Shutting down the border for just a few hours resulted in approximately $5.3 million in economic losses. This could lead to significant economic repercussions, potentially amounting to billions of dollars, if we persist in discussing border closure without fully understanding its implications.
During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars  billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge  we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Wearing pink shirts and holding up signs, people gathered outside the Statehouse in Trenton recently as Democratic legislators led a rally to increase womens health care funding in the face of opposition from Gov. Chris Christie.When Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (D-Burlington/Camden) addressed the crowd on June 20, he claimed Christie also has been cutting health care funding for another group: people with AIDS.This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life, said Conaway, a physician specializing in internal medicine. People who have AIDS today can live out their life...almost as long as anybody else if they get the drugs they need and this governor, time and time again, has cut that.PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed that the Christie administration had cut or proposed to cut state funding for AIDS and HIV services, but in two cases, other funding sources would allow the same number of individuals receiving those services to be served.When we asked Conaways chief of staff, Ethan Hasbrouck, to back up the statement, he pointed to two funding cuts in the governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 as well as a change made last year in eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although a final budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved at the end of June, this Truth-O-Meter item focuses on the proposed budget at the time of Conaways statement. We later called Hasbrouck twice and sent him multiple emails to set up an interview with Conaway about our findings, but we never heard back.Lets review those three items one at a time.Hasbrouck said the fiscal year 2011 budget lowered the income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That disqualified about 960 people from the program, saving $7.9 million.But the state later set up a new drug benefits program to assist those individuals who would no longer be eligible under the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That new program was funded through additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies and a new federal grant program.The state increased AIDS Drug Distribution Program funding last year for people who met the new income eligibility, but reduced spending in other categories of HIV services, according to Dawn Thomas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services.Now, lets turn to the cuts in the originally proposed fiscal year 2012 budget.Hasbrouck correctly states that the governors proposed budget would have cut $4.7 million for special-care nursing facilities, including Broadway House in Newark, the states only long-term care facility for people living with HIV and AIDS.The second proposed cut cited by Hasbrouck was $3.7 million from the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although that state funding was proposed to be cut, the mix of funding sources would enable the same amount of participants to receive access to medications through both the AIDS Drug Distribution Program and the other drug benefits program, according to Thomas.But remember this: two of the funding cuts cited by Hasbrouck were only proposals at the time of the assemblymans statement.Heres how the final budget for fiscal year 2012 affects AIDS and HIV funding:The income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program was restored to its previous level, but state funding for the program has been further reduced for a total cut of about $10.7 million, Thomas wrote in an email. Other funding sources will allow the same number of participants to be served, she wrote.The budget reduces overall funding for nursing facilities, but there is no longer a specific cut to special-care nursing facilities like Broadway House, Thomas wrote. The impact on those special-care facilities remains unclear, she wrote.Lets review:Conaway claimed at a Statehouse rally that Christie has repeatedly cut AIDS funding. His chief of staff pointed to three pieces of evidence, one from the budget approved last year and two from the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012.A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services confirmed cuts to AIDS and HIV funding in both budgets.But last year, a new program was created to assist people impacted by the eligibility change. This year, state funding was proposed to be cut, but other funding sources were to maintain services for participants. Conaway correctly stated that Christie has cut state funding for AIDS and HIV programs, but at least when it comes to pharmaceutical assistance, people continued to receive medicine for their AIDS and HIV treatment. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." resolution The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient, smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; making green technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs." proposal On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford" that would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage: criticized Republicans ... set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didnt actually have enough support from the party ... Additionally, the move was aimed at putting Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government, Ocasio-Cortez said. What McConnells doing is that hes trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee  because he doesnt want to save our planet. Because he thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned. In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. voted down A meme circulated online afterwards offensively portrayed Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill":  The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward: not voting cloture This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. a version Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell is seeking to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy, while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote: she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution. Daly, Matthew.  "Senate Shuns Green New Deal Amid Claims of Bad Faith."
  Associated Press.  26 March 2019. Nilsen, Ella and Li Zhou.  "Senate Democrats Broadly Shut Down Republican Trolling on the Green New Deal."
