Did MLK Say 'Darkness Cannot Drive Out Darkness; Only Light Can Do That'?
The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., known for his eloquence and ability to mobilize the masses throughout the Civil Rights era, is often incorrectly credited for quotes that he never said. One of the most famous lines attributed to King is typically quoted as "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In January 2024, this quote was even posted on the official X (formerly Twitter) page of the State of Israel. "???????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ?? ????." - ?????? ?????? ???? ??. Today we mark Martin Luther King pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r  Israel  ?? (@Israel) January 15, 2024 January 15, 2024 These words were indeed written by King. However, for more than a decade now, there has been confusion as to the precise wording of the quote. In 2011, following the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, a version of the quote went viral on the internet. It stated: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Given that if followed the controversial killing of bin Laden, the quote spread across the internet at an impressive reach, especially for the time. Penn Jillette, a famous magician and outspoken libertarian, tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers, and it only continued to go viral from there. tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers Questions about whether the quote was presented accurately were picked up by The Atlantic, NPR, and other news outlets. They found the wording was correct except for the very first sentence, which was not found in King's speeches or writings: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." The Atlantic NPR As it turns out, however, Jillette was only a perpetuator  not the originator  of the erroneous version of the quote. Before Jillette shared it, Facebook user Jessica Dovey quoted the King passage correctly on her status, but prefaced it with a sentence expressing her own personal thoughts: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." She distinguished her own thoughts from King's via an opening quotation mark, which was dropped somewhere along the line as it picked up internet traction. on her status  (Image via The Atlantic) The complete quote by King, which can be found in his 1963 book "Strength to Love," read as follows: "Strength to Love," Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says Love your enemies, he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemiesor else? The chain reaction of evilhate begetting hate, wars producing more warsmust be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. Commenters on Israel's X post quoting King were quick to point to a clarification provided by Bernice King, MLK's youngest daughter, on Oct. 31, 2023, in regard to her father's stance on Israel. ? Amy: Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released https://t.co/haahcqcuAf https://t.co/haahcqcuAf  Be A King (@BerniceKing) November 1, 2023 November 1, 2023 We've previously written on other rumors related to King, including whether the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself and whether King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth. rumors related to King the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth.  Grant, Drew. Penn Jillette Explains the Fake Martin Luther King Jr.: I Made a Mistake.Salon, 3 May 2011, https://www.salon.com/2011/05/03/fake_mlj_quote_osama_death/. Https://Twitter.Com/BerniceKing/Status/1719524029600612666.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1719524029600612666. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Https://Twitter.Com/Israel/Status/1746912379667890196.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1746912379667890196. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Jr, Martin Luther King.Strength to Love. Beacon Press, 2019. Loving Your Enemies, Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. McArdle, Megan. Anatomy of a Fake Quotation.The Atlantic, 3 May 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/. Peralta, Eyder. As The Bin Laden Story Raced Online, A Tale Of Two Misattributed Quotes.NPR, 3 May 2011.NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135965263/as-the-bin-laden-story-raced-online-a-tale-of-two-misattributed-quotes. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes People Think He Said but Actually Didnt.Yahoo News, 17 Jan. 2016, http://news.yahoo.com/5-martin-luther-king-jr-121303266.html.
After the U.S. Capitol insurrection in January 2021, Snopes readers asked about the legitimacy of a viral document that left-leaning websites framed as an attempt by a member of former President Donald Trump's cabinet to suppress the ability of National Guard forces to provide law enforcement during the gathering of Trump supporters rallying to try to overturn the 2020 election. left-leaning websites 2020 election For example, the Daily Kos, a self-described online hub of progressive media and activism, reported on Jan. 29: online hub [On. Jan. 4], former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller issued a memo to the secretary of the Army placing some extremely unusual limits on National Guard forces for that event. Its not a to-do list. Its a list of thou shalt nots. A long list. A list that says guard forces cant arrest any of the pro-Trump protesters, or search them, or even touch them. And thats just for starters. [...] Its clear that these restrictions would have absolutely prevented any guard forces from trying to protect any location. A website called "The National Memo" republished the body of the Daily Kos' story