Does Jared Kushner's brother own a business associated with COVID-19 testing?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Compared to the output of most other developed countries, the United States' ability to test for COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, has been extremely limited. This reality has led to rumors that President Donald Trump's administration, or some of its members, have a financial interest in promoting specific tests as opposed to others that would be more widely available or more easily distributed. more widely available One claim that has emerged in this vein came from a report by Raw Story that asserted "the Kushner family is trying to cash in on the pandemic that could kill millions of us." The basis for this claim concerns the health insurance startup Oscar co-founded by Jared Kushners brother, Joshua Kushner. Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of and special adviser to Trump. report On March 13, 2020, Oscar announced that it would be launching a testing-center locator for COVID-19: announced Today, Oscar, a tech-driven health insurance company, launched the first testing center locator for COVID-19 in the U.S., featuring more than 100 centers today. It is accessible to the general public and more testing centers are being added every day. However, the details of Oscar's testing locator have been described incorrectly in several viral social media posts alleging profiteering from the Kushners during the coronavirus pandemic. A well-shared post by a user named "Boston Judy," for example, asserted that "we didn't have testing because the Trump family circle wanted to wait till they could make a profit." well-shared post   Even if this assertion had merit, the actions Oscar took merely help locate unaffiliated testing centers. As an insurance company, Oscar does not manufacture, perform, analyze, or sell any actual COVID-19 test. Further, the test-center locator that Oscar developed is open to the general public and is not limited to people who get insurance through Oscar. Once a user has taken a short survey, the locator will provide the closest locations for testing in areas in which they operate. While the service also acts as a promotion for the company, it can serve as a testing center locator for any interested party. open "Boston Judy" later clarified that Oscar was not producing tests, but that the company would get to "bill the feds for evaluating people for COVID and referring them to a testing center if they meet the criteria [for testing]." While the legislation that would allow for such a reimbursement likely will include a fund for covering the cost of these tests, the legislation has not yet been finalized, and it's unclear that it would really be a windfall for Oscar, either. On March 13, 2020, U.S. House Democrats and the White House reached a deal on a package of legislation that included a requirement that insurance companies cover the full cost of COVID-19 with no cost sharing. As described by the Brookings Institute, this legislation, if and when it is passed by the Senate and signed by the president: described Would offer financial support to state governments by temporarily increasing the share of Medicaid spending financed by the federal government, require almost all forms of health insurance to cover COVID-19 testing without cost-sharing, and create mechanisms to pay for COVID-19 testing for uninsured people. In other words, while the government will likely be subsidizing insurance companies like Oscar, they are doing so to cover losses incurred by the requirement for full reimbursement to members. These laws, and the federal reimbursement they would authorize, would apply to any health insurance company in America, not only Oscar. would apply Joshua Kushner co-founded Oscar in 2012. His venture capital firm, Thrive Capital, holds a significant ownership share. According to financial-disclosure forms released by Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, covering the year 2018, the couple owned and received profit from shares of Thrive: co-founded financial- disclosure   This document also appears to assert that the couple divested from Thrive during the 2018 financial year:   Under federal law, executive branch employees are eligible to defer paying capital gains taxes on investments sold to comply with conflict of interest requirements. To take advantage of this benefit, the employees must obtain a Certificate of Divestiture from the Office of Government Ethics prior to selling the asset. Jared Kushner received a certificate of divestiture for, among other things, four Thrive-associated funds in February 2017.  federal law  selling the asset in February 2017 In a narrow legal sense, this removed the conflict of interest associated with his financial ownership in his brothers companies, according to Virginia Canter, who serves as chief ethics counsel for the nonpartisan Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which also provided us with Kushners Certificate of Divestiture. But, she told us, his divestment does little to alter the appearance of a conflict of interest or reduce the risk of potential corruption, especially if he is using his public office to promote the private interests of his brother or giving him preferential access. The similarities between the Trump Administrations announcement of a website designed to locate COVID-19 testing centers and the website released by Oscar have been a source of speculation about undue access on Joshua Kushners part. source speculation That being said, the assertion that the Kushners as a family are involved in the business of COVID-19 testing is not entirely accurate. The company's coronavirus response so far is limited to an online form that allows users to find a testing location if their symptoms call for it. Health insurance companies are likely to be reimbursed for covering the cost of COVID-19 testing once legislation is passed, but this would apply to all insurance providers, not just Oscar. For these reasons, we rank the truth of this claim as a "Mixture." Kenen, Joanne.  "How Testing Failures Allowed Coronavirus to Sweep the U.S."
  Politico.  6 March 2020. Okeson, Sarah.  "Heres How the Kushner Family Is Cashing in on the Coronavirus."
  Raw Story.  15 March 2020. Oscar Health.  Oscar Launches First Testing Center Locator for COVID-19."
  Accessed 13 March 2020. Okeson, Sarah.  "Heres How the Kushner Family Is Cashing in on the Coronavirus."
  Raw Story.  15 March 2020. Fiedler, Matthew, et al.  "What are the Health Coverage Provisions in the House Coronavirus Bill?"
