Do COVID-19 Vaccines Make You Infertile?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On Sept. 13, 2021, rapper Nicki Minaj told her roughly 23 million Twitter followers that she knew of someone who supposedly got vaccinated against COVID-19 and then became impotent with swollen testicles. told her roughly COVID-19   The claim, which we address below, fueled news stories and social media chatter about a long-standing rumor: that COVID-19 vaccines can lead to infertility in both men and women. about a long-standing rumor That was not true, however. As of this writing, medical institutions  ranging from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine  were aggressively attempting to combat false messages like Minaj's regarding infertility and vaccinations' alleged impact on reproductive systems, a process on which we elaborate below. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) American Society for Reproductive Medicine For people with female reproductive organs, the false theory stems from inoculations' real impact on recipients' immune systems. Vaccines produced by Moderna and Pfizer, for examples, use mRNA technology to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the virus that causes COVID-19, technically called SARS-CoV-2. mRNA technology fight the virus "mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein  or even just a piece of a protein  that triggers an immune response inside our bodies," the CDC states. That said, some people erroneously believe that those vaccine-producedantibodies could somehow mistake the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein withsyncytin-1  a different type of cellular formation that helps develop placentas and is vital for successful pregnancies. They operate under the false argument that the two proteins (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and placenta protein) appear similar and, therefore, the inoculation's technology could easily confuse the two. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein However, as biochemistEdward Nirenberg explained in a December 2020 blog post, the formulas of molecules (called amino acids) that make the two proteins have very few similarities. For one, the SARS-CoV-2 strand is shorter than the placenta protein: The former has 1,273 amino acids, while the latter has has 538, as reported by India's National Magazine Frontline. Edward Nirenberg December 2020 ndia's National Magazine Frontline "There is no plausible reason  no medical or scientific mechanism  for this vaccine to interact with a woman's reproductive organs or have any interaction with an egg that's been released or fertilized," family medicine doctor Laura Morris said in a news bulletin by University of Missouri Health Care (MU Health Care)."For your immune system to get mixed up and attack the placental protein would be like you mistaking an elephant for an alley cat because they're both gray. news bulletin "There is one small similarity, but the overall construction of the protein is so completely different, your immune system is way too smart to be confused by that." Considering those biological facts, no reputable research has found COVID-19 vaccines complicate pregnancies or make it harder for women to conceive when studying the inoculations' impact on recipients' bodies. The CDC stated on its website, as of this writing: women to conceive   In other words, during clinical trials, unintended pregnancies occurred at similar rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, as Victoria Male, a researcher of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, summarized in the British Medical Journal.And, atassisted reproduction clinics, fertility measures and pregnancy rates were also similar between the two groups. Victoria Male the British Medical Journal. Meanwhile, it was true that tens of thousands of people reported changes to their period cycle or unexpected bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations as reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC. reported by reputable news outlets, including the BBC However, there was no evidence to link those menstrual changes to the vaccine recipients' fertility. Rather, the possible side effect appeared to be physical proof of how people's immune systems were responding to the vaccines  much like how some people have experienced a fever, chills, or headache after the shots. appeared to be Additionally, as Male wrote in the British Medical Journal, most people who reported the possible side effect said it was temporary and their cycles returned to normal the following month: wrote in the British Medical Journal, Menstrual changes have been reported after both mRNA [Pfizer and Moderna] and adenovirus vectored covid-19 vaccines [Johnson & Johnson],1 suggesting that, if there is a connection, it is likely to be a result of the immune response to vaccination rather than a specific vaccine component. Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) has also been associated with menstrual changes.9 Indeed, the menstrual cycle can be affected by immune activation in response to various stimuli, including viral infection: in one study of menstruating women, around a quarter of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experienced menstrual disruption. 1 9 Maleand the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) were calling for more research into the potential connection between menstrual changes and the vaccinations. Male National Institute of Child Health and Human Development While the possible side effect was largely "short-lived" and unrelated to fertility, Male wrote, understanding its full scope could help alleviate concerns among young women who falsely believe that the vaccinations could hurt their chances of future pregnancy. "Failing to thoroughly investigate reports of menstrual changes after vaccination is likely to fuel these fears," Male stated. All of this said, experts in reproductive health recommend vaccinations for everyone who's thinking about becoming pregnant, already with child, or breastfeeding just like the rest of the population (over the age of 12). For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) said in a joint statement: statement As experts in reproductive health, we continue to recommend that the vaccine be available to pregnant individuals. We also assure patients that there is no evidence that the vaccine can lead to loss of fertility. While fertility was not specifically studied in the clinical trials of the vaccine, no loss of fertility has been reported among trial participants or among the millions who have received the vaccines since their authorization, and no signs of infertility appeared in animal studies. Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely. Furthermore, medical experts saypeople who know they're pregnant should get the shots as soon as possible. That populationfaces a higher risk of hospitalization or death due to COVID-19 compared to everyone else. (See the CDC's full list of underlying medical conditions that could exacerbate a COVID-19 viral infectionhere.) people who know they're pregnant faces a higher risk here "We have no logical reason to believe that the vaccine impacts fertility in any way, but we have plenty of evidence that pregnant individuals who become sick with COVID-19 get sicker, on average, than non-pregnant individuals," Cecilia Stuopis, the medical director of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical, said in an update. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Medical Also, asidefrom COVID-19's attack on pregnant people's respiratory system, evidence suggests the virusmay be linked to potentially life-threatening pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia, according to theMIT Medicalupdate. AndMayo Clinic highlighted research that indicated pregnant women with COVID-19 were more likely to have premature births, cesarean deliveries, or babies that need neonatal care. preeclampsia MIT Medical Mayo Clinic "If you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant, contracting COVID-19 is almost certainly more dangerous than getting vaccinated," Stuopis said. Now, let's pivot to sperm. As of this writing, reputable medical institutions, including the CDC, were refuting rumors about male infertility by pointing to a study at the University of Miami in which researchers recruited 45 healthy men between the ages of 18 and 50 with no underlying reproductive issues. The researchers examined the characteristics of their sperm, including the amount of them and how they moved, before and after the men got Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. study at the University of Miami In conclusion, the study stated: "No man became azoospermic after the vaccine," or unable to produce sperm. azoospermic Meanwhile, Ranjith Ramasamy, the director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the university, highlighted evidence that suggests the virus  not its vaccinations  can affect sperm counts and cause impotency. He worked on a study, for example, that examined penile tissue samples from two men who had COVID-19, and found blood vessel damage that would make it hard for blood to enter the penis for an erection. Ranjith Ramasamy highlighted study "Interestingly, the male reproductive organs have been found to be vulnerable in moderate to severe illness, leading to reports of erectile dysfunction and orchitis," a condition that can result in swollen testicles, according to a summary byRamasamy and other researchers. condition Additionally, "the risk of infertility and erectile dysfunction increases with the severity of an infection," Daniel Nassau, a urologist at the university, told Frontline. Frontline The impact of COVID-19 infections aside, there was no scientific support for Minaj's claim that the vaccines  the technology that aims to combat the virus  caused impotency or orchitis among people with male reproductive systems."We've never seen that," Ramasamy toldThe Associated Press. The Associated Press Ashley Winter, a urologist specializing in sexual dysfunction at Kaiser Permanente in Portland, Oregon, also emphasized in an interview with thatnews outletthat there was no evidence to substantiate any concerns over the vaccinations' potential threat to male fertility. thatnews outlet "On a population level, hundreds of millions of men have gotten this vaccine, and there's no study showing reduced erectile function in men who have been vaccinated," she said. "Fundamentally, we just have no study linking the vaccine to either swollen testicles or erectile dysfunction." CDC. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/underlying-evidence-table.html. "CDC Newsroom." CDC, 1 Jan. 2016, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0811-vaccine-safe-pregnant.html. Does the COVID-19 Vaccine Affect Fertility? Here's What the Experts Say. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/does-covid-19-vaccine-affect-fertility-heres-what-experts-say. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Nirenberg, Edward. "Are COVID-19 Vaccines Going To Cause Infertility?" Medium, 16 Dec. 2020, https://edwardnirenberg.medium.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-going-to-cause-infertility-939bbdb62b64. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. CDC. "COVID-19 Vaccination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Feb. 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/planning-for-pregnancy.html. I Want to Get Pregnant; Should I Avoid Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine? | MIT Medical. https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/02/want-to-get-pregnant-should-i-avoid-vaccine. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Medical Experts Continue to Assert That COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Fertility. https://www.acog.org/en/news/news-releases/2021/02/medical-experts-assert-covid-vaccines-do-not-impact-fertility. Accessed 17 Sept. 2021. Kresch, Eliyahu, et al. "COVID-19 Endothelial Dysfunction Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction: Histopathological, Immunohistochemical, and Ultrastructural Study of the Human Penis." The World Journal of Men's Health, vol. 39, no. 3, July 2021, pp. 46669. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210055. Welle, Deutsche. "COVID-19 Vaccines & the Unfounded Tale of Infertility." Frontline, https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/covid-19-vaccines-and-the-unfounded-tale-of-infertility/article35739037.ece. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021. Ramasamy, Ranjith. "COVID-19 Could Cause Male Infertility and Sexual Dysfunction  but Vaccines Do Not." The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-cause-male-infertility-and-sexual-dysfunction-but-vaccines-do-not-164139. Accessed 18 Sept. 2021.
