Did U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings Write a Bill to Keep All of Barack Obama's Records Sealed?
On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. That bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records, and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Presidents 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." H.R. 1233 press release A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress' attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), held that Cummings' bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed":  First of all, the above meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed"  that is, records that would ordinarily be accessible by the public have been restricted via court orders (see example below of such records):  In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration); are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records); or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Illinois state Senate records Selective Service registration college records Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above  with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years now  is federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included a number of provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed": Strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of Federal records to clearly include electronic records. This is the first change to the definition of a Federal record since the enactment of the act in 1950. Confirming that Federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form. Granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a Federal record. Authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic Federal and Presidential records to the National Archives, while legal custody remains with the agency or the President. Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems. Empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal. Codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review Presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings' bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overriden by the incumbent president or by court order: Amends the Presidential Records Act to require the Archivist of the United States, upon determining to make publicly available any presidential record not previously made available, to: (1) promptly provide written notice of such determination to the former President during whose term of office the record was created, to the incumbent President, and to the public; and (2) make such record available to the public within 60 days, except any record with respect to which the Archivist receives notification from a former or incumbent President of a claim of constitutionally-based privilege against disclosure. Prohibits the Archivist from making a record that is subject to such a claim publicly available unless: (1) the incumbent President withdraws a decision upholding the claim, or (2) the Archivist is otherwise directed to do so by a final court order that is not subject to appeal. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records: National Coalition for History For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administrations Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989 which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Executive Order 13233 Executive Order 13489 Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation there [was] nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former-president as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (HR 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013 creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, in essence codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. HR 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president, and grants to the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records, not to "keep Obamas records sealed." The National Coalition for History.  "HR 1233 'Presidential and Federal Records Act.'"
  Accessed 7 May 2019. Congress.gov.  "Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  Accessed 6 May 2019. National Archives.  "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal Records Management."
  Accessed 7 May 2019. National Archives.  "National Archives Welcomes Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014."
  1 December 2014.
Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."    Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walkers proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. For UW-Madison its a major issue, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015Wisconsin Eye interview. Its penny wise and pound foolish there. Barca added: The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and theyre leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. Lets remember that the cut thats happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didnt hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end. Well test Vos claim soon. For now, lets examine Barcas statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to apage on the UW-Madison websitethat answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-17 budget -- at least from the UW Systems perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin. So theres Barcas close to a quarter million figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in theuniversitys Data Digest. The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So theres a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the universitys ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, thats the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the Data Digest, told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. Theres another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There areother factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but theres one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barcas statement Mostly True. Weeks after the U.S. Capitol insurrection, reports surfaced claiming that a highly visible member of the right-wing mob  the self-described "QAnon digital soldier" who was photographed shirtless, wearing horns and furs on his head  was abandoning former President Donald Trump as a demagogue. reports QAnon digital