verbatim, under a new headline: "Trump Defense Secretary Disarmed D.C. National Guard Before Capitol Riot." The National Memo Before we directly address the claim, let us unpack the basis of the above-mentioned articles. The Daily Kos' original story included a hyperlink to an authentic tweet by New York Times congressional reporter Luke Broadwater on Jan. 28. tweet   The reporter's tweet included a digital image of what appeared to be a Jan. 4 memo to former Army secretary Ryan McCarthy and signed by Miller  whom Trump appointed as acting Pentagon chief in November 2020, just days after President Joe Biden was announced the winner of the election. Ryan McCarthy November 2020 was announced In early February, we reached out to Broadwater to learn where, how, or under what circumstances he obtained the document. He told us "it was a leak," or that an anonymous person or group within government or law-enforcement released the document to The New York Times. While no evidence exists to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the document displayed in the tweet, we sought to independently verify its authenticity. Citing the Freedom of Information Act, Snopes submitted multiple requests for a copy of the Jan. 4 record from various record-keeping centers within federal government. Freedom of Information Act On March 3, the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee fulfilled our request after its chair, Sen. Gary Peters, entered Miller's memo into the committee's public database of records. Committee spokespeople emailed us copies the document that indeed imposed restrictions on the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) during planned demonstrations by Trump supporters in the coming days. It read, in part: planned demonstrations Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort and in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is so employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel, and you will notify me immediately upon your authorization. The document written by the Trump appointee did not order any person or entity to take away weapons from Guard members. Rather, it required McCarthy, who oversees the DCNG, to request approval from the defense secretary in order for Guard members to use weapons, helmets, body armor or riot control agents  as well as to share equipment with other law-enforcement agencies  during the preplanned gatherings of Trump supporters on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6. Rewind a few days, and, according to the Department of Defense, D.C. officials requested that the district's Metropolitan Police department  not a federal agency  lead security efforts during the pro-Trump events, which were widely marketed as gatherings of Trump supporters to try to send a message to Congress to halt a ceremonial vote affirming Biden's win. Department of Defense A Jan. 5 document signed by McCarthy and obtained by Snopes (displayed below) showed the Pentagon ultimately fulfilled that request, saying that its troops would provide support for the district police department or Capitol Hill Police, should they need it. Some 340 Guard members were planning to control crowds at metro stations and enforce street closures during the events, and a "Quick Reaction Force" comprised of 40 Guard officers was standing by, no matter what. "DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions," McCarthy's memo read. "In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self-defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army." https://www.scribd.com/document/497258792/Secretary-of-the-Army-Memorandum#fullscreen=1 That decision by the Department of Defense, as well as the request for autonomy from D.C. officials, followed the Guard's controversial response to protests against police violence following George Floyd's death in summer 2020. Politico reported: George Floyd's death reported: While some of the early protests did include looting and damages to local businesses, [D.C. Mayor Muriel] Bowser never called in the National Guard. Against the mayor's wishes, Trump ordered Guard personnel to the city, where the military faced backlash for using overly aggressive crowd control tactics against peaceful protesters, including flying helicopters low over the city to create rotor wash, an action used in overseas conflicts. Any time we would employ troops and guardsmen in the city, you had to go through a rigorous process. As you recall, there were events in the summer that got a lot of attention, and that was part of this," William J. Walker, the DCNG's commanding general, said in an interview with The Washington Post. The Washington Post. Walker was referring to the guidelines (like those in the Jan. 4 and Jan. 5 memos) that required the highest-level approval for the Guard to fully launch into law-enforcement mode. As a result of such restrictions, Walker told The Washington Post that when he received a panicked phone call from Capitol Hill Police about the extremists preparing to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 (which occurred around 1:50 p.m., per the defense department's timeline) he could not immediately deploy Guard members to help. He instead needed to wait for approval from McCarthy, who then waited for an answer from Miller. The Washington Post department's timeline At 3 p.m, Miller approved full activation of the DCNG (1,100 members) to help district and Capitol Hill police and directed those troops to secure the Capitol, the department's timeline showed. the department's timeline showed (See here for our fact check into a separate claim that the Department of Defense initially denied a request by D.C. officials to deploy the Guard.) here In sum, it was true that Miller issued a Jan. 4 memo requiring Guard leaders to seek prior approval before using weapons during the pro-Trump protests. However, it was an inaccurate portrayal of that order to claim that the Trump appointee "disarmed"  or took weapons away from  Guard members before the demonstrations, like The National Memo alleged. