Yes, IRS Asked Taxpayers To Claim Stolen Items and Illegal Income
Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesnt mean the IRS isnt going to come after your earnings. Thats because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities.  The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner.  publications joked running out of time  And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income  categorized as self-employment activity  required to be reported to the federal tax agency.  Publication 17 general rules  Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 the IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items so long as the person returns them to the person they were stolen from in the first place.   Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, notes that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and notes that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in the Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. Its not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, its taxable.  If you find and keep property that doesnt belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), its taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year its your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. Its not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022.  Sources Dolan, Debra. Time Is Running out to Return Stolen Goods to Avoid Paying Taxes on Them. Https://Www.Wdbj7.Com, https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/12/29/time-is-running-out-return-stolen-goods-avoid-paying-taxes-them/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. IRS Asks That Criminals Provide Its Cut of Stolen Property, Illegal Income. KXXV, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/irs-asks-that-criminals-provide-its-cut-of-stolen-property-illegal-income. Publication 17 (2021), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Stole Something? IRS Says Stolen Property and Bribes Must Be Reported as Income. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021.
Did he or didnt he? Only the ghost of Strom Thurmond knows for sure. Mystery surrounds whether, back in 1984, the former senator from South Carolina knowingly deprived Puerto Rico of bankruptcy protections that every U.S. state enjoys. Its crunch time for Puerto Rico. The island territory needs to pay bondholders $422 million on May 1. It doesnt have the cash, it cant use bankruptcy to reschedule its payments, and Congress seems unlikely to craft a solution in time to avoid a massive default. During hisApril 24, 2016,HBO showLast Week Tonight, comedian and social critic John Oliver described the devils brew of legal oddities and fiscal recklessness by Puerto Rican officials that brought the island territory of the United States to the financial brink. If you are massively in debt and you cant declare bankruptcy, you are stuck, Oliver said. And this happened because of a tiny amendment to a law in 1984, and the crazy thing is, no one can say why it was written. The tiny amendment Oliver mentioned was stuck in the most boring location one could ever imagine  in the definitions section ofHR 5174, a bill geared mainly to fixing the bankruptcy court system. Buried in a long list of changes was the meaning of state. 'State' includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, except for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 of this title; That was it. With those two dozen words, the bankruptcy protections that applied to every state, and until 1984, to Puerto Rico, too, were wiped away. We tried to find out for ourselves why that amendment got attached, Oliver said. We knew Strom Thurmond had proposed it. So we asked an archivist at the library where his papers are kept to go through the relevant papers, and they came up with nothing. Oliver quipped about that lack of a paper trail, saying it might be the best scenario for Thurmond given his reputation for fervent racism. Oliver enlivened his diatribe over Puerto Rico's dilemma witha rapperformed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the son of Puerto Rican parents and the creator and star of the Broadway hitHamilton.Miranda mentioned Thurmond, too: Somewhere down the line Strom Thurmond's ghost busted a cap at a chance at Chapter 9. Which brings us to the focus of this fact-check: Did Thurmond propose the cunning words that ultimately caught Puerto Rico in a debtors vice? Thurmonds role Ina 2015 ruling, the judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals provided some very helpful background. In March 1984, the House passed its version of a bankruptcy bill. That version did not have the Puerto Rico exemption. Then on May 21, 1984, the judges wrote that Thurmond introduced the package of changes that included the text at the center of this controversy. On the day that he introduced the amendment, Senator Thurmond addressed the Senate to explain several of its numerous stipulations, yet said little about the newly added Puerto Rico exemption, the judges wrote. In fact, we went through theCongressional Recordfor that day (thank you, Internet Archive). Thurmond said less than little. He said nothing. The record shows that after Thurmonds amendment, the exemption became part of the final legislation. While this seems to point the finger at Thurmond, theres more to this story. Aside from introducing the overall amendment, Thurmond might not have had much to do with the text. It had been introduced four years before, and not in the Senate, but in the House. Congress earlier run at changing the law Experts question whether Thurmond actually understood the significance of the amendment. To see why, we