Did Congress 'Give Itself a 21% Raise' in 2022?
In March 2022, social media users, and in particular right-leaning commentators, protested what they characterized as a decision by Congress members to award themselves a 21 percent pay rise, while U.S. residents endured inflation and record high gas prices. record high gas prices For example, former Republican Congressional candidate Buzz Patterson wrote: candidate wrote While you are paying record prices at the grocery store and gas pump, our politicians in Congress voted for a 21% pay raise for themselves.   For his part, Donald Trump Jr.  the son of and adviser to former President Donald Trump  tweeted: "What the hell has Congress done to deserve a 21% raise?" Similar claims were made by various right-leaning commentators. tweeted were made various commentators On March 10, the right-wing FrontPage Magazine posted an article with the headline "Americans Can't Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise": posted an article   On Facebook, screenshots of that headline went viral, as shown in the image below: went viral   In reality, Congress members did not award themselves a 21 percent pay raise in 2022, but they did vote to increase their operating budgets and expenses by that much. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "false." What those claims actually referred to was something called the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), which the non-partisan Congressional Research Service describes as follows: describes as follows Members of the House of Representatives have one consolidated allowance, the Members Representational Allowance (MRA), with which to operate their offices... While Representatives have a high degree of flexibility to operate their offices in a way that supports their congressional duties and responsibilities, they must operate within a number of restrictions and regulations. The Members Representational Allowance (MRA), the allowance provided to Members of the House of Representatives to operate their DC and district offices, may only support Members in their official and representational duties. It may not be used for personal or campaign purposes. The MRA can be used to pay office staff, but does not include the salary of House members themselves, which has not changed since 2009 and is $174,000 for a typical member. Usually, representatives spend their MRA on travel, paying staff, printing services, office supplies, and so on. has not changed since 2009 On March 15, President Joe Biden signed into law the massive omnibus spending bill. H.R. 2471. Around halfway through the 2,700-page text of the bill, the following stipulation can be found: signed into law text of the bill Members' Representational Allowances Including members' clerk hire, official expenses of members, and official mail For Members' representational allowances, including Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, $774,400,000. In other words, the collective MRA for the House of Representatives is just over $774 million for the 2022 fiscal year. For the 2021 fiscal year, the MRA was $640 million, which means a year-on-year increase of $134.4 million, or exactly 21 percent, as highlighted by Roll Call. 2021 fiscal year Roll Call Senators, who also typically have a salary of $174,000, avail themselves of a roughly equivalent allowance, called the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account (SOPOEA). For the record, that too increased in the 2022 omnibus spending bill: from $461 million in 2021 to $486.3 million in 2022  a 5 percent increase. SOPOEA $461 million $486.3 million Americans Cant Afford Gas, Congress Just Gave Itself a 21% Raise - Frontpagemag. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/americans-cant-afford-gas-congress-just-gave-daniel-greenfield/. Accessed 16 Mar. 2022. Kelly, Stephanie. U.S. Gasoline Prices Edge Lower after Hitting Record High Last Week. Reuters, 13 Mar. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gasoline-prices-edge-lower-after-hitting-record-high-last-week-2022-03-13/. Legislative Branch Bill Boosts Members Representational Allowance, Capitol Police. Roll Call, 9 Mar. 2022, https://www.rollcall.com/2022/03/09/legislative-branch-bill-boosts-members-representational-allowance-capitol-police/. Remarks by President Biden at Signing of H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The White House, 15 Mar. 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/03/15/remarks-by-president-biden-at-signing-of-h-r-2471-consolidated-appropriations-act-2022/.
