Did Biden Vow To Eliminate the 'Stepped-Up' Basis for Capital Gains Tax?
In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.
In mid-to-late February 2021, readers emailed Snopes asking about memes and stories posted online that claimed U.S. President Joe Biden had signed an executive order granting the Chinese government access to or control over the U.S. power grid. stories For example, the headline on an opinion piece published in the Washington Examiner on Jan. 27, 2021, read, "Bidens order could let China control US electric grid." headline Others took it a step further to falsely claim that Biden gave China access to the U.S. power grid, and it was China that caused millions of Texans to lose power during a brutal cold snap in February 2021. Here is one example, with the Twitter user's name cropped out for privacy reasons: millions   First off, Biden didn't sign an executive order granting China access to or control over the U.S. power grid system. Biden signed an executive order suspending for 90 days an order by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that bars installation of equipment purchased from foreign adversaries into electrical infrastructure, so Biden's administration officials could evaluate Trump's order. But that doesn't mean Biden gave China access to U.S. power grids. We will explain below. The U.S. is served by three electrical grids  one that interconnects the western half of the U.S. and western Canada, another that interconnects the eastern half of the U.S. and eastern Canada, and a third grid that is the independent system serving most of Texas. These, along with a fourth grid serving Quebec, are usually referred to as the bulk-power system (BPS). three electrical grids On May 1, 2020, Trump signed an executive order entitled "Securing the United States Bulk-Power System." Trump's order prohibited the purchase and use of bulk-power system electrical equipment "designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary" to mitigate what it said was the potential threat of a cyberattack by foreign adversaries hacking into U.S. electrical systems. entitled On Dec. 17, 2020, Dan Brouillette, Trump's secretary of energy, issued a prohibition order stemming from Trump's May 1, 2020, executive order. Brouillette's order "prohibits utilities that supply critical defense facilities (CDF) from procuring from the Peoples Republic of China, specific BPS electric equipment that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resilience of critical infrastructure, the economy, national security, or safety and security of Americans." prohibition order In other words, Brouillette's order barred equipment purchased from China from being used in critical electrical infrastructure in the U.S. On Jan. 20, 2021, Biden signed an executive order entitled, "Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis." The order suspended Trump's May 1 order for 90 days. entitled During those 90 days, Biden's order directs the U.S. secretary of energy and director of the Office of Management and Budget to "jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued." That does not mean that, while the order is suspended, China has 90 days of free access to electrical grids serving the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy said that during the suspension, utility providers must still refrain from installing equipment specified in Brouillette's prohibition order: said prohibition order [During] this 90-day review period, Responsible Utilities will refrain from installation of bulk-power system electric equipment or programmable components specified in Attachment 1 of the Prohibition Order that is subject to foreign adversaries ownership, control, or influence, and that Responsible Utilities will continue to work with the Department on identifying and mitigating supply chain vulnerabilities. To ensure that security of the Nations bulk-power system is strengthened during this suspension, the Department requests that Responsible Utilities designate critical defense facilities as a priority load in the applicable system load shedding and restoration plans. The Texas power grid is independently operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), taking its policy direction primarily from state officials, not the federal government. primarily The Texas power grid didn't fail because of interference by China or any other external entity. It failed because when the state experienced Arctic temperatures that it isn't used to experiencing, demand for electricity spiked beyond what the grid was prepared to handle. State officials also failed to weatherize power-generating infrastructure from cold temperatures, which resulted in problems like natural gas supply lines and wind turbines freezing. spiked beyond We reached out to the White House seeking further clarification on this subject but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story when and if we hear back. In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity: reported Targets stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, WalMart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohls is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores, Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses through the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. announced HB 2 boycott Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: event  Source: Yahoo! Finance  According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead gave guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's dive dragged others down with it: Targets plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Wal-Mart Stores Inc was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp fell 4.2 percent. What is dogging Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead cost of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players dont have a huge network of stores and since they dont have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price-comparisons with smart phones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: statement Our fourth quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly-changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide detail on the meaningful investments were making in our business and financial model which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era in retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best-position Target for continued success over the long term. Although Target offers online shopping, profit there tends to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive with more profitable in-store sales lagging, and lower profit margins due to a growing contingency of online shoppers: Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November, and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an e-mail, "We have made it clear over time that weve seen no material impact to the business based on the bathroom policy. We dont have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period, and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: Its in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasnt great, but not as bad other people. Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." Reuters "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player, nor a price focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. reported Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event, and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use. Huston, Warner Todd.  "Target Retailer Hits $15 Billion Loss Since Pro-Transgender Announcement."