  Vox.  26 March 2019. Grandoni, Dino and Felicia Sonmez.  "Senate Defeats Green New Deal, As Democrats Call Vote a Sham."
  The Washington Post.  26 March 2019. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "The Green New Deal and Why It's Happening Now."
  The Balance.  2 April 2019. Lavelle, Marianne.  "Senate's Green New Deal Vote: 4 Things You Need to Know."
  Inside Climate News.  26 March 2019. In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely-shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling on a home that is left to them by their parents. The post  which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan  first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: first emerged regained Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called "stepped up basis"? How does this affect you! When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at what it is worth today. If you were to sell that house you would only pay taxes on the gain from what it is worth today and what it sells for. If Biden does away with "stepped up basis," you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for the property. If you decide to sell you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like! Current PolicyInherited House at Current Value - $200,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $5000Taxes Due - 20% of $5000 = $1000Profit to you = $204,000Biden PolicyInherited House at original purchase price - $40,000Sells for $205,000Taxable income = $165,000Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000Profit to you = $172,000If your parents were to have sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence.So much for helping the middle class get ahead.My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans dont even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of more tax dollars for the average sold after inheritance! Wow, google Biden stepped up basis and educate yourself because this is a biggie! Please share!   The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the "stepped-up" basis for capital gains tax, and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax hit for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. We are issuing a rating of  Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on: describes When people sell an asset for more than the price for which they obtained it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the assets adjusted basisgenerally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the assets fair-market value at the time of the owners death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the assets value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the assets value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: explanation ...Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heirs basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when he inherited it  so no income tax is due on the sale, or ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of stepped-up basis.  During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that: Politifact ABC News The plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt as well. Bidens policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who go into the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergrad or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be paid for through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis. CNBC On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): document The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be paid for by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the "Stepped-up Basis Loophole" as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28 %. [Emphasis is added]. Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains  that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year  for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: long-term stated As President, Biden will make health care a right by getting rid of capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Bidens capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will assure those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy. The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on a notional individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents, before selling it on. The tax hit for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. We are issuing a rating of  Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. In remarks from the Senate floor, newly elevated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that his partys takeover of Senate control appears to coincide with recent good economic news. After so many years of sluggish growth, were finally starting to see some economic data that can provide a glimmer of hope, McConnell said. The uptick appears to coincide with the biggest political change of the Obama administrations long tenure in Washington: the expectation of a new Republican Congress. McConnell stopped short of saying the Republican Senate takeover actuallycausedan economic improvement, though manymediaobserversassumedthat was what he was trying to imply. In the liberalNew Republic, Brian Beutlerjoked,It absolutelydoescoincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Relatedly, things that coincide are called coincidences. But is McConnell even right that the economic data and the political expectations coincided? We focused on two questions. First, when did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually solidify? And second, was there an uptick in economic data that actually coincided with that time frame? Well also briefly address the question of causation, even though McConnell didnt explicitly