Has Biden made a promise to remove the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Taxes?
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.
In May 2022, after the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion showed that the justices were set to overturn Roe v. Wade, a piece of text supposedly written by a pastor named Dave Barnhart about how the "the unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for" was widely circulated on social media: the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion widely circulated  This message was truly written by the pastor. Barnhart, who is a pastor at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, first posted this message to his Facebook page in 2018. At the time, Alabama politicians were in the process of passing an amendment to the state's constitution that would "recognize the rights of the unborn" in order to ensure that "state funds [would] not go to funding abortion care," according to AL.com. was truly written posted this message to his Facebook page in 2018 according to AL.com The full text of Barnhart's Facebook post read:  "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. Some of the most popular iterations of this quote introduced Barnhart as a "traditional Christian" pastor. Other versions introduced Barnhart as a "Methodist pastor" or simply a "pastor." Barnhart operates a network of house churches called the Saint Junia United Methodist Church. Saint Junia United Methodist Church describes itself on its Facebook page as a "a diverse community of sinners, saints, and skeptics who join God in the renewal of all things." Methodist pastor pastor Facebook page Over the past month of their hotly contested race for governor, Republican challenger John Kasich has accused Gov. Ted Strickland of raising taxes on Ohioans, a charge the Democratic governor has vehemently denied.Kasich has leveled the tax hike charge in his public speeches, during both gubernatorial debates and in campaign commercials. He says the governors decision last December to halt a scheduled 2009 income tax cut essentially took away $844 million in refunds earmarked for Ohioans and instead gave it to the government.A television ad from the Republican Governors Association released this month features still photographs of Strickland with a woman speaking: Ted Strickland promised not to raise taxes. He broke that promise.Strickland says he didnt raise taxes, he only temporarily froze a planned income tax cut to fill an unexpected budget hole. Stricklands running mate Yvette McGee Brown certainly feels comfortable with that explanation.They had the nerve to say, the Republican Governors Association, that this governor (Strickland) raised taxes $800 million on Ohioans. Not true, Brown said during a rally on Sept. 27 in Cleveland with Strickland standing behind her. And I wish PolitiFact would go check that.So, we are.The tax issue Kasich is referencing is Stricklands decision last year to halt the final year of a five-year, 21-percent across-the-board income tax cut that started in 2005. The move saved the state approximately $840 million, money the governor used to fill a budget hole. The only alternative, Strickland insists, was to cut the equivalent amount of cash out of primary and secondary education.Strickland is careful to characterize his move as having frozen the final year of that tax cut and not having eliminated it altogether. The difference: whats frozen can be thawed and used, but it might not be possible to replicate what has been completely erased.We have cut the state income tax 17 percent since 2005, Strickland said during his Oct. 7 debate against Kasich, taking credit for the first four years of the tax cuts. Strickland became governor in January 2007.And the governor notes that the postponed final year tax cut is scheduled to be reinstated next year after the current budget cycle expires. Also, the decision to freeze the tax cut required legislative approval, which means the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate had to OK the deal and it did  narrowly.But having received the first four years of the tax cut, Ohioans were already looking forward to the final year, 4.2 percent reduction, Kasich said, until the governor snatched it away.He raised taxes last year to the tune of $840 million, Kasich said on Oct. 4 during a press conference at the Ohio Republican Party headquarters.To be fair, Strickland had to find a source of revenue or would have had to slash programs. Ohio law requires the state budget be balanced. And part of the reason for the shortfall can be pinned on Republicans, whoincreased spending in seven consecutive budgets while they controlled the General Assembly while also cutting taxes.And the truth is Ohioans didnt pay any more in taxes for 2009 over what they paid in 2008, and maybe less once you factor in some inflationary indexing. So, this was not a tax hike in that sense, which Kasich concedes.But he argues it is an increase when residents are forced to pay more in taxes than they had been promised, or to look at it another way, get back less in their state income tax refund than they anticipated.Those who owed the state after filing their 2009 taxes, owed a little bit extra thanks to Stricklands tax freeze. Stricklands decision cost a family of four earning $60,000 a year about $78 last year.Strickland prides himself on having made tough decisions in rough economic times. One of those decisions was postponing the income tax cut which meant taking money out of the pockets of Ohioans.But while the freeze is expected to be lifted next year, there are no guarantees that will happen in what is still a rough economic landscape for Ohio. And state taxpayers, who had to pay more in income taxes than what had been promised, may continue to pay at the higher rate.We rate Kasichs statement