  Breitbart.  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Continuing to Stand for Inclusivity."
  Press Release.  19 April 2016. House Bill 2.  "Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act."
  North Carolina State Legislation.  23 March 2016. American Family Association.  "Sign the Boycott Target Pledge!"
  Petition.  20 April 2016. Naidu, Richa et al.  "Target's Profit Outlook Sinks Retail Stocks."
  Reuters  28 February 2017. Target.com.  "Target Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2016 Earnings."
  Press Release.  28 February 2017. White, Martha C.  "Department Stores Are Paying the Price for Underestimating Amazon."
  CNBC.  5 January 2017. Malcolm, Hadley.  "Target Brand Perception Falls, But It's Not 'Catastrophic.'"
  USA Today.  29 April 2016. A common and perhaps reasonable assumption is that people who are poor dont have jobs. But in anAug. 7, 2013, infographicon its website, the left-leaningOregon Center for Public Policywrote that 7 out of 10 Oregon families living in poverty have at least one parent who works. Was this the debunking of a common myth about those in poverty? Do a full 70 percent of Oregon families in poverty have a parent who works? We first rang Chuck Sheketoff, the executive director of the Silverton-based center, who said that the figure was part of the centersJune 27, 2013, Working But Still Poor fact sheet. Work is not a sure path out of poverty, it said. A pie chart on the second page says that 69 percent of families in poverty were working families, composed of 22 percent who had at least one parent working full time and 47 percent who had at least one parent working less than full time. About 31 percent of the families had no parent working. The numbers were from the centers analysis of theU.S. Census Bureaus2011 American Community Survey data. Sheketoff pointed us to Jason Gettel, the centers policy analyst who crunched those numbers. Gettel explained that he usedDataFerrett, a free data analysis program promoted on the Census Bureaus website. DataFerrett allows users to analyze all of the survey responses to carve out data in different ways. We wanted to see what proportion of families in poverty had a worker present to show that people do live in poverty despite the fact that they work, Gettel said. Theyre there because some jobs pay too little, or theyve been laid off for some period of time, but not because they dont put forth a work effort. Gettel walked us through DataFerrett and showed us how he selected certain variables in order to limit the survey responses to arrive at the 7 out of 10 number. He limited the data to only the Oregon families who are in poverty with a related child. He then searched for types of work experience by different family members, such as householder worked full-time in the past 12 months and spouse worked full time in the past 12 months or female householder worked less than full-time in the past 12 months and no spouse present. Finally, the numbers were weighted to more accurately reflect statewide numbers, since the American Community Survey does not count as many people as the 2010 U.S. Census. The analysis showed that there were 437,991 families with children in Oregon. Of those, 86,255 were in poverty. This is the pool of Oregon families we would use for further calculations. Next we did some simple addition and subtraction. We first added up the 3,042 families where neither the householder nor the spouse worked; the 4,429 families where single male householders did not work; and the 19,339 families where single female householders did not work. This showed us that 26,810 of the 86,255 Oregon families with children had a parent who did not work in the previous year, roughly 31 percent. Put another way, 59,445 Oregon families with children in poverty  69 percent  had a parent who worked at least part time in the previous year. Its worth noting here that the Census data only breaks down work experience by three different types and only over a 12-month period: full-time work, less than full-time work, or no work. That means somebody who last worked a one-month retail job during the 2012 holiday season would qualify as a less than full-time worker. Were not sure that most people count that as a parent who works. Indeed, government officials generally categorize people unemployed for six months or longer as long-term unemployed. We also want to note that poverty is defined as the federal poverty threshold. For 2011, that threshold was $18,123 for a single parent with two children and $22,811 for a two-parent family with two children. The threshold varies depending on the number of adults and children and whether the adults are under 65 years old. Next we wanted to verify that Gettel had used the right variables to arrive at the right numbers. DataFerrett, to put it nicely, is not the most intuitive program for the average user. We called the U.S. Census Bureau, where a survey statistician in the poverty statistics branch also used DataFerrett to check our variables and numbers. The process that was used was the correct process, said Robert Bernstein, a bureau spokesman. The end result was this 69 percent figure. Lastly, we wondered if similar studies had been done. Again, we turned to the Census Bureau. One table indicated that nearly 64 percent of Oregon families with income below the poverty level in the previous year had a worker in the family. Those data were from the 2011 American Community Survey. Another 2011 Census table based on national data showed that, of the 33.1 million