In March 2018, an image showing a young woman holding what appeared to be an official piece of European currency featuring the face of German philosopher and Communist Manifesto co-author Karl Marx started making its way around the Internet: Communist Manifesto Karl Marx Internet   "Zero Euros" are a popular souvenir item in Europe. Richard Faille started producing the realistic currency (which is authorized by the European Central Bank) in 2015, with the help of an official banknote printer called Oberthur Fiduciaire. Faille's operation expanded over the years and now Zero Euro notes are available in a number of European countries and commemorate a variety of topics, such as anniversaries, historical locations, city events, and notable individuals:  authorized 2015 commemorate The Zero Euro is a souvenir banknote with authorized printing by the European Central Bank (ECB) and is on queue to be a popular in 2017 banknote collector markets. Its origins stem from France in 2015 after Richard Faille, creator of popular French currency souvenirs, decided to create euros that promote tourism. The banknotes are printed at a private fiduciary facility and they share many of the same characteristics of a real Euro except that they are marked as 0, hence the name, and are tested to ensure they cannot enter circulation as legitimate financial currency. The front of all zero euros is the same and it includes a white zero followed by the Euro sign to denominate no financial value. Then (from left to right) Brandenburg Gate, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Colosseum, Sagrada Familia, Manneken Pis and the Mona Lisa. The pictured item is a souvenir that was produced by a tourism company in Trier, the German town where Marx was born, in honor of what would have been the author's 200th birthday in May 2018. The bill can be purchased for 3: bill On 5 May 2018 the city of Trier celebrates the 200th birthday of its famous son Karl Marx and on this occasion we have a bill from Trier Tourismus und Marketing GmbH. Norbert Kthler, the Managing Director of Trier Tourism and Marketing, acknowledged the humor in putting Marx on a worthless piece of currency: acknowledged Norbert Kthler, Geschftsfhrer der ttm, sagt zu dem Null-Euro-Schein: Das Souvenir setzt sich spielerisch mit der Marxschen Kapitalismuskritik auseinander. Und natrlich passen die Null-Euro-Scheine auch hervorragend zu Marx als Geldscheinmotiv. Norbert Kthler, Managing Director of TTM, says about the Zero Euro note: "The souvenir playfully deals with Marx's critique of capitalism. And of course, zero-euro bills also fit perfectly with the Marx motif." Satirical web site the Sacramento Brie also used an altered version of this image in an article that facetiously claimed that the zero value Marx bill was being used in Venezuela to boost the country's economy. Sacramento Brie Numis Magazine.  "Zero Euro Banknote Creator Richard FAILLE Strikes Again!"
  25 June 2017. Lokalo.de.  "'Das Geld Wird Abgeschafft!'  Trier Bietet Zum 200. Geburtstag Von Karl Marx Einen Null-Euro-Schein An."