Christmas may be a time for giving, but it's also a time for scams. Internet swindlers attempt to take advantage of people's generosity during the holiday season with a variety of schemes. This is probablywhy some people looked at a request for Christmas cards for an 8-year-old burn victim named Safyre Terry with a skeptical eye. attempt schemes The request was originallyposted to Facebook by Kevin "Snapshot" Clark on 4 December 2015: posted Facebook users who were skeptical about Clark's request must have been a little extra wary when the account disappeared for a few hours on 8 December 2015. But this was not the result of any fraudulent activity:  result Last night Facebook shut my page down 6 hours... probably because of all the Safyre stuff (I was getting 50/minute friend requests! )... anyways, I made a new page BUT now don't need it. Ignore it. Today after I nap from working all night I'm meeting Liz Terry-Dolder and Safyre after she gets outta school at her PO BOX so we can all check her mail TOGETHER! *AND A REPORTER /PHOTOGRAPHER FROM THE SCHENECTADY GAZETTE WILL BE THERE TOO! PSYCHED!!! Liz Terry-Dolder The influx of activity on Clark's page was likely dueto Hulk Hogan's sudden involvement in the project. On 8 December 2015, the wrestler shared Clark's message with his loyal "maniacs": shared Alright maniacs let's make Safyre's Christmas Dream come true! All she wants is Christmas Cards from around the world, but a little extra Christmas magic wouldn't hurt!HH. The outpouring of support for Safyre Terry has been covered by multiple TV stations and news publications. And while a fundraising page has been set up to cover medical bills (anaspect that occasionally sets off the scam alert) this is a legitimate attempt to raise money for a young girl who suffered through a terrible ordeal. stations news publications fundraising On 2 May 2013, Terry survived a fire that killed her father and three siblings: survived Elizabeth Dolder never imagined Safyre Terry's stubborn ways might one day serve the girl well in her battle to stay alive. "She was a stubborn child, but that stubbornness is helping her through this," Dolder said of her niece. "She's going to get through this. I can't lose her, too." The 5-year-old girl, the only child to survive a ferocious house fire in Schenectady during the early morning hours of May 2 that claimed the lives of three of her siblings and her father, remains hospitalized in critical condition with severe burns to her tiny body. On 9 December 2015 Dodler, Terry's sole guardian, sent a thank you message out to all of the people who sent Christmas cards and donations: message BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE She did. When she said she can't wait to fill up the card tree my response was I don't think it's gonna get filled up but I am sure we will get a few more cards. She BELIEVED and ALL of YOU are making it happen. THANK YOU.....FAITH LOVE HOPE TO ALL Subsequent reportsshowedhuge piles of letters and cards: When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait...Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World.[article-meta] When this all began Sa'fyre wanted 100 Christmas cards. This is her latest delivery. Are you sitting down? I'll wait... Posted by John Gray Fox23 on Monday, December 14, 2015 John Gray Fox23 Monday, December 14, 2015 On 15 December 2015, a nonprofit organization called Baking Memories 4 Kids, which uses funds from cookies they sell to send children with life-threatening conditions on free vacations with their families, surprised Safyre with a trip to Walt Disney World. organization surprised  [article-meta] Call it the Democrats midterm disease. The voters who come out in presidential elections and help them win the White House tend to stay home in the off-years. Last weeks loss in Florida showed clear symptoms of the partys affliction and whether Democrats can do much about it was batted about by the pundits on the Sunday talk shows. Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the liberal magazineThe Nation, argued that Democrats should take advantage of what she called a populist moment. The majority support (raising) the minimum wage, vanden Heuvel said on ABCsThis Week. More fairness, taking on a rigged system that's working against working people. We wanted to review the polls to see where the electorate stands. As a matter of simple support, plenty of opinion surveys back up vanden Heuvels claim. The latest results from aBloomberg pollshow 69 percent of the public supports raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour over the next three years. ABC News and theWashington Postasked if a candidates support for raising the minimum wage would make you more likely to vote for him or her. Half of all voters said they would be more likely to vote for that candidate. Only about a fifth said they would be less likely; most of the remainder said it would make no difference in their decision. ACBS/New York Timespoll in February found 65 percent of the public favored raising the minimum wage to $10.10. So people largely support increasing the minimum wage, polls show. But polls also suggest that its not necessarily a high priority. A FebruaryGalluppoll found just 2 percent of respondents said wages were the most important issue facing the country. The gap between rich and poor, another Democratic theme, also came in at 2 percent. What voters cared most about in that survey, 23 percent of them, were jobs and cutting unemployment. Thats obviously connected to whether Americans have enough money to get by, but it isnt the same as supporting a raise in the minimum wage. AQuinnipiac Universitypoll in January had very similar results. In an open-ended question about the