheUniversity of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentimentdid experience an uptick between November and December, but even with this measurement, confidence had been rising consistently since July. And other evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Data fornew orders of capital goods-- a good statistic for gauging how much confidence there is in future economic conditions -- actually fell every month between August and November. The question of causation Even if the statistical timeline fit perfectly, its worth remembering that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think that either party has that much power to affect short-run economic movements, except by royally screwing up, and I haven't seen any evidence that theexpectationof a regime change of this sort would affect economic outcomes, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. Its even possible to draw up a theory that runs the opposite direction as McConnells linkage. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, said one reason GDP and employment have increased a bit faster in recent months is that government investment, government consumption, and public employee payrolls have recently been rising instead of falling. Given this, McConnells comments linking the GOP and accelerated economic growth are ironic, Burtless said, since Republicans have been at the forefront of cutting government spending and payrolls. Our ruling McConnell said a recent economic uptick appears to coincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Even leaving aside the question of causation, key statistics show that the economic recovery was under way well before September, which is our best estimate for when the expectation of a GOP Senate solidified. We rate the statement False. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. Sampling the local fare is a staple on the menu of any politician worth his salt.For that reason alone, John Kasich is fortunate to be governor of Ohio.Ohio is the brass buckle on the burger belt. It is Ground Beef Zero.It is Mondo Carne.Rivals stake competing claims, but Ohio can credit two brothers from Akron, Charles and Frank Menches, for inventing and naming the hamburger in 1885. Menches Brothers Restaurants still feature the original recipe.The oldest burger chain, White Castle, is headquartered in Columbus, not far from the home of Wendy's in Dublin. The founder of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee' chains came from Upper Sandusky. The Big Boy, a meal in one on a double-deck bun, was created as the first double-decker in California, but Manners' in Cleveland and Frisch's in Cincinnati gave it white sauce perfection, inspiring the Big Mac.And so on.When Kasich took his State of the State address on the road last week to Lima, he made a stop that followed the lead of other visitors and then tweeted about it: Enjoyed a quick Kewpee burger before the State of the State in Lima tonight.The Ohio Republican Party tweeted its own comment: Kewpie burgers are delicious. An Ohio institution. And they'll cost less thanks to John Kasich's tax cut.Is that true -- or  a whopper? PolitiFact Ohio dug in with relish.First, we will stipulate that Kewpee burgers are delicious and worthy of the restaurant's slogan: Hamburger pickle on top! Makes your heart go flippity flop!We agree that the diner is an Ohio institution, even though @ohiogop misspelled its name. One of the oldest burger chains in the country, Kewpee was started in Michigan (Wendys founder Dave Thomas once said that the Kewpee near his home in Michigan inspired him to go into the business) but has its headquarters in Lima. Its downtown location is on the National Register of Historic Places.Kasich's tax cut cited by @ohiogop is the sales tax plan that is part of the governor's proposed two-year budget. To help pay for a 20 percent cut in the state's income tax, the plan would cut the state sales tax rate, from 5.5 percent to 5 percent, while widening its scope to nearly all service purchases.Restaurant meals -- such as Kasich's pre-speech Kewpee burger -- are covered by the sales tax. Take-out meals are not taxed, and would not be under Kasich's proposal.In Allen County, where Lima is located, state and county taxes combine for a 6.5 percent sales tax rate, the Ohio Department of Taxation told us. Under Kasich's plan, the rate would drop to 5.8 percent.That would cut the tax on a plain Kewpee burger -- priced at $1.80 each -- from 12 cents to 10 cents, according to the tax collection schedule posted by the Department of Taxation.So what's the take-away?It is accurate to say that a delicious burger eaten at the iconic Kewpee in Lima would cost 2 cents less under Kasich's tax proposal, leaving all other factors unchanged. Someone eating two burgers a week would save enough in 10 months to buy another burger.The price of take-out burgers would remain the same, however. Thats an important clarification that gives the statement a rating of Mostly True. In early November 2015, potholes prompted some crossing of party lines when theLegislatures Joint Finance Committeeapproved Republican Gov. Scott Walkers plan to borrow $350 million over the next two years for road projects. Democrats offered key support. Even before that, Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) was arguing more spending was needed. On Oct. 1, 2015 shetweeted this: 71% of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. #JustFixIt In Wisconsins budget battles over