  17 March 2018. On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page "The Other 98%" shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: purported facts Papa John's John Schnatter   Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red "X" (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. FEC In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or "Obamacare"): reported The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): misinterpreted Many in the media reported that I said Papa Johns is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: Do you think your  you know  franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time? Me: Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and thats what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. Thats what theyre going to do. Reporter: My understanding is that if youre a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, youd be covered. Or if youre part time then you wouldnt be. So wouldnt some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldnt have to pay for health insurance? The reporter asked what I believed Papa Johns franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa Johns would do ... Papa Johns, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa Johns corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: guilty Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa Johns locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. instances In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect "shareholders' best interests": reported And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatters strategy is of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders best interest, he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa Johns about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as "false" because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa Johns retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be "pass[ed] on" to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: reported On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keiths plan and Taubmans promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitchs life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was "important" people learn of that circumstance. This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: described THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchens 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. founded Ilitch In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had "received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities," with one press release stating: reported stating In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. "Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program," said Nicholson. "This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change." Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. "Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service," said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. "As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award." Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its "facts" to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million. Red Cross domestic violence Schnatter Hsu, Tiffany.  "Papa John's to Raise Pizza Prices If 'Obamacare' Survives: CEO."
  Los Angeles Times.  8 August 2012. McKay, Tom.  "Papa John's Backtracks from Claim That Pizza Prices Will Increase Because of Obamacare."
  Mic.  27 January 2013. Schnatter, John.  "The Real Scoop on Papa Johns and Obamacare."
  Huffington Post.  13 January 2013. Wolfson, Andrew.  "The Real Papa John: Pizza Entrepreneur John Schnatter Makes No Apologies for Wealth, Success, Obamacare Remarks."
  Courier-Journal.  13 January 2013. Federal Elections Commission.  "Individual Contributions: John H. Schnatter/Papa John's International, Inc; 2016."
  Accessed 2 November 2017. Fox News.  "CEO of Papa John's Says Employees' Hours Will Likely Be Cut Due to Obamacare."
  11 November 2012. Fox News.  "Papa John's Franchisee Gets Jail Time for Illegally Taking Employee Wages."
  17 November 2015. RT.  "Under Fire: Chipotle, Papa John, Mcdonalds Over Pervasive Wage Theft And Discrimination."
  27 August 2016. WXYZ-TV.  "Mike Ilitch Paid for Rosa Parks' Housing for More Than a Decade."
  11 February 2017. UPI.  "Little Caesars Founder Earns Vets Award."
  18 September 2007. Press Release.  "Veterans Affairs Secretary Honors Little Caesars Founder Michael Ilitch."
  17 September 2007. QSR Magazine.  "Papa Johns Teams Up with Cowboys for Charity."
  9 August 2016. Ilitch Companies.  "Mike Ilitch."
  Accessed 2 November 2016. American Red Cross.  "Hawaii Red Cross Is the Papa Johns Charity of the Month!"
  27 February 2017. 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. On Jan. 9, 2024, a user posted a Twitter screenshot to the r/Facepalm subreddit showing a comment claiming that Jeff Bezos, the chairman and founder of Amazon, could give everyone in the world $1 billion, thus solving world poverty, with plenty of money left over: r/Facepalm subreddit  (OpenlyBasics/Reddit) Bezos is rich, but not that rich. A math error led to the incorrect conclusion that he could end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion each and still have $91.5 billion left. Snopes was able to find the original New York Post article, published on May 14, 2020, which claimed that Bezos was on track to become the world's first trillionaire by the year 2026. The article was indeed posted to the publication's X (known as Twitter at the time) account. However, in the comments of that post, we were not able to find the original reply to the post as shown in the screenshot on Reddit. Therefore we conclude that the user either realized the error in the post and deleted it, or that the reply never existed at all. New York Post article posted These kind of math