  Brookings Institute.  13 March 2020. Bertoni, Steven.  "Oscar Health Gets $400 Million And A $2.7 Billion Valuation from Fidelity."
  Forbes.  22 February 2016. U.S. Office of Government Ethics.  "Jared Kushner  Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) - 2018."
  Accessed 16 March 2020. U.S. Office of Government Ethics.  "Ivanka Trump  Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) - 2018."
  Accessed 16 March 2020. Update [18 March 2020]: Updated to include documentation of Kushner's Certificate of Divestment and added comments from Virginia Canter.
In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) holding that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy over medical bills every year, while in a number of other first-world countries, bankruptcies over medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those other countries):   At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably the item in question was a 19 July 2013 item published by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article held that: In 2013 over 20% of American adults are struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies will be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, our study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obamas universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," then we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). bankruptcy Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure: item  Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on how reliable is the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site said their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of a bankruptcy filers: BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet themselves reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in aJanuary 2016 New York Times article on the subject: article Research on medical bankruptcies has been controversial because it can be hard to untangle how medical bills fit into a familys overall pattern of financial troubles. Twenty-nine percent of the people with medical bill problems said a family member had been forced to stop working or cut back on hours. (On the other side, about 41 percent of people said theyd taken on extra work to help pay bills.) Is that a job problem or a medical bill problem? said David Himmelstein, a professor of public health at the City University of New Yorks Hunter College School of Public Health who has studied medical bankruptcies. Its both of those things. However, that article also factored in a large development that occurred after NerdWallet's 2013 analysis: the activation of major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as PPACA, ACA, or Obamacare): The [ACA] has led to a decline in the number of Americans suffering financial stress from health problems, thanks to the new options for receiving coverage, especially for the poor. But the problem is still widespread, touching roughly a quarter of Americans under 65, when the insured and uninsured are looked at together. Americans older than 65 are covered by Medicare, which more frequently protects people from major financial trouble. Unlike other polls, which have focused on the ways that insurance affects health care, the new Times-Kaiser survey explored the effects of medical bills on peoples daily lives well beyond the medical system. We found that medical bills dont just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives. The potentially ameliorating effect of the ACA on bankruptcies was also cited by a July 2015 Wall Street Journal article which (in part) described research into medical bankruptcy done by Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin: article So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy? It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt, Prof. Austin said in an interview. Plenty of studies have pinpointed medical debt as the No. 1 reason why people turn to bankruptcy for a fresh start. In rallying for health-care reform in his 2009 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that 62.1% of consumer bankruptcies are medical bankruptcies, citing a study Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) co-wrote as a Harvard law professor. Prof. Austins study found the percentage of medical bankruptcies to be far smaller. Overall, 18% to 25% of personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. were prompted by medical debt.  But even prior to the implementation of the ACA, some sources questioned the true impact of medical debt on bankruptcy rates. A 2012 piece published by The Hill compared rates of bankruptcy between the United States and Canada (the latter a country with single-payer healthcare system): compared It's difficult to conclude that bankrupt folks are awash in healthcare debt when nearly 90 percent of their obligations are unrelated to health care ... Will ObamaCare's increased regulation of the healthcare marketplace help put an end to the phenomenon? Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not. Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential cause of bankruptcy  the cost of health care  absorbed by the government. But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the 49th parallel. In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year. Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors  those 55 and older  cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency. Canada wasn't the only country in which the presence of single-payer healthcare reportedly wasn't a total shield against bankruptcies (medical-related or otherwise). A 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) paper [PDF] found that: PDF Outside of the US, research on links between over-indebtedness and health has been quite limited to date, consisting largely of rankings of factors in consumer debt. For instance, within the United Kingdom, sickness or disability accounted for 5% of households in financial difficulties in 2002. A ranking of causes of over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy in Germany found that psychological problems and own sickness, if added together, would rank in fourth place of reasons for over-indebtedness and private bankruptcy. There have been a number of interesting recent studies in Germany on the subject. These have found a high risk of mental disorders among those facing the threat of over-indebtedness as well as the association of over-indebtedness with an increased prevalence of overweight and obesity apart from traditional socioeconomic factors. Additionally, there is evidence that over-indebted persons refrain from seeking medical treatment or purchasing prescriptions even under Germanys health system. One-third of participants in a study of insolvency counseling services in RhinelandPalatinate indicated that their financial difficulties were a result of accident, illness or addiction. In short, using some very specific analyses, one could make the case that (at least within the last several years) about 643,000 Americans declared bankruptcy annually due to medical bills. But the accuracy of those analyses is open to question, the playing field has changed significantly since they were undertaken (due to the implementation of the ACA), and it's far from an absolute that the other countries listed in the meme experience zero medical-related bankruptcies.  Emami, Sarah.  "Consumer Over-Indebtedness and Health Care Costs:
How to Approach the Question from a Global Perspective."
  World Health Report (2010) Background Paper, 3.  2010. Himmelstein, David U. et. al.  "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study."