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of false and true information. This report was updated after Snopes obtained a copy of Miller's Jan. 4 memo. The update corroborated the New York Times reporter's tweet and added context about McCarthy's response to D.C. officials' request to lead law-enforcement efforts during the upcoming protests. The head of the University of Wisconsin System says its high time for employee pay raises after several years of freezes, cuts and furloughs.We will all pay the price in lost talent and sliding reputation unless UW starts closing a pay gap between it and peer institutions nationally, System President Kevin Reilly told the Board of Regents on Dec. 7, 2012. No operation  public or private  can keep its talent if compensation languishes for too long.Reilly, president since 2004, said the gap between our UW employees compensation and that of their peers has widened in recent years, and that gap continues to grow.He added: Indeed, faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.We suspect, with the state budget season fast approaching, that well hear that 18 percent figure again.So lets test it.There are many ways to compare salaries at schools. Reilly chose to roll all the UW campuses into one, which as we shall see has limitations.That said, Reilly made clear that his figure was system-wide, so ultimately well focus on that.We turned tosalary figurescollected annually by theAmerican Association of University Professors, a member organization established to advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good.The groups figures for instructional faculty pay, gleaned from its surveys of institutions for 2011-12, are widely quoted, notably in salary comparisons compiled and analyzed by the Chronicle of Higher Education.Reilly didnt make clear whether UWs peers include competing private schools, or just public, so well examine both.For 11 of the UW Systems four-year campuses, the AAUP peer group is masters-granting schools. The Madison and Milwaukee campuses are compared to a more select group, doctoral institutions.TheChronicle of Higher Education siteshows that all but one of the UW Systems 13 four-year campuses pay professor salaries that are far below the national median for full professors at public, private and independent institutions of similar type. Madison is the lone exception; average pay for full professors there ($114,690) is merely below the median for doctoral institutions. Figures are for full-time professors.Pay at 11 of the 13 schools for another group of faculty -- assistant professors, which is considered the entry level -- was below or far below the national median. At the other two, it wasabovethe national median -- Madison ($75,860) and Whitewater ($62,178).At the UW Systems 13 two-year campuses, professors of all types collectively are paid far below the national median, the salary figures show. Thetwo-year campusesinclude schools such as such as Rock County, Fox Valley, Waukesha and Barron County.Lets quantify the size of the gap.At the flagship Madison campus, full professors collectively would need a 4 percent to 5 percent raise to reach national averages, depending on whether independent and private schools are included in the comparison, according to calculations we did using the AAUP data.Assistant professors at Madison, by contrast, are 4 percent to 6 percentabovethe national averages.But Madison stands alone as coming close to the national averages in both categories.The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the states only other public doctoral institution, runs 24 percent to 27 percent below national levels for full professors, with average pay of $95,570. Assistant-professor pay there runs 6 percent to 8 percent behind.The other 11 four-year campuses range from 15 percent to 33 percent below average for full professors. Full professor pay at the four-year campuses (not including Madison and Milwaukee) ranged from $67,008 to $75,857.Assistant professor pay at 10 of the 11 fell short by 5 percent to 19 percent (with Whitewater the only school above the median).Those two positions -- full professor and assistant -- dont comprise the entire faculty.Reillys specific claim was not about individual schools, or groups of schools, but that system-wide faculty pay has fallen 18 percent below the national average.We asked AAUPs research director, John Curtis, to calculate a system-wide figure, one that rolls up all the campuses into one amount, and includes all types of full-time faculty, including associate professors, instructors and lecturers.Based on his figures, we found a collective 20 percent faculty pay gap between UW System salaries and those at similar public, private and independent schools.The gap is 18 percent for just the four-year, public Wisconsin campuses (leaving aside the two-year schools).Reillys office told us he, too, relied on the AAUP figures to reach his conclusion. His spokesman, David Giroux, provideddetailed comparisonsthat also factored in a cost-of-living adjustment based on geography. In addition, Reillys approach compared schools with a select peer group rather than all schools of the same general type.The bottom line from the UW-provided data: It reaches very similar conclusions to the analysis by Curtis. There was one major exception. Reillys analysis put UW-Madison professor salaries much further below the median.Our bottom line: Reillys math appears to be on target.Curtis cautioned that a system-wide number may signal a disparity in a broad sense, but really is not very meaningful for addressing pay institution-by-institution because the overall figure combines a wide range of institutions of different types.A system-wide look does not shed light on pay differences by field, either -- history professors vs. engineering professors, etc.Our ratingReilly said faculty salaries at UW System institutions have now fallen more than 18 percent below the national average.The aggregate figure has its limitations as a precise guide for future action, but Reilly scores with this broad comparison, which suggests a significant disparity.We rate his claim True. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has often used economic statistics to attack President Barack Obamas administration, and he did the same following the Democratic National Convention. American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream! We havent fact-checked Trump on this particular statistic before, so we took a look at the data. On the numbers The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate. Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out  the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago. As the graph shows, the rate grew steadily since 1995, reaching a 69 percent peak in 2005. But it has been in decline ever since. Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987. So Trumps data is accurate, but there are some caveats. Demographic trends Experts told us millennials are largely to blame for the dropping homeownership rate, but its as much their lifestyle preferences as it is a sign of a poor economy. Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents. At the same time, lifestyle choices  such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children  all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents. Many millennials have expressed little desire to own a home, said Byron Studdard, a financial adviser at Studdard Financial, which focuses on estate and retirement planning. Witnessing the financial crisis and their parents difficulties paying off their mortgages, as well as general desire to be mobile, serve as deterrents. Studdard also cautioned against comparisons to 1965, because that was a different generation that was more likely than millennials to view homeownership as the first step to prosperity. Im not sure the homeownership rate is necessarily going to be a good indicator of if America is great again, like it was when we had the World War II generation, Studdard explained. How big a problem is it? While the falling homeownership rate is not a positive, economists we spoke to disagreed on how problematic it was. In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters. He said the headship rate  the percent of adults heading a household  is a better figure that captures both owners and renters. Increases in the headship rate still stimulates household construction, he said. That rate, according to the Census Bureaus 2015 Current Population Survey, has been going up as of 2013. Slight decreases in owner-occupied households were outpaced by increases in renter households, said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia, a company providing real estate information for buyers and sellers. Yet renter-households still boost demand for construction and other goods, he said. The comparative benefits of renting versus owning a home are still disputed, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, an online real estate database company. On the other hand, DeSanctis said the low homeownership rate poses problems for the American economy. Owning a home has typically been a major source of investment for the middle class, and renting does not fulfill the same investment function. As a result, the country has become more unequal in recent years as rising home values have benefitted current homeowners greatly at a time more people are renting and facing escalating rental prices each year, he said. He said Trump has a point in identifying the troubles people have buying a home, especially as rising rental rates and housing prices surpass income gains. The biggest housing losses immediately after the recession affected middle-aged adults, Terrazas said. Our ruling Trump said homeownership is at its lowest since 1965. The numbers back him up. However, there are some caveats. Some of the decline is due to lifestyle, and not economic, changes. In addition, experts told us the housing market is not in as dire straits as one statistic suggests. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True. Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. Announced reporting A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers. Facebook post   Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns:   The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal": began a campaign, Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to knock down this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately. We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states: proposal This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner. This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting.  defined gross flow The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions.  refers to The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year  gross inflow and gross outflow  and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits. Center for American Progress extend Wall Street Journal audits According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. Tax Notes parenthetical The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance. Tax Notes aim Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January. saying argue Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems: consumer alert wrote a letter The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burden on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by: Tax Notes Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges. [Former IRS Commissioner Charles O.] Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: CAPs analysis Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially bigger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for.  [...] The Biden administrations bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"  defended "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600  that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes."     Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the above banks are portraying it. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. A Scorecard for Reconciliation, Round 2. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/featured-analysis/scorecard-reconciliation-round-2/2021/09/10/783l0?highlight=biden. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Community Banks Must Engage Customers on New IRS Reporting Mandates. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/blogs/main-street-matters---advocacy/2021/08/19/community-banks-must-engage-customers-on-new-irs-reporting-mandates. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Consumer Alert from ICBA. ICBA, https://www.icba.org/bank-locally/consumer-alert-from-icba. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021.Digging Into the Bank Info Reporting Plan. Tax Analysts, https://www.taxnotes.com/tax-notes-today-global/information-reporting/digging-bank-info-reporting-plan/2021/08/30/777dx. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Fair Market Value (FMV). Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fairmarketvalue.asp. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. "General Explanations of the Administrations Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue Proposals." Department of the Treasury, May 2021, https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/General-Explanations-FY2022.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Gross Cash Flow Definition. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/gross-cash-flow. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Hanlon, Seth, and Galen Hendricks. Bank Tax Reporting Is a Critical Component of Bidens Build Back Better Agenda. Center for American Progress, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2021/09/14/503821/bank-tax-reporting-critical-component-bidens-build-back-better-agenda/. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. ICBA Urges House Panel to Reject IRS Monitoring Plan. Default, https://www.icba.org/newsroom/news-and-articles/2021/09/09/icba-urges-house-panel-to-reject-irs-monitoring-plan. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Jagoda, Naomi. Pelosi Defends IRS Bank-Reporting Proposal, Says Specifics Open to Negotiation. The Hill, 12 Oct. 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/576362-pelosi-defends-irs-bank-reporting-proposal. Joint Trades Statement for the Record: Senate Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight Hearing Entitled: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion." 10 May 2021, https://bpi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Joint-SfR-Senate-Finance-Subcommitte-Hearing-on-Closing-the-Tax-Gap-051021.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Rubin, Orla McCaffrey and Richard. Biden Tax Plan Leans on Banks to Help Find Unreported Income. Wall Street Journal, 29 Apr. 2021. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-tax-plan-leans-on-banks-to-help-find-unreported-income-11619701380. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. Tankersley, Jim, and Dana Goldstein. Biden Details $1.8 Trillion Plan for Workers, Students and Families. The New York Times, 28 Apr. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/us/politics/biden-american-families-plan.html. Accessed 15 Sept. 2021. "When Is a Minimal Fringe Benefit Not So Minimal?" https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/when-is-a-minimal-fringe-benefit-not-so-minimal. Accessed 16 Sept. 2021. Oct. 14, 2021: Added Pelosi's comments on the proposal. Claim:  Oprah Winfrey said that restaurant customers need not tip their servers more than 10%..  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Did Oprah Winfrey state that, in this economy, tipping 10% is acceptable? Origins:  Leaving a relatively substantial monetary tip for the waitstaff at the conclusion of a restaurant meal is the custom in some countries, including the U.S. and Canada. A gratuity amounting to 15% to 20% of the bill is now considered the standard or minimum tip, with even more left in recognition of superlative service. It is therefore little cause for surprise that any cultural icon's public voicing of an opinion that folks should leave no more than a 10% tip would raise the hackles of many in the service industry.  