people in families in poverty, 21.1 million individuals were in families with at least one worker  about 64 percent. Neither of those studies was limited to families with children. We looked at some other studies, too, and saw similar percentages. None of these studies is a perfect apples-to-apples comparison to the Oregon Center for Public Policys data, but they show that the Oregon centers numbers are within range of what similar studies have found. The Oregon Center for Public Policy wrote that 7 out of 10 Oregon families living in poverty have at least one parent who works. We checked Gettels analysis and confirmed his results. We also confirmed the analysis and numbers with the U.S. Census Bureau. While the numbers are accurate, under the survey design, somebody classified by federal employment officials as long-term unemployed could be counted as working under the Census definition. We think thats an important clarification. We rate this statement Mostly True. After the presidenttalked up national job gains, a Central Texas member of Congress suggested things havent been rosy. U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, whose district stretches nearly to Fort Worth, said in a Jan. 12, 2016,responseto the State of the Union address: Its been seven years since President Barack Obama took office. In that time, the United States has accumulated the largest national debt in its history, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency and the executive branch has expanded its power immensely  the president has chosen which laws to enforce and created new ones without Congress approval. Thenational debt, in raw dollars, is at a record high, and Obama has issued provocative executive orders though, PolitiFactfound in 2014, fewer orders than most recent predecessors. A reader asked us if Williams was correct about the country having fewer working adults than when Carter was president from 1977 into January 1981. Just given population growth, could that be? We asked Williams spokesman Vince Zito how Williams reached his conclusion and didnt hear back. In 2012, PolitiFact explored similar territory,finding Mostly Falsea claim that the American workforce was smaller than when Carter was president. The word workforce refers to the absolute number of people employed or seeking work; that tally was way up by 2012 compared with Carters era due to population growth and, through the 1990s, the expansion of working women. Counting workers So, did the number of working adults subsequently plunge to Carter-era levels? No, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whose figures indicate that in 1980, around 100 million people were in the civilian workforce. In 2015,bureau figures show, nearly 150 million Americans were in the workforce -- up about 50 percent from Carters last year as president. By phone to our inquiry, economistStephen Roseof the Urban Institute, a former deputy in the Department of Labor, told us Williams claim isnt supported. Not close, Rose said. Achartin the 2015 Economic Report of the President shows 99.3 million people comprised the civilian workforce in 1980 and 146.3 million were in the workforce in 2014. Another bureauchartindicates 149.7 million people in the workforce in December 2015 and also that the workforce increased nearly every year from 1980 through 2015 -- with the exceptions of 1982, 1991, 2002 and 2008 through 2010, a period encompassing the end of George W. Bushs terms and the first two years of Obamas tenure. From 2010, when an Obama-low 139 million people were in the workforce, the count inched to nearly 140 million in 2011; 143 million in 2012; 144 million in 2013 and 146 million in 2014, according to the bureau. Employment-population ratio By another indicator, Rose said, its possible to compare the share of Americans who had jobs in Obamas years with the share of job-holders when Carter was president. The BLS, drawing on results from the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, calculates the employment-population ratio to reflect the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over thats employed. The highest ratio under Obama was 60.6 in January 2009, the month he was sworn in. The lowest ratio on his watch, 58.2, was set in November 2010 and June and July 2011. In Carters four years as president, according to the bureau, the highest ratio, 60.1, was reached in February and December 1979 and the lowest ratio, 57.0, occurred in January 1977, the month he was sworn in (it nudged to 57.2 the next month). Labor force participation We wondered if another indicator might be relevant. That statistic is the civilian labor force participation rate --meaningthe labor force, civilians 16 and older working full- or part-time, divided by the civilian population. According to the BLS, 62.6 percent of the population comprised the labor force in December 2015, the latest month of available figures. While Carter was president, a bureau chart indicates, the participation rate fluctuated from 61.6 percent in January 1977 to 64 percent in January and February 1980. Score one for Williams, though the rate on Obamas watch peaked at 65.8 percent in February 2009--which was higher than any rate in Carters years or the first seven years of successor Ronald Reagans tenure. The rate was 66.5 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989. Labor force changes Theres another chewy issue: Demographics, particularly the aging of the population, have affected changes in the workforce, making comparisons between current times