  American Journal of Medicine.  12 April 2009. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  19 June 2013. Lamontagne, Christina.  "NerdWallet Health Finds Medical Bankruptcy Accounts for Majority of Personal Bankruptcies."
  NerdWallet.  26 March 2014. Luthra, Shefali.  "Consumers Still Struggling with Medical Debt."
  USA Today.  1 February 2015. Mangan, Dan.  "Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study."
  CNBC.  25 June 2013. Pipes, Sally C.  "Medical Bankruptcy: Fact or Fiction?"
  The Hill.  23 October 2012. Sanger-Katz, Margot.  "Even Insured Can Face Crushing Medical Debt, Study Finds."
  Thne New York Times.  5 January 2016. Stech, Katy.  "The Future of Personal Bankruptcy in a Post-Obamacare World."
  The Wall Street Journal.  1 July 2015. Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.  "Growing Old Gracefully, An Investigation Into the Growing Number of Bankrupt Canadians Over Age 55."
  31 March 2006. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 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 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. Texas women are paid less than men, Wendy Davis stresses. In a March 10, 2014,tweet, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee pointed out that her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, passed up a chance to say whether he would have vetoed a Davis-sponsored measure related to ensuring equal pay for Texas women that didnt make it into law. Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, wrote: While@GregAbbott_TXdodges questions on the Texas Equal Pay Act, women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in Texas. Well leave it to Abbott and Davis to debate the 2013 measure vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry. But we wondered: Are Texas women still paid 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man? We found that pay gaps persist, though comparisons can be dicey. Comparing women and men doing 'same' job In August 2013, werated as Mostly Falsea related Davis claim: Texas women make an average of $8,355 less per year than men doing the very same job. Thats not necessarily correct for individuals doing the same job. In 2010, $8,355 was the general gap between median salaries of full-time working Texas men and women, according to federal estimates, and the 2012 gap was nearly $500 less than that. Significantly, the research cited by Davis did not drill down to salaries for men and women doing the same jobs. In contrast, 2013 survey results indicated a $2,000 gap between the median pay for Texas men and women with comparable professional experiences holding the same or similar jobs. Annual U.S. Census Bureau surveys But Davis recent 82 cents claim wasnt specific to people doing the same jobs. Responding to our request for back-up information, Davis spokeswoman Rebecca Acua pointed us to an April 2013fact sheetfrom the National Partnership for Women & Families, an advocacy group for workplace fairness and other issues. The sheet opens: In Texas, on average, a woman who holds a full-time job is paid $35,301 per year while a man who holds a full-time job is paid $43,160 per year. This means that women in Texas are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to men, amounting to a yearly gap of $7,859 between men and women who work full time in the state. That statement is footnoted to the one-year American Community Survey undertaken in 2011 by the U.S Census Bureau and abureau chartindicating median earnings in the past 12 months by sex by work experience for residents 16 and older. These aligned with the partnerships fact sheet. Latest available estimate Kliner pointed out, too, that comparable results based on the2012 ACSwere posted online by the bureau in September 2013. The 2012 estimates indicate that median earnings for Texas men who worked full time year-round in the past 12 months were $44,802; for Texas women meeting these criteria, median earnings were $35,453  or 79 cents for every dollar earned by men who worked full time. Because Davis said women still earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, we calculated the comparable figure for previous years, according to the bureaus surveys. We found the comparable figure to be 80 cents in2006,2009and2010, 79 cents in2007and 78 cents in2008. Separately, we downloaded a bureau chart showing slightly different estimated median earnings for full-time male and female civilian workers in Texas based on the bureaus 2012 survey. Theresulting chartindicated a median wage for full-time working men of--$45,166 for men, $35,518 for women. By this metric, we calculated, civilian full-time female workers in Texas earned an estimated 79 cents for each dollar earned by full-time male workers. In 2011, a bureauchartsuggests, the comparable figure was 81 cents. Kliner told us the partnership relies on bureau estimates not limited to civilian workers because it believes that delivers a more complete view of the workforce. It is also the chart that has been used historically, so it allows for comparisons over time, she wrote. Upshot: The latest available estimate is that Texas women working full time earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by such men in 2012. That was a penny better than in one of the previous six years, the same or a penny less than the result in four of the years and three cents less than the 82 cents estimated for 2011 and relied upon by Davis. Experts note caveats Experts we queried agreed with our math while offering caveats. By email, Lloyd Potter, the state demographer, pointed out that any focus on earnings for full-time workers leaves out part-time workers. Women, he wrote, are more likely to be employed part-time. Still, Potter said, if we just looked at part-time workers, again, youd probably find women earn less. In our 2013 fact check, we noted theres a range of how many hours full-time workers log, and men are more likely than women to be on the job for 41 hours or more per week, according to theBureau of Labor Statistics. Because more men work overtime,that should translate into higher earnings for them -- because they are paid more, or because their longer hours lead to more job success -- and contribute to the wage gap. Though more nuanced analysis shows that job differences explain much of the pay gap, experts agree that much of it still cannot be accounted for. Thats where sexism comes in, some say. Finally, Potter said, the differential quoted probably is not adjusted for educational attainment or work experience. It is not. If it were, wed probably find the differential would shrink (toward equality) as women tend to have less work experience than men though educational attainment is fairly comparable among adults across sex. Austin economist Stuart Greenfield similarly said by email: In the aggregate, Sen. Davis statement is absolutely, positively correct, though he said that when one controls for work experience, education, and other factors, the earnings differential is reduced. National comparisons Greenfield also pointed out a Dec. 2, 2013, Bureau of Labor Statisticspress releasesummarizing median-pay changes among full-time workers over the years: In Texas, the ratio of womens to mens earnings trended upward from 1997 to 2004. It then fluctuated from 2005 to 2009 before climbing to a series high of 85.6 percent in 2010. However, in the last two years the Texas womens to mens earnings ratio has declined 6.0 percentage points to its lowest level since 2001. According to the 2012 survey results, Texas women fared better compared to men in their state than women in 24 states. Arizona placed first; women working full time earned 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. (For more than a decade, the graph indicates, Texas women fared better than their male counterparts in the state compared to women versus men in the nation as a whole, though conditions dipped in Texas compared to the nation in 2011 and 2012. We asked Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to speak to why this was so. See herreply here.) Jennifer Lee, a