have to go back to 1978. That year, Congress gave the bankruptcy law a complete overhaul. As often happens with major legislation, various gaps and ambiguities emerged and, in 1979, the Senate passed a bill to tidy up the loose ends. Among the dross, the Senate defined states to include Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and any territory or possession of the United States. That legislation moved over to the House, and here the trail becomes murky. Bankruptcy law professor Stephen Lubben at Seton Hall University traced thetwists and turns in a 2014 article. In July 1980, the House Judiciary Committee returned with an amendment to the Senate bill that struck the entire Senate text and replaced it with theJudiciary Committees desired text, including a new definition of state,  Lubben wrote. The House version, under Democratic control, had the Chapter 9 bankruptcy exclusion for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. That bill never passed, but in April 1981, Lubben found that the exclusion language resurfaced in the Senate. This exclusion was never discussed by Congress, at least publicly, and the language apparently simply materialized as a result of the House Judiciary Committees extensive revision of the 1979 Senate technical corrections bill, Lubben wrote. Lubben told us that the text in Thurmonds 1984 amendment was essentially the same language that was kicking around since 1980. Its not even clear that the parties even understood what was going on, Lubben said. The only thing we can say for certain is the change happened without a whole lot of thought behind it. Another factor makes it hard to find Thurmonds fingerprints on the text that beleaguers Puerto Rico today. The change was never offered as a stand-alone item. It was always bundled with a number of other small changes. Law professor John Pottow at the University of Michigan told us, Strom Thurmond might have introduced that, but its an overstatement to say he played a big role. A final mystery  if youve followed the trail this far, you will notice that in 1984, the House version of the bill didnt have the Puerto Rico exclusion. The logical question is, why was it dropped when the House was the first to add it in 1980? We wish we knew. Our ruling Oliver said we know that Thurmond proposed the text that stripped Puerto Rico of the right to let municipalities and public utilities declare bankruptcy. There is no question that Thurmond introduced the amendment with that change. So technically, he did propose it.But theres no evidence that he came up with the idea, and experts question that he understood the significance of the change that would follow. The statement is accurate but requires some additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/260b6aad-f921-45fc-9937-1d82d35f7874 This fact-check previously contained erroneous references about the timing of Strom Thurmond's Senate career and Lin-Manuel Miranda's birthplace. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey.  Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion.  The name of Southwest Airlines, a major U.S. airline which is also the world's largest low-cost carrier, has frequently been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years.  In February 2016, social media users encountered posts that appeared to be from Southwest Airlines, offering to give away four tickets to Las Vegas and $5,000 spending money to Facebook users who shared and liked a page.  The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel  "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print.  The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by Southwest Airlines) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:  Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware.    In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking Southwest Airlines has responded to such scams by issuing messages on Twitter that read: "Hey folks! There is a scam being passed around on Facebook about a free ticket offer from SWA. Please don't click or share the links!" As well, Southwest spokesperson Christi McNeill has said of these attempts to defraud that "We are aware of the scam for free tickets being spread across Facebook. This offer is in no way affiliated with Southwest Airlines and we are working with Facebook to get it removed." The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee   Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true  so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks."  according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter.   The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy  like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019  benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020  a year in which Joe Biden was not president  when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data  October 2020  indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." Claim:  Mattel's new Hello Barbie toy will record and transmit children's conversations.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2015] I just read an article (sent by Campaign for a Commercial-FreeChildhood) about a new Barbie Doll made by Mattel that is sent to hitmarkets this fall.  This doll records the child's conversations, transmitsthem to Mattel's technology partner "Toy Talk" and they can then use thatinfo..........this all sounds so far out!  ?   