Did Pelosi Decry Trump's Police Tactics While Funding Them?
As a comedian who claims he sees the faults in both major U.S. political parties, Jimmy Dore said this to fans amid clashes between Portland, Oregon, protesters and federal agents operating under a plan by U.S. President Donald Trump in July 2020: the country's top Democrats are misleading you. Jimmy Dore In a video posted on July 22, 2020, Dore claimed U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were quick to use Twitter to push back against what started as a Trump-led initiative to deploy federal militarized officers in cities where people were protesting for the removal of racist monuments and against police brutality following George Floyd's in-custody death in May 2020. video initiative federal militarized officers George Floyd's Meanwhile, Dore claimed the same Democrats were working on legislation that would fund the exact law-enforcement effort to which they were outwardly opposed  the Trump-sponsored plan that resulted in chaotic street clashes between the officers and Americans who said they were rightfully exercising their First Amendment rights, and raised questions over the constitutional authority of federal law enforcement agencies.   Referring to groups of armed federal officers who wore camouflage body armor and were patrolling downtown Portland at the time of this analysis, Dore said: camouflage body armor You know whos not even trying to stop them? Nancy Pelosi. You know whos actually empowering that very thing to happen? You know whos giving Trump the soldiers, the goons, and the money to send those people in there without stopping them? ... Nancy Pelosi is giving Trumps Homeland Security, who those goons are, all the money they want with no strings attached. She could say, 'Well fund you, but inside this funding bill you cannot send federal troops into local municipalities, unless youre invited.' Shes not doing that  the Democrats arent doing that. ... There's Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful people in government, not doing anything but pretending to be outraged. The claim at its core was multifaceted: that Pelosi made clear in public statements that she opposed the Trump administration's use of federal agents in American cities including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Portland in the aftermath of Floyd's death, and that she was concurrently working on a policy proposal that would cover the cost of similar militarized efforts in the future. Floyd Below examines the truth of those assertions based on federal legislative records; Pelosi's office did not respond to Snopes' request for comment on the accusations. In an email to Snopes, a representative for Dore said he wanted to expose his viewers to the idea that House Democrats were "refusing to use their majority status to counter Trump," and that he based his argument on an article by a former speech writer for 2020 presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders named David Sirota. That report alleged: article Indeed, at times it almost seems as if Democrats are engaging in deliberate performance art to try to dare us to care about this bait and switch  as if they really cannot believe we are all this ignorant or asleep to not even notice the swindle. First, let's provide some context. Trump signed an executive order on June 26, 2020, giving several federal agencies the authority to join the Federal Protective Service  which is a section of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that aims to protect government properties  on patrols during demonstrations. executive order Federal Protective Service Homeland Security   Neither that order, nor other federal records, said how many agents would be participating in the effort, or what department they worked for. However, DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Kenneth Cuccinelli told reporters tactical units from the DHS' Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) were part of the president's directive. Other reports said officers from a group known as BORTAC  the CBP equivalent of a SWAT team that normally investigates drug-smuggling crimes  was also deployed. told reporters reports That said, the DHS was among the leading agencies in the federal government's response to the protests, making an investigation into that department's funding proposals the most appropriate avenue to determine the legitimacy of the claim. We reached out to DHS, asking for its response to critics like Dore who believed the DHS should not receive federal funding until it removes its officers from protest sites, but did not hear back as of this writing. David Lapan, a former spokesman for the DHS and Department of Defense, however, said in a blog post: said The creation of DHS [in 2002] was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. ... While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portlands protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place. Next, we'll address the first part of the claim: that Pelosi decried the Trump-led operation, which devolved into federal officers using tear gas and firing less-than-lethal rounds into crowds of people almost nightly in Portland, and an incident in which a federal officer threw an impact munition at a 26-year-old man, fracturing his skull and sending him to the hospital. (That incident was also captured on video.)  video. While individual offices of several Democratic leaders made public statements about the federal use of force against citizens, we are only focusing on comments specifically by Pelosi, since she is the only member of Congress with the legal authority to decide on what legislation the House votes on, and because she was the main target of Dore's video. Upon our analysis of Pelosi's press announcements, media appearances, and social media posts since Trump made the directive, a series of tweets from her official account on July 17, 2020, appeared to be the first record of the House Speaker's dissent from the presidential administration's plan. series of tweets   The following day, her office sponsored a news release that said the House was committed to "moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power" by Trump, without providing specifics, and referred to reports of federal agents in Portland using unmarked vehicles to "kidnap" protesters. (See our investigation into the truth of that claim here). news release here Then, five days later, Pelosi endorsed another statement alleging that the "anonymous federal law enforcement agents" were silencing "peaceful protesters with violence," and made the following comment at a news conference:  statement news conference The use of storm troopers under the guise of law and order is a tactic that is not appropriate to our country in any way.  