Mostly True. Comment on this item. In 2020, the Pinterest post displayed below alleged Ruby Tuesday was going out of business before the end of the year. The post linked to a 50-page article on the website Money Pop with the headline, "These Restaurant Chains Are Turning Off Their Burners And Closing Up Shop." 50-page article   The social media post and article headline were misleading. The COVID-19 pandemic had indeed forced Ruby Tuesday to file for bankruptcy protection and close 185 branches nationwide as of fall 2020, according to court records obtained by Snopes and news reports. file 185 branches court records news reports This announcement does not mean Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday," CEO Shawn Lederman said in an Oct. 7 statement at the time. an Oct. 7 statement Another statement from the business at the time of the bankruptcy filing said it was "pursuing a comprehensive financial and operational restructuring" to reduce debt and that it intended to overcome bankruptcy status "as quickly as possible." statement Despite the site closures, more than 230 company-owned locations remained open in addition to an undisclosed amount of branches run by 10 franchise groups, according to USA Today. No evidence showed a significant change in those numbers between the date of Ruby Tuesday's filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the publication of this report. USA Today In addition to Ruby Tuesday, the Money Pop listicle erroneously made it seem as if Taco Bell was closing in 2020 (see our fact check here), along with numerous other food businesses that were still serving customers as of this report. see our fact check here other food businesses We should note here that, although the headline on the Money Pop was false, the text on the article appeared rooted in truth, reading: Like Friendlys, Ruby Tuesday is an East Coast chain, but this restaurant has some branches on the Pacific Coast, too. The restaurant was founded in 1972 in Knoxville, Tennessee, and has seen some major dips in revenue over the past few years. Which, unfortunately, has resulted in many of the restaurants closing. At last count, the chain has around 491 stores around the world. But according to Restaurant Business, that number is due to nearly 50% of the stores closing over the past ten years. They said it was because customers were enjoying the convenience of take-out instead of actually sitting down in a restaurant. In sum, while the pandemic had negatively impacted Ruby Tuesday, and it was true that the chain had closed numerous sites in 2020, the Money Pop headline was inaccurate to claim all locations were "turning off their burners and closing up shop" or that the restaurant chain was going out of business. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform  WinRed  changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. reported changed March 2020 shift September 2020 The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." late October Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.  Speaking From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim  the money False accusations alleging protesters at confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid as part of a nefarious liberal conspiracy to block his confirmation resulted in intense harassment for two people whose images were posted online along with misleading information. Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings.The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action:Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation).Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned."These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police."Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy.Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us:Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money.Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars.RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.)The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle.A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back:Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group:I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why.I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below.During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors.She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that.Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over.We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest.  Internet trolls widely shared a photograph of demonstrator Vickie Lampron being handed cash by an organizer while she waited to enter the U.S. Capitol, where she would be one of the first persons to be arrested protesting at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Kavanaugh on 4 September 2018. Although she was merely given a small amount of cash so she could pay post and forfeit fines, conspiracy theorists falsely claimed a photograph of her was evidence that protesters were paid for personal gain in exchange for disrupting the hearings. first post and forfeit The picture was originally posted by self-described international conference speaker Adam Schindler to his eponymous website and to Twitter. He also made a YouTube video in which three of his friends claimed to have witnessed "paid political operatives" in action: website video Proof the protestors were paid off in line. #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn #Kavanaugh #ConfirmKavanaugh #ActivismInAction pic.twitter.com/hMLpP4zWPn  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Theyre back at it today. Exercising free speech. pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM pic.twitter.com/K7GPFCeusM  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018 The first image was also widely shared on Facebook with the following caption: "This woman disrupted the Kavanaugh hearing held on September 4 and was thrown out. A few minutes later someone got a photo of her being paid."   