and Carters era tricky. In the 2000 Census, Americans aged 60 to 69 -- that is, those who had recently hit retirement age or would do so soon -- numbered about 20 million. But thanks to Baby Boomers, that number surged in the 2010 Census to more than 29 million, for almost a 50 percent increase. This matters because the more people aged 60 to 69, the more people who pass into retirement age -- or, put another way, leave the labor force. Even though more people proportionally remain in the workforce after retirement age, the difference isnt big enough to cancel out the flood of new retirees. In 2015, Atlantic magazine published a chart contrasting the workforce in October 1977, in Carters first year as president, and June 2015, in the seventh year of Obamas tenure:  SOURCE: Story,How America's Workforce Has Changed Since 1977,the Atlantic, July 2, 2015 (accessed Jan. 21, 2016) Our ruling Williams said that under Obama, the fewest number of adults are working since Jimmy Carters presidency. This claim doesnt hold up in that far more people were working the past few years than in Carters time as president. According to a government calculation, about the same share of adults was employed during each Democrats presidency. We rate this statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. An eye-catching billboard in the state of Minnesota caused some controversy in the early days of January 2018. Purportedly sponsored by "Republicans for Honesty in Government," the billboard showed a photograph of President Donald Trump accompanied by the words "Big Mistake." billboard We received several inquiries from readers about the authenticity of the billboard, and whether it was actually produced by Republicans.  The billboard is real, as is another similar one found elsewhere in Minnesota. However, the group behind it"Republicans for Honesty in Government"is run by a Democratic donor and businessman in the state, suggesting there is more to the campaign than meets the eye. On 2 January 2018, the left-wing Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a photo of the billboard, along with a message emphasizing the apparent party affiliation of its sponsors: photo REPUBLICANS erected this billboard in Minnesota...speaks volumes about the current state of our Liar-in-Chief's presidency, doesn't it?   That post was shared almost 25,000 times within three days.  The photo appears to have originally been posted to Facebook in October 2017 by Rosemary Rocco, who said the billboard was located along U.S. Route 52, in the state's second congressional district, which includes parts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and Wabasha County. She wrote: posted Seen on MN Highway 52 south-CD2! Proof there are Republicans who care about our country. Note the disclaimer on the billboard. This is what country first looks like. Earlier in October, a Reddit user posted another photograph of a billboard bearing a photograph of Trump along with the word "Clueless." It was also purported to have been erected by the same group.  photograph According to records held by the Minnesota Secretary State, Republicans for Honesty in Government was first registered as a non-profit corporation in Minnesota in 2006, as reported by the regional news web site Bluestem Prairie. Its registered agent is Robert Johnson, founder and director of the Minnesota real estate investment firm AEI Capital.  records Bluestem Prairie AEI Capital Republicans for Honesty in Government shares its address with that of AEI Capital. The group was dissolved in 2009, but was reinstated in March 2017.  However, despite being the man behind a non-profit organization that labels itself Republican, Johnson is a prolific donor to Democratic candidates and the Minnesota branch of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL). Federal Election Commission records show that a "Robert P. Johnson," "Robert Johnson" or "Bob Johnson" at "AEI Fund Management" or related company names in Minnesota has donated a total of $43,830.50 in federal campaign funding since 2004. All of it went to DFL and Democratic candidates or political action committees. records Johnson told the Minnesota news web site GoMN that he had leaned towards the Republican party in the past, but switched allegiances after what the web site described as a shift to the right within the GOP.  GoMN "My political position was staked out decades ago and has not changed," he told GoMN. "What has changed is the positions of the parties and their platforms." Federal Election Commission records show that in 1980, Johnson did donate $500 to the Minnesota Independent-Republican Finance Committee, his only non-Democratic federal election donation. records However, Johnson registered "Republicans for Honesty in Government" in 2006, two years after he began donating exclusively to Democratic and DFL candidates, including $7,000 to former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and more than $10,000 to the Minnesota DFL party.  $7,000 We asked Johnson questions about his involvement with Republicans for Honesty in Government, his party affiliation, his political donations, and the purpose of the billboards. We did not receive a response. He told GoMN that the billboards were intended to provoke Minnesotans to think more carefully about their electoral choices"to maybe rub their chin metaphorically a little bit and wonder, what kind of decisions are we making?" Sorenson, Sally Jo. "Is Billboard on Highway 52 for Real?; Or, Who Are Those 'Republicans for Honesty in Government'".