soldier For example, a Jan. 29 Vice headline read: "The 'QAnon Shaman' just Flipped On Trump." headline read   The assertion had some truth to it. In an interview with The Associated Press, the lawyer representing the man  Jacob Chansley or "Jake Angeli" of Arizona  said his client's attitude toward the president had changed since the deadly siege, and he was willing to testify in Trump's historic second impeachment. That trial by the U.S. Senate was set to begin the week of Feb. 8 and would either convict or acquit the former president of inciting his supporters to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to halt a ceremonial vote to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. halt a ceremonial vote The attorney, Albert Watkins, said he wants senators to hear the perspective of someone who was incited by Trump, according to the Jan. 30 story. The Associated Press continued: Jan. 30 story Watkins said his client was previously 'horrendously smitten' by Mr. Trump but now feels let down after Mr. Trump's refusal to grant Chansley and others who participated in the insurrection a pardon. 'He felt like he was betrayed by the president,' Watkins said. Here is a full list of the people Trump pardoned or commuted during his final hours in office. full list We reached out to Watkins to determine the legitimacy of the news story. In an email, we sent him a link to The Associated Press reporting, asked him if it was indeed accurate, and, if so, inquired why or under what circumstances his party decided to offer Angeli's testimony. He responded in an email message to Snopes: "My client is available if called upon to testify. No statement to the contrary has been made." In other words, it was true to claim that Angeli  who was arrested and charged on Jan. 9 for insurrection-related crimes including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct  was willing to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial, which may determine whether Trump can run for political office in the future. Jan. 9 whether However, the nature of Angeli's testimony, should he be asked to speak during the trial, remained unknown as of this writing. "The words of Trump supporters who are accused of participating in the riot may end up being used against him in his impeachment trial," The Associated Press reported, though no evidence existed to determine whether Angeli would indeed share his experience to help senators convict the former president. In sum, while it was true that Angeli was willing to testify at Trump's second impeachment trial, it was not known whether he was preparing to make a statement that would help or hurt the efforts of senators who believe the former president is guilty of inciting the insurrection. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of truthful, false, and undetermined information. In mid-January 2024, a viral video purportedly showed a participant at the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, saying [expletive] you onstage to WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab. video The participant appears to stare down Schwab while standing on stage and adds, [expletive] your new world order. We the people were born free, we will stay free, and you and all of your globalist friends including everyone in this room can go [expletive] yourselves. The video was also uploaded to YouTube:  It appeared to originate from Damon Imani, a content creator, on Jan. 16, 2024, as it had his name as a watermark on the top left.  (@damonimani/X) Many online users reposted the video, including this post in French with the caption: A guest like no other, Damon Imani on stage at #WEF in Davos. reposted this post Some people appeared to think the video was authentic. It is a work of satire, however, as pointed out by Imani, the original creator and the man in the video. In a post below the original video, he wrote, Satire but true. This video is also available on Rumble here and Klaus Schwab can go f himself. Based on that statement, and the lack of any evidence at all confirming the incident happened, we rate this claim as Labeled Satire. creator According to his website (emphasis, ours): Damon Imani is an Iranian producer and artist based in Denmark, who creates video content related to various topics, including societal issues, news, and current events. Known for his satirical approach, Imani draws attention to societal and political issues through his work. With the tense political climate of the world in the 2016-20 era, Imani's content gained traction from social media users from both sides, as well as public figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk, and many other influential figures. His work has also been featured in major media outlets such as USA Today, InfoWars, The Associated Press, BPR Politics And Business, and many more. It is also obvious from the contrast in lighting on Imani's face compared with the lighting on Schwab that Imani edited himself onto the WEF stage. Posting on X after his video gained more attention, Imani complained about the language of the community note being placed under his original video, writing, I've requested additional review. Even the language of this CN is laughable; 1. It links to my own notice. Duh! 2. Makes opinion based argument that I can't use "breaking" for something that's not breaking. This is a straightforward hijack of Community Notes to demonetize a very smart immigrant. writing  This is not the first time we have fact checked false claims involving Schwab. The WEF, as we have reported in the past, is an influential, international, non-governmental organization known for fostering private-public partnerships around economy, international development, and more. The organization, which Schwab founded in 1971, is the target of many conspiracy theories surrounding its real-life ties to elite networks that online rumor-mongers believe are nefariously planning to create totalitarian regimes. first time reported influential founded conspiracy For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Ibrahim, Nur. Did WEF Say Humans Will All Wear a Uniform By 2030? Snopes, 7 July 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-fashion-humans-uniforms/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Imani, Damon. New? Start Here! Damon Imani, 15 Oct. 2018, https://damonimani.com/about.