While it's true the photograph indeed shows Lampron being given money, she wasn't being paid a fee in exchange for protesting. The man wearing a backpack in the photograph is Vinay Krishnan, a consultant who helps organize legal support for the progressive activist organization Center for Popular Democracy (an organization that has been heavily involved in organizing protests against Kavanaugh's confirmation). Krishnan told us the money was raised via small donations from around the country, and protesters were given about $35 to pay related fees in the event they were arrested; if they weren't arrested, the money was to be returned. "These protesters are coming from across the country believing they are fighting for their very right to exist in this country," he told us. "Thats why theyre there. Not for $35 which they returned immediately if they didn't give it to D.C. Capitol Police." Both Lampron and Krishnan faced online harassment as a result of the misinformation spread online about them. Krishnan received racially-tinged death threats, forcing him to close down his social media accounts, and a laundromat that had offered Lampron a job reportedly rescinded the offer as a result of the controversy. Vickie Lampron declined to be interviewed for this story, so we spoke instead to Shay Totten, spokesman for the Vermont activist organization Rights and Democracy, of which Lampron is a member. Totten told us: Vickie is not a paid protester. She felt very strongly that she wanted to go to D.C. on behalf of herself and her granddaughters because she feared she was seeing women's rights on the line when it came to this Supreme Court nomination. We fundraised to send our members down so they dont have to pay out of pocket. But they dont make any money. Adam Schindler's tweets and video were picked up and widely shared by a large number of social media users and junk news sites, including the Gateway Pundit (which incorrectly referred to Schindler as a "reporter"), Your News Wire, and conspiracy trolling site Infowars. users Gateway Pundit Your News Wire Infowars RealClearPolitics meanwhile ran with the headline "Three Texas Doctors: We Saw Protesters Paid in Cash to Disrupt Brett Kavanaugh Hearing on Line to Enter." (We reached out to both Schindler and RealClearPolitics publisher Tom Bevan about their posts but received no response.) RealClearPolitics The images of a "paid protester" have popped up repeatedly since the 4 September hearing in the service of false claims that Kavanaugh's confirmation process was being picketed for profit instead of principle. popped up repeatedly A detail that many junk sites failed to pick up on was that the same day Schindler published his posts claiming to have witnessed the paying of protesters, he began walking those same claims back: Spoke to the protest organizer. She confirmed handing out cash, but said they intend cash to be used to pay fines they know come when protestors break the law. A small price to pay to be heard I suppose. #KavanaughConfirmation #KavanaughConfirmation  Adam W. Schindler (@AdamSchindler) September 5, 2018 September 5, 2018  On 6 September 2018, Schindler authored a blog post recounting his discussion with organizers from the activist group: authored I went back to the public ticket line mid-afternoon and approached the gentleman from the photos. I greeted him and the moment he saw me he hurried away. A woman sitting on the bench saw this and stepped in. She identified herself as Jennifer (Flynn Walker), the protest organizer from a group called Center for Popular Democracy. We had a very civil discussion about what they were doing and why. I made an audio recording of this conversation and it is posted in its entirety below. I have also transcribed some key moments in the conversation and posted them below. During our 12 minute discussion, a half dozen protestors gathered around and some participated. The gentleman in the photos did not. The protest leader confirmed her group was providing cash to protestors. She took issue with my use of the term payment, saying the provided cash was only to be used to pay the fines. I was unclear how she was able to enforce this vital distinction for her. But nonetheless, she, and the half dozen members surrounding us, all confirmed her group was giving cash to protestors. She then asked if I was interested in knowing the source of her cash. She had good instincts! I didnt even have to ask. I could sense her pride as she told an emotional story about how it was crowdsourced from donors across the nation. I asked if that was the only source of funding for this protest. I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her story. But I did doubt it was the only source of funds. She was quick to ask a clarifying question before answering, as her organization is funded with tens of millions of dollars from George Soros. A fact Im sure she was familiar with. But she said very precisely, Thats how we pay for the fines, yes. And that was that. Billionaire philanthropist George Soros contributes large sums of money toward progressive causes (the Center for Popular Democracy does receive funding from Soros, for example). He is also the boogeyman in many right-wing conspiracy theories that often veer into anti-Semitism, in which he is typically portrayed as a puppet master orchestrating a vague world take-over. boogeyman We found no evidence, however, to support the claim that Soros was directly paying out money to Kavanaugh hearing protesters, nor did we find evidence to support accusations that persons demonstrating at the hearings were there because they were being paid to protest. Schindler, Adam.  "Story Behind Kavanaugh 'Paid Protesters.'