Origins:  On 14 February 2015, Mattel introduced a new Barbie model at the New York Toy Fair. In initial media reports, Hello Barbie was simply described as an innovation based upon feedback from young customers who wished to interact with their beloved Barbie dolls, and one of a number of planned interactive toys from Mattel: "The number one request we hear from girls around the world is that they want to have a conversation with Barbie. Now, for the first time ever, Barbie can have a two-way conversation," said a spokeswoman for Mattel. The Hello Barbie will be able to play interactive games and tell stories and jokes. A dinosaur, connected to one of the world's cleverest machines, is also being developedIt will also listen to the child's conversation and adapt to it over time  so, for instance, if a child mentions that they like to dance, the doll may refer to this in a future chat. The doll requires a wi-fi connection and can provide an hour's worth of playtime when fully charged. On 15 February 2015, video footage from the New York Toy Fair that demonstrated how Hello Barbie worked was posted on YouTube:  Interest in Hello Barbie waned until 11 March 2015, when the group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) published a petition that called upon Mattel to cancel the doll's production based upon the notion that the toy would be recording children's conversations and transmitting them to Mattel: petition Imagine your children playing with a doll that records everything they say (and other nearby conversations) and transmits it all to a corporation which analyzes every word to learn "all of [your child's] likes and dislikes." That's exactly what Mattel's eavesdropping "Hello Barbie" does. Unless we take action, it will be in toy stores this autumn. Kids using "Hello Barbie"' won't only be talking to a doll, they'll be talking directly to a toy conglomerate whose only interest in them is financial. It's creepy- and creates a host of dangers for children and families. Please join CCFC in demanding that Mattel halt marketing and production of "Hello Barbie." By Mattel's own description, Hello Barbie will record and process portions of ambient conversation. However, the petition ascribed a number of additional functions to Hello Barbie which have not been confirmed, such as analysis of captured audio for marketing purposes. While the technology involved alarmed many consumers once the petition began to circulate, it didn't differ meaningfully from the functionality of smart TVs or other popular interactive gadgetry such as Apple's Siri virtual assistant. (iPads and iPhones are not infrequently used by small children despite their similar ability to record and transmit ambient conversation to a third party.) smart TVs ToyTalk, the company that partnered with Mattel to produce Hello Barbie, attempted to assuage parental fears about the new product: In an interview, ToyTalk chief executive Oren Jacob stressed that the audio files the doll collects will be used only to improve the product, including helping it build better speech recognition models for children. "The data is never used for anything to do with marketing or publicity or any of that stuff. Not at all," Jacob said. While it's true that Hello Barbie can record and transmit household conversations, the same could be said for nearly every smartphone, almost all newer televisions, and a number of other personal gadgets. Hello Barbie's interactivity may have alarmed some parents, but it is similar to voice recognition features included on many popular technological devices and by itself presents no more risk or exposure than an iPad or a smart TV.   Last updated:  12 March 2015    "Barbie Doll Will Be Internet Connected to Chat to Kids"   BBC News.  17 February 2015. Claim:  Lockheed Martin is going to lay off 123,000 workers due to military downsizing but is not sending out layoff notices at the behest of the Obama administration.  OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] My son-in-law works at Lockheed Martin and we just found out that Lockheed is going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military.  This hit the Drudge report yesterday.  We are livid.  This is true! The law requires Lockheed to give 60-day notice to all to-be-fired employees within 60 days.  That drop dead date would be November 1st. Since this would be bad for the election, Obama has promised that our government would cover all Lockheed severance packages to fired employees if Lockheed would not release the names and locations of those losing their jobs until after the election! Origins:   In August 2011 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to resolve the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis and prevent the federal government from heading into default over its debt.  That piece of legislation identified $1.2 trillion in budget cuts to be made over 10 years and called upon Congress, through the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (also known as the "super-committee"), to come up with a plan to cut the budget deficit by another $1.5 trillion (through revenue increases and/or spending reductions) by 23 November 2011.  If that committee failed to come up with a viable deficit reduction plan by the deadline, or if Congress failed to approve the committee's plan, then the legislation called for automatic, across-the-board cuts (known as "sequestration") to go into effect.   The super-committee did not agree on a deficit reduction plan, stating that "After months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline," so unless and until lawmakers can agree on a solution to the budget impasse, the sequestration budget cuts are set to take effect  with the 2013 budget.  