To recap, it was truthful to say that Pelosi criticized how federal agents responded to American protests in summer 2020, and that at least some of those officers represented DHS. Now, we'll examine the more complicated aspect of the claim: that Pelosi was working under the public's radar to prepare legislation that would set aside taxpayer dollars to pay to deploy federal law enforcement officers in U.S. cities in line with Trump's June order. To explore that question, we analyzed the agendas of House committees in July 2020 and looked for proposals that would apply to DHS considering its role in the protests. We learned the House Committee on Appropriations  to which Pelosi does not belong  released a more than $50 billion proposal on July 6, 2020, that explained how the committee would like to fund the department in 2021. The annual DHS budget bill was framed by the House committee as a compromise with Trump's wishes for all offices within the department, which included aggressive funding to continue building a concrete-steel wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. During our read of the draft legislation, we considered the various arms of federal government to which the DHS oversees, in addition to those that had provided law enforcement at protests, such as: does not belong released Trump's wishes aggressive funding building a concrete-steel wall such as Among numerous provisions, the proposal would set aside roughly $14.6 billion for the CBP to hire new officers, among other border-security efforts, and about $7.4 billion for ICE. In total, it would set aside $50.72 billion in discretionary funding  including roughly the same amount as the country's 2020 budget for non-military units  while boosting funding for defense operations by roughly $250 million, disaster relief by $5.1 billion, and military operations overseas by $215 million. country's 2020 budget However, nowhere in the roughly 85-page piece of legislation did the committee request federal dollars in 2021 to cover the cost of sending federal agents to U.S. cities to mitigate damage to federal properties during protests. roughly 85-page piece of legislation On July 15, 2020, the House committee  which is comprised of 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans  amended the legislation so ICE would be unable to use 2021 funding for a public education program, among other changes that essentially added stipulations for how and under what circumstances DHS could use portions of the money. But no amendment pertained to the use of militarized tactics during protests in American cities. July 15, 2020 public education program In other words  yes, like Dore somewhat alleges  House Democrats could in theory include language in the proposal that would only allow the DHS to receive certain funding if it agreed not to participate in the controversial law-enforcement effort.   The committee approved the budget bill, and it was introduced to the House on July 20, 2020. But as of this writing, it was unclear when or if Pelosi would preside over a hearing in which the full House would consider the proposal, titled H.R. 7669. Also undetermined was if or to what extent representatives would lump the DHS spending plan into a wide-sweeping policy package governing other aspects of federal government  such as its response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic  which is typically the process for such budget-making. committee approved titled H.R. 7669. wide-sweeping policy package coronavirus The House clerk's online calendar for the week of July 27, 2020, listed the legislation as an item "that may be considered" on the House floor in the coming days, without any more scheduling details. July 27, 2020 At least two Democratic representatives, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, asked Pelosi not to schedule the bill for a floor hearing in light of the 2020 protests. They wrote in a statement: Rep. Pramila Jayapal Mark Pocan of Wisconsin wrote The Progressive Caucus has long-standing objections to the DHS Appropriations bill, which would fund [Trump-sponsored] programs and thereby sanction the horrific violations of human rights and due process by ICE, CBP and other agencies. Without the inclusion of additional necessary reforms, we believe that the Democratic Leadership should not attempt to pass Homeland Security funding by tying it to essential coronavirus research, education, and housing funding. Now, back to the claim in question. Yes, it was accurate to say members of the House were working on a DHS budget plan in July 2020  when Pelosi and other leading Democrats were issuing public statements against the very actions of federal officers who belonged to the department. However, Pelosi had not voted on or publicly discussed the budget bill as of this report, and given the fact that she did not respond to Snopes' request for interview, there was no available evidence to prove that she agreed  or disagreed  with the proposal. Put another way: It would be false to assert that Pelosi supported the funding proposal, as the claim stated, since it was so far only approved by the House Committee on Appropriations and awaiting a House vote. Additionally, while H.R. 7669, as written, would not explicitly prohibit the use of DHS officers to protect federal properties during demonstrations, it would be misleading to claim the legislation would pump federal dollars toward such law-enforcement efforts directly. The bill, instead, would authorize the DHS to decide how to divvy up some parts of its budget  which could include funding DHS agencies that were involved in the 2020 protests  but we have no proof to affirmatively state that the proposal would pay for the controversial policing tactics in the future. In sum, while it was unequivocally true to say Pelosi criticized the actions of federal agents in U.S. cities during protests in 2020, it was false to claim she simultaneously supported a budget bill that contradicted her public stance, and that that legislation would most definitely pay for militarized policing during demonstrations in U.S. cities  with the caveat that House leaders, including Pelosi, always maintained the authority to determine how and under what circumstances DHS could use federal dollars in the future. Lapan, David. "Former DHS And Defense Dept. Spokesperson: Trump's Response To Civil Unrest In Portland Is Damaging To Our Government And Our Democracy".