  AdamSchindler.com.  6 September 2018. Hulse, Carl.  "A New Reality for Court Confirmations: Pandemonium, Protesters and Partisanship."
  The New York Times.  4 September 2018. Brown, Emma. "California Professor, Writer of Confidential Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation of Sexual Assault."
  The Washington Post  16 September 2018. Now deemed a holiday staple, "Home Alone" tells the story of the misadventures of Kevin, one of 11 children who was accidentally left at home when his family went on a Christmas vacation. And as the holiday season rolled around in 2021, some social media users pointed out that there was more to the behind-the-scenes lives of the actors that made up the fictional McCallister family. One such claim suggested that cousin Fuller was played by Kieren Culkin, the real-life younger brother of Macaulay Culkin.  This claim is true. The factoid was first shared to Twitter in December 2018 by the ChristmasMovieFacts, handle @XmasMovieFacts, and in the years since has been shared by other popular social media accounts, like @iamthirtyaf. @iamthirtyaf A look at the cast list on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) showed that Kieran Culkin, who played Kevin's cousin Fuller in "Home Alone," is indeed the younger Culkin sibling. According to IMDb, Kieran had one significant line in the first "Home Alone": IMDb Fuller McCallister: What time are we going to bed?Frank McCallister: Early, we're leaving the house at 8 AM, on the button.Kate McCallister: Hey, I hope you're all drinking milk, I want to get rid of it.Kate McCallister: [to Megan who is throwing food] Hey, don't you do that! A cross-reference of the young brother on IMDb profile also confirmed that the actor is one of six Culkin children. He would have been around 8 years old at the time of the release of the 1990 Christmas classic  two years younger than his IRL brother. Snopes also watched the classic and found that Kieran made his debut in the film just before the 8-minute mark. According to Entertainment Weekly, the part earned Kieran his first feature film credit. IMDb profile Entertainment Weekly Kieran also made an appearance in the sequel, "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." A photograph hosted by Getty Images showed the two brothers at the premier in 1992, when the boys would have been 10 and 12 years old. photograph  Macaulay Culkin and Kiernan Culkin. Ron Galella/Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images  Getty Images  "Culkin's real-life little brother, Kieran, portrayed his annoying cousin Fuller, in the Home Alone films. He has since starred in the Father of the Bride franchise, She's All That, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Quitters and Infinity Baby," wrote US Magazine in November 2021. wrote "Kieran appeared on Go Fish and a few episodes of Long Live the Royals before playing Roman Roy on Succession, which earned him both an Emmy and Golden Globe nomination in 2020." If you want to see for yourself, "Home Alone" can be streamed throughout the holiday season on Disney+. Sources Boardman, Madeline, et al. "'Home Alone': Where Are They Now?" EW.Com, https://ew.com/gallery/home-alone-where-are-they-now/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. Home Alone (1990) - IMDb. www.imdb.com, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099785/fullcredits. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. "'Home Alone' Cast: Where Are They Now?" Us Weekly, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/home-alone-cast-where-are-they-now/. "Kieran Culkin." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001085/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. "Macaulay Culkin and Kiernan Culkin." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/macaulay-culkin-and-kiernan-culkin-news-photo/82149204. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. https://twitter.com/XmasMovieFacts/status/1076301766436835328/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1076301766436835328%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2F%3Fp%3D386295post_type%3Dfact_checkpreview_id%3D386295. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. In late March 2019, a photograph supposedly showing piles of "worthless" currency thrown into gutters in Venezuela circulated on social media, attached to comments blaming socialism for the phenomenon behind the striking visual. One popular posting on Facebook was captioned, "This is a street in Venezuela. That's money in the gutter. It's worthless. Welcome to socialism.": Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of worthless money dumped in the gutter of a Venezuelan street. However, the accompanying caption presents an oversimplification of the series of events that led to this currency's worthlessness and its discarding by Venezuelan residents. The economic collapse in Venezuela that began in 2013 is a complex matter which can't be attributed to any single factor. News outlets such as Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Fox News have cited a wide range of issues that led to the country's current economic crisis, including plunging oil prices, government corruption, political unrest, and socialist policies. That brew of unfavorable economic conditions has spawned massive hyperinflation which has greatly devalued Venezuela's currency, as the Washington Post reported in January 2018: Bloomberg New York Times Fox News reported Hyperinflation is disorienting. Five or six years ago, 500 bolivars wouldve bought you a meal for two with wine at the best restaurant in Caracas. As late as early last year, they wouldve bought you at least a cup of coffee. At the end of 2016, they still bought you a cup of caf con leche, at least. Today, they buy you essentially nothing ... well, except for 132 gallons of the worlds most extravagantly subsidized gasoline. Although hyperinflation has indeed caused the bolivar to become all but worthless, the caption on this viral photograph is a bit misleading. The money shown lying in the gutter in this picture is Venezuela's old currency, the Bolvar Fuerte, which was replaced by a new form of currency, the Bolivar Soberano, in August 2018.  When the Bolivar Soberano was introduced, Bolvar Fuerte currency in amounts less than 1,000 ceased to be legal tender, and Bolivar Fuerte currency in all amounts was completely withdrawn on 5 December 2018.   Hence the discarded money seen here was literally worthless not because it had no value, because it had been completely replaced by a newer currency and was no longer legal tender. Here's an excerpt from a CNN report about the switch in currencies: CNN Venezuela issued a new currency in an attempt to bolster its crumbling economy as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation could hit one million percent this year. The move, part of a dramatic raft of measures aimed at halting runaway hyperinflation, comes as thousands of Venezuelans continue to flee across the border into neighboring countries amid food and medicine shortages, political turmoil and soaring crime rates. In a tweet posted following the unveiling of Venezuela's new currency, the country's president Nicolas Maduro hailed the recovery package as a "revolutionary formula." The new "Bolivar Soberano" currency is worth 100,000 "old" Bolivares. "We found the revolutionary formula that puts work in the center of the general re-adjustment of society, based on the production of goods and the value of salary. With that, we're gonna put to rest forever the perverse model that dollarized the prices in the country," tweeted Venezuela's 55-year-old leader. "I call on the people to defend -- conscientiously -- the