Does US Rank No. 1 in Incarceration, Gas Consumption, Military Spending?
In April 2021, users of the online forum Reddit discussed, shared, and pored over a striking meme that purported to contrast the perception Americans hold about their country's superlative status among the nations of the world with the (supposedly) much more sobering reality.  The meme was posted to the "/facepalm" sub-reddit  a discussion board dedicated to displays of stupidity  on April 12. It read as follows: posted What the USA thinks it's #1 in:- Healthcare 30th- Happiness 19th- Education 26th- Life Expectancy 46th- Free Press 42nd- Freedom Index 17th- Climate Change Performance 59/60 What it IS #1 in:- Incarceration- Gas consumption- Oil consumption- Military spending   The meme originated in a widely-shared tweet posted back in October 2020, and was also reposted on Facebook at that time. This fact check will focus specifically on the second half of the meme, "What the U.S. is #1 in"  the potentially surprising and arguably dubious superlatives attached to the United States. tweet Facebook On the whole, the meme contained a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy, much of which depended on the way in which certain rankings were viewed. For example, the U.S. spends by far the most of any country on its military, in absolute terms, but not when overall government spending or the size of the American economy is taken into account.  The United States has comfortably the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, according to two reliable sources. In 2018, the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization which gathers data on imprisonment but also advocates against mass incarceration, reported that the U.S. has an incarceration rate of 698 per 100,000 people. That was a significantly higher rate than that of the second-ranked nation, El Salvador, which had an incarceration rate of 614, or Turkmenistan, where the rate was 583 per 100,000 people. nonprofit reported Similarly, the Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London, also ranked the U.S. first in 2018, with an incarceration rate of 639 per 100,000 people, with El Salvador and Turkmenistan again ranked second and third, respectively. The U.S. also had the highest outright number of incarcerate persons in the world, regardless of overall population, at just over two million people. ranked The underlying data is now three years old, so this assessment comes with something of a health warning. However, given the gap between the United States and other nations in 2018, the ranking is unlikely to have been upended since then. It's not made clear in the meme, but it is reasonable to assume this claim refers to vehicle gas  that is, automobile gasoline  consumption. On that premise, the claim is true. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a federal agency, the U.S. consumed 9.3 million barrels of automobile gasoline per day, in 2018  the greatest amount of any country. consumed That's the equivalent of 1.2 gallons per person per day, which is also the world's second-highest rate of consumption, even after population is taken into account. Canada, with 1 gallon per person per day, and the United Arab Emirates, with 0.9 gallons per person per day, were the third- and fourth-ranked nations, respectively. The place with the highest per capita consumption of automobile gasoline in 2018 was Gibraltar, a British territory located on the southern tip of Spain, with nearly 1.3 gallons per person per day. Since Gibraltar has such a small population (only 33,718 people lived there in 2018) it's quite possible that the per capita consumption figures are skewed. Gibraltar is also not a sovereign nation, so a further argument exists for placing the U.S. at the top of the per capita consumption rankings. Again, the underlying data is a few years old and comes with a health warning, but the gap between the U.S. and other nations is unlikely to have been bridged since 2018. This claim is a , with the same disclaimer that the most recent reliable figures available date from 2018. The best source available here is, again, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which reported that, in 2018, the U.S. consumed 20.5 million barrels (861.5 million gallons) of oil per day. That's 20% of the entire world's consumption, and comfortably the highest volume of any nation.  reported However, when population is taken into account, the U.S. is not the world's most voracious consumer of oil, which is defined by the Energy Information Administration as including crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels. Those 20.5 million barrels equate to 2.6 gallons of oil per person per day. Several other countries had higher rates of consumption than that, including Singapore (11 gallons per person per day), Kuwait (4.3 gallons per person per day), Saudi Arabia (3.8 gallons per person per day), and Canada (2.9 gallons per person per day). A handful of very small countries rounded out the top 10, suggesting that statistical outliers in small populations might again be playing a role.  higher rates . According to figures collected by the Stockholm International Peace Institute, a leading think tank based in Sweden, the U.S. had by far the world's highest military expenditure in 2019, the most recent year for which figures are available, spending close to $732 billion. China was ranked a distant second, with $261 billion, while India and Russia spent $71 billion and $65 billion, respectively.  figures However, the U.S. ranked second to Israel when population is taken into account, spending $2,224 per person on its military, in comparison with Israel's $2,402 per person. The U.S. also ranked outside the top 20 for military spending as a percentage of total government spending (at 9.4%) and outside the top 10 for military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the overall size of the economy, with 3.4%.
