'A Country Founded by Geniuses, but Run by Idiots' Quote
Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007.--> Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title.
Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). We advise all readers, as well as their friends and family, to beware of Facebook ads that promise a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners in the amount of $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar dollar figure. The posts featured pictures of U.S. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and members of Congress, among others. Some ads also mentioned the term, "mortgage refinance stimulus."  Examples of some of the Facebook ads.  The ads gave the appearance that Biden and the U.S. government voted through a plan to provide $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, $3,800, or another similar amount of money as a "stimulus" or "savings" in the form of check payments to help homeowners. The pictures and text perhaps looked and felt similar to the previous COVID-19 economic impact payments and child tax credit payments that Americans became familiar with in 2020 and 2021. Those genuine payments came directly from the Internal Revenue Service. economic impact payments child tax credit payments However, there is no federal plan to distribute $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" checks to homeowners. Facebook users who clicked on the ads were led to websites that were not operated by the government. From there, they all appeared to lead to a central page: GovHomePrograms.com. This website included a brief survey that asked questions about finances, home value, and mortgage status. The forms also asked for a name, email address, phone number, and mailing address. GovHomePrograms.com We filled out the forms and were then led to one or more lenders that could help future homeowners to buy a house or current homeowners to refinance a mortgage. There was no evidence that the Facebook ads led to a way for homeowners to obtain a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" payment from the government. According to GovHomePrograms.com's terms of service and privacy policy pages, its parent company was RateMarketplace.com. Plateau Data Services, LLC was also mentioned in the documentation. terms of service privacy policy RateMarketplace.com One page led to EnhancedRefiNow.com instead of GovHomePrograms.com. Its parent company appeared to be LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., also known as LowerMyBills.com. EnhancedRefiNow.com As of December 2021, at least eight Facebook pages named American Savings Tips, Wise American Solution, Clever American Choices, New American Community, US Relief, StraightFix, Homeowners of America, and Our Best American Life had spent around $200,000 on advertising since late October to promote the ads. One of the biggest spenders was Wise American Solution, which had spent nearly $60,000 alone in early December, as of Dec. 13. American Savings Tips Wise American Solution Clever American Choices New American Community US Relief StraightFix Homeowners of America Our Best American Life spent In other words, at least millions of Facebook users had been served the ads from these pages on Facebook or Instagram.  The American Savings Tips Facebook page spent nearly $60,000 on ads between Oct. 27 and Dec. 7. It also misleadingly showed a picture of a U.S. Treasury check for $3,600.  The Facebook pages and their corresponding websites were all brand new and were created in either October or November 2021. Another page named Helpers Today also pushed similar ads about a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Helpers Today Several hours after we started investigating Clever American Choices, its Facebook page became unavailable. It's unclear why this happened within those few hours and not at any time in previous weeks. According to its advertising information, Clever American Choices was "deleted" after violating Facebook's advertising policies. It had spent at least $45,209 on Facebook ads between Nov. 21 and Dec. 7. The other pages also showed advertising violations. advertising information advertising violations After we clicked on one of the Facebook ads and landed on a website, we noticed this message at the bottom: "THIS IS AN ADVERTORIAL AND NOT AN ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLE, BLOG, OR CONSUMER PROTECTION UPDATE." at the bottom We also found a list of "disclaimers" in small print spaced far below the end of most of the body of the page that was meant "for Facebook reviewers and 3rd party fact checkers." One of the lines attempted to clarify why words like "government" and "Biden" were used in the copy: 5. "Government" , "Biden" , "New Administration" , "Relief" - assume multiple citations below from the following article: "Biden's $10 billion in financial assistance is expected to be available in 2022." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-signed-10-billion-mortgage-133000243.html It's true that the Biden administration previously created a Homeowners Assistance Fund that's meant to "provide states with $10 billion to help struggling homeowners catch up on their mortgage payments and utility costs." It's also true that the assistance was still being given out by various states as of November 2021. But nowhere in this plan did we find anything about a $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" plan for homeowners in the same way that past stimulus checks worked, as the Facebook ads appeared to hint at. Homeowners Assistance Fund still being given out One of the posts on Clever American Choices originally read: "This was featured on FoxNews [sic] last night. All I did was enter my zip and now I'm getting $3,600 back in savings. It was free to check, Just Enter Zip!" read A seemingly endless number of Facebook users then submitted their ZIP codes in the comments under the ads instead of on the resulting website, perhaps believing this would lead to them being contacted to receive a $3,600 check.  Not only did this ad show a fake "Homeowner Relief Card," but members of former U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet can be seen sitting in the photograph captured in Congress.  