Since those cuts, if they take place, may include large reductions in Pentagon spending, some defense contractors are anticipating that they may have to engage in significant layoffs of personnel in the upcoming year, and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, enacted in 1989, most employers with 100 or more employees are required to issue 60-day advance notification of mass layoffs. WARN When one such defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, announced on 1 October 2012 that it would abide by White House guidance not to issue WARN Act-mandated layoff notices to thousands of employees just before the November presidential election, Republican critics contended that President Obama was engaging in a partisan political ploy to protect votes in a key battleground state (Lockheed Martin has a large business presence in Virginia) at the expense of workers who might soon find themselves without jobs: contended U.S. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement on Obama Administration guidance issued instructing defense companies and other government contractors not to issue mass layoff notices to their employees, as is required under the WARN Act, in anticipation of the $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur under sequestration on January 2, 2013: Today, President Obama put his own reelection ahead of the interests of working Americans and our national security by promising government contractors that their salary and liability costs will be covered at taxpayer expense if they do not follow the law that requires advance warning to employees of jobs that may be lost due to sequestration. The WARN Act exists to protect workers by providing at least 60 days' notice of layoffs from government contracting work.  But today, the Office of Management and Budget published guidance for the defense industry and other government contractors that they do not have to provide that notice now even though, under current law, $109 billion in across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to occur on January 2 are estimated to result in as many as 1 million lost defense jobs.  Apparently, President Obama puts politics ahead of American workers by denying them adequate time to plan their finances and take care of their families. The people who work in the defense industry and other government contracting companies deserve as much notice as possible that they are on track to lose their jobs. At issue is a Training and Employment Guidance letter issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) on 30 July 2012, and reiterated in a 28 September 2012 memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), advising employers that the issuance of WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration was not required by law and would be a waste of resources because it is currently unknown which contracts might be affected by potential budget cuts and when the effects of those budget cuts might take place.  The DOL's letter also informed employers that if they followed the DOL's advice and refrained from issuing WARN Act notifications in anticipation of sequestration, and they later had to engage in mass layoffs due to sequestration, the government would cover any legal costs they incurred as a result: letter memo Although it is currently known that sequestration may occur, it is also known that efforts are being made to avoid sequestration. Thus, even the occurrence of sequestration is not necessarily foreseeable.  In addition, the sequester's impact on particular accounts will depend at least in part on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 funding that Congress has not yet enacted.  Perhaps more importantly, Federal agencies also have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur.  Given that Federal agencies, including DOD, have not announced which contracts will be affected by sequestration were it to occur, and that many contracts may be completely unaffected, the actual contract terminations or cutbacks that will occur in the event of sequestration are unknown.  Thus, in the absence of any additional information, potential plant closings or layoffs resulting from such contract terminations or cutbacks are speculative and unforeseeable.    The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable. DOL concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors: In reaching this conclusion, DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers.  Despite DOL's guidance, some contractors have indicated they are still considering issuing WARN Act notices, and some have inquired about whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration. To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices; this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance. Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resultingemployee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable. GOP critics maintain the legality of the DOL's advice is questionable and amounts to "giving contractors a free pass" in exchange for a "multi-billion dollar campaign contribution": As a result of the OMB guidance, the Department of Defense will have to allow companies to claim repayment for the salaries of workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost to the taxpayer that could be as much as $4 billion.  In addition, DOD will have to reimburse companies for any legal damages paid to workers who are laid off but did not receive the required WARN notices  a cost that is inestimable.  Facing intense lobbying by defense companies and other government contractors for financial protection if they agreed not to issue WARN notices, the Obama Administration is giving contractors a free pass and will have potentially stuck the taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar campaign contribution. We also have questions regarding the legal authority of OMB to interpret the WARN Act as it has, and to obligate the Federal government to pay billions of dollars of potential claims from private contractors arising as a result of this interpretation. The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis.  