Does Hillary Clinton think the federal minimum wage should be $12 an hour or $15? This question produced one of the more heated back-and-forths in an April 14 Democratic presidential debate between Clinton and opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders  starting when Clinton asserted that she has continuously supported the Fight for $15 advocacy campaign. I have supported the Fight for $15, Clinton said. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the Fight for $15. To Sanders, that was news. I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, Sanders said. When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. An extended back-and-forth followed. Were putting Sanders claim on the Truth-O-Meter. Hes right that Clintons official position is to raise the national minimum wage to $12 as a floor. However, she has also shown support for the Fight for $15 campaign that pushes for higher minimums in individual states and cities. Heres whatClintons website sayson that point: Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for $15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. In June 2015, early on in her campaign, Clinton spoke with a gathering ofFight for $15members via phone and told them she supported their campaign. All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage, she said,according to theWashington Post. A few days later, Clinton delivered acampaign kickoff speechin which she called for raising the minimum wage, but she did not specify a number. Her support for the $12 minimum wage proposal seems to have emerged around July 2015, when she praised legislation proposed by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., arguing that it would be more politically feasible. Lets not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there, she said, according to theNew York Times. But lets get behind a proposal that actually has a chance of succeeding. By November,Clinton had started to say plainly that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage. In the same month, though,she tweetedwith the hashtag #FightFor15. What about Sanders? Hes right that he has advocated specifically for a $15 minimum wage since his campaign began. Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages,  he said as part of hisMay 2015 announcement. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. A couple months earlier, in March 2015,he put forward an amendmentto eventually raise the minimum wage to $15. He also put forth legislation inJuly 2015. Our ruling Sanders said, When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. Since the start of his campaign, Sanders has advocated for a $15 minimum wage. Since early on in her campaign, Clinton has supported the Fight for $15s efforts in individual cities and states. But her official position is that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage as a floor, allowing cities and states to go further. Sanders has a point that he is calling for a federal minimum wage that would be $3 more an hour than what Clinton says she favors. However, he misses the nuance that Clinton is also supportive of local efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15. We rate his claim Mostly True. In late February 2019, a misleading meme was circulated on Facebook that led viewers to ask whether U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had mysteriously amassed vast wealth in yearly increments to the tune of $2.4 million while in office:   As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that  information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes: salary  Although the meme and the campaign ad upon which it was likely based were set up to make it seem as if McConnell's wealth increase were the result of his role in the Senate and thus involved unethical or illegal activities, most of his net worth actually derives from his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who hails from a wealthy business family and married McConnell in 1993. Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012. chairs gift According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife: 2008   As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007: reported Thats almost a sevenfold increase in 10 years. McConnell has quadrupled his net worth since 2007, when it was $7.8 million. So what happened in 2008? His financial disclosure form tells the storysuddenly there appeared a tax-exempt money market fund, valued at between $5 million and $25 million, listed as a gift from a filers relative. (Look at Line 2 and then Line 3.)   Indeed, a McConnell spokesman confirms that this was an inheritance for McConnells wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, after her mother died in 2007. Chao, who married McConnell in 1993, earns significant income on her own, serving on corporate boards, and has at least $1 million in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund. (Since these shares are in her name, McConnell only needs to report they have a minimum value of $1 million.) The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million. 2015 Kessler, Glenn.  "How Did Mitch McConnells Net Worth Soar?"
  The Washington Post.  22 May 2014. Newmyer, Tory.  "The Secret to Mitch McConnell's Millions."