Aside from the ZIP code comments, the remarks with the most likes caught our eye. For example, a user named Jackie said: "This was featured in CNN yesterday so I guess I could try it since my neighbors already got theirs." Other ads mentioned C-SPAN. We found no record of CNN, Fox News, or C-SPAN recently broadcasting news of a specific $3,600, $3,700, $3,712, or $3,800 "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners. Also, no one's "neighbors already got" a $3,600 stimulus check payment, because they don't exist.  These comments likely convinced quite a few people to give away their personal information.  Ben commented: "Wow! I've never seen anything like this before! Thank god that I saw it today so I can signup." Matt remarked: "Heard about this program form [sic] my neighbor. They got the check yesterday so I tried it and received a notification that my check will be here this week!" We also saw the same names making the same comments in multiple ads. It's unclear if these people worked for the websites or companies that were affiliated with the posts. We reached out to the Better Business Bureau and AARP for comment on these ads and websites. The BBB responded and told us that this is what they would refer to as a classic "government imposter scam." A BBB spokesperson told us: "Without further research, its hard to tell if this is just a way to get homeowners to apply for refinancing, or if the motive is fraud. Consumers are being asked to share personally identifiable information (PII), and thats a huge red flag because it is everything needed for identity theft. The fact that the domains are new is another red flag. BBB advises consumers never to share personal information with someone who has solicited them, whether through email, social media ad, text, etc., but to carefully vet any new company that needs PII." In a study, the BBB found that these sorts of scams increased in 2020 and 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. They also sent over a page about government grant scams and a scam alert about stimulus checks. study government grant scams a scam alert about stimulus checks We also heard from Kathy Stokes, director of fraud prevention for the AARP Fraud Watch Network. In an email, Stokes told us: "It is safe to say that ads that pitch free money from the government are government grant scams and the internet, particularly Facebook, is teeming with them. Sometimes youll see your Facebook friends share the information, claim they got money from a grant, and encourage you to get your free money, too. Often that means the friends Facebook account has been hacked. Whether it is a scammer or an actual company, you should report the ads to the FTC. These sites often ask for you to share your personal information, which can be dangerous for the person entering it." AARP In sum, the Facebook ads that promised a "stimulus" or "savings" for homeowners simply appeared to be a way to route future homeowners to lenders or to show current homeowners where they could refinance their mortgages. With guidance from the BBB and AARP on identifying this as a "government imposter scam" or "government grant scam," we have rated this story accordingly with the "Scam" rating. The rating for this fact check was changed from "False" to "Scam" after we received guidance in a response from the Better Business Bureau and AARP. We also added several more Facebook pages and updated the advertising dollar figure to be around $200,000. An image purportedly reproducing a CNN graphic comparing Presidents Trump and Obama "by the numbers" -- with the former seemingly recording a significantly higher job approval rating than his predecessor -- received a viral push on 8 August 2018, when Donald Trump, Jr. shared it with his 1.2 million followers on Instagram:   However, the image was a doctored version of a graphic that was originally used during a CNN fact-checking segment regarding a tweet posted by President Trump about his approval numbers: Presidential Approval numbers are very good - strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018  CNN's John King fact checked this tweet by comparing Presidents Obama and Trump "by the numbers" from around the same point of times in their presidencies. The image posted by Trump Jr. showed his father with a 50% job approval rating, but the genuine graphic aired by CNN showed President Trump's approval rating at only 40%. Here's the original segment from CNN:  A side-by-side comparison clearly shows how a "50%" was digitally edited (quite poorly) in place of the "40%" number in the original graphic:   The job approval statistics used by CNN for this graphic were taken from Gallup. According to that polling company, which samples presidential approval ratings every week, President Trump had never held a 50% approval writing up to the point of the CNN segment. Gallup. Donald Trump, Jr. later removed the doctored image from his Instagram page. An expanded version of the chart began making the rounds in September 2018 in the form of a meme shared by Turning Point USA, a conservative group whose stated mission is "to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." shared stated Apart from repeating the inaccurate "50 percent" approval rating for Trump and substituting year-to-date federal deficit figures with first-year-in-office totals for both Trump and Obama, the Turning Point USA chart faithfully copies the information provided in the August CNN segment.   As CNN correspondent John King pointed out in that segment, the numbers reflect favorably on Trump. In terms of comparing Trump to Obama, however, the meme omits important contextual information. First, the figures cited were snapshots of a particular point in each president's administration. They didn't reflect longer-term fluctuations and trends. Second, unlike Trump, Obama entered office in the midst of a devastating economic collapse. Trump inherited an economy that was already strong and growing. It's meaningless to compare the two without taking these factors into account. Unemployment rate: As stated in the meme, the unemployment rate in July 2018 was 3.9 percent, as compared to 9.4 percent at the same point in Obama's first term in office (July 2010). But that number fell during 2011 as the economy began to recover, and, apart from minor fluctuations, fell steadily every year thereafter. By December 2016 (Obama's last full month in office) the unemployment rate was down to 4.7 percent and still falling, as illustrated in this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph: rate   Jobs added: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm employment in the U.S. grew from 145.7 million in January 2017 to almost 149 million in June 2018 -- an increase of approximately 3.2 million jobs. The same source reported that by the exact same point in Obama's first term, the economy had lost some 3.5 million jobs since January 2009 (.6 million more than was claimed by CNN and the Turning Point USA meme). But, again, the recession was underway, and the economy had already shed nearly 3.6 million jobs during the 12 months before Obama took office. The employment rate began to improve in 2011 and did so steadily throughout the rest of Obama's two terms: employment   First year deficit: The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2018 that the federal deficit stood at $665 billion (equivalent to 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product) at the end of 2017, Trump's first year in office. At the end of Obama's first year, 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion (9.9 percent of GDP, the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945). It was mostly attributable to spending on the stimulus package meant to rescue the U.S. economy from the recession. Deficit spending didn't remain that high throughout Obama's tenure, however. In fact, the deficit during each of the last three years of his term of office ($485 billion in 2014, $438 billion in 2015, and $585 in 2016) was lower than the 2017 deficit, as well as the projected $833 billion deficit for 2018. reported $1.4 trillion deficit GDP growth: The growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product reflects the health of the economy in terms of the value of all goods and services produced in a given time period. As of the end of the second quarter of 2018, the rate of GDP growth was 4.2 percent (revised upward from 4.1 percent), as compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, Obama's second year in office. The quarterly GDP growth rate can be volatile, however. It reached or surpassed the 4 percent mark on four separate occasions during the Obama administration, including hitting a high point of 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014: 1.6 percent source: tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com Changes in economic indicators are a valid way of evaluating the effectiveness of presidents and their policies, but, as in the examples above, when they are taken out of context and oversimplified they can be more misleading than enlightening. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recessions and Events: The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929."
 The Balance.  2 August 2018. Gstalter, Morgan.  "Trump Jr. Falsely Claims That GDP Growth Never Passed 2 Percent Under Obama."
 27 July 2018. Nance-Nash, Sheryl.  "Revision of Second Quarter GDP Shows Slowing Economy."
 ABC News.  27 August 2010. Selk, Avi.  "Trumps Approval Hits 50 Percent  In a Doctored Poll Graphic Shared by His Son."
  The Washington Post.  10 August 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic."
 5 March 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009."
 6 November 2009. CNN.  "MAGIC WALL: Trump vs. Obama, By the Numbers."
  6 August 2018. NPR.  "GDP Is Up 4.1 Percent: What That Means."
 27 July 2018. Trading Economics.  "United States GDP Growth Rate - 1947-2018."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Department of Treasury.  "Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government."
 12 July 2018. Update [17 September 2018]: Added analysis of expanded Facebook meme circulating on September 2018. Claim:  A man was ordered to pay $30,000 in support for a child that DNA testing proved was not his. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] We need justice for Carnell Alexander  just one victim of paternity fraud in MI.   Origins:  In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was  ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.  The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of  aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:  The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.  Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.  An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother. By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance: WXYZ [The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father. "That was the only way I could get assistance," she said. She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child. "Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said. It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help. He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.  Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right. Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his. The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved. "Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander. The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise: The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexanders dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons. "I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander. Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story  he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services: article But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case? Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.  Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance. According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support. The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.  This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That  aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge  not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).    