infrastructure, few deny the need for road maintenance. But is Shilling right about how bad the situation is? Digging into the numbers Shillings team directed us toa reportfrom the U.S. Department of Transportation that cited the same statistics as the tweet -- that 71 percent of roads in Wisconsin are in poor or mediocre condition and 14 percent of bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. So, the report is quoted accurately. But what about the numbers themselves? The two statistics were drawn from different sources of data. The data on road conditions came from the2013 Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. The report, the most recent available, is put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers, a trade and advocacy organization. By the groups tally, Wisconsin is one of just six states with at least 70 percent of roads rated in poor or mediocre condition, meaning our roads are in worse shape than the national average. But experts caution that the report card can overstate the amount of need for road repairs. First, the report uses a small source of data for each state and then extrapolates that data to the entire state roadway system. Ashwat Anandanarayanan, director of transportation policy for the environmental group 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, said the civil engineers reports also conflate new roadway construction and maintenance, resulting in what appears to be greater need. Lots of roads need to be fixed, he said. Not a lot need to be expanded. So then, what is a better measuring stick? The Wisconsin Department of Transportation collects its own data on road conditions that is used in the Highway Performance Monitoring System by the Federal Highway Administration, which is considered the gold standard of transportation information. According to these figures, the percentage of Wisconsin roads in poor or mediocre condition is much lower -- 38 percent of the state highway system falls into those categories. That doesnt mean the state will fare better in a national comparison by that measure. In fact, the state lags behind the U.S. average in most indicators of roadway quality. As for bridges, Shilling said 14 percent of Wisconsins bridges were in disrepair or functionally obsolete. This statistic, which is accurate, came from WisDOT data submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. But while Shilling cites the number as evidence of the state being behind, Wisconsin does pretty well here in a national comparison. Only three states  Arizona, Minnesota and Nevada  reported a smaller percentage of bridges in disrepair. Our rating Shilling said 71 % of WIs roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 14% of WIs bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The report she cited from the federal Department of Transportation backed up her figures, but the numbers used for her road statistic arent the most accurate available. By another measure, the percentage of roads in poor or mediocre condition is far smaller. There was no dispute on the bridge number, though on that front the state actually fares better than most others. We rate the claim Mostly True. Divorce can be anything from an amicable parting of spouses who realize their partnership just isn't working, to a vicious, protracted fight between two embittered people determined to wreak as much physical, emotional, and economic damage on the other as possible.  Unfortunately, the end of singer Marvin Gaye's first marriage came closer to the latter than the former. Marvin Gaye's Divorce In 1962, a 22-year-old Marvin Gaye wed Anna Ruby Gordy, a woman seventeen years his senior and the sister of Motown Record Corporation founder Berry Gordy, Jr. (a marriage, some cynics suggested, calculated to further the fledgling career of Gaye, who recorded for Motown).  By the time Anna filed for divorce thirteen years later, the couple had been separated for over two years, and each had accused the other of infidelities.  (Marvin's infidelity was hardly a matter of debate, as he was living with a teenage girl seventeen years his junior who was pregnant with his child.  Moreover, the son Marvin and Anna Gaye had claimed as their own was actually a child Marvin Gaye had fathered by his wife's fifteen-year-old niece.)  The divorce proceedings dragged out over two years as Marvin continually failed to show up for court dates, refused to pay court-ordered support for Anna and their son, and claimed his expenses exceeded his income even as he continued to spend money recklessly, purchasing luxury automobiles, boats, and beachfront properties.  By the time Marvin's day of financial reckoning arrived, he had little cash and was well in arrears for a large amount of back taxes, so his attorney worked out a settlement under which Anna would be paid off from the royalties earned by Gaye's next album.    Here, My Dear That next album turned out to be Here, My Dear, a harrowing "concept album of divorce" which chronicled the turmoil of Anna and Marvin's relationship.  The record's symbolism was hardly subtle: Featuring songs with titles such as "You Can Leave, But It's Going to Cost You," the album bore an inner sleeve which depicted a Monopoly-like board game emblazoned with the word JUDGMENT, across which a male hand passed a broken record to a female hand.  