 Bluestem Prairie. 2 January 2018. McLaughlin, Shaymus. "Who is the Group Behind the Donald Trump 'BIG MISTAKE' Billboard?"
 GoMN. 3 January 2018. In August and September 2021, an old quotation, attributed to the English novelist George Orwell, re-emerged on social media. For example, on Sept. 5, the Scottish historian William Dalrymple posted the following widely shared tweet: "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more they will hate those that speak it." George Orwell   In reality, Orwell never wrote or uttered those words, even though they have a broadly Orwellian ring to them. Rather, that maxim was first written by a conservative writer in 2009, but has been almost universally misattributed to Orwell in the intervening 12 years. The bogus Orwell quotation has appeared in countless social media posts and opinion columns in recent years, with various small tweaks. Former U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who railed against former President Donald Trump before leaving the Senate in 2019, included it in a Washington Post column in May, and in a Senate speech back in January 2018. column Senate speech In February 2019, former FBI Director James Comey also used it to criticize Trump, but the quote has also been favored by conservatives, and by supporters of whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. In 2012, rapper Soulja Boy posted a version of the same quote on Twitter. used it to criticize Trump favored conservatives Edward Snowden Chelsea Manning Soulja Boy However, the earliest version we could find, and apparently the original, came in a May 6, 2009, column by the conservative writer Selwyn Duke, on the right-leaning website RenewAmerica.com.  May 6, 2009, column Duke's column railed against what he presented as political correctness and left-wing censorship and contained several Orwellian references, including his use of the phrase "today's 1984 Britain," and his use of the line "telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (To add irony upon irony, the true provenance of that quotation is unclear, and Orwell almost certainly did not come up with it).  Orwell almost certainly did not come up with it In conclusion, Duke wrote, "The further a society drifts from Truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." Several years later, Duke himself firmly asserted authorship of the line, writing, "You can imagine my surprise when I learned people were quoting it and that Orwell was taking credit for it." firmly asserted authorship of the line Snopes was unable to find any earlier version of the quotation than Duke's, despite consulting a newspaper archive that stretches back far beyond Orwell's lifetime. As a result, we are satisfied not only that the quote did not originate with Orwell, but also that its original author was indeed most likely Duke. Claim:  Food stamps can now be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco products.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2014] Is the following true? I am pretty sure it isn't, but can't find any other information other than this website. "President Obama signs SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 Into Law: Alcohol & Tobacco Products No Longer Prohibited from Food Stamps."   Origins:  On 7 December 2014, the Salty Badger web site published an article claiming President Obama had signed legislation called "The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law, making it legal to purchase alcohol and tobacco (items that have long been excluded from the food stamps program) with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) electronic benefit (EBT) cards: article President Obama signed the "SNAP Fairness Act of 2014" into law today, 12/7/14, thirty-four days after both houses of Congress narrowly passed the controversial bill overcoming strong Republican resistance both in the Senate and House. All SNAP-eligible Americans will be enjoying a late Christmas present this year courtesy of Uncle Sam. Wrapped inside with a red, white and blue bow will be increased food stamp funds and the right to use their EBT card to buy alcohol and tobacco products.   Hakeem Jeffries of New York's 8th Congressional District stated, "For too long, American citizens have been discriminated against at the grocery store. There is no reason my constituents should be barred from purchasing a 6-pack of Coors Light with their EBT card to go along with their steak dinner, also purchased with their EBT card. To expect low-income hardworking Americans to go out of pocket for essentials such as cigarettes and beer is not only racist, but cruel. I am proud to stand with my president today in this historical signing for food stamp fairness." The article uses the names of real politicians, like President Obama and Hakeem Jeffries, but that's the only factual element of the story. The SNAP Fairness Act of 2014 does not exist, President Obama didn't sign any bills into law on 7 December 2014, and SNAP benefit cards cannot be used to purchase alcohol or tobacco products.  