Last updated:  29 January 2015 In January 2016, a quote attributed to first U.S. president George Washington, about the importance of an armed citizenry, started recirculating on the internet:  This statement had been making the online rounds for several years, but it regained popularity in January 2016 after President Obama announced new measures on gun control. announced George Washington never uttered the phrase in question. The first ten words ("a free people ought not only be armed and disciplined") are taken from the former president's annual address to theSenate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war: annual address Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy. A page dedicated to fake quotes attributed to George Washington on theMount Vernon web site addressed this passage as follows: addressed This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Although this meme does include a portion of Washington's first annual addressto members of theSenate and House of Representatives in1790, the majority of the quotewas never utteredby the Founding Father, and does not accurately represent his views on gun control. Nonetheless, its apocryphal nature doesn't hinder its continued reproduction as a genuine expression from George Washington: Vice President Joe Biden loves campaigning in Ohio. He did so 15 times during the 2010 Midterm elections for various state and federal candidates. But Democrats still suffered a shellacking, he joked during an April 19 campaign fundraiser in Cleveland for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces re-election next year.Citing positive economic news, Biden insisted, however, that the political debate about his administrations policies now favors Democrats.A lot of things we took a shellacking for, the American public has had an opportunity to take a good look at now, he said.Biden noted the improving unemployment rate. And he added this comparison: We have created more jobs in this last year than the Bush administration (did) in eight years. We are in a position where we are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving.PolitiFact Ohio likes comparisons and decided to examine this one because its emerging as a key Democratic talking point. When checking out job figures, PolitiFact turns to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official score keeper of U.S. employment numbers.The BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of employers. It updates the monthly figure as employers complete their surveys and it incorporates into the monthly figure a more complete quarterly census of employment and wages.First, we can quickly dispense with the Bidens lead-in: That the unemployment rate is improving.In March, the national unemployment rate dropped for the fourth consecutive month. At 8.8 percent, the rate is down from a recession peak of 10.1 in Oct. 2009, according to the BLS.Also, we can dispense with the last part: We are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving. Since its not really a statement of fact and includes a prediction, well leave that to be examined down the road.But how about the Obama vs. Bush job comparison?The number of jobs as of February 2001, the first full month of Bushs presidency, was 132.53 million. The number of jobs as of January 2009, the month he left office, was 133.56 million. Thats a net gain 1.03 million jobs.To checkout Bidens claim, we looked back 12 months, from March 2010 to March of 2011. (Though Biden made remarks this month, April figures have not yet been tallied. )The number of jobs in March 2010 was 129.43 million. The number of jobs in March 2011 is 130.73 million. The net gain during the last year is 1.3 million jobs.That means 270,000 more jobs were created in the last 12 months than the net total of jobs at the end of Bushs two terms.A familiar detour, or caveat, is in order. Typically, the most recent BLS monthly job figures are preliminary and will change as surveys are completed and figures are updated. That means the 270,000 edge for the Obama administration could increase -- or disappear.Politifact also frequently points that when framing job figures, slicing and timing make all the difference.Republicans, for instance, like to frame the jobs story this way: The U.S. has lost a total of 2.09 million jobs since Obamas first full-month in office in February 2009. Thats true. Of course, looking at this way shortchanges the impact of the deep recession Obama inherited and the recent economic growth.Likewise, Democrats shortchange Bush when they ignore that the U.S. created more than 5.6 million jobs through January 2008, when the recession began to take hold.The bottom line is that the recession, which officially began in Dec. 2007, hurt the job record of both presidents.So where does that leave Bidens statement?Hes correct about the declining unemployment rate. Hes also accurate about the gains made in the last year. The figure also falls within the context that the recovery has been slow and painful but the job picture is improving of late, albeit slowly.Understanding how he slices job numbers in his comparison is a point that provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Bidens statement as Mostly True. For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True. As the 2018 campaign comes to a close, the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund has sent a mailer to homes in Texas 7th Congressional District saying that John Culberson, a Republican congressman, is wrong for Houston. As partial proof, it said he was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught is an interesting word, since the nine-term incumbent, now challenged by Democrat Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, disclosed the memorabilia purchases, which he says he gave as gifts from his campaign. As for the fossils, his campaign insisted there were no such purchases -- and said it only bought books and maps from a business that happens to also sell fossils. Critics have made a false assumption, the Culberson campaign told us initially. Well look at both parts of the claim but will give away a bit of what we found right here: He bought fossil replicas. If you wonder why an environment group would care about fossils and Culberson, the group noted that Culberson said in late summer that his purchases were for research into such things as paleoclimatology, or the study of climates before instrumental records were widely available, to help him better understand climate change. Environmental Defense Fund Action says that for all this studying, Culberson still refuses to accept scientific research on the matter. Culberson has said humans played a role in climate change but, ashe toldthe Los Angeles Times in 2015,  We just dont have enough data or accurate data to say with certainty what that effect has been. Lets take fossils first. The congressmans critics based their claim on a mention in a 2012 campaign finance report that Culbersons campaign made two purchases from a South Dakota organization, the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research. The institute sells fossils, replicas