mishaps are relatively common. Snopes checked the math of a user making a similar claim about Elon Musk in 2022, and in 2020, Politifact checked a tweet that appeared live on MSNBC claiming that Michael Bloomberg, who at that point was in the midst of a presidential campaign, could have done a similar thing with money left over. Elon Musk in 2022 Politifact checked a tweet But the post left us with a few interesting questions: How much money could Bezos distribute equally to everyone in the world? What about, let's say, if the world's 10 richest individuals distributed their money equally to everyone in the world? How much money would it take before you could give everyone $1 million? We used Forbes' Real Time Billionaires page for wealth data and Worldometer's population counter to estimate the current world population, which we rounded to 8.085 billion (and growing!) Forbes' Real Time Billionaires Worldometer's population counter First, the easiest calculation: Forbes lists Bezos's net worth at $176.2 billion. To calculate how much every individual would receive, we divide Bezos's wealth by the number of people on the planet. That calculation, $176,200,000,000 / $8,085,000,000, can be simplified a bit by removing some of the remaining zeroes at the end, bringing it down to $176,200 / 8,085 = 21.79. That's roughly a $20 bill for every person on the planet, with some pocket change thrown in. Alongside Bezos, we found seven technology titans  including Elon Musk (No. 1), Mark Zuckerberg (No. 5) and Bill Gates (No. 7)  the investor Warren Buffet (No. 6), and the owner of the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH, Bernard Arnault (No. 2). The total wealth of the top 10 individuals adds up to $1.455 trillion. Dividing that wealth by the 8 billion people on the planet gives us a result of $179.93 per person, $45 short of the weekly food cost for a family of four using the USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report for November 2023. USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report November 2023 This is a thought experiment, so we're going to ignore the obvious economic and social consequences of such an action. Multiplying 8.085 billion people by $1 million per individual adds an extra six zeroes, giving us a total of 8.085 quadrillion. We're going to have to up our scale factor dramatically. The gross domestic product (GDP) is a number that measures the value of all of the goods and services produced in a certain area over a certain amount of time. According to data from Statista.org, the GDP of the United States is about $25 trillion. Using that comparison, there would have to be over 100 U.S.-level economies in the world just to reach 2 quadrillion. In fact, the GDP of the entire world economy is estimated at only about $100 trillion. $25 trillion $100 trillion Given those totals, if everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of money as everyone else, we would all have $12,368.58 in our bank accounts. It's safe to say that Bezos isn't going to be handing over $1 billion to everyone on the planet any time soon. For months, President Donald Trump has been touting the benefits of the tax law he signed in December. But in early June, he began expanding his argument beyond lower tax bills to lower energy bills. On June 7, Trumptweeted, $3 billion payoff: 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cuts. The tweet linked to aWashington Examiner articlethat in turn citedresearch by Americans for Tax Reform, a group supportive of the tax cut. $3 billion payoff: 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cutshttps://t.co/x1a1OJuRgd This isnt the first time the White House has relied on Americans for Tax Reform for evidence of real-world impacts from passage of the tax bill. Previously, we looked at Trumps statement that since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars. That talking point,gleaned from the groups research, ratedMostly True. The energy rate-cut list  which is a sub-list of the broader one we checked previously  attracted the White Houses attention not long after it hit its 100th item. For the utilities on the group's list that provided an estimate of savings per customer, most said rate-payers would save about $1 to $4 on their bill per month. Americans for Tax Reform cited a large number of company news releases and news articles, so we dont quarrel with the number (which had already grown to 102 a day later). That said, we will provide some additional information that helps put the list in fuller context. It shouldnt be surprising to see a lot of investor-owned utilities lowering rates after the corporate tax reduction. And it also shouldnt be surprising that the companies specifically cited the tax changes as the reason for the rate cut. In most cases, experts said, utilities would have been required to do so by their regulators. The tax law has an impact on privately owned utilities  often called investor-owned utilities, or IOUs for short  but not on public utilities. Investor-owned utilities pay corporate taxes, so the tax laws lowering of the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent should save this type of utility a substantial amount of money. By contrast, publicly held utilities do not pay corporate taxes, so they are unaffected by this provision of the tax bill. Public utilitiesincluderural electric cooperatives, municipally owned utilities, and federal or state power authorities. Among electricity utilities, about two-thirds of Americans are served by investor-owned utilities, while about a third receive their power from public utilities. For water utilities, a few of which appear on the group's list, public utilities are dominant. So while 101 utilities cutting their rates may seem like a large number, your ability to benefit from a rate cut depends on which utilities happen to serve your area. Its also worth pointing out that many