researcher for the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities, which focuses on programs serving low-income Texans, said of the 79-cent pay difference estimate suggested by the 2012 survey: This is how the wage gap is usually calculated. If you expand who youre looking at to include all employed individuals (whether or not they work full-time or year-round), women earn 71 cents for every dollar that a man earns, Lee said by email. Lee reminded us of a February 2007 paper by Cornell University labor economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn,The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone Far Enough?The paper states that 53 percent of the gender wage gap stems from variation in job, industry and union status between the genders. According to the paper, major reasons for such wage gaps include: Occupational and industry category (49% of the reason) Lee said that many women are concentrated in particular occupations. Occupations that are heavily female, such as health care support or personal care and service occupations, tend to pay low wages, she said. For example, home health aides in Texas, who are largely female, earn on average $17,430 per year, Lee said, while women also represent 63% of workers earning minimum-wage or less in Texas. When you break down earnings data by occupation, she said, this gap persists in almost all occupations. Labor Force Experience (10.5%) A portion of the gap is explained by factors related to work experience, such as interruptions in work for child care, Lee said. Unexplained (41%) Lee said a large portion of the gap is unexplained by womens choices. This could be because of conscious or unconscious biases (research shows this is particularly acute against mothers), Lee wrote, while other research shows that different attitudes around wage negotiations may contribute to the gender wage gap. Lee added: A lot of people see occupational choices and time off from work as womens choices. And while this is true, I think its important to realize that the choices we make are heavily influenced by the environment in which we make choices, the choices that are available, and how those choices are presented. So while its true that more women work in low-wage jobs, there may be reasons why women dont choose to work in some higher-wage occupations. Similarly, mothers may choose to take time off work to care for young children, but perhaps they wouldnt if child care were more available or affordable. Our ruling Davis said that Texas women are still paid 82 cents for every dollar a man earns in the state. Her figure, based on a 2011 federal survey, reflects median earnings for adults who worked full time in the past 12 months, leaving out part-time workers. Its also outdated in that according to the latest available survey, taken in 2012, Texas women earned 79 cents for every dollar earned by men (again working full time in the past 12 months), less than what Davis said. We rate this claim as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Photograph shows a house painted in protest by its owner after he was barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard.  REAL PHOTOGRAPH;  INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected via Facebook, May 2013] I have received an email that stated a man was told by his homeowner's association that he could not fly his flag.  It showed what he'did about it', and the house was beautifully painted like an American flag:  This guy was told by his Homeowners Association that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard ...  Origins:  Recent years have seen a number of "viral" news stories about homeowners (often military personnel or veterans) who have run afoul of local ordinances or homeowners association (HOA) rules that  prevented them from displaying U.S. flags on their property, such as the 2009 case of Van T. Barfoot and the 2013 case of Brandon Weir.  Usually such problems arise not because of a general prohibition on the flying of U.S. flags, but because some facet of a particular flag's display violates an existing rule: the flag is too large, the flagpole from which it is flown is too high, or the flag is attached to a portion of a home (such as a balcony or stairway) which is required to be kept free from adornment. Van T. Barfoot Brandon Weir In May 2013 a photograph (displayed above) of a home with its exterior painted in the pattern of an American flag (white stars amidst a blue field adjacent to red and white horizontal striping) was circulated on the Internet, with accompanying text identifying the paint scheme as one the homeowner resorted to after being told by his HOA "that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard."  Although the picture is real and the unusual paint job it depicts was something undertaken as a form of protest, the true backstory had nothing to do with a homeowner's being barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard.    The American flag house pictured above is located in Cambridge, Maryland, and its owner, Branden Spear, gave it that distinctive paint job after being angered that his restored Victorian property was declared by building inspectors to be non-compliant with historical code: Cambridge Homeowners who choose to paint their houses with non-traditional colors risk running afoul of their neighbors and local politicians, but owner and contractor Branden Spear never set out to paint his restored Victorian properties with colors that were out of the norm. But when local building inspectors told him that the windows he chose to restore the home weren't up to historical code, he got angry. "It would have cost one-third of the restoration budget just to install those windows," says Spear. Then he realized the building code said nothing about what colors the old Victorians should be painted. So as a show of his anger, and as a protest against what he says are unfair regulations, he painted one home all black, and the adjacent home with an American flag theme. They've become something of a tourist attraction since, and even though Spear is still at odds with local government officials, he has proven one point  that paint and color can also be used as protest. In June 2014, Florida news outlets reported a case of a resident of Bradenton who had also painted his house in the style of a U.S. flag as a protest over the city's code compliance enforcement:   A prestigious road in Bradenton is now home to a very patriotic house. Brent Greer, who lives on Riverview Boulevard, recently painted the outside of his house red, white and blue. Greer said he decided to turn his home into the American flag to send a message. Greer grew up in the 100-year-old home and now lives there with his wife and seven adopted children. He said they changed the color of their house after getting into a dispute with the city's code enforcement. A few months ago, code enforcement officers said they went to the home acting on an anonymous tip. "Late February, we received a complaint about a dead Christmas tree on the balcony," said Volker Reiss, Community Services and Code Compliance Manager for City of Bradenton. Reiss said his officers asked the family to remove it and they complied. Greer said to his surprise, they were told about more violations. The city sent Greer a two page letter, listing several violations at the home. Some of the issues were about missing window screens, painting, pressure washing, loose railings, and trash on the property. Greer said while everything was upsetting, one complaint made him furious. He said he was told his home's exterior painting was not up to city standards. The Greers do not live in a deed-restricted community. He said he feels like he's being treated as if he does. Last updated:  5 June 2014    Smith, Summer.  "Manatee Man Paints American Flag on Home During Dispute with City."   Bay News 9.  