Fact Check "Congressional Reform Act of 2012"

If you’ve come across claims that members of Congress receive full pay for life after just one term, know that this is a myth, not fact. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how congressional compensation and benefits actually work. Let’s set the record straight.

1. Congress Uses the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS)

Members of Congress are part of FERS—the same retirement system used by postal workers, janitors, and other federal employees. They do not have lifetime tenure, as all members serve either 2-year (House) or 6-year (Senate) terms.

Additionally, congressional pensions have actually decreased in value over time. On average, pensions now pay about $30,000 less per year than they did previously.

2. No Pension Without Meeting Strict Requirements

Unless a member of Congress meets federal retirement eligibility requirements, they do not receive a pension. The requirements include:

• Serving at least five years in Congress or another federal position.
• Being of retirement age (62+ for a standard pension, or 50+ with 20 years of service).
• Pensions are only a small percentage of their original salary.

3. Members of Congress Pay Into Social Security

Since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to pay into Social Security—just like any other working American.

4. Congress Pays Into FERS Like Other Federal Employees

Just like other federal employees, members of Congress contribute to FERS as part of their retirement plan. There’s no special loophole or exclusive congressional retirement system.

5. The Bigger Issue: Insider Trading, Not Salaries

While many argue about congressional pay, a more pressing concern is insider trading. Some members of Congress have access to information about upcoming legislation that could impact industries and markets, allowing them to make financially strategic investments.

In 2012, an attempt was made to pass stricter regulations, but the effort was ultimately blocked. This remains a more urgent issue than pension myths.

6. Congress Hasn’t Voted Themselves a Raise in Years

Despite common misconceptions, members of Congress haven’t voted to raise their salaries in quite some time. Their pay remains set unless adjusted through legislative action.

7. Congressional Healthcare: Federal Employee Plans

Most members of Congress participate in the same healthcare plans available to other federal employees. Some opt for private insurance, but there is no exclusive, taxpayer-funded healthcare plan for Congress alone.

8. No, Congress Isn’t Immune to Arrest

Another common myth is that members of Congress cannot be arrested. The only exception is outlined in the Constitution: they cannot be detained while traveling to or from the Capitol for a vote. This rule was created to prevent political manipulation—not to grant legal immunity.

9. What Contracts?

One particularly baffling claim suggests that members of Congress have some sort of secret contracts. In reality, there are no special contracts for Congress—just publicly available salary and benefits structures.

Bottom Line: Get the Facts, Not the Myths

The idea that Congress enjoys massive, unearned benefits is based on misinformation. While there are certainly areas for reform (such as insider trading laws), the viral claims about congressional pensions, pay, and privileges are simply not true.

Before sharing political claims, always check the facts. And if you want more political myths debunked, stick around—we’ve got plenty more to cover!

Fact Check: Trump on Iran and 'Do These Republican Senators Support the Iran Deal?'

Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."

Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."

So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact: 

"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:

"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."

That includes the following:

• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.

"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.

But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."

It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.

Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:

Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world

Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."

Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"

Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."

Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"

Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."

It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.

Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.

The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media. 

Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional." 

Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.

Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all.  Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.

Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."

Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:

"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."

President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?

Congress should reject this bad deal."

Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement]," 

Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"

To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.

Fact Check: 'Illegal Alien Facts'

I've run across this picture posted on Facebook a half dozen times now, and I wanted to do a little research to fact check it's claims. Many Americans have the impression that most illegal immigrants are here just to live off our welfare system. So I wanted to check, are these "facts" true?

The first fact claims that more than 43% of all food stamps are given to illegals. According to estimates by Pew Research Center, there are currently 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., which has stabilized after decades of massive growth. According to the Department of Agriculture, 46.5 million Americans are on food stamps. Right there we can easily see that the first claim cannot possibly be true. Mathematically there aren't enough illegal immigrants in the U.S. to equal 43% of food stamp users.

On the claim that 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angelos are for illegal immigrants, several groups have fact checked this claim and found it to be only half true. Illegal immigrants are more likely to flee jurisdiction before being arrested, so warrants would remain open indefinitely but we don't have accurate statistics on what the most recent data is.

The next claim is that less than 2 percent of illegals are picking crops, but 41 percent are on welfare. Politifact found this claim to be mostly false. While only 2 percent of illegals are involved in picking crops according to a 2007 report, it is far from reasonable to even consider that as many as 41% are on welfare. Politifact continues:

"According to a 2007 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors stricter immigration laws, 40 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households used any "major welfare" program in the previous calendar year.
   
But it’s important to keep two bits of context in mind:
   
• This statistic addresses households headed by an illegal immigrant. However, many of these households include American citizens within the family, often children who were born in the United States and who received citizenship at birth. Indeed, given the web of restrictions on the granting of government benefits to illegal immigrants, most of the "welfare" benefits being counted in the CIS table are going to citizen children, not to adult illegal immigrants.
   
• We suspect that when many people hear the term "welfare," they think of cash benefits. However, very little cash assistance is going to illegal immigrants. According to CIS, less than 1 percent of illegal-immigrant-headed households included anyone receiving direct government cash assistance, such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or state-run cash aid. This is not surprising: Illegal immigrants are generally barred from receiving such payments.
   
Instead, 27 percent of such households received coverage from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, while 33 percent received food assistance, such as free or reduced-price school lunches, food stamps, or benefits from the Women-Infants-Children program (WIC). As noted earlier, many of the recipients of these programs were actually citizen children of illegal immigrants."

The next claim is that 2/3 of all births in California are to illegals on Medi-Cal. This was found to be a false skewing of data which focused just on Los Angelos and included all births to hispanics.

Number five says that nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties in U.S. are illegals. Politifact found that "The closest but unverified estimate we could find for illegal occupants in HUD housing is less than 1 percent nationwide. The claim of 60 percent is ridiculously false."

Next we look at whether more than 39% of California students grades 1-12 are illegals. A Center for Immigration Studies report (2011) gives the percentage of school age “illegal and U.S. born children of illegals” in California as 14%. The math on this one just does not add up, and is rated false.

The post claims 75% of LA’s Most Wanted are illegals. According to the LA Times (to which many of these facts were first falsely attributed), the LAPD, states this is simply not true.

More than half of all gang members are illegals. This one seems to come from a 2008 study funded by the Justice Department. The Center for Immigration Studies found that 25 to 50 percent of gang members arrested in northern and western Virginia were removable, and usually illegal aliens. We simply do not have the data available to determine the validity of this claim. However since there are around 1.4 million gang members in the U.S, it seems unlikely that the claim would hold up nationwide.

US companies using illegals in 2005 profited over 2.36 trillion dollars. The total U.S. economic output in 2014 was just over 17 trillion dollars. While illegals do make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force, it seems unlikely that they would drive that much economic growth. Legally however, companies are required to check to see if their workers are here legally.

US Taxpayers are footing the bill for ALL illegals. Currently 43% of all Americans aren't paying federal taxes, but all of us (illegals included) are paying taxes. We all pay sales tax, and if we own property we pay property tax, (even if we're renting, our landlords pay property tax). I'm sure many illegal immigrants would love to be here legally and wouldn't mind paying back taxes just to have that right.

Overall this internet meme is rated false. Some of the claims have half truths. Others were flat-out lies. If you see your friends post this meme, please refer them to this article.