sign purchase The photo used to illustrate this fictitious article shows President Obama sitting at his desk in August 2013 signing the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, not the SNAP Fairness Act, into law.  August 2013 The Salty Badger may not be as well known as fake news sites such as Huzlers or World News Daily Report, but the web site's mission is the same: To spread misinformation. The Salty Badger, which prides itself on being "not always right, but always first," notes in their mission statement that: mission statement When the Salty Badger was conceived and born from two genius minds, literally minutes prior to writing this statement, we had three major goals in our minds: Bring our brand of comedy to the forefront, have beautiful women throwing themselves at us, and get Scrooge McDuck rich.  We will settle for any one of the three.  We will sneak our humor into the minds of the world one individual at a time     Last updated:  10 December 2014 On Feb. 10, 2021, an online advertisement appeared to announce big news about Costco Wholesale. The ad was displayed on various websites via the Outbrain advertising network. It featured a picture of a Costco store and read: "[Pics] Say Goodbye: Stores Closing In 2020 Across The Nation." Costco Wholesale   The outdated ad mentioned the year 2020. This likely meant that it had been displayed prior to the new year and had not yet been disabled. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a lengthy slideshow article on the Housecoast website. It spanned more than 50 pages and appeared to have been originally published on Feb. 10, 2020. article Companies such as Lowe's, Kohl's, JCPenney, and Macy's made the list. While several of the stores in the article had experienced financial troubles, many of them had not yet closed. Costco never appeared in the story. The clickbait ad led readers to believe that Costco would be closing its stores. This was false. The story itself was poorly written and contained a number of grammatical errors. These Power Stores Will Be Closing In 2020 When e-commerce started expanding in the last few years, "brick and mortar" stores started to face the brunt of the economic crisis. In the last couple of years leading up to 2020, a lot of major stores have been closing their physical doors to businesses to include international outlets. It is a real blow to the business of commerce as the closing rate has been growing rapidly and projected for 2020; it may get worst. We have compiled a few stores who have noted they will be closing their doors in 2020  for some stores, they will be closing all their outlets. On Dec. 10, 2020, Costco Wholesale released its fiscal year 2020 financial results. The numbers were strong. There was no indication that Costco would be closing stores: released Net sales for fiscal 2020 totaled $163 billion, an increase of 9%, with a comparable sales increase of 8%. Net income was $4 billion, or $9.02 per diluted share, an increase of 9%. In addition, the Company surpassed 100 million members worldwide, contributing to membership revenue of $3.54 billion. Costco.com played a vital role in meeting members' needs, especially those choosing or required to stay at home. Our ecommerce business saw a 50% increase in sales. Increases were particularly evident in same day and 2-day grocery deliveries, prescription medications, electronics, and office supplies. Additional strong sales were seen in apparel, appliances, health and beauty products, and home furnishings. Our depots responded to unprecedented volume by shifting certain operations to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As circumstances allowed, expansion in fiscal 2020 continued, with the opening of 13 new warehouses. In fiscal 2021, we expect to open 20 new buildings. In sum, a misleading ad appeared to claim that Costco was closing its stores. The resulting story never mentioned Costco even once. In the past, the Housecoast website published a similar misleading ad about CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. a similar misleading ad Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Claim:  The BATF plans to ban "green tip" ammunition due to an executive order issued by President Obama. : : The BATF has proposed a reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from "primarily used for sporting purposes" to"armor piercing ammunition."     : President Obama initiated the proposed reclassification, or codified it through executive order.  Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] Obama just bypassed congress to ban .223 ammo.   Obama illegal executive order to ban AR-15 ammo on March 16th. All Patriots, speak out for 2nd Amendment Rights HERE   Backdoor #Obama# #executive #ammo ban on ar15 in partnership with the #ATF. obviously don't take #oath seriously    @SpeakerBoehner Third Gun Control Exec Order This Year.Of course Congress will just sit on their thumbs and pivot.  