On the man's side of the board were only a piano and some recording equipment, while the female's side of the board included money, a house, a Mercedes, and a diamond ring:  Although Marvin and Anna's divorce settlement was indeed tied to the royalties generated by Here, My Dear, the common legend surrounding the record -- that Marvin Gaye was ordered by a judge to hand over all his royalties from the album to Anna, and that Marvin was in a position to spitefully deprive Anna of those royalties by intentionally recording an album so bad it would not sell -- is largely untrue.  Debunking the Legend First off, the payment-through-royalties scheme was a settlement worked out through mutual agreement, not one devised and mandated by a judge.  Second, rarely does a competent attorney accept (or a responsible judge impose) a dissolution of partnership settlement under which the amount of compensation received by one party is completely dependent upon a future endeavor of the other party, precisely because such a settlement could allow one side to cheat the other by deliberately underperforming.  (A similar legend about producer Phil Spector is based on this premise.) Phil Spector The circumstances in Marvin Gaye's case were that he agreed to pay Anna a total of $600,000, the first $307,000 coming from the advance against royalties he was guaranteed for his next album, and the remaining $293,000 to be paid out of any royalties earned beyond the advance.  But Anna would lose nothing if Gaye's next record sold poorly, because the agreement specified that if the album failed to earn $293,000 within two years, Gaye was obligated to pay Anna the difference himself, and thus he had nothing to gain by tanking the sessions and purposely turning out substandard product.  In fact, Gaye was in a position to lose a great deal by deliberately turning out a substandard effort, both because he was entitled to keep any royalties earned after the first $600,000 and because he stood to earn additional monies through publishing rights (rather than record sales) that were not payable to Anna. It is true that Gaye initially considered giving the album less than his best effort, but he soon found that he was incapable of recording with anything less than a complete commitment to his art, and if he had any intent to "get" his ex-wife, it was through the album's lyrics and not its sales: At first, I figured I'd just do a quickie record  nothing heavy, nothing even good.  Why should I break my neck when Anna was going to wind up with the money anyway?  But the more I lived with the notion, the more it fascinated me. Besides, I owed the public my best effort. I'll give her my next album but it'll be something she won't want to play and it'll be something she won't want the world to hear because I'm gonna tell the truth. Critical Reception Although the album was not a smashing commercial success, it was admired in many quarters for its artistic qualities: Despite Marvin's efforts, Here, My Dear was a commercial failure, not because it lacked ideas and sophisticated music, but, perhaps, because it possessed them in abundance. I think Here, My Dear was simply too sophisticated, too boldly honest, too remarkably insightful  and too close to the emotional quick to succeed commercially. On "I Met a Little Girl," Gaye appeals to his past: musically, through sweet fifties harmonies, and personally as he narrates meeting Anna, falling in love with her, and the relationship's demise. On "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You," which appears again as an instrumental and a reprise, Marvin uses a Latin-tinged mellow groove to probe for more than six minutes the philosophical question of love's origin and its end, both passing imperceptibly into existence, and into each other, as Marvin's multiple falsettos lash at the song's rhythms, and Anna: "You said bad things and you lied." On "Anger," Marvin mounts a funky shuffle of percussion and bass to declare the defining vices of a fundamental human passion: "Anger ... can make you old ... can make you sick ... destroys your soul." The songs cross every genre  "Anna's Song" is a rhythmically complex patterning of soul-jazz that conjures Coltrane's ballads, while "Funky Space Reincarnation" is disco-funk that dreams of a raceless musical universe. And "Here, My Dear" is a poignant doo-wop love fugue transposed to detail Marvin's sorrowful joys and sad nostalgia in the aftermath of their breakup. Anna Gaye didn't take lightly some of the revelations Marvin expressed through his music on Here, My Dear (especially accusations that she was preventing him from seeing their son and that she had lied to God by breaking their marriage vows), and upon its release she told People magazine that she was considering filing a $5 million invasion of privacy lawsuit, although nothing ever came of her threat.  Critical reaction to Here, My Dear was mixed.  As Gaye biographer Steve Turner wrote, "Reviewers didn't seem to know whether the double album was a huge joke at the expense of Anna Gaye and Motown, or a work of genius."  The record was not a hit, failing to sell well enough to even recoup the advance against royalties paid by Motown, so Marvin Gaye (who was by then officially bankrupt) was obligated to begin making monthly payments to Anna to cover the shortfall.  However, Gaye was killed in 1984 still owing Anna the additional $293,000 due her, and monies earned by his estate after his death went to paying off the IRS rather than benefiting his ex-wives and children -- thereby proving the maxim about life's only two certainties.   Dyson, Michael Eric.  Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2004.  ISBN 0-465-01769-X.