4 June 2014. In December 2014, a number of Facebook pages using car brand names such as Audi, Range Rover, Mercedes, and Camaro (among others) posted directives similar to the messages quoted above. The pages claimed that Facebook was giving away cars. Among the cars offered in the giveaways were Audi R8s, Range Rovers, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMGs, and Chevrolet Camaro SS models. Almost all the scams followed the same format: they instructed users to like a separate page, like the original post, and share the post on their own Timeline (thereby validating its legitimacy and enticing others to do the same).users were eligible to win one of two available vehicles in the winner's choice of color simply by liking a separate Facebook page, liking and sharing a post, and waiting for an inbox message confirming the winners. In April 2016, the scam reappeared, this time with a Range Rover as the car offered in the giveaway:    The first clue the giveaways following this format were not on the up-and-up was the pages to which Facebook users were directed, pages that had been created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only were the secondary Facebook pages involved always new, they were also not linked with car companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure; however, no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment was discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The tactics were similar to recent scams involving Costco, Kroger and Amazon gift cards, but the six-figure price tag attached to some of the vehicles involved in the Facebook car giveaway posts proved a far more difficult-to-resist enticement for some users, not all of whom questioned whether sharing a page presented any negative consequence should it later turn out to be a prank, hoax, or other false promise. Costco Kroger Amazon The pages to which users were directed carried all the hallmarks of "like farming" operations intended to quickly build and sell popular Facebook pages. Even if the page creators' intent were only to build an audience, users' participating in the scam created a larger incentive for employing future fakery of the same description to crowd Facebook feeds. Scammers could also exploit a large audience by mining varying levels of personal data from those who have liked a page of dubious origin. So Facebook users who participate in such fake giveaways not only unwittingly help spammers pollute the social network with scams, they may also risk being exposed to malware, clickjacking, or other unpleasantries (such as finding their names and identities endorsing a scam, hate page, or other undesirable activity). Giveaways, particularly of high-value merchandise, are generally rare and almost always conducted through brands' official channels or the social media accounts of related large companies. In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia. pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia pic.twitter.com/ITArBQgcmJ  Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017 May 15, 2017  Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. achievements In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007 As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on 5 May 2017 indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: reported The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007.  It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. unemployment To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out: according So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. SoftBank $50B Exxon $20B Hyundai $3.1B Apple $1B Chrysler $1B GM $1B Bayer AG $1BToyota $600M LG $250M This is a mostly-accurate, partial list of corporations who have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). Softbank Exxon Mobil Corp. Hyundai-Kia Apple Fiat Chrysler General Motors Bayer AG Toyota LG Electronics It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017: reported Few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trumps America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months  or even years  in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. promise The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted  a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.  was the result of a tech fund the company announced on Oct. 14  three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You dont just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016: commitment analysts Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. reported $182B in April 2017 It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March.  MarketWatch review inflated It remains to be seen what effect Tump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on 30 September). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. DOW at 20,896 The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office  positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by 16 May, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. 20,940.51 20,981.94 news Currently at 125.6 It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). fell Passed 32 bills through Congress As of 17 May 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). signed number That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approves the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. changed renamed Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. Appointed constitutionalist Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on 7 April 2017. true After 8 years of inaction This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on 23 January 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak."  signing 40 percent fewer illegal border crossings and deportation of violent and repeat offenders The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. This U.S. Customs and Border Protection chart shows how striking the change was compared to the previous five years: statistics   CNN Water contamination crisis started in April 2014 It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment."  awarded crisis As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. article Strengthening relationships  China  Japan  Russia  UK Tough on North Korea Tough on Syria Freed Humanitarian Workers from Egypt Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. China: The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province,not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. call met rated Japan: Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. Russia: U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, were strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. U.K.: British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. BBC Tough on Korea? President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that county's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation.  calls experts Tough on Syria? In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. attack Humanitarian workers in Egypt: In April 2017 President Trump negotiated the release of U.S.. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking.  negotiated Trimming the fat at many overblown government agencies and promoting small business growth by reigning in the EPA Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on 13 March 2017 directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. signed Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: priorities President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency  a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change  and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. hailed threat  Finished Dakota Access Pipeline & reversed Obama's "Land Grab" EO, freeing US to use our own natural resources The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on 1 June 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments: halted revived directing Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr Trump singled out former President Barack Obamas egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, its time we ended this abusive practice. Antiquities Act As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in. Baker, Peter and Davenport, Coral.  "Trump Revives Keystone Pipeline Rejected by Obama."