adjustment of the prices on street," Maduro later said in another tweet. A bank holiday was declared, with banks remaining closed as the new currency took effect. The rebranded currency, which has five fewer zeroes than the country's previous currency and will be pegged to a cryptocurrency called the Petro, is intended to simplify transactions. The viral photograph was likely taken on 11 March 2019 and showed the aftermath of looting at a bank in the town of Merida. Local news outlet Maduradas.com compiled several other photographs of the incident and reported that the perpetrators had discarded the old money on the streets and even lit some of it on fire (translated via Google): Maduradas.com TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles (+Fotos) Este lunes 11 de marzo, encapuchados saquearon la agencia del banco Bicentenario en la avenida 3, de Glorias Patrias, en el estado Mrida. El hecho fue confirmado por el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional Williams Dvila, as como por el corresponsal de El Nacional en el estado Mrida, Leonardo Len. A travs de la red social Twitter, informaron que los ciudadanos esparcieron montones de billetes de viejo cono monetario en las calles, los cuales despus fueron incendiados. TERRIBLE! Hooded (vandals) sacked the bank Bicentenario in Merida and scattered bolivars of the old currency through the streets (+ Photos) On Monday, March 11, hooded (vandals) sacked the Bicentenario bank agency on Avenue 3, Glorias Patrias, in the state of Merida. The fact was confirmed by the deputy of the National Assembly Williams Dvila, as well as by the correspondent of El Nacional in the state of Mrida, Leonardo Len. Through the social network Twitter, they reported that citizens scattered piles of old money bills in the streets, which were then set on fire. Venezuelan journalists and social media users shared several other photographs of the scene: Ayer se produjo el saqueo de un banco bicentenario en la ciudad de Mrida, en las cercanas de la plaza Glorias Patrias. Los saqueadores incendiaron una pila de bolvares adems de dejar muchos billetes por el suelo. pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo  Descifrando la Guerra (@descifraguerra) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos,#12Mar,#solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos #12Mar #solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF  EntornoInteligente (@ENTORNOi) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  #MeridaBanco Bicentenario en Merida fue robado, slo haban billetes del viejo cono monetario que terminaron tapizando las calles del centro de la ciudadVenezuela es realismo magico y tragicoSarai Suarez pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70 #Merida pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70  Nellie B. Izarza ? ???? (@myteks) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  In short, the "money in gutters" image shown above captured an older and now invalid form of currency that was tossed aside after the looting of a bank, and not usable currency discarded by citizens because it had been made next to worthless due to "socialism." Sterling, Joe.  "Venezuela Issues New Currency, Amid Hyperinflation and Social Turmoil."
  CNN.  23 August 2018. Toro, Franciso.  "In Venezuela, Money Has Stopped Working."
  The Washington Post.  17 January 2018. Llorente, Elizabeth.  "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
  Fox News.  4 April 2019. The New York Times.  "The Crisis in Venezuela Was Years in the Making. Heres How It Happened."
  23 January 2019. Martin, Eric and Patricia Laya.  "What Broke Venezuela's Economy and What Could Fix It."
  Bloomberg.  9 March 2019. Maduradas.com.  "TERRIBLE! Encapuchados Saquearon Banco Bicentenario en Mrida y Esparcieron Bolvares Del Viejo Cono Monetario Por Las Calles (+Fotos)."