 Mercy, Mercy Me: The Art, Loves & Demons of Marvin Gaye Ritz, David.  Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: Da Capo Press, 1985.  ISBN 0-306-80443-2.

 Divided Soul: The Life of Marvin Gaye Turner, Steve.  Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye.
  New York: HarperCollins, 1998.  ISBN 0-06-019821-4. Trouble Man: The Life and Death of Marvin Gaye On 12 July 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders formally endorsed rival Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire event, causing consternation among supporters who were confident he still planned to take his candidacy for the nomination to the convention in Philadelphia later that month. A number of interlinked rumors appeared on social media following the Clinton/Sanders event, roughly outlining a larger general claim. According to many social media users, Sanders' pre-convention endorsement was a requirement under Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules as a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had similarly been forced to endorse an opponent before going on to win at a contested convention: The afternoon of the endorsement, a Sanders delegate (later identified as Ashley Wolthuis of Utah) made comments suggesting Sanders was forced to publicly endorse Clinton under threat of punitive platform changes: identified I have contacts within both campaigns. Heres what I was told yesterday and today. Clintons campaign threatened to vote down every concession made to Bernie on the platform if he did not endorse her prior to the convention. Knowing that Superdelegates were not going to switch to his side without something major happening, the best he could do was hold on to the progressive concessions he won for US on the platform. He could not, in good consciousness let the GOP and Trump win, especially when we have a potential half of the Supreme Court Justices that will be replaced within the next 4-8 years. He was looking out for the future of our movement and our nation in this very hard decision he made. This post is not to tell you to vote for Hillary, or to not leave the Democratic Party, etc. this was just to throw a little light on why Bernie did what he felt he HAD to do, rather than what he wanted to do. A sign of a great leader is someone who makes the hard decision to sacrifice themselves for the people and movement behind him. He is counting on us to continue the fight. Contacted later in the day by phone, Wolthuis clarified her comments about the use of force and Sanders' endorsement of Clinton: [A]fter reaching out to many of the people who had either posted or tweeted this statement, I tracked down the original source, Ashley Wolthuis, a Sanders delegate from Utah, who was kind enough to return my "cold call" to her cell phone. Here is what she told me. The basic thrust of the post shown above is accurate, she said, but the use of the term that Bernie was "threatened" she explained was overblown. She did indeed have conversations with various delegates associated with both campaigns, and she said it was "common knowledge" among most delegates that the Clinton campaign was insisting on Bernie making an endorsement prior to the convention if the more progressive parts of the platform would be retained. The talk among her the those with whom she associated, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, was that Bernie understood Hillary needed Sanders' supporters and that was the only reason she made any concessions at all regarding the positions on the DNC platform for which the Sanders campaign fought. Wolthuis also referenced a Washington Post article published after Sanders' 12 July 2016 comments, surmising that Sanders in part intended to tack Clinton to promises of a progressive platform: article The speech today was, ostensibly, an endorsement of Clinton's presidential campaign ... But, really, it wasn't. Yes, I know that's how it was billed by the Clinton and Sanders camps. And, yes, he did say this: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president." (It was the only time that Sanders used the words "endorse" or "endorsing" in a speech that ran 2,161 words. You can read the whole thing here.) But, surely, Sanders was simply touting his successes as a way of winding up to the big moment when he acknowledged  even subtly  that Clinton's more moderate, cautious and pragmatic definition of "Democrat" had trumped (ahem) his more liberal, populist one? ... Nope! Not really. What followed in the speech was a laundry list of Sanders's talking points and policies supplemented with the phrases "Hillary believes" or "Hillary understands" or "Hillary knows" stuck in front of them ... On and on it went, Sanders touting a much-beloved policy of his and then noting that Clinton agreed with it. We reviewed the oft-cited DNC 2016 rules [PDF] but were unable to locate any specific verbiage mandating that any candidate endorse any other candidate in order to fully participate in the convention. It is possible (but not necessarily likely) that the endorsement was an agreed upon concession made outside formal rules or quietly between the campaigns. Confusion over the meaning of Sanders' endorsement was exacerbated following the release of the contents of a conference call he held with his nearly 1,900 pledged delegates hours after his public appearance alongside Clinton: PDF   During the 38-minute long call, Sanders maintained the campaign