  Fortune.  20 March 2014. FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 An entreaty to help save the life of a victimized child who had been raped by an AIDS-positive attacker began circulating as a cell phone text message in June 2010. At that time, the message being zinged from phone to phone represented the rapist being sought with a photograph of an African American male bearing gold teeth: This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please don't hesitate to fwd this. It could've been you're daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as possible. In October 2010, the hoax underwent a revival when it was circulated anew, that time accompanied by the photo of a Hispanic male sporting multiple tattoos. Since 2014, this Facebook post has been shared more than 77,000 times. A second post from 2016 has been shared more than 82,000 times with a different photograph: this Facebook post second post   There was no such child: the whole thing was a leg-pull, said Dell Children's Medical Center of Central Texas: said A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. As demonstrated so aptly by public efforts to provide relief to earthquake victims in Haiti, beneficences initiated by cell phone generally involve a tracking and billing mechanism that requires participants to text a specific short word or phrase to a particular (five-digit) number, not the willy-nilly forwarding of a explanatory narrative to as many people as possible. Haiti In 2009 we began to note that "Forward this message to help fund medical care for a sick or dying child" appeals were beginning to appear as cell phone text messages as well as being passed in e-mail. That trend continues into the present, with the "shot 14-year-old boy" just another iteration of the same basic hoax that falsely claims the American Cancer Society, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, or some other large entity will donate a predetermined amount of money every time a particular message is forwarded. Such leg-pulls have been circulating via e-mail since 1997. hoax Typically, a large charity is named as the benefactor standing ready to direct monies towards the costs of medical care for the languishing child, but various corporations have also been fingered for this role in other iterations of the hoax, such as AOL and ZDNet in the Rachel Arlington leg pull (brain cancer sufferer in need of an operation) and McDonald's and Pizza Hut in the Justin Mallory prank (epileptic in need of long-term care). Rachel Arlington Justin Mallory Everyone wants to help sick children get better, and the thought of a little boy or girl suffering from some dread disease or infirmity because people couldn't be bothered to forward a message tugs straight at the heartstrings. Problem is, hoaxsters know that, and they play upon these very human drives for their personal amusement. Once again, that is the case here: Well-intentioned forwarding does nothing towards helping a sick child; it does, however, make the day of some prankster. If you want to make a difference in a sick child's life, the best way is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money or your time, don't passively share a worthless message.   KEYE-TV [Austin].  "Text Messages About Dell Children's Med Center Donations Are False."
  22 June 2010. Roser, Mary Ann.  "Seton Alerts Public That Text Message to Help 'Raped' Child Is Bogus."
  The [Austin] Statesman.  22 June 2010. This story was updated on June 4, 2019 to add a second viral Facebook post. Oregons economy is looking up -- and in a recent speech at the Oregon Leadership Summit, Gov. John Kitzhaber counted the ways.Unemployment is falling, our credit rating is rising, the state ranks as one of the friendliest to business and just last year, Oregon had the second fastest growing economy in the nation.It was that last one that caught our ear. Oregon usually lags behind the country -- but when the state is hot, its hot, so it wasnt out of the realm of possibility. Still we decided to check it out.We got in touch with Amy Wojcicki, the governors spokeswoman, and she reminded us of an article The Oregonian published last June. The storys headline spoke for itself: Oregon economy growing at nations second-fastest rate.The story cited figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Statistics. In 2011, Oregons gross domestic product increased by 4.7 percent. The state was second only to North Dakota, which saw its GDP grow by 7.6 percent that year.The numbers show the governor was right. Still, we decided to dig just a little bit further because we know, when it comes to economics and statistics, nothing is ever quite as clear cut as it seems.We called up Tim Duy, a University of Oregon economist. That's the fact -- you can certainly