 Just Security. 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "DHS Budget".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Appropriations Committee. "FY21 Homeland Security & Financial Services Appropriations Bills".
 15 July 2020. Soskin, Ben. "Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, DHS Appropriations Subcommittee Approve FY 2021 DHS Funding Bill".
 Press Releases. 7 July 2020. Spaulding, Suzanne. "Senior Adviser, Homeland Security, International Security Program".
 Center For Strategic And International Studies. Accessed 27 July 2020. Lapan, David. "Vice President of Communications".
 Bipartisan Policy Center. Accessed 27 July 2020. Homeland Security. "Congressional Budget Justification FY 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Report Of The Committee On Appropriations".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021. "Full Committee Print".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding Bill".
 6 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2021 Homeland Security Funding bill". 15 July 2020. House Committee on Appropriations. "House To Consider Seven-Bill Appropriations Minibus Next Week".
 20 July 2020. House Appropriations. "Division-By-Division Summary".
 Accessed 27 July 2020.  EveryCRSReport.com. "DHS Budget Request Analysis: FY2021".
 1 April 2020. Homeland Security. "FY 2021 Budget In Brief".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. National Immigration Forum. "The President's Budget Request For The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS): Fiscal Year (FY) 2021".
 27 February 2020. Altman, Heidi. "Principles For Negotiating a DHS Budget".
 National Immigrant Justice Center. 27 January 2019. Grim, Ryan. "As Trump Threatens Secret Police Deployment Nationwide, Democrats Debate Expanding Surveillance Powers And New Money For DHS".
 The Intercept. 21 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Homeland Subcommittee Approves FY21 DHS Budget Bill".
 MeriTalk. 7 July 2020. Malone, Katie. "House Approps Proposes FY2021 Funding Bumps For DHS, CISA".
 MeriTalk. 6 July 2020. House Committee On Appropriations. "FY 2021 Homeland Security Subcommittee Markup".
 7 July 2020. Blitzer, Jonathan. "Is It Time To Defund The Department Of Homeland Security?"
 The New Yorker. 24 July 2020. Graff, Garrett. "The Federal Crackdown In Portland Is 'Legal.' That's The Problem With It".
 The Washington Post. 22 July 2020. Wolf, Chad. "Homeland Security Chief: To Attack Our Monuments Is To Attack America".
 The Federalist. 3 July 2020. Kanno-Youngs, Zolan. "Homeland Security Turns To Defunding Statues Amid Questions Over Priorities".
 New York Times. 10 July 2020. Baker, et. al. "Cities In Bind As Turmoil Spreads Far Beyond Portland".
 New York Times. 26 July 2020. Klippenstein, Ken. "The Border Patrol Was Responsible For An Arrest In Portland".
 The Nation. 17 July 2020. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Congressional Progressive Caucus Asks Leadership Not To Bring DHS Funding Bill To The Floor".
 22 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H.R. 7617 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Act, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Congress.gov. "H. Rept. 116-453 - Department Of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2021".
 Accessed 27 July 2020. Bills To Be Considered On The House Floor. "Text Of Bills For The Week of Jul. 27, 2020".
 24 July 2020. McQuade, Barbara. "Why Trump's Military Tactics In Portland Will Likely Backfire".
 New York Intelligencer. 18 July 2020. Sirota, David. "Dems' Sternly Worded Letter Won't Stop Fascism".
 Too Much Information. 20 July 2020. Barrett, Devlin and Miroff, Nick. "Trump Administration Sending More Federal Agents To Reinforce Portland Courthouse".
 Washington Post. 27 July 2020.