nations top priority for 2014, 1 percent of respondents mentioned the minimum wage, while 16 percent said jobs and unemployment, 15 percent said the economy in general, and 18 percent said health care. With jobs and the economy ranked so high, the latest findings fromABC News/Washington Postpolling show the public equally divided on which party they trust to handle the economy. About 40 percent give the nod to the Democrats and 40 percent to the Republicans. Our ruling Vanden Heuvel said most Americans support raising the minimum wage. The polls confirm it. About two-thirds of the public consistently say boosting the minimum wage to $10.10 is a good idea and as many as a half of all voters say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who backs that increase. But how much a candidates position on the minimum wage matters in the polling booth is much less clear. The minimum wage is not top of mind except for a small fraction of voters. Still, vanden Heuvel's specific claim is accurate. We rate the statement True. In May 2022, we received inquiries from our readers that asked if an email message from the "Jeff Green Foundation" was legitimate. According to the email, a philanthropist named Jeff Green had decided to give away $1 million each to 20 different lucky recipients. However, this had all the signs of a classic email scam. Jeff Green scam According to a screenshot captured by a reader, the email appeared like this:  We transcribed the scam email below: scam From: Jeff Green Foundation Subject: My philanthropy! To: YOU Reply-To: privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu Greetings to you and your family. In a thousand years, I never thought I would do something like this. My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do. https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ When I was 17, I met a homeless man named James in Five Points, Denver, Colorado. I spent hours listening to him, his stories, and the twists and turns of choice and fate that led him to a life on the streets. His journey deeply affected me, and I found myself dwelling on it a great deal over the following months, unable to shake one core question that was taking root in my mind - Why is he out here on the streets in the December cold while I am living a more comfortable life? I think this adage is generally true: luck is preparation meeting opportunity. But I also understand that many people experience major life events that obstruct their preparation and as a result, opportunity passes them by. I also believe that we all encounter people who can propel us forward or hold us back. No one gets to their situation in life alone, good or bad. I didn't get to this statistically outlying position alone, and neither did James. Money cannot buy happiness. Money can buy things that make life more enjoyable. But those things and that enjoyment are always fleeting. When you think about the problems you face in life, the accumulation of things is rarely the solution. My philanthropy is not about politics or handouts - it is about getting the best outcomes for all the potential talent, which can only benefit our nation, and humankind. It will help people step up to opportunity, not lay back. I will give away the vast majority of my wealth through data-driven philanthropy before or at my death. My target is more than 90 percent of my wealth. But I will also give of my time, my most precious commodity, to allocate those funds deliberately, and to be personally engaged. So I decided I was going to contact 20 people via their email address which I paid for from a Data Firm. If you receive this email, I am giving you $1 Million. Thinking about it again, I must be crazy to do something like this but crazy is what made me who I am today so lets go for it! All you have to do is reply to this email with your full names and you will be paid $1 Million. My Life's Mission is to deploy capital against humanity's toughest problems. Jeff Green. A search of Twitter showed that several users were curious whether the "Jeff Green Foundation" email was legitimate: Twitter    We didn't find any similar messages available on Facebook, but it's likely that some users were discussing the email in private posts only visible to friends. Facebook Some of the paragraphs in the "Jeff Green Foundation" email scam were copied and pasted from the text of a genuine letter written by a real philanthropist named Jeff T. Green. In November 2021, Green truly did pledge to try to give away "more than 90 percent" of his billions in wealth. scam a genuine letter billions However, there's no indication that Green or his foundation had anything to do with the email scam. scam We quickly noticed several issues with the "Jeff Green Foundation" message. Before the email got into the "when I was 17" story from the genuine letter, several words were either capitalized or not capitalized that should have been the reverse. For example, one usage of the word "I" was left to be lowercase as "i" in the same sentence as an oddly-placed comma: "My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do." Additionally, the sentence was poorly worded. The message also asked recipients to respond to privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu. The idea that a billionaire philanthropist would publish an email with such poor grammar and, at the same time, ask people to respond to a fairly generic Hungarian email address, did not scream "legitimate." We reached out to a company associated with Green to see if they had been alerted to the scam that used his name. We will update this story if we receive a statement. scam In sum, no, the "Jeff Green Foundation" emails that promised $1 million each to 20 different people was not a legitimate giveaway. Jeff T. Green. The Giving Pledge, https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=430. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. Richest Utah Native Vows to Give Away 90% of His Billions. The Salt Lake Tribune, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/. Swant, Marty. Billionaire Jeff T. Green, Founder Of The Trade Desk, Joins The Giving Pledge. Forbes, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2021/11/16/the-trade-desk-founder-jeff-green-joins-list-of-billionaires-to-sign-the-giving-pledge/. Tavss, Jeff. Billionaire Utahn to Give Away 90% of His Wealth. KSTU, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth. In October 2022, we received reader mail about a "Whole Foods Market Research" scam. The scam arrives in the form of an email, text, or mailed letter, and claims that the recipient has been chosen to be a secret shopper for Whole Foods Market. The goal of the scammer is to get the recipient to deposit a check into the recipient's bank account. However, unbeknownst to the recipient, the check is fake. The scammer is to quickly task the recipient to buy gift cards and then provide the identifying details on the front and back. Alternatively, the scammer might ask the recipient to initiate a wire transfer or money order to send back a partial amount of the funds from the check. The scammer claims that the recipient can keep a portion of the funds for the work. However, again, the check is fake, so recipients are spending their own money to buy gift cards for the scammers. We reviewed one example of this scam that arrived as an email. It came from wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com, which was not an official Whole Foods email address. It claimed to come from a person named Jerry A. Wallace, a purported human resources (HR) representative. A previous version of this scam named Wallace as a "project manager," according to scampulse.com. We found no evidence of a person with this name being a real employee for Whole Foods. according to scampulse.com  The original email, which contained several store name misspellings, read as follows: wholefoodsmarketresearchllc@gmail.com wrote: Attn: (name removed) You submitted your information to one of our recruitment agencies to work as a Whole Foods Market Research representative. Your details have been verified and you have been shortlisted as one of our representatives. Here is your unique I.D. number MS6953, your details have been stored in our database. Our company has recently been contracted to do a quality survey on Target, King Soopers, Walmart Stores, Best Buy, Post Office, CVS, Rite Aid, Ebay, Kmart, Pizza Hut, Kroger, Walgreen, Dillons OR 7Eleven e.t.c. We have shortlisted a few representatives from various states and cities to visit any of the stores listed above randomly, to buy merchandise and share their experience via our feedback Checklist/Assessment form. You will receive an envelope containing a Cashier's Check and the Instructions Letter. The Checklist/Assessment Form will be sent/attached to your mail. Please signify your interest with a Yes, I'm Ready. Thank you. Best Regards,Whole Foods Market ResearchHR Personnel :- Jerry A. WallaceCell :- (216) 239-2582 We called the phone number listed in the email. After several rings, a voice message was played that said, "The TextNow subscriber you are trying to reach is not available. Please leave your message after the tone." The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) previously published a full report on this scam back in 2020: full report People spotted signs of a fake check scam in the bogus Whole Foods secret shopper offer (which was from a scammer, not really Whole Foods). Thats when someone sends you a check and convinces you to deposit it and quickly send them money. In this scam, the recruiter would send shoppers a check for more than $2,000 and they would: fake check scam 1. Cash or deposit the check immediately.2. Buy gift cards with most of the money.3. Keep about $450 as their pay.4. Scratch the coating off the gift cards to show the PIN codes.5. Send pictures of the cards front and back (with the codes) to the recruiter. If anyone ever tells you to deposit a check, withdraw money, and send it to someone, thats a scam. When the check later turns out to be fake, the bank will want the money back. And if anyone tells you to go buy gift cards and share the PIN numbers, thats a scam, too. Once the scammer has the PIN, they also have all the money from the cards. The FTC said this scam can be reported at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. They also added, "If you already cashed a fake check and sent money to a scammer, find out how to report to gift card, wire transfer, and money order businesses." ReportFraud.ftc.gov find out how In sum, both we and the FTC advise consumers to not respond to any emails, texts, or mailed letters that invite recipients to work as a secret shopper for "Whole Foods Market Research." How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Fake Check Scams. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 29 Jan. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-spot-avoid-report-fake-check-scams. Imposter H-SON LIMITED Reports & Reviews. Scampulse.com, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.scampulse.com/imposter-h-son-limited-reviews. Small, Bridget. Fake Offers for Secret Shopper Jobs. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 3 Mar. 2020, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2020/03/fake-offers-secret-shopper-jobs. Tressler, Colleen. Anatomy of a Fake Check Scam. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Consumer Advice, 5 Sept. 2018, https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2018/09/anatomy-fake-check-scam. 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. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. In Ohio, where union workers are a major presence and the manufacturing economy is hurting, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, called NAFTA. Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA, Obama said. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' The Clinton campaign says Obama is wrong, that Clinton was critical of NAFTA long before she started running for president. We looked into Clinton's past remarks on NAFTA and concluded that she has changed her tune, from once speaking favorably about it to now saying the agreement needs fixing. The agreement goes back to the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton ran against incumbent President George H.W. Bush. On Aug. 12 of that year, Bush finished negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would support NAFTA if elected, but would demand supplemental agreements to protect worker rights, the environment and sudden import surges. After Clinton won the presidency, his administration negotiated the side agreements and made NAFTA one of its top priorities. Vice President Al Gore memorably debated Ross Perot about NAFTA on CNN's Larry King Live. Congress approved the agreements, and it was hailed as a major political victory for the new president. As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report. Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir Living History, published in 2003: Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. During a 2004 teleconference on funding cuts for job training, Clinton was asked whether NAFTA should be revisited. She replied, I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in NAFTA. I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada, she said. Today, Clinton's campaign Web site says plainly, NAFTA was negotiated more than 14 years ago, and Hillary believes it has not lived up to its promises. At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for a trade timeout. We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA. Now, there's the issue of whether Clinton changed her mind because she was running for president. Clinton surrogates say she made remarks against NAFTA as early as March 2000 when she was running for Senate in New York. We could not confirm those remarks independently. But, as we've noted, she made pro-NAFTA remarks as late as 2003 (her autobiography) and 2004 (a teleconference). We won't say Clinton was a huge cheerleader for NAFTA, but she did speak favorably of it. And now she says it needs to be fixed. Was running for president the cause of this switch, or was it a gradual change of thinking? It's hard to say; the balance of evidence does not point to a harsh pivot point. But when we balance her previous statements against her more recent statements, we find that she has changed her sentiments when she speaks about NAFTA. We rate Obama's charge True. 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 Scientists are still uncertain whether a person who has contracted the COVID-19 coronavirus disease can catch it again. However, according to an item circulated via social media ("Corona is so bad, this guy died twice!"), one person has apparently not only caught, but actually died of COVID-19 twice: uncertain   According to the two separate news accounts pictured above, a retired Milwaukee police lieutenant and a University of Memphis professor, identified with identical photographs, seemingly both died in March 2020 from the COVID-19 coronavirus. However, the news reports of the COVID-19 victim seen above employed different headlines to refer to the same person, Lenard Wells, who was both a former police officer and an instructor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis: same person Lenard Wells instructor [Wells] spent 27 years on the