point to it. But, he added, I would be wary.I think it's important to recognize that a significant amount of those gains came from manufacturing -- particularly microchips and related industries.All of this was covered in the original article. Indeed, manufacturing was far and away the biggest driver of growth that year. Intel alone had huge growth. So, we asked, whats the problem with that?It's a real effect, Duy said, But is this the experience of the average Oregonian? I don't think the average Oregonian perceives the economy as growing at the second fastest rate in the nation.We asked Duy if he could suggest another measurement that might provide a fuller picture -- he suggested the rate of job growth. Fortunately, this just came up in the states most recent revenue forecast. According to that report, which based its numbers on figures from the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, Oregon ranks 26th overall in that category. Said another way: Were perfectly average.In a recent speech, Gov. Kitzhaber mentioned that a year ago, Oregon boasted the second-fastest growing economy in the nation. It was just one fact of several that he referenced to make the point that the state is rebounding from a dismal recession. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the governors statement is accurate. We agree with Duy that most Oregonians dont feel like theyre living in an economic boom, but that doesnt make the governor wrong.We rate this claim True. In the summer of 2020, readers sent Snopes multiple inquiries about widely shared social media posts claiming that PepsiCo, the company that makes Pepsi, had donated $100 million to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations.  targeted During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that: Social media posts BankofAmerica Gave them $1 BILLIONPepsiCo - $400 MILLIONWalmart - $100 MILLIONApple - $100 MILLIONComcast - $100 MILLION Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter:  pointed firearms writing "In America if terrorists show up to your home, you get charged for showing that you own a weapon after they tear down your gate. And the thugs who entered on to your property get $400 million from PepsiCo. as a reward." In August 2020, social media users focused on PepsiCo, and the amount of the company's purported donation to BLM shifted from $400 million to $100 million, for reasons that are unclear, but may have resulted from a misreading of earlier posts that claimed Walmart, Apple, and Comcast had each donated $100 million to BLM.  A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!" typical version post claimed   The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote: wrote "Today, I am announcing the next step in PepsiCos journey for racial equality: a more than $400 million set of initiatives over five years to lift up Black communities and increase Black representation at PepsiCo. These initiatives comprise a holistic effort for PepsiCo to walk the talk of a leading corporation and help address the need for systemic change." Specifically, the company pledged to spend, over the course of five years: We asked PepsiCo whether it, or any charitable entities associated with the company, had donated to groups or projects associated with BLM, including the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the movement. We also requested a list of any recipients of charitable disbursements from the $400 million investment announced in June. We did not receive a response in time for publication. However, since $415 million was reserved for supporting Black-owned suppliers, restaurants, and small businesses, as well as starting a fellowship program, it was therefore mathematically impossible for $100 million to have been pledged for BLM. The only component of that spending that appears to leave room for any involvement with BLM is the $6.5 million reserved for "community impact grants to address systemic issues." So even if that entire portion of funding went to BLM, it would still constitute only a small fraction of the $100 million and $400 million claimed in social media posts in the summer of 2020. None of those who promoted those claims presented any evidence that linked PepsiCo's pledged investment with specific, named organizations or projects associated with the broader BLM movement or the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The claim that PepsiCo had donated $100 million (or $400 million) to BLM appeared to be based on a basic misunderstanding of the company's June 2020 announcement  or the false assumption that any investment associated with the Black community or rectifying racial injustice must be directly connected to BLM.  Laguarta, Ramon.  "Pepsico's Journey to Racial Equality: A Message from Our CEO."