claim that. The data we found suggest McConnell is engaging in some wishful thinking. When did the expectation of a new Republican Congress actually emerge? To answer this question, we checked with political analysts who handicapped the 2014 battle for the Senate and also looked at poll-based forecasting models. McConnell said expectation, a stronger word than possibility and one that requires a reasonable degree of consensus. Going into the 2014 Senate elections, most observers expected the GOP to gain seats, due primarily to a favorable map for the GOP (far more Democrats were up for re-election, especially in conservative states) combined with the longstanding history of six-year-itch midterm elections bedeviling second-term presidents, in this case Democrat Barack Obama. But whether the GOP would actually manage to win enough seats to seize control of the chamber -- six -- was less certain. Going into the election, the Democrats held a 55-45 edge (counting two Democratic-caucusing Independents as Democrats). With many individual races rated as highly competitive right through Election Day, winning a net six seats was no slam dunk. Jennifer Duffy, who handicaps Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said different political experts settled on a Republican takeover at different times but added that she felt pretty comfortable with a gain of six seats around Labor Day, which was on Sept. 1 last year. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, agreed that Labor Day was a turning point, though he added that there were slivers of doubt right up until the end. We formally called the Senate for the Republicans the week before the election, but we also suggested that a GOP Senate was likely in the months prior to the election. The forecasters atfivethirtyeight.comsuggested the toss-up lasted past Labor Day. They calculated the likelihood of a GOP takeover at just over 50 percent as late as mid September, before rising again, ultimately to 76 percent on the eve of the election. TheNew York Times in-house forecast saw much the same pattern, narrowing to essentially a coin flip in mid September before climbing to a 75 percent chance of a GOP takeover by Election Day. All told, this suggests that an expectation of a GOP takeover didnt emerge until the beginning of September at the earliest, and possibly as late as the second half of September. This leads to our next question. Has there been an economic uptick that appears to coincide with this timeline? McConnells office pointed us to the announcement that the economy grew at an annualized 5 percent rate in the third quarter of 2014, the biggestexpansionin more than a decade. So well start there. Thefigurewas indeed impressive. But there are two problems with citing this as evidence for McConnells point. First, the third quarter covers July, August and September. So the bulk of this growth occurred before the expectation of a GOP Senate began to jell. Second, GDP growth for thesecondquarter -- covering April, May and June of 2014 -- was almost as impressive, 4.6 percent. And that was well before the expectation of a GOP takeover seemed to take hold. (In fact, for much of that quarter, theNew York Timesmodel showed the Democrats likelier to win control than the Republicans.) Indeed, the longer-term trend for GDP growth shows that three of the past five quarters -- that is, since mid 2013 -- have exceeded 4 percent growth, and another quarter came close to that. Only one quarter, the first quarter of 2014, was a dud. So its not as if the impressive third-quarter growth of 2014 came totally out of the blue. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis We also looked at another major yardstick for the economy -- the monthly change in employment. During 2014,total monthly employment gainsaveraged 241,000. In October -- the month after the expectation of a GOP takeover would have taken hold -- the gain was almost exactly that, 243,000. The November total was 321,000 -- the highest of the year, but not far out of line when compared with the general trend for job creation since early 2011 (see chart below). Its too soon to tell whether Novembers figure kicks off a new, higher threshold or whether the number settles back again into the 240,000 range. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics The strongest evidence for McConnells point is consumer confidence. TheUniversity of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentimentdid experience an uptick between November and December, but even with this measurement, confidence had been rising consistently since July. And other evidence actually points in the opposite direction. Data fornew orders of capital goods-- a good statistic for gauging how much confidence there is in future economic conditions -- actually fell every month between August and November. The question of causation Even if the statistical timeline fit perfectly, its worth remembering that correlation does not equal causation. I don't think that either party has that much power to affect short-run economic movements, except by royally screwing up, and I haven't seen any evidence that theexpectationof a regime change of this sort would affect economic outcomes, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist. Its even possible to draw up a theory that runs the opposite direction as McConnells linkage. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, said one reason GDP and employment have increased a bit faster in recent months is that government investment, government consumption, and public employee payrolls have recently been rising instead of falling. Given this, McConnells comments linking the GOP and accelerated economic growth are ironic, Burtless said, since Republicans have been at the forefront of cutting government spending and payrolls. Our ruling McConnell said a recent economic uptick appears to coincide with the expectation of a new Republican Congress. Even leaving aside the question of causation, key statistics show that the economic recovery was under way well before September, which is our best estimate for when the expectation of a GOP Senate solidified. We rate the statement False. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response. In late March 2022, we looked into two viral and false Facebook posts that were copied and pasted by countless users. One of the posts, which was also purportedly received as a text message alert, claimed that "cellphones are being hacked" to steal banking information. The misleading copypasta post said that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off," to gather cash and food, and to plan for the uncertainties surrounding the potential global impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Facebook copypasta U.S. Department of Homeland Security Russia's invasion Ukraine The first message appeared to warn of a potential Russian cyberattack and read as follows: Russian FYI"Please be aware,Just received this:ALERTCellphones Are Being Hacked!You Get Called And Get Asked If You've Been Vaccinated Or Not. Then You're Told To Press 1 Or 2 As An Answer And Boom All Your Banking Information Is Accessed. People Are Loosing Money. Please Alert Them Not To Respond!Also, homeland security says because of what's going on with Ukraine, keep your fuel topped off and store up some cash in case ATMs get hacked and credit card systems are unavailable. We know it's possible since the fuel lines were hacked once before recently. So glad God provides for his own. Just do our part and keep praying. PASS it on" The second viral message did not mention cellphones but did keep the Homeland Security part. It added lines about keeping "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," and a "family emergency plan" all ready to go: SHARING#ShareThis: Received this as a text this morning. From the Office of Homeland Security that encouraged us to take the following precautions:- Have basic food and emergency preparedness supplies available.- Have some cash on-hand in case ATM's or credit card readers are unavailable.- Do not allow your vehicles to get low on fuel.- Ensure that you have a family emergency plan.They said, "we have no information to suggest a specific credible cyber threat against the US Homeland", but stressed "it is our responsibility to be prepared" because "Russia has significant offensive cyber capabilities". They said "we are mindful of the potential for the Russian government to consider escalating its destabilizing actions in ways that may impact others outside of Ukraine." ?Pass on There's some truth to these two viral posts. At the same time, they're also quite misleading. We've been publishing debunkings of similarly scary-sounding yet harmless Facebook posts for many years. publishing debunkings Facebook posts As for the first post, we found no evidence that pressing a single digit on a mobile phone after receiving a call could release "all your banking information" to be "hacked" and stolen. Such a result, if it happened, would amount to some kind of fantasy or magic that doesn't have a possibility of happening in reality. fantasy magic  Source: Facebook  As for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security claims in both posts, these also were fairly misleading. Homeland Security did not issue a memo or any guidance to all U.S. citizens to "keep your fuel topped off" or to "store up some cash" due to the war in Ukraine. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Ukraine  Source: Facebook  The quotes at the end of the second post came from an interview with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and a letter from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). an interview a letter The partial truth of these posts was that CISA did issue some guidance to federal agencies and organizations to be prepared for a cyberattack during the conflict in Ukraine. An initiative, dubbed "Shields Up," specifically provided recommendations for agencies and organizations, not all citizens, to beef up security and to "plan for the worst." did issue some guidance Ukraine The Hill reported that this guidance for federal employees and workers at organizations did include keeping fuel topped off and having extra food, cash, and other supplies ready as part of a "personal and professional preparedness" plan. However, again, this wasn't meant for all U.S. citizens. reported On the website Ready.gov, which is officially operated by Homeland Security, the department published a page for all citizens about how to be prepared for a cyberattack. Nowhere on the page did it say anything about storing up "basic food," "emergency preparedness supplies," or a "family emergency plan." (Some of these components are mentioned for other disasters such as the event of a nuclear explosion, however.) Ready.gov page nuclear explosion KHOU previously published a debunking of the first viral post that mentioned, "cellphones are being hacked." The outlet reported that it had received the following statement from a spokesperson for the department: "The Department of Homeland Security did not send this text message alert." published We reached out to the department to independently confirm the statement sent to KHOU and to find out if it had anything else to add. This story will be updated if we receive further information. Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. Chesterfield County Administrator James J.L. Stegmaier wants folks to know he oversees a lean government.Chesterfield has eliminated more positions from its general government operations than the Commonwealth has from the entire state government since (fiscal) 2009, Stegmaier said in an outline of a Dec. 14, 2011 speech he made to the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce.We were struck by this statement. The state government has 33 full-time equivalent workers for every one in Chesterfields central government. Is it true that the county, in raw numbers, eliminated more jobs than the much larger state?We ran a check.Chesterfields general government operations include workers in all services except education. Stegmaier said that if education was included, the numbers would only grow in Chesterfields favor since the county has trimmed employment in that department as well.Stegmaier, to support his claim that Chesterfields central government has shed more jobs than the state, pointed us to two sets of statistics.He cited county budgets that detail Chesterfields authorized full-time employment levels in general government. In fiscal 2009, there were 3,697 authorized jobs. In fiscal 2012, which ends June 30, there were 3,516 such positions. Thats a decrease of 181 approved jobs.For state figures, Stegmaier relied on data from Virginias Department of Planning and Budget that detail authorized employment levels for all agencies. The state lists the number of employees as full time equivalents -- a figure that lumps together full-time and part-time employees. Thats why the overall number ends in a decimal.In fiscal 2009, the state had a maximum employment level 114,724.44 jobs. This fiscal year, the maximum is set at 114,566.73.So the states drop of about 157 authorized employees falls 24 short of Chesterfields reduction.But we had some issues with Stegmaiers proof. He had not made an apples-to-apples comparison because Chesterfield only tallied full-time employees while the state counted full-timers and part-timers.Also, the state and county numbers Stegmaier compared are maximum employment levels in budgets. Not all of those jobs were filled.We think the acid test for Stegmaiers statement is measuring the change in the number of people who actually worked for Chesterfield County and the state.We turned to the Virginia Department of Human Resource Managements website, which lists the number of state employees for any given month over the past 21 years.On June 30, 2009 -- the end of fiscal 2009 -- , the state had 119,850.81 full-time equivalent employees. By Oct. 31, 2011, the latest date for which statistics were available, the number  rose to 120,465.97. The state had gained 615.16 full-time equivalent workers.Then we turned to Chesterfield. Matt Harris, the countys senior budget analyst, told us Chesterfield had 3,816 full-time equivalent employees on July 1, 2009. The number dropped to 3,664 on Nov. 1, 2011. The county lost 152 full-time equivalent workers.Our ruling:No matter which set of numbers you use, Chesterfield has eliminated more jobs from its general government operations than Virginia has from its entire state government since fiscal 2009.We rate Stegmaiers claim True. 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. President Donald Trump and his team found several positives to tout from the newest round of employment numbers. On Jan. 5, the day the new numbers were released, presidential daughter and White House official Ivanka Trumptweeted, The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to 6.8 percent, the lowest ever recorded. We are working hard to bring this rate down even further. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to 6.8 percent, the lowest ever recorded. We are working hard to bring this rate down even further. @WhiteHouseCEAhttps://t.co/LyNYIQ4D8s The president himself echoed the talking point in his owntweetJan. 8: African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote! #NeverForget  @foxandfriends. African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote!#NeverForget@foxandfriends How accurate is the presidents tweet? Hes right on the numbers but leaves out economic gains for those groups under Democratic control. Unemployment rates In December 2017, African-American unemployment fell to 6.8 percent. Thats a record low since the statistic was first calculated in 1972. The previous record low was 7 percent in April 2000 and September 2017. The Hispanic unemployment also dropped by a full percentage point, from 5.9 percent in December 2016 to 4.9 percent in December 2017. As the president said, this is close to the data points all-time low, which was 4.8 percent in October and November 2017. Did Democrats do nothing for black and Hispanic unemployment? The tweet would have been accurate if Trump had stopped after the numbers. But his dig on the Democrats marred his talking point. The unemployment rate for both groups declined dramatically on President Barack Obamas watch. Black unemployment peaked at 16.6 percent in April 2010, when Obama was president. It then fell by more than half to 7.8 percent by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Hispanic unemployment, meanwhile, peaked at 13 percent in August 2009, then fell to 5.9 percent at the end of Obamas term in January 2017 -- also a drop of more than half. We should note that presidents dont deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. The White House did not reply to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Trump tweeted, African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote! Hes right about the low unemployment rates for both blacks and Hispanics today. But his slam that the Democrats did nothing in this regard is an exaggeration. Under Obama, the unemployment rate for both groups fell by more than half. We rate his statement Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO During the coronavirus pandemic of spring 2020, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York remained at the top of the news cycle for two reasons: His state saw by far the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and his daily press briefings were a staple of television news coverage of the crisis. The New York governor was also praised as a model of political leadership during an emergency by those who were highly critical of President Donald Trump and his handling of the U.S. federal response to COVID-19. largest number During that period, a meme circulated via social media stating that Cuomo had recently requested and been granted a $71,000 pay raise that made him the highest-paid governor in the U.S., and that this activity had taken place "while most NYers were sleeping":   It was true that Cuomo had been granted a pay raise that would make him (at least temporarily) the highest-paid governor of any state. But that pay adjustment had been recommended and enacted a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020), the $71,000 increase was phased in across the span of three years (rather than given all at once), and the matter involved multiple recommendations and approvals from state authorities (largely given because the governor's salary not increased since 1999) which were openly publicized and not hidden from New York residents. On April 1, 2019, both houses of the New York Legislature (Assembly and Senate) approved a pay hike that would increase Cuomo's compensation from $179,500 to $200,000 in 2019, $225,000 in 2020, and $250,000 in 2021. In terms of base salary, that raise created the potential for Cuomo to become the nation's highest-paid governor in 2020, out-earning Gov. Gavin Newsom of California (assuming that no other state raised its chief executive's pay to a higher level before then). Gov. Gavin Newsom The gubernatorial pay hike was one of several salary increases that had been recommended back in December 2018 by the New York State Compensation Committee, which "after months of research and public hearings," advocated substantial pay raises for multiple high-level state officers -- many of whom would, like the governor, would see phased pay increases eventually garnering them well over $200,000 per year: recommended A four-member committee has recommended substantial pay raises for members of the state Legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, state comptroller and state attorney general. The New York State Compensation Committee  consisting of current and former New York state and New York City comptrollers  unveiled their recommendations Monday, December 10, 2018, after months of research and public hearings. The Compensation Committee recommends that, starting on Jan. 1 of 2019, state legislators will receive an annual salary of $110,000. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2020, lawmakers will receive an annual salary of $120,000 and their outside income would be capped at $18,000, which 15 percent of their legislative pay. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, lawmakers would receive $130,000 a year and their outside income would be capped at $19,500, which is 15 percent of their legislative pay. This would be the long-term compensation for state legislators moving forward. The Compensation Committee is also recommending pay increases for the governor, who would receive an annual salary of $250,000 after a three-year phase-in; the lieutenant governor, who would receive $220,000 after a three-year phase-in; and an annual salary of $220,000 for both the state comptroller and state attorney general after a phase-in period. Executive branch commissioners and department heads would also receive pay raises under the plan, with Tier A commissioners making $220,000 after a three-year phase-in. As the New York Post reported, some legislators "grumbled that the [pay raise] measure was thrown in at the last minute" while they were working overtime to pass a state budget, but Cuomo and others defended it by noting that the compensation committee's recommendations had been published and accepted months earlier: reported Because the governor cant sign off on his own pay hike, the raise required legislative action. The state Senate approved the increase at 2:45 a.m. and the Assembly acted a few hours later. Some lawmakers grumbled that the measure was thrown in at the last minute, while they were grappling with the new $175.5 billion state budget. The salary adjustments were done last December by the pay commission which publicized and put out a report, which was accepted by the legislature, Cuomo said. That was published and discussed in December, so theres nothing new on that. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) backed up Cuomo. It has a fiscal component to it, so theres always the realization to do it, Heastie told reporters. We felt that all the statewide officials were able to get raises ... the governor and the lieutenant governors salaries arent fixed by statute, they have to be done by a concurrent resolution between the Assembly and the Senate and thats the reason why they were done. Gormley, James.  "Pay Committee Recommends $50,000 Annual Salary Increase for Lawmakers."
  Legislative Gazette.  11 December 2018. Davis, Dominic-Madori and Marguerite Ward.  "Here's the Salary of Every Governor in All 50 US States."
  Business Insider.  20 April 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Coronavirus Disease 2019 -- Cases in the U.S."
  Accessed 20 May 2020. Feis, Aaron.  "Andrew Cuomo to Become the Highest-Paid Governor in the US."
  New York Post.  1 April 2019. Hogan, Bernadette.  "Andrew Cuomo Defends His Huge Pay Raise."
  New York Post.  2 April 2019.