won 22 states and lost several more "by a hair," stating that a majority of voters under 45 from all demographics overwhelmingly voted for him in primaries and caucuses. Sanders held that the "superdelegate issue" impeded his campaign, noting that Clinton earned 2,205 pledged delegates to his 1,845 and that she received "a hell of a lot" more superdelegate support:  In a portion of the call regarding his endorsement of Clinton, Sanders did not say that doing so was a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention. He did, however, discuss ongoing negotiations between the campaigns to ensure that planks of Sanders' campaign were adopted and Clinton was "on record" making such agreements. Compromises cited by Sanders included the candidates' differing plans on college tuition and single payer healthcare (including dental and mental health coverage) expansions for millions of Americans. In a significant portion of the call Sanders addressed questions about delegates' traveling to Philadelphia for the convention, asserting the campaign "[needs its delegates] to vote for Bernie Sanders for President, and [his] hope is we can get 1,900 votes on the first ballot." Sanders addressed rumors of challenges to credentials without further detail, presumably referencing concerns that Sanders delegates would face opposition at the convention. The senator stated he didn't believe the rumors had merit, adding that the campaign would arrive with "a bunch of lawyers" in Philadelphia and "make sure every [delegate takes their] seat." Sanders also addressed questions about whether he had been offered a "significant role" in a potential Clinton administration, to which he said "no." Towards the end of the call, Sanders stated that his campaign was not suspended, but that he expected Clinton to emerge as the nominee following the convention. Overall, the conference call represented the most in-depth look regarding Sanders' motivation in endorsing Clinton prior to the convention. No portion of the call hinted or suggested that his endorsement was due to tacit threats or coercion with respect to negotiated agreements between the campaigns. A second portion of the rumor held that Sanders was heading into a contested convention having endorsed his rival, just like FDR before him. Rumors to that effect didn't specify when or under which circumstances Roosevelt made such an endorsement before going on to win the nomination (if a year was cited for this occurrence, it was typically 1932). A 2007 New York Times article about FDR's 1932 convention win did demonstrate many parallels to the contest between Clinton and Sanders: article In 1932, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was firmly in the hands of Al Smith loyalists. Convention rules required a two-thirds majority for nomination, and the partys last three presidential candidates  James Cox of Ohio, the Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis and Al Smith  in addition to House Speaker John Garner and Senate minority leader Joe Robinson, were on record supporting the stand-aside economic policies of the Hoover administration and the ill-conceived and exorbitant Smoot-Hawley tariffs on imported goods. Roosevelt was an outsider. Serving his second term as governor of New York, he could not even count on the solid support of the Empire States delegation at the convention ... all of F.D.R.s rivals were from the pro-business, hard-money, establishment wing of the Democratic Party and decried the possibility of government intervention to revive the economy. Let natural forces take their course, as free and untrammeled as possible, said Governor Ritchie. Modern society, acting through its government, said F.D.R., owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was aghast. I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any demagogic appeal ... setting class against class and rich against poor, rasped Al Smith. However, a substantial difference existed between Roosevelt in 1932 and Sanders in 2016. In addition to facing a three-way runoff requiring a two-thirds majority, Roosevelt (unlike Sanders) went into the convention with a majority of delegates (but no superdelegates, as that concept was not introduced until 1984): superdelegates 1984 When the convention opened on June 27, Roosevelt held a clear majority of delegates but was still 100 votes shy of the two-thirds required for nomination. If the establishment forces could deny F.D.R. a first-ballot victory, they might deadlock the convention and force a compromise choice. The Democratic partys two-thirds rule was the nemesis of presidential front-runners, and in the eyes of the partys old guard, Roosevelt was ripe for a fall. Nevertheless, F.D.R.s majority gave him control of the convention. His candidate for presiding officer, Sen. Thomas Walsh of Montana, was elected, and the credentials of three pro-Roosevelt delegations (Louisiana, Minnesota and the Virgin Islands) were accepted. No portion of that article mentioned Roosevelt "endorsing" his rival, merely tensions between "establishment" Democrats and an "outsider" candidate. Another article described aspects of the nominating process with which Clinton had more in common with Roosevelt than Sanders did: The vote was split enough to guarantee a brokered convention; FDRs camp arrived in Chicago with a majority of delegates but not enough to guarantee him the nomination. Given FDR's majority of delegates and votes, it