And so it was with the belief that Oprah Winfrey, beloved television talk show host, had instructed members of her audience to not leave more than a 10% tip when dining in restaurants, with such rumor often coupled with a further assertion that this advice was offered in recognition of the recession's having hit everyone hard. Such belief that Oprah had said it fit  well with a widely-held stereotype that African American customers tip less than do other restaurant patrons. In September 2009 a page on the social networking site Facebook raised the false "Oprah said not to tip more than 10%" claim. Titled "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments," the group stated as its purpose:  Against Oprah Winfrey has recently stated on her TV show that it is acceptable to tip servers 10% in our current economy. This group is being put together to show Oprah that her comments have a crippling affect on servers all over the world. As of 4 November 2009, "1 Million Servers Strong Against Oprah's Comments" has 37,228 members. Yet the claim that has inflamed so many is false. There is no evidence in support of the assertion that Oprah Winfrey recommended her audience tip waitstaff 10%, in response to economic recession or otherwise, on her television show or in her magazine. No one has yet to turn up a video clip from her show of her supposed  tipping advice or produce a copy of an article from  O, The Oprah Magazine in which such counsel was allegedly given.  Instead, material from both those venues state that restaurant goers should tip at least 15%. While we've yet to locate a video clip or news report of Oprah herself instructing the audience to pony up with 15% or better, there are examples of invited guests on her show or columnists in her magazine saying exactly that. In the "Ending Rudeness" segment of The Oprah Winfrey Show (which aired on 9 September 2008), Steven Dublanica, author of Waiter Rant: Thanks for the Tip  Confessions of a Cynical Waiter, sat beside Oprah and, with her nodding in agreement, offered this bit of advice for restaurant goers: Rudeness Don't tip less than 15 percent Waiters are paid wages well below the minimum wage  as little as $2.15 an hour in some states  with the expectation that they will earn the majority of their income through tips. In addition, some restaurants require waiters to pay around 20 to 30 percent of their tips to food runners, hostesses and bartenders.  "If you don't tip, then that person doesn't get paid," Steven says. "Literally." Of the "10 Do's and Don'ts of Restaurant Etiquette" proffered by The Oprah Winfrey Show via oprah.com, its official web site, the first is "Tip 15 percent or more." first Likewise, the "Guide to Tipping" published in the December 2002 issue of  O, The Oprah Magazine says:  Guide to Tipping Normally, 15 to 20 percent of the total bill  20 percent for a first-class place. Note that people tip more in urban areas. According to the Zagat Survey, the average gratuity in city restaurants across the United States is about 18 percent. In response to the rumor, HarpoBear (moderator of oprah.com's message board) posted a clarificationon 8 June 2009 (and repeated periodically since then) that said: posted We'd like to respond to the concerns raised about Oprah's thoughts on tipping. The truth is that Oprah has never said that people should tip less during the recession. She believes in generously compensating waiters and waitresses. While a November 2009 Facebook page marked a resurgence of the Oprah rumor, it wasn't the first time the claim had been bruited on that venue: In December 2008 a now defunct Facebook group titled "No, Oprah, it's not OK to tip 10%" repeated the gossip. The rumor comes in two forms: that Oprah herself directed her audience never to tip more than 10% or (far less frequently) that one of her guests did. One name that has been mentioned as the identity of the guest who gave such advice is financial guru Suze Orman, as in this 19 September 2009 blog entry:  Suze Orman blog entry It has been brought to my attention that Suze Orman went onto the Oprah Winfrey show some time ago to give some sound financial advice to all the Oprah-ites who bow down to the feet of the great and powerful O. [...] She said that when it comes time to tip you should just leave 10% instead of 15%. Barbara "the ten percent dissolution" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 November 2009    Day Owen, Sarah.  "Servers at Restaurants See Dropoff in Gratuities."   Augusta Chronicle.  19 December 2008.    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. In a Nov. 8op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Democratic state Sen. Mike Romano offered a litany of troubling statistics about West Virginias economy and urged the creation of a real economic comeback in West Virginia. One of Romanos statistics was that, adjusting for inflation, West Virginias median household income has not grown in a decade. We fact-checkedtwo otherstatementsfrom his op-ed that turned out to be True. Is the latest one on stagnant income correct? We turned to official federal data from the Census Bureau to find out. That data shows that in 2007, the inflation-adjusted median household income in West Virginia was $49,885  the culmination of a decade and a half of consistent gains above the rate of inflation. But one decade later, the 2007 figure remains the states highest median income level since the statistic was first recorded in 1984. Over that decade, the median income fell by 9 percent when factoring in inflation. (Data for 2018 is not available yet.) The nation as a whole has seen some income stagnation since 1999, but nothing as severe as West Virginia experienced. Nationally, median incomes have risen every year since 2014 and hit an all-time high in 2017. Comparing the specific years Romano used  2007 to 2017  the national figure rose by 3 percent. Romano wrote that adjusting for inflation, West Virginias median household income has not grown in a decade. West Virginias inflation-adjusted median income has dropped 9 percent in the last decade, even as the national figure has risen by 3 percent. We rate his statement True.