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Kasprak, Alex. Was World Economic Forum Vice Chairman Aboard the Collapsed Titan Submersible? Snopes, 23 June 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-titan-submersible/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. No, the World Economic Forum Hasnt Ordered Governments to Legalize Marriage With Animals. Snopes, 7 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-legalize-marriage-animals/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. "World Economic Forum Archives." Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/tag/world-economic-forum/. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. What happens when the sitting President of the United States can no longer carry out his duties due to death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacitation?  That was one of the issues addressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution back in the 18th century, but unfortunately not thoroughly so  ambiguities of wording and unanticipated circumstances have required that the Constitution be amended several times to cover situations not originally foreseen. Even today, some questions about presidential succession and eligibility remain, giving rise to various thought exercises such as the following: thought exercises  Although the particular scenario outlined in the above meme is a hypothetical, we can say that its  description of how to restore to office a President who has been impeached and removed from office would almost certainly fail in real life for practical and/or legal reasons. For openers, let's summarize the process of removing a President from office.   The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to discuss the charges against the President (similar to a grand jury pondering an indictment), prepares articles of impeachment outlining those charges, and (if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles), sends them to the full House for debate and vote.  If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment based on one or more of those articles, then the President must stand trial in the Senate.  If two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict at the culmination of that trial, the President is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be barred from holding any high governmental position again. But could the removed President's successor make use of constitutional powers to pardon him and engage a scheme to reinstall him to the presidency by appointing him Vice President?    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."  So if the Senate voted to convict a sitting President and thereby remove him from office, they could also vote to permanently disqualify him from holding federal office again.   However, none of that judgment could be undone by a presidential pardon, because Article II, Section 2 (which establishes the presidential pardon privilege) states that "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (If this were not the case, then a sitting President facing impeachment could simply pardon himself and thus avoid any punishment.) What if the Senate voted to remove a President from office but did not also vote to bar him from holding office again?  That's where the practicality part of this exercise kicks in. Let's imagine a President is impeached and removed from office, and the Vice President thereby assumes the presidency.  Now the office of Vice President is vacant and needs to be filled.  Could the just-removed President step into that role? Amendment XXV of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."  Theoretically, anyone who was  constitutionally eligible to hold office could be nominated for the VP slot.  But how likely is it that the same Congress that just voted overwhelmingly to oust a politician from the highest office in the land would then turn right around and approve appointing that same person to the second-highest office?  We'll go with "not very likely." About the only way this scenario could conceivably play out in real life would be if the following sequence of events took place: 1) A President were impeached and removed from office but not permanently barred from holding office.2) An election that altered the makeup of Congress intervened before a new Vice President could be nominated and approved.3) The results of that election tilted Congress in favor of the recently deposed President.4) The newly seated Congress opted to make one of their first acts of business the audacious re-installation to power of a President who had just been drummed out of office. All of the maneuvering described above would only get the former President as far the vice presidency.  Elevating him back into the position of chief executive would require that the current President be so pliant as to willingly step aside to make room for someone who had just been kicked out of office  an act that would have no obvious upside to it for the recently installed President (given that   achieving the presidency is generally considered the pinnacle of any politician's career).   All in all, it's possible that under an extremely contrived and convoluted sequence of events, a President who had been impeached and removed from office could regain the White House without standing for election again ... but the likelihood of circumstances lining up just right to make that happen are practically zero.   And the presidential power to pardon would be irrelevant to that process. In February 2020, a text meme concerning Sen. Bernie Sanders' health care plan and his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour was circulated on social media. The meme contained several arithmetic equations that supposedly showed how the pay increase for minimum wage workers would be negated by the hike in taxes needed to pay for Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan:   Bernie Sanders said at the debate last night he wants minimum wage to be $15 an hour. 15$ x 40 hr work week = $600600$ x 52 weeks per year = $31,200 Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was to raise taxes 52% on anyone making over $29,000 per year. 52% of $31,200 = $16,224 in tax$31,200 - $16,224 = $14,976 is your pay$14,976  52 weeks = $288 per week$288  40 hr week = $7.20 per hour But there's no need to check the arithmetic in this meme. The general claim here  that Sanders' health care plan would raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year  is egregiously false. In short, no. One proposal offered by Sanders would raise the tax rate to 52% on earnings over $10 million. Sanders also proposed that the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes, and a 4% income-based premium would be applied to earnings over $29,000. The meme asserts that Sanders made this claim "at the debate last night." As this meme started circulating in mid-February 2020, we'll assume that timing refers to the Democratic presidential debate held in Las Vegas on Feb. 17, 2020. Although Sanders did say that he wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 during that debate, he did not say that he would pay for his health care plan by raising "taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 a year." Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg did maintain that "taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000" under Sanders' tax plan, but Buttigieg did not claim that the tax rate would increase to 52% for these individuals. Sanders disputed Buttigieg's claim during the debate, saying the latter was "not being honest" and that any tax increase for low-wage workers would be offset by lower health care costs. Here's an excerpt of the exchange between the two men (a full transcript of the debate is available here): here BUTTIGIEG: [Sanders] was a congressman at the time. And the qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a great deal. I never said that I agree with every part of his policy views, then or now. But I appreciate that at least he's straightforward and honest about them. He's honest about the fact that taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000 to fund his health care plan, although, again, a little bit vague about how the rest of that gets ... SANDERS: You're not being honest. Premiums would be eliminated. BUTTIGIEG: But you're still raising those taxes. And when you do it... SANDERS: But we're saving people money because they don't pay any premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, co-payments, or deductibles. They're going to be much better off. [applause] BUTTIGIEG: But where is  where is the other $25 trillion supposed to come from? At a certain point, you've got to do the math. SANDERS: Well, we got it all up there on the internet. It's a payroll tax  a payroll tax... [crosstalk] BUTTIGIEG: Well, no, but even after the payroll tax, you still have a hole. [crosstalk] SANDERS: Because we have a wealth tax. Elizabeth [Warren] has a good one. Ours is a little bit tougher on Mr. Bloomberg than hers. We're going to raise it in a progressive way, which deals with income and wealth inequality, and makes certain, finally, that health care in this country is a human right, not a privilege. Although Sanders did not reference it during that debate, we did find mention of a 52% tax rate on a document he released to explain various "options to finance Medicare for All." That document stated that the 52% tax rate would be applied to earnings over $10 million, not $29,000 as claimed in the meme. Here's the relevant excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): document Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market. Progressive income tax rates. Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be: Sanders mentioned the $29,000 figure in another document entitled "Financing Medicare for All." This documented listed a few additional ways to pay for Medicare for All, including a 4% income-based premium on incomes over $29,000. Here's an excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): Financing Medicare for All As the wealthiest country in the world, we have a variety of options available to support a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system that guarantees high quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege, to every man, woman, and child in this country. Those options include, but are not limited to: Sanders elaborated on this portion of his plan during a September 2019 appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert": September 2019  Sanders made a similar statement during a town hall in New Hampshire in November 2019. Sanders again said that the first $29,000 of an individual's earnings would be exempt from taxes and then a 4% tax rate would apply on earnings over $29,000: town hall What we will do  what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," Sanders told his supporters. "All right, good. You  youre better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means were going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent. We were unable to find any instance of Sanders' proposing a 52% tax rate on "anybody making over $29,000" per year, something that appears to be an erroneous conflation of Sanders' proposing a 4% tax rate on earnings over $29,000 and a 52% tax rate on earnings over $10 million. A counter-meme offered a more accurate (although still not entirely accurate) look at Sanders' actual expressed plans:  This meme, too, makes a mistake. Sanders' tax proposal uses a marginal tax rate (or a progressive tax rate), which means that a different tax rate is applied to different portions of a person's income. The percentage taxed starts relatively small, but grows as income increases. In Sanders' case, the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes. When a person's income crosses the $29,000 threshold, a 4% tax will be applied to earnings OVER$29,000. This tax rate continues to grow as income increases. Income over $10 million, for instance, would be taxed at 52%. But the above-displayed meme applies a 4% tax rate to ALL $31,200. Under Sanders' plan, however, the first $29,000 would be exempt and the 4% tax rate would only apply to the remaining $2,200. We reached out to Sanders' campaign for comment on the claim that the candidate was planning to raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year. A spokesperson told us "the meme is false."  Kangadis, Nick.  "Bernie Sanders Says Tax Hike on Lower, Middle Classes Will Pay for Medicare for All Plan."
  MRCTV.  26 November 2019. Frazin, Rachel.  "Colbert Questions Sanders on Middle-Class Tax Hike After Pressing Warren on the Same Topic."
  The Hill.  27 September 2019. NBC News.  "Full Transcript: Ninth Democratic Debate in Las Vegas."