 The New York Times.  24 January 2017. Bradner, Eric.  "Trump's TPP Withdrawal: 5 Things to Know."
 CNN.  23 January 2017. Bunge, Jacob and Alessi, Christopher.  "Bayer, After Trump Meeting, Pledges to Add Thousands of U.S. Jobs."
 The Wall Street Journal.  18 January 2017. Carroll, Lauren.  "Trump Has Signed More Bills in 100 Days than Any President Since Truman, Spicer Says."
 Politifact.com.  27 April 2017. Crutsinger, Martin.  "Federal Government Records $182.4 Billion Budget Surplus."
 Associated Press.  10 May 2017. DeCambre, Mark.  "How Trump's Stock Market Ranks During His First 100 Days in Office."
 MarketWatch.  30 April 2017. Green, Miranda.  "Trump's EPA: Cuts, Infighting and No Talk of Climate Change."
 CNN.  4 May 2017. Greene, Leonard.  "Stock Market Suffers Biggest Blow Since President Trump Took Office."
 New York Daily News.  17 May 2017. Ivanova, Irina.  "Trump Isn't the Reason Corporate America Is Investing in the U.S."
 CBS News.  18 January 2017. Kopan, Tal.  "Does Border Drop Mean Trump's Tough Talk Is Working?"
 CNN.  9 March 2017. Kulish, Nicholas and Santos, Fernanda.  "Illegal Border Crossings Appear to Drop Under Trump.
 The New York Times.  8 March 2017. Liptak, Adam and Flegenheimer, Matt.  "Neil Gorsuch Confirmed by Senate as Supreme Court Justice."
 The New York Times.  7 April 2017. McKelvey, Tara.  "Special Relationship Gets a New Lease on Life."
 BBC.  27 January 2017. Robb, Greg.  "U.S. April Budget Surplus Rises to $182 Billion."
 MarketWatch.  10 May 2017. Rucker, Philip and DeYoung, Karen.  "Freed Egyptian American Prisoner Returns Home Following Trump Intervention."
 The Washington Post.  20 April 2017. Ryan, Missy, Denyer, Simon and Rauhala, Emily.  "On North Korea, Trump Administration Talks Tough but Hopes to Avoid War."
 The Washington Post.  19 April 2017. Ryan, Tim.  "Trump Directs Department Heads to Trim Agency Fat."
 Courthouse News.  14 March 2017. Savransky, Rebecca.  "Tillerson: U.S.-Russia Relationship 'At an All-Time Low Point' Since End of Cold War."
 The Hill.  14 May 2017. Thomas, Lauren.  "Consumer Confidence Lags in April as Americans Are Less Optimistic About Economy."
 CNBC.  25 April 2017. Watson, Kathryn.  "Trump Executive Order Calls for Review of 'Egregious' Federal Land Grab."
 CBS News.  26 April 2017. Boston Herald.  "Editorial: Getting Tough in Syria."
 20 May 2017. CBO.gov.  "Monthly Budget Review for April 2017."
 5 May 2017. Democracy Now.  "Trump's Proposed EPA Cuts Threaten Health & Lives of Tens of Millions of Americans."
 3 March 2017. NFIB.com.  "In Targeting the Waters of the United States Rule, President Trump Looks to Dismantle Another Burdensome Regulation."
 3 March 2017. PRNewsWire.com.  "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Declined in April."
 25 April 2017. TradingEconomics.com.  "United States Unemployment Rate."
 5 May 2017. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  "Southwest Border Migration."
 1 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Japan's Abe Talks Trump."