  PepsiCo. 16 June 2020. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has frequently referred to his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Some social media users questioned whether this was the same "Scranton" from the U.S. sitcom "The Office" (and whether Scranton was indeed a real American city). Meanwhile, Biden's political rival, U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Biden of exaggerating his connections to the small Pennsylvania city.  This topic came up once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while talking about middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments: mentioned Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don't live off of the stock market. This isn't about me. There's a reason why he's bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it. He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family, and your family's hurting badly. If you're making less than, if you're a middle class family, you're getting hurt badly right now. You're sitting at the kitchen table this morning deciding, well, we can't get new tires, theyre bald, because we have to wait another month. Or, so are we going to be able to pay the mortgage? Who's going to tell her, she can't go back to community college? They're the decisions you're making in the middle class families like I grew up in Scranton and Claymont. They're in trouble. We should be talking about your families but that's the last thing he wants to talk about. Later in the debate, Trump disputed Biden's connections to Scranton: And he doesn't come from Scranton. That's like, what -- he lived there for a short period of time before he even knew -- And he left. And the people of Pennsylvania will tell you that. In the past, Trump has pushed an exaggerated version of this claim, saying that Biden "wasn't born here" in Scranton. wasn't born here The president is wrong. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Here's a November 1942 newspaper clipping of Biden's birth announcement from The Tribune, a local Scranton newspaper: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/61652359/ For fans of "The Office," this is the same Scranton that serves as the home of the fictional paper company Dunder Mifflin.  Scranton Biden lived in Scranton until he was 10 years old. His father struggled to find work and eventually landed a job cleaning boilers in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden's father made the two-hour commute for a time, but in 1953 he moved the family to Claymont to be closer to work. The New York Times reported: reported Though Scranton was sharing in the postwar economic boom, Joe Sr. had trouble finding steady work, and nothing that measured up to his previous success. For a time, he commuted to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company. In 1953, he moved the family there. [...] After a few years in a drab apartment in Claymont, Del., the Bidens moved to a nondescript split-level home on Wilson Road in Wilmington, where they stayed until the children were grown. While the Bidens moved out of Scranton when he was 10 years old, the family maintained some connections to his hometown. In 1987, Jean Finnegan Biden, the former vice president's mother, told the Scrantonian Tribune, "Scranton's our hometown... we have fond memories of it." In 2008, Delaware's The News Journal published an article about Biden's hometown friends and his authentic connection to the city: Scrantonian Tribune  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com  Mon, Sep 1, 2008  Page 10  The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware)  Newspapers.com In an interview with GQ, Biden talked about his childhood in Scranton and noted that his family spent most holidays and summers visiting friends in Scranton until he was about 16 years old. Biden also said that a few of his friends from Scranton were in his wedding: GQ I go back [to Scranton] lot. For the last thirty-five years, any time Scranton needs something I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't. You know, it's still home. I moved outta there when I was 11 years old, but probably till I was 16, we spent every holiday up there. And almost every summer. And when I got married, to Neilia, my deceased wife, there were six, seven guys in the wedding and three of them were from Scranton. In short: 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in November 1942. This is the same Scranton that is featured in the show "The Office." Biden lived in Scranton for about 10 years until his father moved the family a few hours away to Clayton after getting a job in Delaware.  The Associated Press.  "The Office sheds light on Scranton, Pa."
  3 March 2006. Tavernise, Sabrina.  "Biden Says He Gets Places Like Scranton. Some in Town Arent So Sure."
  The New York Times.  23 Otober 2020. Calefati, Jessica.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Frequent Claim That Joe Biden Abandoned Scranton.'"
  PolitiFact.  29 August 2020. Depaulo, Lisa.  "$#!% Joe Biden Says."
  GQ.  19 November 2010. Solender, Andrew.  "He Wasnt Born Here: Trump Birthers Biden Near Scranton Ahead Of DNC Acceptance Speech."
  Forbes.  20 August 2020. Broder, John.  "Fathers Tough Life an Inspiration for Biden."
  The New York Times.  23 October 2008. USA Today.  "Debate Transcript: Trump, Biden Final Presidential Debate Moderated by Kristen Welker."