  19 February 2020. Updated [24 February 2020]: Added information to clarify the marginal tax rate structure and correct an inaccurate portion of a secondary meme. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout:   according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." Claim:  A mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola killed two Brazilian children. Status:  . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2006] One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil. Please check the experiment that has been done by mixing Coca Cola with MENTOS........ Be careful with your Coke   Origins:  Mentos, a candy that has a soft, chewy interior encased in a slightly hard shell, is no longer just for noshing on  when combined with a carbonated beverage in a closed environment that  has a small opening (think "soda bottle"), it serves to produce a frothy geyser that shoots many feet into the air, a secondary use of the product that has served to enthrall countless persons with a penchant for making things explode. The combination of any carbonated liquid and mint-flavored Mentos will rapidly produce copious amounts of foam because the candy works to disrupt the surface tension of the liquid, thereby releasing all the drink's fizz (carbon dioxide) in one surprisingly speedy whoosh. The resulting effect is quick, high, and explosive, yet what takes place is not a chemical reaction but a physical one (even though some are moved to believe the confection's gum arabic component or diet soda's aspartame has something to do with the process). As Steve Spangler, former high school science teacher turned hands-on science guru, explained: "The Mentos effect has nothing to do with the inside of the Mentos and everything to Steve Spangler do with the outside." The candy's shell is pocked with little nooks and crannies the beverage's carbon dioxide molecules are immediately drawn to, and the confection's relatively large surface area provides infinitely more such nooks and crannies (nucleation sites) than, say, an M&M would. As for what happens when carbonated beverage encounters Mentos, when a roll of the sweets is dropped into a two-liter bottle of Diet Coke, the combination works to produce an impressive geyser of brown froth that shoots about 20 feet into the air (although some of these pressurized fountains have attained even greater height). Diet cola of any manufacture is regarded as the liquid of choice for creating a "Mentos eruption" or "Mentos effect" because a cola's brown color serves to make the reaction much more starkly dramatic in all its explosive glory, and diet versions of those sodas don't leave the same sticky residue that their sugared counterparts do (an aspect well worth considering when contemplating spraying a wide area that you may afterward be called upon to clean). Plus, some folks swear diet sodas make for higher geysers. Numerous video clips of "Mentos eruptions" exist on the Internet; one needn't search all that diligently to stumble across scads of them. Not all such videos found on the Web are on the up-and-up, however, including the famed "Pepsi Girl" clip, which purports to document a demise caused by the ingestion of a mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola. Which brings us back to this article's topic, the ballyhooed death of a youngster who consumed this combination. This alert about an unnamed child in Brazil's sorry fate began circulating on the Internet in November 2006. Since no checkable details are provided in the account (the deceased is described as "a little boy" rather than by name, he died in "Brazil" rather than in any particular city or region within that country, and his demise occurred "last week" rather than on a specific date), the story should be regarded as fiction. No news accounts of such a death (in Brazil or elsewhere) have surfaced, and given the media's interest in "Mentos effects," such write-ups wouldn't have gasped their last on a jaded editor's desk because they weren't deemed sufficiently newsworthy to include in that day's edition of the local rag. Likewise, with regard to "One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil," once again the news is silent regarding such a death. However, the failure of this explosive combination of candy and soda to cause any fatalities should not be taken as a ringing endorsement of chasing down a handful of Mentos with as much pop as can be gulped. A harmless procedure it's clearly not  one look at online video clips of the force of "Mentos effect" eruptions shooting out of pop bottles should convince even the most adventurous not to risk any part of their digestive systems on such parlor tricks. Those who have disregarded common sense and tried such anyway report that the intensity of the reaction forces the mouth open, thereby releasing most of the gas and foam into the wild, as it were, rather than keeping them contained within the person. Do not try such experiments yourself though. Videos of those who have attempted such foolishness consistently show the subjects experiencing great physical distress in the aftermath of their ill-judged stunts. The "child who died from combining Mentos and Coca-Cola" story is an updating of an older legend that began in 1979. That year, the grist being run through the rumor mill included the sad tale of a misadventuring tot who had gulped soda and ingested Pop Rocks, a carbonated candy known for producing a fizzling sensation in the mouth. According to legend, said child went out with a bang. Further versions of the story specified the deceased youngster was the taciturn "Mikey" of LIFE cereal commercials. Mikey Once again there hadn't been such a child, but that did little to slow the rumor's spread. The gruesome appeal of the combusted tot story kept the legend in circulation long after it had been repeatedly debunked and dismissed. Barbara "fizzical attraction" Mikkelson Last updated:  9 November 2006     Sources: Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009.