 22 May 2017. The Wall Street Journal.  "Trump's Pretty Good China Deal."
 14 May 2017. During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked "from day one" in the White House to drive down American unemployment to "record" low levels  evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's "pro-growth agenda" was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. news release Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: reiterated   About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that "50 year" claim and said his administration is responsible for the "best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country." He tweeted: tweeted   The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he "has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln," and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. claimed After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers.   This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim  that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever  we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate  the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed  in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the "Current Population Survey." Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. Bureau of Labor Statistics According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) The survey   Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the "the lowest level in more than 50 years" under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term  Jan. 20, 2017  to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.)  Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5%  the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet  that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed)  was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. Trump was correct According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that "an unusually large number of people in their prime working years" were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. BBC economists' analysis Federal Reserve System's board of governors CBS News We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: were true technically ended But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim  that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs  accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit.   Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office  the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. "At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend," economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. told MSNBC In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: NBC News The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. Thats not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but its hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: labor statistics by NPR So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch  including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth  broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate  but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data  we rate this claim "false." per economists BBC News. "US Jobless Rate At Lowest Since 1969."  3 May 2019. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer."  Accessed 13 October 2020. Wingfield, Brian. "The End of the Great Recession? Hardly."  Forbes. 20 September 2010. Jones, Chuck. "Trump's Economic Scorecard: 3 Years In Office."  Forbes. 10 February 2020. Horsley, Scott. "FACT CHECK: Who Gets Credit For The Booming U.S. Economy."  NPR. 12 September 2018. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Which President Gets The Credit For The Booming Economy?"  MSNBC. 10 September 2018. FACT CHECK:Did a Special Assistant to President Obama, Barvetta Singletary shot at a police officer in an incident of gun violence ignored by the media?  Claim: A Special Assistant to President Obama, Barvetta Singletary, shot at a police officer in an incident of gun violence ignored by the media.    WHAT'S  White House staffer Barvetta Singletary was arrested and charged with assault after discharging a gun during a domestic dispute with her boyfriend (a Capitol police officer) in August 2015. WHAT'S /UNPROVEN:  Singletary shot at a police officer because he was a cop, was trying to kill the victim, reported directly to President Obama, and her arrest was ignored by large media outlets. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, October 2015]  Assistant to president Obama shoots at boyfriend. Barvetta and her bad ass Beretta!  Kicking ass ghetto style! Don't hold your breath waiting to read about this in the mainstream media. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wondering if it is true that an Obama assistant resigned after firing a gun a police. Her name is Barvetta Singletary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A special assistant to the president the president who recently lamented that an inability to pass gun control was one of the great failures of his administration was arrested after she allegedly fired a pistol at her boyfriend during a domestic dispute. Barvetta Singletary, 37, didn't help advance her boss' crusade against gun violence when she invited her boyfriend, a Capitol Hill police officer, over to her house for sex. Afterwards, she accused him of seeing another woman and demanded to see the texts on his cellphones. When he refused, Singletary reached into her boyfriend's bag, according to the arresting documents, and pulled out the two cellphones and his service weapon, a .40 caliber Glock 23. She demanded he tell her the passwords to the phones. He refused. "Your phone is more important than me holding the gun on you," she said, shooting the couch where he was sitting. Singletary is the Obama administration's House legislative affairs liaison and was paid $125,000 a year. Let's just say she wasn't a low-level staffer. Her purposeful gun crime while working for this gun-hostile administration is more important than the time Dick Cheney accidentally shot a friend  while Dove hunting. But which one received more news coverage? Obama Special Asst Barvetta Singletary Resigns, Charged Shooting At Cop | @bob_owens | #2A | https://t.co/edXK2l9Uks pic.twitter.com/9LPguvQO5j @bob_owens #2A https://t.co/edXK2l9Uks pic.twitter.com/9LPguvQO5j  Hank Quinlan (@Quinlan_Hank) September 5, 2015 September 5, 2015   Barvetta Singletary, a special assistant to the President and the House legislative affairs liaison, was arrested last Friday after the  Berwin Kleinstein (@hakylulamupe) September 5, 2015 September 5, 2015   Origins: In early August 2015, 37-year-old White House staffer Barvetta Singletary was arrested and charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment following a domestic dispute with her boyfriend. As Washington television station WRC reported, during an 7 August 2015 domestic dispute Singletary allegedly fired one shot towards the sofa on which her boyfriend was sitting (hitting the floor) after he refused to disclose the passwords to his cell phones: reported According to charging documents, Barvetta Singletary sent her boyfriend a text, asking him to come to her Upper Marlboro home for sex. After they had sex, Singletary confronted her boyfriend about the other woman he was dating. Investigators say Singletary asked her boyfriend to step outside, and they both went to his car. Once inside the car, Singletary asked to see her boyfriend's cellphones, police said. When he refused, Singletary reached into his bag and retrieved two cellphones and the victim's .40-caliber Glock 23 service weapon, charging documents state. Singletary  pulled the gun out of its holster, pointed it at the victim and said, "You taught me how to use this. Don't think I won't use it," the arrest warrant said. Once inside, she demanded the passwords to his phones, yanking the Glock from its holster and pointing it at him when he didn't cooperate, the documents said. Your phone is more important than me holding this gun on you? she allegedly said to her boyfriend, who was glued to her sofa 10 feet away. When he still refused to give up his passwords, Singletary fired one round at him that hit the floor, sending the officer running, police said.   