was exceedingly unlikely he at any point endorsed either of his rival candidates (of whom there were two). Moreover, journalism and political news operated far differently in 1932 than 2016, making an "endorsement" tendered by FDR for a rival far less relevant than in the era of social media. It was true Sanders in some respects evoked Roosevelt's position at the contested convention of 1932, but the material difference between Sanders in 2016 and FDR in 1932 boiled down to a majority of delegates. (We contacted archivists at the FDR Presidential Library & Museum for confirmation that Roosevelt did or did not endorse a candidate in 1932 prior to winning what was a hotly contested convention. An individual with whom we spoke indicated that detailed information was not to hand, adding that an archivist would look into the claim and respond to our query.) In short, it isn't precisely clear why Sanders opted to endorse Clinton weeks before the convention without suspending his campaign. Many Sanders supporters maintained that the DNC or Clinton campaign threatened to rescind platform promises had Sanders not endorsed, but the senator made no such claim himself in a 12 July 2016 delegate conference call. During that call, Sanders did urge all delegates to appear in Philadelphia and vote for him on the first ballot. As for claims that Sanders (like FDR before him) was heading into a contested convention after endorsing a rival, there was scant truth to that claim. FDR headed into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, prior to the advent of superdelegates. While FDR needed a hard-won two-thirds majority to seize his nomination, he also started with more delegates than his competitors. And the process of formally endorsing a rival didn't appear to be exceptionally relevant (if at all common) in the 1932 presidential nominating process.  Cillizza, Chris.  "Heres What Bernie Sanderss Hillary Clinton Endorsement Is Really About."
  Washington Post.  12 July 2016. Onion, Rebecca.  "The Art of The New Deal."
  Slate.  31 March 2016. Smith, Jean Edward.  "F.D.R.s Rough Road to Nomination."
  The New York Times.  14 May 2007. Caucus99Percent.  "Last Night I Spoke to Ashley Wolthuis, Bernie Delegate Behind Claim Sanders Was Coerced to Endorse Hillary."
  13 July 2016. In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump:  The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page  However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses  (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987  a day commonly known as Black Monday  when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia.  "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia.  "Black Monday (1987)."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press.  "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011."
  Snopes.com.  28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan.  "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?"
  Snopes.com.  8 February 2018. Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year: Bernie Sanders   (With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.) here In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars): SEC filing   Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazons reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks:   The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. report SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well: said report The expansion of Amazons physical distribution network has coincided with a strategic business plan of negotiating millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance from state and local governments in the name of regional economic development. By the end of 2016, Amazon had likely received over $1 billion in state and local subsidies for its facilities, which would include not only fulfillment centers but sortation centers that only sort packages, mailing centers, and other facilities. Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value: list Options give executives and investors the right to buy shares of a company at a later date and at specific prices. For example, if a chief executive joins a media company when its stock is trading at $55 a share, but years later, the share price has skyrocketed to $100, that chief executive can still buy the shares at $55, pocketing the massive difference. In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit. deduct While it is impossible to know the exact amount of money Amazon did or did not pay to the federal government in 2017, their own accounting suggests that they expected their federal corporate income tax burden to be negative that year.  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Amazon.com Inc. Form 10-K"
  2 February 2018.
 Gardner, Mathew.  "Amazon Inc. Paid Zero in Federal Taxes in 2017, Gets $789 Million Windfall from New Tax Law."
  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.  13 February 2018.
 Tobias, Manuela.  "Bernie Sanders Says Amazon Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2017. He's Right."
  Politifact.  3 May 2018. 
 Jones, Janell and Ben Zipperer.  "Unfulfilled Promises."
  Economic Policy Institute.  1 February 2018. 
 Gunjan, Banerji.  "Potential Loser in Tax Overhaul: Executive Stock Options."
  The Wall Street Journal.  19 December 2017.
 Citizens for Tax Justice.  Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years."
  9 June 2016.