In mid-2017, an article published on the web site Women's News (WNews.world) gained notoriety among social media users, thanks to its outlandish claim that an Indonesian woman deceased for three years not only returned to life and walked among the living, but was actually photographed doing so:  article The text of the article makes reference to a "special rite" used by the locals to bring the corpse back to life: In Indonesia, in the town of Toraja, a woman leaves her grave after being dead for 3 years. Fortunately, this event was caught on camera and its the evidence of how this woman was resurrected after that much time. There is no doubt that this is a frightening and surprising fact. They say that in order to bring her back to life, a special rite is performed in the place of the womans tomb. The premise struck us as both preposterous and familiar, so we dug deeper and found many other versions, including one that was posted to the snopes.com message board in September 2010: posted   We found an even older version posted on an Indonesian blog in November 2009. It included the writer's personal reminiscences around witnessing a "walking corpse" in his or her youth (although the narrative suffers a bit due to machine translation): posted The story of a dead corpse has been around since time immemorial. Hundreds of years ago it was said that there was a civil war in Tana Toraja namely the Toraja West fought against the East Toraja people. In the battle the West Toraja was defeated because most of them were killed, but at the time of going home their entire corpse of the Toraja West was walking, while the East Toraja people though only a few were killed but they took the corpses of their dead brother, Then the war is considered a series. On the next offspring the Toraja people often bury their corpses by way of the corpse walking alone to the grave. The phenomenon of "Walking bodies" that I myself have witnessed directly. The incident occurred around the year 1992 (I'm new grade 3 elementary). At that time in my village there was a man named Pongbarrak whose mother died. Such as Toraja custom the corpse is not directly buried but still has to go through a customary procession of burial (signs solo '). At that time after bathing the dead body of the mother is placed in bed in a special room before it is inserted into the coffin. On the third night the whole family gathered to talk about how the funeral procession would take place. At that time I sat on the porch of the house understand the children so like to pace. But after the meeting is over (around 10 pm), suddenly there is a noise in the house where some mothers shout. Out of curiosity I tried to look into the house and the dead man was walking out of the room, just cash me and my friends screamed hysterically and ran down the stairs. I ran and got my dad hysterically scared. After that I was taken home by father and I do not know what happened next.  Common to every variant we've encountered are references to the Tana Toraja region of South Sulawesi, an island in Indonesia. (If you've ever tasted any of the earthy, subtly spicy coffees imported from Sulawesi, odds are the beans were grown and hand-harvested in Tana Toraja.) Nor is it a coincidence that virtually every travel guide offering information about the remote location spotlights certain "peculiar," "complex," and purportedly "gruesome" funerary practices found there (practices that are indeed so unusual and elaborate that entire books have been written about them and tourists flock to record them on their mobile devices). The more we learned about these traditions, the more we became convinced they were the inspiration for tales about Indonesia's so-called "walking dead." Tana Toraja books flock It's unclear precisely how long the Toraja people, who descended from Austronesian speakers living in central Sulawesi well before Europeans arrived in the 1500s, have inhabited the island. During the 1700s, the Toraja population was driven into the southern mountains (where the majority of them are still concentrated) by another ethnic subgroup, the Buginese. Although most Toraja now identify as Christian or Muslim, many still honor beliefs and customs handed down from their ancestors  beliefs and customs in which death takes center stage. Anthropologist Kelli Swazey described the Torajans' intimate, intricate relationship with the dead in a 2013 TED Talk entitled "Life that Doesn't End with Death": Life that Doesn't End with Death In Tana Toraja, the most important social moments in people's lives, the focal points of social and cultural interaction are not weddings or births or even family dinners, but funerals. So these funerals are characterized by elaborate rituals that tie people in a system of reciprocal debt based on the amount of animals  pigs, chickens and, most importantly, water buffalo -- that are sacrificed and distributed in the name of the deceased. So this cultural complex surrounding death, the ritual enactment of the end of life, has made death the most visible and remarkable aspect of Toraja's landscape. Lasting anywhere from a few days to a few weeks, funeral ceremonies are a raucous affair, where commemorating someone who's died is not so much a private sadness but more of a publicly shared transition. And it's a transition that's just as much about the identity of the living as it is about remembrance of the dead. In Toraja society, Swazey explains, death is seen as a process -- and a lengthy process, at that -- rather than as a singular event: So where we see an unquestionable reality, death as an irrefutable biological condition, Torajans see the expired corporeal form as part of a larger social genesis. So again, the physical cessation of life is not the same as death. In fact, a member of society is only truly dead when the extended family can agree upon and marshal the resources necessary to hold a funeral ceremony that is considered appropriate in terms of resources for the status of the deceased. And this ceremony has to take place in front of the eyes of the whole community with everyone's participation.... Until the funeral ceremony, which can be held years after a person's physical death, the deceased is referred to as "to makala," a sick person, or "to mama," a person who is asleep, and they continue to be a member of the household. They are symbolically fed and cared for, and the family at this time will begin a number of ritual injunctions, which communicates to the wider community around them that one of their members is undergoing the transition from this life into the afterlife known as Puya. So I know what some of you must be thinking right now. Is she really saying that these people live with the bodies of their dead relatives? And that's exactly what I'm saying. A National Geographic video shot in 2016 provides brief glimpses into Tana Toraja death and burial rites (warning: includes graphic scenes of animal sacrifice): rites Of particular interest with regard to the "walking dead" tales we're investigating is the ma'nene ceremony, in which the mummified corpses of dead family members are exhumed, washed, reclothed, and walked through the center of town, examples can be seen both in the latter half of the National Geographic video above and this tourist video uploaded to YouTube in 2016: video Bringing our investigation full circle, Loyola University anthropology professor Kathleen Adams, who spent two years in Tana Toraja observing the lives and culture of its people, confirmed in an interview with Loyola Magazine that the "walking dead" stories represent a corrupted version of the truth: interview What started happening, as best as I can piece together, was migrants who had moved to Jakarta and other parts of Indonesia, who were often second-generation migrants, were coming back, Adams says. The city folk would want a picture next to their deceased relatives, and the images started circulating on Facebook. Toraja became suddenly internationally associated with this idea of the walking dead and zombies. That's not to say that concept is entirely foreign to the culture. "Torajans also tell stories about corpses that walk on their own to their final resting place," Kelli Swazey told us via e-mail: Many Torajans relate that in the past, powerful ritual practitioners could make a corpse walk on its own. This practice is not done anymore, according to many Torajans, because it is a kind of magic that is not appropriate for modern Christians, and the majority of Torajans identify as Protestant Christians today. In addition, there are many stories of other kinds of revenants that the living encounter in Indonesia, so the circulation of these kinds of stories is quite common in the Indonesian media. So, folklore and media sensationalism notwithstanding, do the deceased really rise from their graves and walk in Tana Toraja, Sulawesi? Yes, but no  not literally. They do so only with the help of surviving family members, who continue to demonstrate their love and devotion long after the physical bodies of their loved ones have gone quiet. The photograph does not show an actual zombie. Bennett, Amanda.  "When Death Doesn't Mean Goodbye."