  12 March 2019. El Nacional.  "Billetes Inferiores a 1.000 Bolvares No Tendrn Valor a Partir del 20A."
  14 August 2018. 2001.com.ve.  "Bolvar Fuerte Circular Hasta el Mircoles 5 de Diciembre."
  Accessed 5 April 2019. In the days following a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 19 children and two adults dead, a quote from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger started circulating on social media. Burger, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1969 by then-President Richard Nixon and retired in 1986, supposedly said: The Gun Lobbys interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies  the militia  would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.  While these words truly originated with the conservative justice, the above-displayed meme cobbles together three different passages that Burger either wrote or spoke at different times.  The first part of this meme  "The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime"  comes from an interview Burger gave to PBS News in 1991.   The second part of this meme  "the real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state"  and the third part  "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires"  comes from an articles Burger wrote for The Associated Press about the Bill of Rights in 1991.   11 Dec 1991, Wed Record Searchlight (Redding, California) Newspapers.com  11 Dec 1991, Wed Record Searchlight (Redding, California) Newspapers.com Th "real purpose" quote can be seen in the article's fifth paragraph. The "very language" portion comes a two paragraphs later. Biskupic, Joan. Guns: A Second (Amendment) Look. Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm. Accessed 26 May 2022. Burger, Warren. Government Has Right to Regulate Guns. Associated Press, 11 Dec. 1991, p. 13. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/102574603/record-searchlight/. How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment | Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment. Accessed 26 May 2022. Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun (From Gun Control, P 99-102, 1992, Charles P Cozic, Ed. -- See NCJ-160164) | Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-right-own-gun-gun-control-p-99. Accessed 26 May 2022. Warren Burger and NRA: Gun Lobbys Big Fraud on Second Amendment. The Milwaukee Independent, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/warren-burger-and-nra-gun-lobbys-big-fraud-on-second-amendment/. Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. In February 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of social media posts and news articles which claimed that the U.S. economy had added 1.5 million more jobs during former President Barack Obama's final three years in office, than it did during President Donald Trump's first three years.  On Feb. 17, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, tweeted that Obama had "created 1.5 million more jobs in his last 3 years than Donald Trump has in his first 3 years." tweeted   Earlier, the left-leaning Democratic Coalition group posted a link to a Yahoo! News article with the headline "Trump's First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obama's Last 3," adding "FACT: New figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas  a decline of 19% under Trump." posted article   That article was itself a republication of a Feb. 10 report published by HuffPost, which read as follows: HuffPost "As President Donald Trump takes the stage at his reelection rally here [Manchester, New Hampshire] Monday and boasts of his economic record, there is one statistic he is likely to omit: He created 1.5 million fewer jobs in his first three years in office than predecessor Barack Obama did in his final three. Newly revised figures from Trumps own Department of Labor show that 6.6 million new jobs were created in the first 36 months of Trumps tenure, compared with 8.1 million in the final 36 months of Obamas  a decline of 19% under Trump, according to a HuffPost analysis." The HuffPost article didn't specify the exact metric it used in order to arrive at those numbers, but the standard figure used to gauge jobs growth in the United States is total, seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment, which is released every month as part of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) establishment survey, in which BLS collects data from a sample of around 145,000 businesses and government agencies throughout the country. establishment survey When a news headline states that, for example, the economy "added 225,000 Jobs in January," that's typically a reference to seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll employment and it means there were 225,000 more jobs in the United States in January 2020, than there were in December 2019.  news headline states Once a year, the BLS revises its employment data after consulting more official figures collected from each state's unemployment insurance agency. This "benchmark" revision process enhances the accuracy of jobs figures and typically results in retrospective adjustments to employment statistics from every month over the preceding 10 years.  benchmark That's what happened on Feb. 7, when the BLS released both the preliminary employment figures for January and revised jobs numbers from 2010 through 2019. Those revisions meant that jobs growth in 2018 turned out to be slower than was originally recorded, prompting Slate to report that: released Slate "On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest batch of employment numbers, along with its annual benchmark revisions adjusting its estimates from prior months. Before, the government believed that the U.S. had added 223,000 jobs per month in 2018, the year that the GOPs tax cuts and new, higher spending levels took effect. It has now lowered that estimate to 193,000 per month, a significant drop." For its part, MSNBC wrote that: MSNBC The revisions for 2019 showed that the economy generated nearly 2.1 million jobs last year, which is a pretty good number. The trouble, however, is the job totals from last