E-mails and social media rumors about Singletary that were circulated months after the fact commonly claimed the altercation had occurred "last Friday," an ambiguity that lent plausibility to the rumor's claim the "mainstream media" suppressed reporting of the arrest (since it hadn't appeared in recent news). However, the incident was covered at the time it occurred by major mainstream news outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, the Daily Mail, the Washington D.C. Sun Times, Fox News, and the New York  Daily News. Washington Post USA Today Daily Mail Sun Times Fox News Daily News The fact that the complainant was a police officer was incidental to the story; Singletary shot at him because he was a boyfriend with whom she was involved in a romantic dispute, not because he was a cop.  And given that various news reports stated that Singletary fired a single round in the direction of the couch where her boyfriend was sitting but hit the floor, it isn't clear whether she actually intended to harm him but missed, or whether she deliberately sent the round into the floor in order to scare her boyfriend (without injuring him). Rumors commonly referred to Singletary as a "Special Assistant to President Obama," a term which is technically correct but which caused many social media users to incorrectly infer that Singletary reported directly to the President and served him personally in some sort of secretarial or administrative capacity prior to her September 2015 resignation. Senior White House staffers are granted the title "Assistant to the President," second-tier staffers are called "Deputy Assistant to the President," and third-tier staffers (of which Singletary was one) are termed "Special Assistant to the President." According to the White House's most recent staffer salary disclosure  report, there are approximately 21 employees serving in the first-tier capacity, 19 in the second-tier of White House assistants, and 59 with the title "Special Assistant to the President." disclosure Singletary had served as a as deputy chief of staff in the House of Representatives before being named as a White House staffer in June 2014: named SINGLETARY GOES TO 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE: Barvetta Singletary is moving from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. Shes leaving Capitol Hill to join the White House legislative affairs team, an administration official confirms to PI. She comes to the White House from Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburns office, where she most recently served as deputy chief of staff and policy director. She has depth on a range of issues, including: transportation, appropriations, health care, energy, ag and budget issues. She is deeply respected by members and staff on both sides of the aisle for her policy knowledge and focused but even keeled nature. She is a team player in every sense, a senior White House official said. That official added: Fun fact: She also happens to have an amazing singing voice, which she puts to use at church and among friends, when she can be convinced. On 10 August 2015, a White House spokesperson released a statement regarding Singletary's arrest: We are aware of the matter and have temporarily placed the employee in question on unpaid leave and revoked her access to the complex until we have more information. We will take additional actions as needed. For further questions, I would refer you to the Prince Georges County Police Department. Singletary resigned her White House position the following month.   Last updated: 14 October 2015 Originally published: 14 October 2015 Claim:  Actor Sean Penn published a letter to President George W. Bush in The Washington Post. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Mr. Bush: Good morning sir. Like you, I am a father and an American. Like you, I consider myself a patriot. Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country. However,I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle  to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.  Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your mostvehement media supporters. See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk." How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours. I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen toGershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.  There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.  Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction areclearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq?  Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet. The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you.  I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment. As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future. We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.  Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of this country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will standwith you. Sincerely,Sean PennSan Francisco, California  Origins:  The letter quoted above did indeed appear in the pages of The Washington Post as a paid advertisement.  Numerous news stories have reported that it cost actor Sean Penn $56,000 to run the ad, which took up most of a page in the first section of the 18 October 2002 edition of The Washington Post. Is Sean Penn right? It doesn't matter  the point is every American always has opinions about the government, and this condition exists no matter who is in the White House or what he's doing. There are going to be people on both sides of any issue, and at times some of them will be famous and/or wealthy. There's a larger question here: Should the opinions of celebrities or the well-to-do be accorded higher degrees of respect simply because the folks they issue from have the power or money to publicize them? Most folks don't have the requisite $56,000 to ensure their views get printed in The Washington Post and instead have to make do with a 37 stamp and their faith in the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail to the White House. This method, by the way, works well when the sole object of the activity is to relay one citizen's deeply-felt concerns to the President of his country  a stamp places that power to be heard into every person's hands, no matter how humble. Buying space in a newspaper, however, is far less about securing the attention of a President deemed urgently in need of guidance than it is about pontificating to the masses, even if the piece is putatively "addressed" to just one person. It's a soapbox grab and an especially arrogant, self-entitled one in that the podium is gained not by virtue of stunning displays of eloquence or irrefutable logic but by way of its having been rented for the day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1999 the median income for American households was $41,994. In other words, the wage earners in a statistically typical American family  would have to work at least 16 months just to gross what this Sean Penn paid for a turn on the soapbox.  For many of them, including the millions of families living far below the poverty line, $56,000 is an unimaginable fortune, the likes of which they'll never see unless they hit the lottery. They therefore cannot pay to get their opinions published in a newspaper. $41,994 Barbara "money talks" Mikkelson Additional information:  Last updated:  2 December 2007