of these rate cuts were preordained by existing energy regulations. Utilities are natural monopolies, and because of that, theyve been regulated for well over 100 years, said Manny Teodoro, a political scientist at Texas A&M University who has studied energy issues. Its a recognition that a pure monopoly will result in a lack of competition and abusive pricing. For that reason, under longstanding regulations, utilities need to go back to energy regulatory bodies whenever they seek to modify their rates, in order to provide reasons for the change. And if a utility happens to benefit from a tax change, theres a good chance it will be required under existing regulations to lower their rates to account for that. Rates are set by public utility commissions through rate-making processes that would clearly identify the reasons for the rate change, up or down, said Billy Pizer, a Duke University public policy professor who studies energy. This doesnt undercut the larger point of the tally, but it does suggest that the rate cuts required two elements to materialize  the tax cut, which Trump touted, and the longstanding regulations that require companies to share the tax gains with ratepayers rather than just with shareholders. And the latter is an aspect Trump didnt get into. Trump tweeted, 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cuts. The list comes from a organization that strongly supported the tax bill. The tally of rate cuts is well-documented, and the group acknowledges that it is not comprehensive. That said, its worth noting that public utility customers will not see the same types of rate cuts cited in the list, which is about one-third of Americans. Trumps tweet seeks full credit for the tax law, while glossing over the role of energy regulations that mandate that utility savings be passed along to customers. We rate the statement Mostly True. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. Claim:  Massachusetts is no longer mailing notifications for driver's license renewals. Status:  True.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] This is just a heads up to everyone.  Effective immediately the Registry of Motor Vehicles will no longer be mailing out License renewal applications or reminders to renew your driver's license.  It is now the drivers responsibility to know when their license is expiring and renew it on there own.  This may be a surprise to all of you and it should be, there has been no public information sent out about these changes. Fortunately enough we received the info in one of our trade publications. This idea could change in the future but as of right now it's a huge cost savings and they plan to run with it.  Below is a blurb from the publications. Mailings Eliminated The RMV will no longer mail out the following materials to customers:  License renewal noticesMass ID renewal noticesLicense reinstatement letters:  Letter sent to a licensed customer when his/her license is reinstated,provided that the license is still active  Letter sent to an unlicensed customer when his/her right to operate isreinstatedRegistration reinstatement letters:  Letter sent to a person or corporation whose suspended registration hasbeen reinstated  Letter sent to a person or corporation whose revoked registration has beenreinstatedVehicle Inspection reminder letters for vehicles that are overdue for inspectionInspector license renewal notices7D license renewal noticesDriver's Education CertificatesJunior Operator Brochures for parents (still available in branches)Change of address labels (customers can create their own)  I am just passing this along, my suggestion is to pull out your license and some how set suspense to yourself to make sure you renew it.  This is just a heads up so that no one gets pulled over and car impounded because they didn't realize they hadn't renewed their license. Origins:  We're  used to seeing certain types of notices arrive in our mailboxes regularly  aside from monthly credit card statements and water/gas/electricity bills, every year or two the mail brings us income tax forms, voter materials for upcoming elections, automobile registration renewals, etc.  One common type of mailing won't be arriving in mailboxes of Massachusetts residents any more, however: renewal notification for about-to-expire driver's licenses. As of 3 November 2008, the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) will no longer be sending out notices to residents reminding them to renew their driver's licenses.  Statewide cuts and spending controls announced by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in October 2008 slashed $2 million from the RMV's budget, so the RMV has eliminated mailing license renewal reminders and other courtesy notices in an effort to save money (in this case an estimated $800,000): Governor Deval Patrick said that he will eliminate 1,000 jobs from state government and slash the budget by more than $1 billion, reacting to the national economic crisis with sweeping cuts that his administration called the worst single round of midyear budget rollbacks in state history. The reductions will be spread across almost all sectors of state government, biting deeply into state university campuses and community colleges, the state's health insurance programs, and dozens of social service programs  from assistance for at-risk teens to services for the mentally ill and the elderly. The cuts range from a hit of nearly $300 million on healthcare spending to the elimination of letters to residents simply reminding them to get their driver's licenses renewed. As noted in a "Message from Registrar Kaprielian on RMV Budget Cuts" displayed on the Massachusetts RMV web site: RMV Like many businesses across the Commonwealth, the RMV is working to squeeze every penny of savings from our budget in the wake of a drastic downturn in the state's economy. To weather this financial storm, the RMV is adopting operational changes that, we believe, will minimize the impact on customer service in our branches. RMV MAILINGSThe RMV will eliminate courtesy notices that are sent to customers for the following services: License and Mass ID renewal noticesVehicle Inspection reminder letters for vehicles that are overdue for inspectionInspector license renewal notices7D license renewal noticesDriver's Education CertificatesJunior Operator Brochures for parentsChange of address labels For now, at least, it's incumbent upon residents of that commonwealth to be aware when their licenses are due to expire and to initiate the renewal process on their own in a timely fashion. Last updated:  4 November 2008    Sources:   Viser, Matt.  "Patrick to Cut 1,000 Jobs from State Payroll."   The Boston Globe.  16 October 2008. In November 2016, rumors began to swirl that the European Union had ordered the media not to report when terrorism suspects were Muslim, presumably because of pressure from Islamic groups.  The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute: post   The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state. reportedly The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016: the conservative Daily Mail   The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton's group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate. earlier ECRI Both the Mail and the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2016. As the latter group puts it: The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims. Criticism of the report centered around this passage: ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker's history of mental instability and not his religion. study, attack While the ECRI did call for an "independent press regulator," it also stated that it did not want government officials "encroaching on [media outlets'] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups." It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices. Inquiry, From the ECRI report: The Leveson Report, published in November 2012, pointed out that certain parts of the press ride roughshod over others, both individuals and the public at large, without any justifiable public interest, and that a significant number of news stories fail to meet standards of integrity and propriety and reflect a culture of recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm these may cause and the rights of those who would be affected. It also noted a significant and reckless disregard for accuracy. The report stated that the Press Complaints Commission was not independent and had failed its purpose, and recommended replacing it with a new, independent, self-regulatory body established by statute, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals, and with a range of sanctions available to it. Bolton's organization also failed to note that the ECRI's report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups. recommendations Mamou, Yves. "Council of Europe Recommends British Press NOT Report when Terrorists are Muslims." Gatestone Institute. 18 November 2016. Conway, Madeline. "Bolton calls regime change the 'only long-term solution' in Iran." Politico. 17 November 2016. Dathan, Matt. "European human rights chiefs order the British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims in crackdown on freedom of speech." The Daily Mail. 5 October 2016. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. "ECRI Report on the United Kingdom (Fifth Monitoring Cycle)." Coe.int. 4 October 2016. Teesside University. "New report reveals a rise in anti-Muslim hostility in Britain following acts of terrorism around the world." www.tees.ac.uk. 18 June 2015. The M-16, a rapid-fire, 5.56 mm assault rifle carried by thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War, grew out of efforts to develop a replacement for the standard M-1 Carbine used during World War II. The M-16 (originally designed by Eugene Stoner of Armalite as the AR-15) was constructed using plastics and alloys and was a much smaller and lighter weapon than its predecessors, one that fit in with the developing Vietnam-era strategy of less emphasis on long-range accuracy in favor of more easily-carried weapons with rapid rates of fire. M-16, Hundreds of thousands of M-16s were supplied to U.S. troops in the mid-1960s as US Army made the M-16 their standard rifle: Example:  [Morgan and Tucker, 1987] The handgrip of the M16 rifle was made by Mattel. When the gun was first introduced in Vietnam, soldiers noticed the toy company's logo embossed on the handgrip and complained. Later shipments arrived without the imprint, but the grips were still manufactured by Mattel. However, the M-16, manufactured by the Colt Firearms Corporation (who bought the rights from Armalite in 1959), soon developed a reputation for unreliability, frequently jamming and fouling (especially when not kept clean, a next-to-impossible task in the dust and mud of Vietnam battlefields). Problems with the M-16 eventually achieved such prominence that a congressional inquiry was ordered, resulting in design changes, additional troop training, and other modifications that ameliorated many of the reliability issues U.S. troops were experiencing with the weapon: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered. This is in part because the rifle had a painfully flawed roll-out. Beginning intensely in 1966, soldiers and Marines complained of the weapons terrifying tendency to jam mid-fight. Whats more, the jamming was often one of the worst sorts: a phenomenon known as failure to extract, which meant that a spent cartridge case remained lodged in the chamber after a bullet flew out the muzzle. The only sure way to dislodge the case was to push a metal rod down the muzzle and pop it out. The modern American assault rifle, in other words, often resembled a single-shot musket. One Army record, classified at the time but available in