  23 October 2020. In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Liberal MSNBC television host Rachel Maddow and conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio are engaging in a multimedia tit-for-tat over tax cuts and the federal deficit.All set to a background of peppy elevator music, winks and clever one-liners.We're not kidding.The back and forth started on July 14, 2010, when Maddow decided to poke fun at Rubio's 12 Simple Ways To Grow Our Economy. She noted, correctly, that most of the ideas are ripped straight from the Republican playbook.Extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Repeal the estate tax. Repeal the federal health care legislation. Fight cap and trade.Maddow criticized the ideas as failing to consider the GOP's (and Rubio's) other golden rule -- thou shall not increase the deficit.Republicans want to be the anti-deficit and anti-debt party right now, but they also want to run on George Bush's tax policies, Maddow said. And that is the giant awkwardness at the heart of Republicanism right now. Because George W. Bush's tax policies did to the deficit what the 'I only eat fried cheese' diet does to your cholesterol.The Maddow rant got a reaction from the Rubio campaign two days later, in a web ad set to that peppy elevator music we talked about.On Tuesday, Marco Rubio announced 12 simple ways to grow the economy and create jobs, the ad, called Maddow begins. How can you know the plan is right? Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong. (You really should watch these ads, by the way. Rubio at one point facetiously plugs Maddow's 9 p.m. show; Maddow, in return, facetiously thanks him, and so on).On July 19, Maddow issued her reply to Rubio's ad -- in her own ad that mimics Rubio's.Marco Rubio has proposals for cutting the deficit and growing the economy. He wants to: Make Bush's '01 and '03 tax cuts permanent, end the estate tax, prevent cap-and-trade energy legislation, repeal health reform, Maddow's ad says. How does Marco Rubio say you can know his plan is right? 'Rachel Maddow thinks it's wrong.' Seriously. That's his argument. That's it.Even if everything about me is inherently wrong just by virtue of who I am, this is still true about Marco Rubio: His economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit.The Rubio camp issued their latest response on July 21, highlighting the state's unemployment rate and the number of Floridians facing foreclosure while taking a shot a President Barack Obama and Senate rival independent Gov. Charlie Crist.Think Obama and Crist's policies are working just fine for Florida? the ad, called Again, Rachel asks.For Rubio, the ads are a chance to take on a liberal media-type like Maddow. And we're pretty sure we haven't seen the last of it. That said, we found it an appropriate time to jump in with a fact check. The question we're after: Will Rubio's economic ideas add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit?Maddow's case We know government spending is a big issue for Rubio. On July 16, 2010,we checked and found Truea Rubio claim that $0.40 of every $1 being spent by the federal government is now borrowed. We also know Rubio vigorously opposed the federal stimulus bill because it added substantially to the federal deficit. A spokeswoman for Maddow said the talk show host got her deficit figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan number-crunching arm. The CBO produced a series of revenues estimates in February should Congress enact three Republican-held tax cutting ideas -- extend the set to expire 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, repeal the federal estate tax and continue indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation(The AMT was enacted in 1969 to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogether, but it wasn't indexed for inflation. Congress manually adjusts the AMT for inflation each year).All three proposals are part of Rubio's 12 ideas -- specificallyIdeas 1, 3 and 5.Together, the CBO found thatthey would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion from 2011-2020, mostly from lower revenues but also from increased outlays for refundable tax credits. Preventing cap and trade legislation, Rubio's Idea 9, also would have a negative effect on the federal deficit, according to the CBO. The theory behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon different companies, such as electric utilities or manufacturers, can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively.In a letter dated July 7, 2010, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said that opposing cap and trade legislation would have the effect of raising the federal deficit by about $19 billion from 2011-2020.Those are the four major ideas Maddow uses in making her claim. But we wanted to at least consider Rubio's other ideas. Many of them, it turns out, come with deficit impacts that are difficult to measure, or at least appear to have no impact on the deficit. Rubio proposes reducing the corporate tax rate, for instance, but he doesn't say how much -- making it impossible to judge the revenue impact.Another Rubio idea is to repeal the federal health care bill (you can see all 12here). The federal health care bill enacted is estimated to reduce the deficit slightly -- about $143 billion from 2010-2019 -- according to the CBO. But a substitute health care bill -- something Rubio favors -- could reduce the deficit as much. So we've decided to discount the deficit reduction for the sake of this fact check.Excluding the health care repeal, that's about $3.4 trillion that we can verify that will be added to the federal deficit between now and 2020 if Rubio's economic ideas are put in place.Economic debateWe turned to economists and Rubio's campaign to see what we're missing.Karen Campbell, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the CBO deficit projections do not account for a fundamental Republican philosophy -- that lower taxes can bolster economic activity across a broader spectrum. Put simply, the lower tax rates are, or the less taxes people are required to pay, the more opportunities that exist for people to make money.It's a sentiment echoed by the Rubio campaign.A growing economy means more people are employed and generating revenue, more businesses are being started and expanded, and fewer people are claiming unemployment benefits, Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said.That's not an argument for everyone, however.If you cut taxes, you borrow money, that's it, said Chuck Marr, the Director of Federal Tax Policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For a lot of Republicans it's gotten to the point, that deficits only concern spending. A deficit is when you spend more than you tax. But for them, it's become just what the spending is. They seem to think that taxes don't matter. Mathematically it's