  National Geographic,  March 2016. Gaynor, Anna.  "One Culture's Unique Rituals for the Dead Have a Lot to Teach Us About Life."
  Loyola Magazine.  Accessed 12 July 2017. Kugel, Seth.  "In Indonesia, A Region Where Death Is a Lure."
  The New York Times.  30 July 2015. Swazey, Kelli.  "Life that Doesn't End with Death."
  TED Talks.  April 2013. Tomkiw, Lydia.  "Funeral Tourism in Sulawesi: Is It Ethical?"
  CNN.  27 March 2013. WB, Stephen.  "Walking Dead Version Toraja."
  Mamasa Online.  10 November 2009. Encyclopaedia Britannica.  "Toraja."
  Accessed 12 July 2017. Lonely Planet.  "Introducing Tana Toraja."
  Accessed 12 July 2017. Women's News.  "Woman Comes Out from Her Grave and Walks After 3 Years of Being Dead."
  Accessed 12 July 2017. 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. Urging the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to choose a president who prioritizes jobs and rising wages for all communities, a Texas group said African Americans in the state have fared poorly on both fronts. The Texas Organizing Project,which saysit promotes social and economic equality for low- to moderate-income residents, joined labor unions in calling on the Fed, which has kept interest rates near zero since 2008 to spur business lending, not to raise interest rates and focus instead on full employment and higher wages, according to a March 4, 2015,news storyin theDallas Morning News. The project got our attention in a March 2015press releasewith this: Although the economy is adding jobs, the unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. We sought elaboration. Report offered as backup To our inquiry, a project spokesman, Daniel Barrera, pointed us by email to a March 2015 report by the Brooklyn-based Center for Popular Democracy, which says it promotes equity, opportunity and a dynamic democracy. The report,Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,presents charts with the cited figures, which the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute based on federal wage and employment data. One chart says the 2014 Texas black unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, was more than twice the states white unemployment rate of 3.7 percent; the 2014 Hispanic jobless rate was 5.3 percent. Conditions may have been better in Texas than elsewhere over those years. Nationally, according to the report, black-white unemployment disparities were greatest in Wisconsin (the black jobless rate was 4.6 times the white rate), and Minnesota (the black rate was 3.7 times the white rate). Another chart in the report indicates median hourly wages of Texas whites and Hispanics increased 8 and 2.9 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2014 while median hourly wages of black Texans decreased 0.8 percent. We wondered if blacks saw falling wages by this measure all through those years. They did not: To our inquiry, the Economic Policy Institute provided year-by-year data showing the hourly median for black Texans decreased in six years while going up in eight years. Through the period, the real median wage for Texas African Americans bottomed out at $13.61 in 2008. It crested at $15.18 in 2012. Nationally at the end of the 15-year period, median real wages of African-American workers were down even more than in Texas alone, according to the report. That is, the national median real hourly wage for African Americans in 2014 was $13.97, about 3 percent less than the comparable median of $14.41 in 2000. Also, according to the report, other states had bigger differences between the first and last years studied. Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015  Source:Report, Wall Street, Main Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserves Full-Employment Mandate,  Center for Popular Democracy, April 6, 2015 And why? Missing from the report: Why the differences between black workers and others? When we called to ask about that, Ady Barkan, a center official, suggested multiple longstanding factors including racism and differences between blacks and whites in education levels and rates of incarceration. By email, Barkan also pointed out aJuly 2011 issue paperfrom the liberal Center for American Progress noting, among reasons, that in each of the latest U.S. recessions, blacks were most often the first employees fired and the last ones hired (once each recession was ending). We asked the Economic Policy Institute why black unemployment in Texas appeared to be runninghigher than white and Hispanic unemployment. Josh Bivens,director of research and policy, said by email this may be because of discrimination in the labor market and pre-labor market. And whats the pre-labor market? Bivens said residential segregation can lead to blacks going tolower-quality primary and secondary schools, potentially resulting in lower levels of educational achievement and less lucrative jobs. We also sought an explanation of the cited differences from Chris King, director of the Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas. By email, King said labor economists would  explain higher unemployment among blacks/African Americans nationally by pointing out that African Americans tend to have lower levels of education and be