Milwaukee Police Department, where he worked tirelessly to bring racial equity to the ranks as president of the League of Martin, an association for African American officers. During his tenure, the League of Martin sued to make sure promotions and assignments were fair. "He wanted African American law enforcement officers to have the same rights and opportunities that were afforded to other officers," Assistant Milwaukee Police Chief Regina Howard said. After his police retirement, then-Gov. Jim Doyle appointed Wells chairman of the Wisconsin Parole Commission. In recent years, Wells taught criminal justice at the University of Memphis. Lenard retired from the Milwaukee Police Department after 27 years of service as a Lieutenant of Police. After retiring from the Milwaukee Police Department, he was appointed by Governor Jim Doye of Wisconsin to Chair the Wisconsin Parole Board. Forster, Victoria.  "Can You Get Sick with Coronavirus Twice? The Jury Is Still Out."
  Forbes.  8 April 2020. Luthern, Ashley.  "'A Law Enforcement Pioneer': Lenard Wells, Who Died of Coronavirus Complications, Leaves Lasting Legacy."
  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  23 March 2020. President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:  Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent  This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. On Jan. 4, 2021, the Madhouse Magazine website published a story that said film actress Daryl Hannah was pregnant at age 60 with what would be her first child. She married musician Neil Young in 2018. He was 75 years at the time the website published this headline: "Neil Young and Daryl Hannah Expecting Their First Child Together." published married  The Madhouse Magazine website had a disclaimer page that described its stories as satire.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that labeled its stories as being satirical in nature. labeled According to the satirical story, Hannah became pregnant at age 60 and made the announcement on social media: A spokesman confirmed that Neil Young's wife, Daryl Hannah, is pregnant. This will be the couple's first child. Young made the announcement on social media as he posted an image holding a "Prego" tomato sauce jar with the caption, "We are Prego!" Hannah, 60, is in good health and is being monitored. It is quite rare to become pregnant after age 50, but she's one of a growing number of older new mothers in the United States  a trend that's bolstered by changing societal norms and new advances in fertility treatments. Several months later, several Twitter users spread the satirical story and described Hannah as becoming pregnant at age 61, not 60, around the time of her birthday, Dec. 3.  This tweet was posted days before Hannah's 61st birthday.  This reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. was about QAnon conspiracy theory supporters who really did believe he was going to come back from the dead. Of course, that was not the case. (Hannah and Kennedy Jr. previously dated before he died in a plane crash in 1999.) reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. really did believe previously dated  A tweet from Dec. 5.   The satirical story appeared to catch on in the middle of December.   We saw various accounts share the satire story on this day.  A snippet from the Madhouse Magazine story was also shared as a screenshot:  A section from the satirical story.  In the snippet, it said: Neil Young, 75, was giddy with excitement as he gushed at the prospect of a new baby. "I understand we are up there in age, but don't let these old grey temples fool ya now. Just because theres snow on the roof don't mean theres no fire in the basement!" Neil then did a few pelvic thrusts to emphasize his virility. "You better stand back" said Neil to the female reporters, "You might get pregnant standing too close to me!" Giving birth at age 60 may be rare, but just last year a 74 year old woman in India gave birth to twins. "I have the Uterus of a 20 year old and the eggs of a teenager", said Hannah. "There was no IVF or anything like that, me and Neil did it the old fashioned way by humping like jackrabbits." The satirical story spread well beyond its Madhouse Magazine origins, including in a Sept. 13, 2021, article on heightzone.com. The headline read: "Daryl Hannah Is Pregnant at the Age of 60 with Husband Neil Young, Couple Expecting a Baby Boy!" We stumbled upon similar stories on celebsaga.com and mixedarticle.com. article on heightzone.com celebsaga.com mixedarticle.com We also found the purported news reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Facebook:  A question with an easy answer: Hannah was not pregnant.   This appeared to be a real photograph from 2018.   It's possible that the misleading story from heightzone.com prompted a surge in new posts around Dec. 14, 2021.   "Wrong" is certainly one way to describe "satire."  In sum, the story about Hannah becoming pregnant was labeled as satire but later spread well beyond its origins. For this reason, we have rated this claim as "Originated As Satire." For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why