ridiculous.Added Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution: I cannot see any way that extending the Bush tax cuts or repealing the estate tax could have any effect other than to produce an increase in the expected size of the future deficit. Period. There is no plausible set of private economic responses that would generate an increase in future total tax revenue if those two policies were adopted. The federal government would simply collect less income tax revenue and less estate tax revenue than it is now expected to do.Greg Mankiw, who was the chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors from 2003 to 2005, estimated in 2005 that a broad-based income tax cut would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects.Mankiw, who teaches macroeconomics at Harvard, referred to people who believe that broad-based income tax cuts could actually raise tax revenue charlatans and cranks in the first edition of his textbook, Principles of Economics.Our rulingWe realize we're not going to be able to change people's basic economic philosophies. We're not here today trying to disprove supply-side economics, or boost another economic thought. Based on our analysis, we do think it's a stretchfor someone like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to suggestthe Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were revenue neutral. And yet we also see the logic in the argument that lower taxes could stimulate investment in the economy, creating an army of new taxpayers. Rubio, himself, realizes spending cuts also will be necessary to offset at least some of the tax cuts he's proposed -- and to shrink the federal deficit. Rubio's campaign announced he would roll out ideas to cut government spending on July 26 in Jacksonville.And we'll be ready to examine them. But in this case, we're sticking to Maddow's claim that Rubio's economic proposals will add $3.5 trillion to the federal deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, repealing the estate tax and continuing to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation will increase the federal deficit $3.4 trillion between now and 2020.That's right about on the mark, and only measures the impact of three of Rubio's tax cutting ideas. But unlike Maddow, we do want to leave some leeway for the economic growth those broad-based tax reforms could generate, as well as Rubio's spending cuts, still to be revealed. We rate her statement Mostly True. Claim:  African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins:  In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments.  This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years.  An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination.  Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . . . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . . . to be at $43,209 per household."  Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040  which asks you to list 'other payments'  simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same  hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes.  Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains.  Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits.  In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds.  He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks.  When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite.  One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, issued in January 1865 by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, which set aside a coastal strip of land from Charleston, South Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, for the exclusive use of freed slaves, with each freed-slave family receiving a 40-acre chunk of this holding. As Eric Foner noted in his history of Reconstruction: Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15  (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department  in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property.  One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land."  However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.   Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln.  (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.)   Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act:  An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives.  (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.)  President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers.  Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders.  Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies).   Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike.  In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001.  And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 May 2011    Brown, Timothy.  "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax."   The Associated Press.  31 August 2000.     Deibel, Mary.  "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam."   The Washington Times.  7 October 2000  (p. A2).     Fennell, Edward.  "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie."   The [Charleston] Post and Courier.  24 September 2000  (p. B1).    Foner, Eric.  Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution.  New York: Harper & Row, 1988.  ISBN 0-060-91453-X  (pp. 70-71, 245-246).     Foner, Eric and John Garraty.  The Reader's Companion to American History.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.  ISBN 0-395-51372-3  (pp. 987-988).      Josar, David.  "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations."   The Detroit News.  28 August 1996  (p. D1).     Kessler, Glenn.  "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery."   The Washington Post.  13 April 2002  (p. A1).     La Hay, Patricia.  "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal."   The Arizona Republic.  9 August 1997  (p. A1).     McLeod, Ramon.  "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  13 April 1996  (p. A17).     Moore, Linda.  "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax."   The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal.  15 September 2000  (p. C2).     Oubre, Claude F.  Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership.  Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978.  ISBN 0-807-10298-9.     Sherrod, L.G.  "Forty Acres and a Mule."   Essence.  April 1993  (p. 124).     Stiehm, Jamie.  "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations."   The Baltimore Sun.  12 February 2002.     The Associated Press.   "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam."   6 October 2000.     Chicago Sun-Times.  "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance."   17 July 1996  (p. 47).     Chicago Tribune.  "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS."    23 February 1997  (p. C7).     Reuters.  "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims."    15 April 2005.