employed in lower-paying occupations and industries than whites. King elaborated by pointing out Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering 2011 showing black men more likely to work in service, production, transportation and material moving jobs. Conversely, he wrote, black men were less likely to work in professional and managerial jobs than whites; the picture was similar, he said, for black women. (See his full reply here.) Another view Separately to our inquiry, analyst Chuck DeVore of the conservativeTexas Public Policy Foundation suggested real median hourly wage estimates used by the institute may deliver an incomplete picture of economic well being. People dont live on wages alone, DeVore said, adding that a more accurate indicator of wealth would be household income, folding in Social Security, inheritances and any other financial assistance.See more on this aspect here. Our ruling The Texas Organizing Project said: The unemployment rate among blacks in Texas is 9.5% -- far more than double white unemployment -- and wages have fallen for black workers in Texas since 2000. Texas African Americans may not have been as bad off as residents of other states, and this claim doesnt acknowledge wage fluctuations over the years. Regardless, evidence shows Texas blacks having a higher unemployment rate than fellow Texans and also being the lone group with lower wages in 2014 than in 2000. We rate the statement 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. In October and November 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of social media posts that claimed that the Build Back Better Act, a major budget and infrastructure bill, contained a "methane tax" of around $2,600 per head of cattle, and around $500 per swine, per year.  For example, one widely-shared Facebook post claimed: widely-shared Facebook post "Were you aware the $3.5 Trillion Human Infrastructure package includes an animal agriculture tax of $2,600!! per head of cattle? $500 for swine!!!..." The post contained a photograph of a column written by U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma. In the column, which was also posted to his website on Sep. 22, Mullin claimed that: posted to his website on Sep. 22 In an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, this legislation [the Build Back Better Act] would impose a fee on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry. We all know that a fee is just a tax and that consumers are the ones who will pay for it. The tax is estimated to cost $6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine each year. That is more than what the animals are worth, itll run ranchers out of business.    Mullin's description of the provisions of the bill was inaccurate, as were the numerous social media posts based on it. At the time those claims were made, and as of Nov. 2, 2021, the Build Back Better Act did not contain a tax or fee on methane that would equate to thousands of dollars per head of cattle, or hundreds of dollars per head of swine. As a result, we are issuing a rating of  H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, is a 2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill, and has been the subject of intensive negotiations during the fall of 2021. Section 30114 of the legislation provides for a "methane fee," but it applies only to "petroleum and natural gas systems," and not the agriculture sector. Therefore, Mullin's claim  that "this legislation would impose a 'fee' on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry"  is false.  2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill A spokesperson for Mullin told Politifact that the congressman was referring to an amendment to the bill, proposed by Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would have explicitly stipulated that the methane fee does not apply to agriculture. Democrats voted down that proposal, on the basis that the text of the legislation already explicitly stipulated that the fee related only to oil and gas production.  told Politifact amendment While expressing concern about hypothetical future actions on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the spokesperson effectively acknowledged that the Build Back Better Act does not currently do what Mullin claimed it did: "While the language specifies the oil and gas industry, it also references EPAs greenhouse gas inventory and leaves too much room for the EPA to expand its regulatory reach." The same spokesperson also told Politifact that the key figures from Mullin's op-ed  "$6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine"  came from an analysis prepared by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). However, the AFBF later issued its own news release, clarifying that the analysis was conducted in order to address an entirely hypothetical question, namely what the effect of a methane tax would be if it were applied to the agriculture industry  a proposal that no participants in Congressional negotiations have so far made.  