and other things, and Culberson spent $309.66 altogether there, Federal Election Commission records show. The purchase was part of a broader set of Culberson expenses being questioned by Texas Democrats -- a set of questions we are not addressing fully here because we are looking specifically at campaign ads and claims. But for a bit of perspective, theHouston Chroniclewrote in August that Texas Democrats were challenging nearly $50,000 in Culberson campaign spending since 2004. Focusing just on fossils, PolitiFact asked Culbersons campaign what it bought from the Black Hills Institute. We were told it bought books and maps, not fossils, the same explanation the campaign has given since August. Only in politics does a person get attacked for trying to be better at their job, Culberson campaign spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said. The mailer from the Environmental Defense Action Fund is factually wrong. The congressman never bought fossils with campaign contributions and all other purchases are acceptable under House and FEC rules. Culberson is a voracious reader, and has spent thousands of dollars from his campaign account for books and materials, including some on paleoclimatology, that his campaign says were related to his job. In just the 2011-12 campaign season, Culbsersons campaign spent $9,848 on research or research materials, most of it from vendors such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, FEC records reviewed by PolitiFact show. Culberson chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees spending on science and such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The research material helps him better understand the changing levels of carbon dioxide in the climate, his campaign says. Asked about records that would show he was buying books and maps, not fossils, from the Black Hills Institute, his campaign said the 2012 records for such specific purchases no longer exist. PolitFact, however, called the Black Hills Institute. They pulled the invoices from Culberson's two separate orders and sent us copies. This is what the campaign paid for, excluding shipping charges: Three large wall charts showing extensive histories of the Earth and matter, dating back 4.5 billion years. The charts have columns showing tectonic maps, changes in the earth such as mountain formation, major volcanic eruptions, glacial epochs, craters from asteroids and comets and extensive information on fossils, invertebrates and vertebrate lifeforms, as well as their extinction. These cost $19.95 apiece. One desktop model of a Triceratops. It cost $84.05. Two large -- 4.5 inches -- fossil replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth. Each cost $40. The FEC gives pretty wide latitude to the purchase of books and other materials that a candidate or officeholder might use in his or her official capacity, Brendan Fischer, an expert on campaign finance law at the Campaign Legal Center, told us. But what about a Triceratops model and replicas of a Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth fossil? Id like to hear their explanation for it, he said. Its hard to see how it would pertain to their official duties. We told the campaign what we found, and it asked what our proof was. So we sent the campaign the invoices for the congressmans purchases. The response from Kelly, the spokeswoman: The invoices confirm that the congressman never bought actual fossils, and every purchase from the Black Hills Institute is considered acceptable under House and FEC rules. Asked why the congressman bought the replicas and the model at all, Kelly said, While these purchases were more than six years ago and now being used as part of a coordinated partisan hit job, the congressman believes these particular purchases were gifts, which is completely acceptable under FEC and House rules. The mailer from Environmental Defense Fund Action also mentioned Culbersons use of campaign money to buy collectibles and Civil War memorabilia. This, too, originated from the Democrats complaint referenced in the Houston Chronicle. Culberson is a Civil War history buff, collector and sometime-seller of memorabilia. But when it comes to his campaign funds, the purchases were for items such as stamps and coins the congressman got in order to give out as gifts, his campaign said. Congress members frequently use campaign money to buy gifts for constituents and volunteers, and the Culberson campaign said the Texas Republican was doing nothing different from what House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has done when buying white orchids. The FEC allows candidates and officeholders to buy and give as gifts items of nominal value as long as they are not given to family members, Fischer said. FEC reports show only what a candidate or officeholder pays, not the value of the each item. For example, in 2014, Culbersons campaign spent $3,631 on coins from an antique coin seller. In 2009 and 2010, the campaign spent $4,181 on antiques and coins for gifts, includinghat stars(an emblem worn on soldiers hats) and Texas Centennial and Republic of Texas coins, FEC records show. Culbersons campaign said the value of each coin was about $25, and the value of stamps was about $10. For a broader view, we downloaded FEC data showing all federal candidate purchases -- those for everyone with a federal campaign account -- of items listed as gifts just since January 2017. The total reached $1.8 million, for everything from model airplanes to a quilt to gift baskets. Environmental Defense Fund Action said Texas U.S. Rep. John Culberson was caught using campaign cash on collectibles, including Civil War memorabilia and fossils. Caught seemed strong to us at first, given the campaigns denials. But with a phone call and email, it turned out that Culberson had in fact used campaign funds -- not for fossils, but for replicas and a desktop model. Our ruling comes down to perspective. The mailers spin seemed a little strong at first, especially knowing that gift purchases, whether for Civil War trinkets or not, are allowable if considered of nominal value. But the insistence of the campaign that Culberson did not buy fossils -- and that he had only bought books and maps -- is a factor as well. OK, he didnt buy fossils. He bought fossil replicas. We rate the claim Mostly True. 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. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014.