Origins:  On 13 February 2015, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) released a document [PDF] that proposed the reclassification of "5.56mm constituent projectiles of SS109 and M855 cartridges" from the category of "primarily used for sporting purposes" to that of "armor piercing ammunition." The 17-page document was titled  PDF "ATF FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING WHETHER CERTAIN PROJECTILES ARE 'PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR SPORTING PURPOSES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C)" and uploaded to ATF.gov, in part to enable interested parties to review it and submit comments before 16 March 2015. ATF.gov The proposal cited the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-408, known as "LEOPA") and referenced discussions with law enforcement agencies across the country about whether "green tip" ammunition could reasonably be construed an exempt form of sporting ammo under the 1986 guidelines. The publicly available document noted that handguns made to employ the potentially affected ammunition were not available to civilians at the time the exemption was initially granted, and that the ammo type in question did not appear to meet the standard for a sporting purpose exemption:  Applying the sporting purposes framework set-forth above, the 5.56mm projectile that ATF exempted in 1986 does not qualify for an exemption because that projectile when loaded into SS109 and M855 cartridges may be used in a handgun other than a single-shot handgun. Specifically, 5.56mm projectiles loaded into the SS109 and M855 cartridges are commonly used Framework for Deciding Sporting Purpose Ammunition pursuant to 18 USC 921(a) in both "AR-type" rifles and "AR-type" handguns.  The AR platform is the semi-automatic version of the M16 machinegun originally designed for and used by the military. The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers. These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges. The ATF's proposal was immediately controversial, particularly among gun rights advocates. On 14 February 2015, a guns and ammunition retailer published a blog post titled "Obama to Outlaw .223 Ammunition (M855) Through Executive Action": titled It is doubtful that anyone reading this article will truly be surprised that Obama and his cronies in key government posts are trying to once again de facto suppress our Second Amendment rights. They were not able to make it happen through the legislature, but Obama has his phone and his pen. Currently, it seems the President is using both to target gun owners, specifically owners of AR-15s. If you can't outlaw the guns, get rid of the ammunition. The popularity of the AR-15/MSR is the reason it is a target of the Obama administration. The latest assault on the Second Amendment came after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) unexpectedly announced on Friday the 13th that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing ammunition." Instead of going through the legislative process as intended, President Obama is using his executive authority to once again impose gun control measures. Another blogger published an entry on 19 February 2015 that made similar claims: published President Obama is taking executive action to bypass Congressional authority and the will of the American people. This time the objective is backdoor gun control. Obama is trying to justify the proposal by arguing that the M855 ball, the most widely used .233-caliber round, is "armor-piercing" and cannot be used in handguns, per the Gun Control Act of 1968 amended by Congress in 1986. He is also claiming that the ammunition in the AR-15 and similar rifles puts the lives of police officers at risk. While it's true that the ATF proposed a ban on "green tip" ammunition in February 2015, President Obama was not involved through executive action of any description. The ATF described the proposal as the result of a long-term examination, several years in the making, of whether the ammunition fit the criteria for an exemption for sporting purposes: In light of recent developments in the firearm and ammunition marketplace, ATF sought input from industry, law enforcement organizations, and the general public on the application of the unique "sporting purpose" exemption set forth in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). In November 2012, ATF held four meetings with interested parties representing law enforcement, the firearms and ammunition industries, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, after completion of these meetings, ATF also solicited and accepted comments from the general public through December 31, 2012. All of that input was considered in interpreting the meaning of the statutory language, and developing the framework described below. On 10 March 2015, the ATF released a statement confirming that the reclassification proposal was halted indefinitely due to overwhelming public commentary opposing it: statement Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are "primarily intended for sporting purposes" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable. Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework. Last updated:  10 March 2015