In that Sept. 30 news release, AFBF Vice President Sam Kieffer said: Sept. 30 news release Over the summer, American Farm Bureau economists conducted an analysis, at the request of Congressional committee staff, to determine the potential impact if agriculture were to be included in legislation imposing such a tax. We did so based on the formula set forth in legislative proposals that impose a methane tax on the oil and gas sectors.  ...While we oppose any tax on methane, Farm Bureau is grateful to lawmakers for recognizing the thin margins in agriculture and that such a tax would undoubtedly put family farms out of business. We are especially grateful to the Senate for passing an amendment that specifically exempts agriculture. That Senate amendment was one proposed by U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10. It prohibited "the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock." passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10 On 15 April 2019, as firefighters rushed to save the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris from a fire, a slew of bad actors started to spread an unfounded narrative that blamed the fire on Muslims and connected the incident, which is being investigated as an accident by authorities, to churches that had been recently vandalized in France.  unfounded narrative connected accident The Facebook page 1776TV.com, for instance, shared a map that supposedly showed churches "destroyed" in France over the last four years: shared   This map comes from the christianophobie.fr, a website dedicated to tracking acts of "Christianophobia" in France and the rest of the world. While this image is often shared as if it shows all of the churches that were "destroyed" in France, this map actually documents a wide range of nefarious activity, such as vandalism, theft, and arson, that occurred at both churches and cemeteries over an apparent span of two years (not four), covering 2017 and 2018. christianophobie.fr It should also be noted that while this map does document some relatively serious crimes, such as arson or the toppling of church statues, many of these pins correspond to graffiti-related incidents. We also found one pin related to a person's simply interrupting a church service. This map does not show churches that have been destroyed in France. However, it does correspond with what French authorities have reported concerning vandalism at places of worship in the country. Newsweek reported in March 2019 that France had seen a "spate of attacks" against Catholic churches: Newsweek France has seen a spate of attacks against Catholic churches since the start of the year, vandalism that has included arson and desecration. Vandals have smashed statues, knocked down tabernacles, scattered or destroyed the Eucharist and torn down crosses, sparking fears of a rise in anti-Catholic sentiment in the country. In March 2019, France's central criminal intelligence service, SCRC, reported that there were approximately 875 acts of vandalism against Catholic churches in 2018. The Ministry of the Interior came to a similar conclusion. Ministry of the Interior The Ministry of the Interior released a report in February 2019 that tallied the number of acts of degradation (or vandalism) against various religious establishments. The Ministry found that there were 1,063 anti-Christian acts in 2018 (approximately 700 of which related to property crimes and 100 of which related to violent acts), 541 anti-semitic acts (81 of which were related to violence, 102 related to property crimes), and 100 anti-Muslim acts. The Ministry stated that one reason churches were targeted more frequently than the places of worship of other religions was that France simply had more churches. France is home to approximately 40,000 churches: stated 40,000 churches "The ministry also said that the large number of degrades to Christian sites was partly explained by the higher number of churches compared to the places of worship of the other two religions." The Ministry noted that attacks on Muslims were at their lowest levels since 2010, attacks on Christians were at the same level as the previous year, and that attacks on the Jewish community rose in 2018. Christophe Castaner, minister of the interior, condemned acts of hate against all religious people and places of worship.  "Hate has no place in the Republic. We are determined to protect all French people, to protect secularism, the freedom not to believe, as to believe in respect, in complete safety. These numbers show that we must not let our guard down. Anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-Christian, racist, xenophobic: there is no small attack, no small insult. Nothing will be tolerated: every culprit will have to be found and judged." Chamberlain, Samuel.  "Notre Dame Cathedral Fire Being Investigated as Accident For Now, Prosecutors Say."
  Fox News.  16 April 2019.

Samuel Chamberlain By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News Tharoor, Ishaan.  "The Notre Dame Fire Ignites the Wests Far Right."
  Washington Post.  17 April 2019. Lytvynenko, Jane; Silverman, Craig.  "A Timeline of How the Notre Dame Fire Was Turned Into an Anti-Muslim Narrative."
  Buzzfeed.  16 April 2019. McPartland, Ben.  "'Turn France's Empty Churches into Mosques'."
  The Local.  15 June 2015. Ministry of the Interior.  "Fight Against Hatred, Discrimination, Racism and Anti-Semitism."