The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as recently as three days ago, called on the president to work with us to avert the looming threat of sequestration to our national security. Other labor officials contended that the DOL's advice to employers about implementation of the WARN Act was consistent with the law: William Gould, a Stanford Law School professor emeritus specializing in labor law and a former chair of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by President Bill Clinton, said the Labor Department was correct when it said the possibility of sequestration-induced layoffs did not warrant Warn notices. "The courts have been very clear that mere conjecture does not trigger the obligation," he said. Rick McHugh, an attorney with the National Employment Law Project, agreed. "The obligation to give notice arises once the employer believes or should have known that a mass layoff or plant closing is going to happen at a particular worksite. At this point, no one knows with any certainty [whether] layoffs will be taking place or not at a particular worksite," he said. Lockheed Martin never announced that it was planning to lay off 123,000 workers (a number which represents the entirety of the company's workforce).  What happened was that in June 2012 a Lockheed Martin official expressed frustration with the uncertainty of the sequestration issue and stated that if it weren't resolved soon, the company would have to send WARN Act notices to  the "vast majority" of their workers because they had received no guidance on the issue from the government and thus had no idea who might be affected: Right before Election Day, the company is likely to notify the "vast majority" of its 123,000 workers that they're at risk of being laid off, said Greg Walters, the company's vice president of legislative affairs. Walters's comments are some of the most specific threats yet from an industry that's trying to head off the $500 billion in automatic cuts in defense spending set to begin taking effect Jan. 2. Called sequestration, the cuts are being phased in over 10 years, with about $55 billion slated for 2013. Unless Congress reaches a deal to stave off the cuts, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base," Walters [said]. The company has little choice, he explained, because federal law requires large employers to provide two months' notice to workers facing layoffs. "We would see a requirement, an obligation, to issue [layoff] notices 60 days prior to sequestration taking effect," he said. The layoffs, of course, won't all happen on Jan. 2, as it would likely take months for sequestration to begin affecting contractors' bottom lines. But the timing of the cuts  along with the requirement of 60-day notice  provides an opportunity for the defense industry to ratchet up the pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to tackle the issue before November. Only a fraction of Lockheed's workers ultimately would be let go as a result of the cuts. But the company plans to send out mass notifications because it is unsure exactly which employees would be affected. The White House Office of Management and Budget has not yet provided guidance for how sequestration would be carried out. "We've wanted a dialog about what sequestration could look like," Walters said. "But as of right now, no, we have no answers from OMB." (In a July 2012 memo, Lockheed Martin projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating  that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000.")  projected Ultimately, Lockheed Martin announced on 1 October 2012 that after "careful review of the additional guidance" provided by the government, they would not be issuing sequestration-related WARN notices this year:  announced For the better part of this year, we and others in industry and government have worked to raise awareness in Congress as to the devastating effects of sequestration  the federal law passed last year through the Budget Control Act that forces automatic across-the-board cuts in government spending.  In July, we informed you that, without clear direction from the government about how these cuts would be implemented, the corporation could issue conditional Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) notices to a substantial number of employees.  We have been working closely with the government to understand our obligations under the WARN Act and to ensure our employees are provided fair treatment and appropriate notice, if their jobs are impacted by sequestration. On Friday afternoon the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Defense (DOD) released guidance clarifying responsibilities under the WARN Act and outlining their timeline for making sequestration-related program decisions.  After careful review of the additional guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense, we will not issue sequestration-related WARN notices this year. The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan.  The additional guidance further ensures that, if contract actions due to sequestration were to occur, our employees would be provided the protection of the WARN Act and that the costs of this protection would be allowable and recoverable.   We remain firm in our conviction that the automatic and across-the-board budget reductions under sequestration are ineffective and inefficient public policy that will weaken our civil government operations, damage our national security, and adversely impact our industry.  