year were down from the year before, and were actually the lowest since 2011. Or put another way, while Trump spent the year boasting that the U.S. job market was the strongest it's ever been, 2019 saw job growth slow to an eight-year low. What's more, the best year for jobs during Trump's presidency  2.31 million in 2018  fails to reach the job growth in any of the three final years of Barack Obama's presidency. It adds a degree of irony to his rhetorical record: Trump ran for president in 2015 and 2016, telling the nation that the economy was horrible and he'd make it vastly better. But annual job growth totals from both 2015 and 2016 were better than any year of the Republican's tenure, at least so far. Taking this one step further, Trump has now been in office for 36 full months  February 2017 through January 2020  and in that time, the economy has created 6.56 million jobs. In the 36 months preceding Trump's presidency  February 2014 to January 2017  the economy created 8.08 million jobs. Before we present the figures at the heart of this fact check, it should be noted that as a rule, politicians overstate their influence over the economy when indicators are healthy, and downplay their influence when things are bad. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times, before Trump's inauguration in January 2017: wrote "The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy. Even in areas where the president really does have power to shape the economy  appointing Federal Reserve governors, steering fiscal and regulatory policy, responding to crises and external shocks  the relationship between presidential action and economic outcome is often uncertain and hard to prove." However, Trump himself has repeatedly insisted on tying positive economic indicators like employment growth to his own presidency. So even if we might dispute the premise that presidents should receive unqualified praise or blame when the economy grows or tanks, it's worth checking the numbers involved. After all, if Trump proposes that he is to be thanked for employment growth, his own logic dictates that he should be blamed if that rate of growth is slowing down. insisted In order to measure and compare jobs growth during Obama's final three years in office and jobs growth during Trump's first three, we obtained a data set containing 10 years' worth of monthly non-farm payroll employment figures, which BLS confirmed for Snopes was the most reliable and up-to-date data set available, and took into account the February 2020 benchmark revisions. The spreadsheet can be downloaded here, and the table is shown below: here   It's important to note that the monthly employment figures for December 2019 and January 2020 are both still preliminary. The January 2020 figure will be revised in March, and all the monthly figures shown in the table are liable to be further revised in 2021, when BLS conducts its annual benchmark revisions again.  There are several potential ways to compare jobs growth under Obama and Trump, depending on where you place the transition between the two administrations. Since Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2017, there is a case for "starting the clock" in January 2017, but also for starting it in February 2017, since that was his first full month in office. If the purpose of the comparison is to gauge the possible influence of a presidency on employment trends, one could also measure jobs growth starting in November 2016, since that's when Trump was actually elected, or in December 2016, since that was the first full month of what could be described as the "Trump era." Finally, if one wished to use only the most reliable figures available, and exclude the preliminary data from December 2019 and January 2020, one could track jobs growth for just the first 34 months of Trump's presidency (from February 2017 to November 2019), and compare that to the final 34 months of Obama's tenure (from April 2014 to January 2017). The following table takes into account all five methods. Each of them demonstrates that the final three years of Obama's presidency saw significantly superior jobs growth than the first three years of Trump's presidency.   As the table shows, Obama's final three years in office saw significantly greater jobs growth than Trump's fist three years did, no matter where the transition between presidencies is placed. Across the first four different methods, the gap averages out at around 1.5 million jobs  meaning the claim at the center of this fact check was accurate. Employment has grown during the first three years of Trump's presidency, but at a significantly slower rate than it did towards the end of Obama's tenure  across the first four methods used here, jobs growth under Trump has averaged out at around 19% slower than the rate of growth experienced during his predecessor's final three years in office. When we exclude the two months of preliminary data (December 2019 and January 2020) and compare blocks of 34 months each (as opposed to blocks of 36 months), the jobs growth gap is naturally slightly smaller (because the time periods in question are slightly shorter), but the gap in the rate of growth is still significant, with Trump's presidency seeing employment grow 18.2% more slowly than it did during the final 34 months of Obama's time in office. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3."
  Yahoo! News. 10 February 2020. Date, S.V. "Trumps First 3 Years Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obamas Last 3."
  HuffPost. 10 February 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Economic News Release -- the Employment Situation, January 2020."
  7 February 2020. Weissmann, Jordan. "Trumps Jobs Record Is Weaker Than Everyone Thought."
  Slate. 7 February 2020. Benen, Steve. "The Nagging Detail About Job Growth Trump Probably Won't Like."
  MSNBC. 7 February 2020. Irwin, Neil. "Presidents Have Less Power Over the Economy Than You Might Think."
  The New York Times. 17 January 2017. Boak, Josh; Miller, Zeke. "Trump Claims Credit for Economy, Jobs in New York Speech."
  The Associated Press. 12 November 2019.