archives now, showed that 80 percent of 1,585 troops queried in 1967 had experienced a stoppage while firing. The Army, meanwhile, publicly insisted that the weapon was the best rifle available for fighting in Vietnam. The problems were so extensive that in 1967 a Congressional subcommittee investigated, and issued a blistering rebuke to the Army for, among other things, failing to ensure the weapon and its ammunition worked well together, for failing to train troops on the new weapon, and for neglecting to issue enough cleaning equipment  including the cleaning rod essential for clearing jammed rifles. A series of technical changes sharply reduced (but never eliminated) the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. To the troops in the field, the original M-16 was new, it was small, it was light, it was made of plastic rather than wood, and it often performed poorly to boot. It was no surprise that many of them started expressing their dissatisfaction by referring to it derisively as a cheaply-made "toy," and that they associated it with the most prominent toy company of the time: Mattel, the Hawthorne, California, toy manufacturer famous for introducing the Barbie doll to the world: Mattel One of the sayings soldiers had about the M16 was, "You can tell it's Mattel" which was a toy company's slogan at the time  the gun had a lot of plastic parts, which can't stand up to the vibrations like wood can but it is cheap. The Mattel legend was undoubtedly fed by the fact that Mattel really did sell an  M-16 Marauder toy gun in the mid-1960s, a quite good reproduction of the actual weapon, complete with "realistic" sound effects:  M-16 Marauder     The sardonic joke about problem-plagued M-16s being toys morphed into a legend about their really having been produced by a toy company, with "proof" offered in the additional detail of soldier's spotting M-16 handgrips embossed with the Mattel logo. The redesign that improved the M-16's reliability was then attributed to a switch in manufacturers (to a "real" gun company) prompted by soldier complaints. Chivers, C.J. "How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?"
The New York Times. 2 November 2009. Morgan, Hal and Tucker, Kerry. More Rumor!
New York: Penguin Books, 1987. ISBN 0-14-009720-1 (pp. 175-176). With control of the U.S. House at stake, Republicans and Democrats are waging fierce election campaigns across the country. In Ohio, at least four seats are considered in play, including the 16th Congressional District seat held by freshman Democratic Rep. John Boccieri of Alliance, a former state legislator who faces a well-financed Republican challenge from businessman Jim Renacci, a former Wadsworth mayor.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union has joined the fight, attacking Renacci in two television advertisements. We recently looked into astatementin the first ad, which accused Renacci of backing a massive tax increase, and found it to be Half True.The second ad levels an even harsher accusation that Renacci cheated on his income taxes and labels him a deadbeat citizen.Renacci hasfiled a defamationlawsuitin Stark County Common Pleas Court over the ad, which says he hid more than $13 million, and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. We wanted to see if AFSCME got closer to the truth the second time around.The basis of the attack is a dispute between Renacci and the Ohio Department of Taxation. Renacci has built a fortune from business interests that include nursing homes, real estate investments, auto and motorcycle dealerships, a bar and grill, an arena football team and a minor-league baseball team.The tax department assessed Renacci about $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties for misreporting his income in 2000. Renacci and his wife, Tina, filed a state tax return for that year that claimed they had a loss of $247,336, but an audit found they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.At issue was Renaccis trust income from an S corporation that had not been subject to state taxes for several years before Ohios tax commissioner issued an information release in January 2000 that changed the states policy and directed taxpayers to add such trust income to their federal adjusted gross income. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes and avoid double taxation on corporate income.The tax department followed up with another information release in 2002 warning that it was launching audits and would impose fraud penalties on taxpayers who did not file amended returns reflecting the trust income and pay the taxes due.Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended that the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, according to tax department and court documents.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, despite an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in 2006 in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.Court records show the Renaccis eventually settled the tax dispute and sent the state the full amount due.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renaccis campaign spokesman Jim Slepian said in an interview for a Plain Dealer story in April.The AFSCME ad cites as its source an Associated Press story from April that said Renacci fought vigorously but eventually paid the back taxes and other assessments.Websters New World Dictionary defines cheat as a person who defrauds, deceives, or tricks others; swindler. And it defines deadbeat as a person who tries to evade paying debts.It seems legitimate to raise questions about Renaccis failure to properly report his income. Some facts are not in dispute. But in the end, after taking his dispute to court and working within the system to resolve it, he did ultimately pay the state the full amount due and he wasnt ever charged with tax fraud.We rate AFSCMEs statement as Mostly True. Comment on this item.