We will continue to work with leaders in our government to stop sequestration and find more thoughtful, balanced, and effective solutions to our nation's challenges. If sequestration were to happen, we are compelled to comply with the law and will do so as respectfully and as ably as we can. While we work to stop sequestration we will also continue to petition the government to outline exactly how sequestration will be implemented so that we can responsibly prepare for the impact to our employees and our business. Finally, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue: No one thought [sequestration] would happen. The idea was to design something ... that was so onerous that no one would ever let it happen. Of course, it did, because [Congress] couldn't reach agreement. They all believed that the supercommittee was going to come up with a $1.2 trillion deficit-reduction plan, so there would be no sequestration. Of course, the supercommittee failed and so the trigger went off, which has all of these very Draconian [budget] cuts. Last updated:  27 October 2012    Munsil, Leigh.  "Bob Woodward: Obama 'Mistaken' on Sequester."   Politico.  23 October 2012.    Pender, Kathleen.  "U.S. to Contractors: No Layoff Notices."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 October 2012.    Wright, Austin.  "Lockheed Martin Eyes Layoffs This Fall."   Politico.  24 June 2012. When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed. On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: "2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!"   Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: taken Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we'll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they're doing is amazing. And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.   Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: NBC News Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we're bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they've never done work like this before. And they're hard-working people but they've never seen anything like it. And they've never done work like this before, it's terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they're reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they've never seen bodies like this -- bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing, and that's what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that's not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks.  President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could." described it a little differently Trump's statements were vague, so they didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he "paid for" their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. "This is the first Im hearing of it," Alles told us by phone. "There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered." Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) non-profit forced off According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: New York Times [Timothy] OBrien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was a little bit over a dozen people, which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Hes very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes, Mr. OBrien said. Even in the face of tragedy, he cant help but self-promote and self-aggrandize. We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don't know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ @realDonaldTrump #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ  Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 September 11, 2018 It's not the first time Trump's accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: some error pointed out I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down: falsely claimed Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. Keneally, Meghan and Liz Kreutz.  "Where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Were on 9/11."
  ABC News.  9 September 2016. Waldman, Paul.  "Trumps Long History of Lying About 9/11 and Exploiting It for Personal Gain."
  The Washington Post.  11 September 2018. Hind, John.  "21 Awful Truths About 9/11."
  The Telegraph.  5 September 2001. Neilan, Terrence.  "Hopes Are Raised, And Dashed, About Rescue of Firefighters."
  The New York Times.  13 September 2001. Balsalmo, Michael and Nancy Benac.  "Trump's Claims About 9/11 Don't Hold Up to Scrutiny."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2016. Rogers, Katie.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Claim He Spent a Lot of Time With 9/11 Responders."
  The New York Times.  29 July 2019. In March 2021, an online advertisement appeared to claim there was something special about the McDonald's golden arches logo. A page in the resulting story said that, in the 1960s, a psychologist named Louis Cheskin advised that McDonald's customers "associated the arches with a 'pair of nourishing breasts.'" page story  The advertisement in question.  "It's not just an 'M,'" read the picture that showed the McDonald's Golden Arches. "28 Hidden Images in Famous Business Logos (That You Never Noticed)." McDonald's Ahh, the famous Golden Arches! You probably realized that the "M" design stands for "McDonald's." However, you probably didn't know that the successful food chain's marketing team consulted a psychologist, Louis Cheskin, while creating their famed logo. Cheskin suggested that customers would unconsciously associate the arches with a "pair of nourishing breasts." Talk about subliminal symbolism. While it's misleading to say that Cheskin advised McDonald's when the logo was being created, we found that the main part of the claim was true. At a time when the company was considering ditching the golden arches, Cheskin advised McDonald's to keep them because they were, as Cheskin put it, "mother McDonald's breasts." The July 1995 issue of Reader's Digest appeared to be one of the sources of the information. While the issue wasn't available online for further reading, we found a story that cited the magazine in a Tennessee daily newspaper, The Jackson Sun. On July 24, 1995, the newspaper reported: July 1995 issue story The Jackson Sun Louis Cheskin, a specialist in the psychology of marketing who began his research in the 1930s [...] worked with McDonald's when it was about to abandon the arches as the architectural elements of its outlets. His research showed that the arches were great assets because they had "Freudian implications in the subconscious mind." Exactly what was meant by this was uncertain, but Davis Masten, who runs the company that Cheskin started, recalls that Cheskin also referred to the arches as "Mother McDonald's breasts" - a powerful association if you're replacing home cooking. Robert and Margaret Sneed, of Texas, were getting in their car at the McDonald's on Highland after lunch Saturday. They were en route to South Carolina through the Smokies. Asked if that was the association they had with the yellow arches of McDonald's, the retired couple laughed. "I believe that my only thought was a cup of coffee, fries, and a Big Mac," Robert Sneed said. "But I guess this is some kind of subliminal thing where we're presumably thinking this but not supposed to know we're thinking this, is that it?" "I think of an arch as being an entryway," Margaret offered. "I think of it more as being an entry to a restaurant, but then, I never was very imaginative." The newspaper also printed that "market research showed many people subconsciously connected" McDonald's golden arches "to mother and home cooking." In the 1997 book "The Total Package" by Thomas Hine, he published the same information, including the mention of "mother McDonald's breasts": book Cheskin worked with McDonald's at the time it was about to abandon arches as architectural elements of its outlets. He advised that the memory of the arches be kept in the form of the M in "McDonald's." His case was based, he said, on research that showed that "the arches had Freudian applications to the subconscious mind of the consumer and were great assets in marketing McDonald's food." In other words, Cheskin said, the arches are "mother McDonald's breasts, a useful association if you're replacing homemade food." We thank the reader who sent us information on this book. It helped to add to the data that showed the overall claim in this fact check is true. Another bit of credible reporting came from the BBC. In 2003, it printed a special article titled "Fast Food Factory." The story invited readers to "explore the past, present, and future of McDonalds and with it the fast-food industry." The piece mentioned the famed golden arches and its purported association to a pair of breasts: special article mentioned Attracting the Customers The logo for McDonald's is the golden arches of the letter M on a red background. The M stands for McDonald's, but the rounded m represents mummys mammaries, according to the design consultant and psychologist Louis Cheskin. In the 1960s McDonald's was prepared to abandon this logo, but Cheskin successfully urged the company to maintain this branding with its Freudian symbolism of a pair of nourishing breasts. This may seem funny, but it is no laughing matter to the industrial psychologists and marketing consultants who are paid millions to find new ways to seduce us into buying by manipulating our unconscious desires. We reached out to McDonald's and provided questions for our story, and the company responded by asking for our deadline. We heard back a second time when the company let us know that they may need more time. We reached out two additional times but did not receive any further responses. McDonald's In sum, it's true that, in the 1960s, Cheskin advised McDonald's to keep the golden arches at a time when the company was considering getting rid of them. On Oct. 25, 2021, the rating for this story was changed from "Research In Progress" to "Unproven" for the reasons mentioned at the end of the fact check. On Nov. 12, 2021, the rating for this story was changed from "Unproven" to "True" after we received information from a reader about a book that contained data on Cheskin's past. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., recently took to the House floor to tout abillshes sponsoring that would change the structure of job training programs. She warned that the economy faces a paradox -- despite historically high unemployment rates, many jobs are going vacant.There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them, Foxx said in the March 12, 2013,speech.To check Foxxs claim, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments scorekeeper on employment data.We easily found the source of her 3.6 million figure. It comes from a monthly survey called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS. Themost recent seasonally adjusted dataat the time of Foxxs speech covered January 2013. It showed that there were just under 3.7 million job openings in January, which was up slightly from 3.6 million in December 2012.So Foxx essentially got the number right. However, her use of the term sitting vacant and her warning about a shortage of qualified applicants suggests that employers are having trouble filling these 3.6 million jobs. A close look at the survey reveals it doesnt actually support that thesis.The bureaus official definition of a job opening is a specific position of employment to be filled at an establishment that satisfy these conditions: there is work available for that position, the job could start within 30 days, and the employer is actively recruiting for the position.But there are always job openings -- even in a healthy economy. In a phenomenon known as churn, people change jobs. Just because their old job is unoccupied when the BLS takes its monthly data snapshot doesnt necessarily mean that the employer is having trouble filling the job. Rather, the employer could simply be going through the process of hiring, with the job filled a month later.The data from this survey  has important limitations, said Steven J. Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, because it provides little information about the distribution of vacancy durations and no direct information about the reason why some job openings take a long time to fill.In some ways, vacancies are actually a hallmark of a healthy economy. Job openings often arise either because someone leaves one job for a better one, or because a company is hiring new workers. Both are positive signs. If you look at the monthly December job opening totals going back a decade, the years just prior to the recession had the most job openings, while the years during and immediately after the recession hit had the least job vacancies:2012:3.6 million2011:3.5 million2010:2.9 million2009:2.5 million2008:3.2 million2007:4.0 million2006:4.4 million2005:3.9 million2004:3.5 million2003:2.9 millionBut while the number Foxx used doesnt provide much support for her claim, other evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, suggests that she has a point that theres a problem with unfilled jobs today.The most solid evidence for a lengthening of job vacancies comes from astudyby Davis,  R. Jason Faberman and John C. Haltiwanger. It found that the time before a vacancy is filled has expanded from 15 days in 2009 to 23 today. As a result, the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate, which historically have moved in tandem,began to divergeduring the most recent recession and have not yet returned to their historical pattern.Why is this happening? Foxxs office provided links to avarietyofnewsreportsthatsuggesta mismatch between applicants job skills and the ones employers are seeking. Economists agree that that is part of the issue, particularly with high-skill jobs. But its probably not the only reason.For instance, there appears to be a hiring paralysis among employers who are acting with unusual caution because they are uncertain whether the economy will remain strong rather than stagnating, according to economists and hiring professionals quoted in theNew York Timesearlier this year. This has sometimes led to employers piling on extra tests and rounds of interviews as a way of stalling, experts told theTimes.Our rulingFoxx said, There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there arent enough qualified applicants to fill them. Shes right that there are 3.6 million vacancies and she's right that there aren't enough qualified job applicants, but she wrong to link the two because that statistic doesnt take into account how long a job has been open. Still, there is strong evidence that the duration of job vacancies has grown since the onset of the most recent recession, and the skills mismatch Foxx cites is likely part of the reason. We rate her claim Mostly True. On July 14, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump released a statement via email praising a new book by Fox News host Jesse Watters. As screenshots of Trump's statement started making their way around social media, some people noticed that the text of this statement was, in part, a direct copy of the book's description on Amazon.com.  noticed This is a genuine statement released by Trump and this is the genuine description of Watters' book from Amazon.com and other booksellers' websites.  description of Watters' book from Amazon.com Here's the text of Trump's full statement. We highlighted the portion that was lifted directly from the book's description: Great new book out by Jesse Watters, How I Saved the World. Interspersed are his thoughtful suggestions for overcoming left-wing radicalism, maintaining American democracy, moving beyond aging hippies (like his long-suffering, loving parents), saving the world from social justice warriors and the deep stateall while smirking his way through life in only the nicest way. Get your copy today, congratulations Jesse! Trump's statement did not contain any punctuation to indicate that this was a quote, nor was this plagiarized portion of his statement preceded by any indications that this was a quote from the book's promotional copy. As written, it appeared that Trump was giving a personal testimony about Watters' book, but that is not the case.  Trump was banned from social media in the days following the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, as the companies feared that the former president might incite more violence by pushing falsehoods about his election loss on their platforms. Without social media, Trump has started to issue statements via email which are then reposted to social media by his supporters and journalists. As social media users can't see these statements posted on Trump's own timeline for themselves, they are often left wondering if they are authentic.  We've been asked about a few of these statements in the past. For example: Yes, Trump wished a happy Father's Day to the "the losers of the world," and yes, he wished a Happy Easter to the "radical left crazies." the losers of the world, radical left crazies