  12 February 2019. CheckNews.  "Is it True That 875 Churches Were Vandalized in France in One Year?"
  18 April 2019. Are Democratic presidents better than Republican presidents at job creation? Former President Bill Clinton said so -- forcefully -- in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24, Clinton said. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines. In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs. After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a presidents years served in office. So we rated the claimTrue. Clintons claim at the convention was worded differently, so we quickly re-crunched the numbers based on his specifications. Lets cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: RepublicansRichard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobsGerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobsRonald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobsGeorge H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobsGeorge W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobsTotal: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidentsDemocratsJohn F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobsLyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobsJimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobsBill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobsBarack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs. So Clinton is right. But well bring up a few points worth noting. This does not include government jobs The combination of private-sector jobs and public-sector jobs is a broader measurement of job creation than private-sector alone. But excluding government jobs would presumably hurt Democrats more than Republicans, given the two parties historical stances toward the role of government. The fact that Democrats finished so far ahead despite taking government jobs off the table makes it a more impressive accomplishment. The Democrats didnt benefit from population growth For our previous story, Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless calculated that the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, also making the Democratic accomplishment more impressive. Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes. Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions. Its unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt. Our ruling Clintons figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clintons right. We rate his claim True. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.     : Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. Appealing unsuccessfully to spend more money from the states so-called Rainy Day Fund, state Sen. Rodney Ellis hearkened to legislative history, saying in floor debate May 16: Members, this legislature has voted to use virtually all of the Rainy Day Fund four times since its creation in the late 1980s. The sad truth is that Texans and the (fund) are being held hostage to politics.Back story: GOP Gov. Rick Perry has said hes agreeable with taking about $3.1 billion from the fund, formally called the Economic Stabilization Fund, to help cover the state budget that runs through August. But Perry and many Republicans oppose tapping the fund, which is fed by state oil and gas oil production taxes, for the 2012-13 budget. Perry contends it needs to be protected in case of natural disasters.Democrats, noting the projected multi-billion-dollar shortfall in state revenue needed to maintain current programs, say the current dire circumstances justify taking more from the fund.And is Ellis correct about past legislatures voting four times to virtually empty the fund?Jeremy Warren, Elliss spokesman, said the senator relied on a report by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank that advocates for programs serving the poor. To help balance the 2012-13 budget, the center has urged lawmakers to use the fund, which is projected by State Comptroller Susan Combs to have a balance of $9.7 billion by the end of August 2013, or about $6.6 billion if lawmakers stick with applying $3.1 billion from the fund to this years deficit .The centers Feb. 21reportsays: In 1991, the Legislature spent the funds entire balance ($28.8million) on public schools, and in 1993, spent the entire balance ($197 million) for criminal justice.In 2003, to deal with the last economic downturn, the Legislature appropriated $1.3 billion from the Rainy Day Fundalmost every penny of the balance the (state) comptroller forecast through 2005, the report says. Again in 2005, the Legislature appropriated $1.9 billion in Rainy Day funds, using roughly half for 2005 shortfalls, and the other half for 2006-07, spending almost all the $2 billion that was forecast to be available.Next, we confirmed the amounts of rainy-day money that lawmakers could have spent in each of these instances by reviewing biennial revenue forecasts made by respective state comptrollers. Finally, the Legislative Reference Library guided us to a Feb. 3reportby the House Research Organization, a non-partisan arm of the Texas House, specifying how much money the 1991, 1993, 2003 and 2005 Legislatures appropriated from the fund.Punch line: The centers recap is accurate.We rate Elliss statement True. On 4 May 2004, a campaign swing through the Midwest saw President Bush visiting Lebanon, Ohio, where  as he worked the crowd outside the Golden Lamb (the state's oldest inn)  he was photographed giving a comforting hug to 15-year-old Ashley Faulkner, whose mother was killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.  The moment was captured with a digital camera by Ashley's father, Lynn Faulkner. (Ashley's mother, Wendy Ruth Faulkner, a vice president of a risk management and insurance brokerage company, was working in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11 and did not survive the collapse of the building.) Wendy Ruth Faulkner Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion It started out as a fluke.  Lynn Faulkner had been offered an extra ticket to a Bush campaign event by his neighbor Linda Prince.  Mr. Faulkner decided to offer it to his 15-year old daughter Ashley who he expected would decline, as she would have to miss some school to attend.  But his daughter surprised him.  Ashley reminded her dad how four years ago they attended a similar event when then Texas Governor George W. Bush visited the same spot on the campaign trail.  Ashley remembered attending that event with both her father and her mother Wendy Faulkner.  It was raining that day and they all stood in the rain awaiting Governor Bush "eating Triscuit crackers" enjoying the time together and hoping to get a glimpse of the would-be president.  Ashley recalled holding her mothers hand as they waited. So she decided to go again this year, but this time her mother could not attend.  Wendy Faulkner was murdered on 9/11/01 in the south tower of the World Trade Center.  She was there on the 104th floor for a one-day meeting.  Ashley decided to miss school in honor and remembrance of her mother and attend the event. [Rest of article here.] here An editorial about the story behind the photograph can be found at the Washington Dispatch web site, which also includes a page of reader-submitted commentary about the story. Washington Dispatch commentary  Goetz, Kristina.  "Bush Pauses to Comfort Teen."
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  6 May 2004.

 Hallett, Joe.  "No Apology from Bush Just Yet."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  5 May 2004  (p. A1).

 Hallett, Joe.  "Despite the Post-9/11 Tribulations, the President Remains a Leader."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  9 May 2004  (p. B5).

 Rairden, C.K.  "Bush Photo with Teen Shows Conviction and Compassion."
  The Washington Dispatch.  10 May 2004.

 Zimkus, Charlie.  "Our Artist Records Warm Welcome for President Bush."
  The Columbus Dispatch.  6 May 2004  (p. B8).