Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.
The cost of health care is a huge issue for everyone.If you have health insurance, the chances are excellent that you've seen your costs, along with co-payments and deductibles, go up significantly.If you don't have health insurance, the bill you get from your doctor or hospital is strikingly higher than what people with health insurance are charged. That's because insurance companies negotiate deep discounts that uninsured people never see.And because people who don't have insurance areseven times more likelyto skip the care they need, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that typically makes your care more expensive when you do seek it. If, on top of everything else, you can't pay for that care and a hospital provides it for free, as a hospital is obligated to do, those costs are passed on to everyone else.So it caught our attention when Marie Ghazal, chief executive officer of theRhode Island Free Clinic, the Providence nonprofit organization that treats the uninsured, beganan opinion columnin The Providence Journal by asserting that Rhode Island has the highest percentage of uninsured adults of any state in New England.She stated that between 13.9 percent and 21.4 percent of residents are not insured, which translates to 139,000 to 214,000 Rhode Islanders.We wondered if our ranking was really that poor, and why the range was so large.When we contacted Ghazal, she said she got the information froma story in the Providence Business News. The article gives no specific numbers for Rhode Island or most other states. It wasbased on a mapdeveloped by the CDC that breaks the states into three categories: those having the highest proportion of people with health insurance, those having the lowest and those in between.Rhode Island -- like New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and most of the states in the Midwest -- is in the in-between category. Ghazal said our rate of uninsured adults was 13.9 percent to 21.4 percent because, as it turns out, that's how the CDC defined the in-between group.We asked if she had specific numbers. She said she didn't. So we went searching.When we contacted CDC, they directed us tostate-by-state numbers, as collected by Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that counts how many people are without health insurance at the time of the call.According to the BRFSS statistics, which served as the basis for the map cited by Ghazal, the 2009 telephone survey of4,318 Rhode Islands found that the percentage of uninsured adults in Rhode Island was 14.2 percent, below the national average of 16.9 percent. Thirty-two states had a lower rate of health insurance coverage than Rhode Island. The worst rate was in Texas, where 29.1 percent of the population was not covered. In 15 states, at least 20 percent of the adult population younger than 65 was without health insurance.But we found something else while digging into the numbers. The margin of error in the survey was plus or minus 1.9 percentage points.If you ignore the margin of error, it is true that Rhode Island had the highest rate of uninsured adults in New England. Maine, where 13.7 percent were uninsured, was closest to Rhode Island. But that's a difference of only 0.5 percentage points. Massachusetts, in contrast, had the lowest rate of uninsured -- 6.2 percent -- because the Bay State has mandatory health insurance.However, if you consider the margin of error in the poll, we could rank ahead of New Hampshire (where 13.1 were uninsured) and Maine.For additional context, we looked at thepercentages going back to 1995(excluding 2001 and 2002, two years when the survey results are not on the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention & Health Promotion website).It turns out that in 2004, the level of uninsured in Rhode Island was a bit higher -- 14.4 percent; 15 years ago it was at about 13 percent. The rate did dip to 11.7 percent in the 1998 survey but, in general, the numbers have stayed consistent.By any measure, that's still a lot of people walking around without health insurance.Ultimately, if you ignore the margin of error, Ghazal is correct about our ranking compared with other New England states. But if you take that into account, its possible that her statement could be inaccurate.More importantly, she's making a selective comparison. When you compare us with the rest of the country, we're better than average.Because of those omissions, we rate her statement Mostly True.
A law professor running against U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of South Florida says she is in the pocket of big banks and isnt looking out for consumers who get crushed by debt from payday loans. My opponent, after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFTP) from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans, said Tim Canova on hiswebsite. Canova, a first-time candidate and professor at Nova Southeastern University, is challenging Wasserman Schultz in the August Democratic primary in a Broward/Miami-Dade district. The race has drawn national attention because Wasserman Schultz is the Democratic National Committee chair. Did Canova accurately describe her donations from banks and her votes related to payday loans and car loans? There is some truth to his attack, but each one requires explanation. Donations from Wall Street banks Canovas campaign pointed to donations from banks, securities/investment firms and finance/credit companies to Wasserman Schultzs campaign committee and her political action committee, or PAC. At PolitiFact Floridas request, the Center for Responsive Politics compiled the large individual donations (more than $200) and donations to her PAC starting with her 2006 election. The center found she received $309,020 from commercial banks, which represented about 2 percent of the total; $408,450 from securities/investment firms, and $325,850 from finance/credit companies. Her leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats, received donations from the Goldman Sachs PAC:$5,000 in 2016and$10,000in 2014. Wasserman Schultz spokesman Sean Bartlett pointed to donations only to her campaign and plucked out what he said were the big bank donations. That totaled $15,400, including $4,000 from Goldman Sachs. But the Center for Responsive Politics shows a longer list of bank donations even if we only examine her campaign committee. It shows$171,303 for commercial bankindustry donations. Payday loan bill Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. It is a controversial industry that targets the poor and is disproportionately located in minority communities. For years, payday loans were unregulated by the federal government, although some states had their own laws. President Barack Obama took a step toward regulating the industry when he signed a bill in 2010 that included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have targeted the bureau for years. Enter some Democrats into the fray -- including Wasserman Schultz, who has gotten about $68,000 from payday lenders, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wasserman Schultz is among Florida lawmakers who have defended Floridas payday law despite the fact that some consumer advocates have bashed it and say it traps the poor in a debt cycle. Wasserman Schultzs position is to give precedence to the state law, her spokesman said. On the federal level, the bureau released anoutline of payday loan rulesin March 2015 and is expected to announce a more complete proposal within the next several months. Congress doesnt have to approve it but can introduce legislation to kill it. All but one member of Floridas congressional delegation (Tom Rooney) signed aletterin April 2015 pushing back against the proposed rules. Instead, they want the bureau to look at Floridas law as a model. That led U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican, to file the Consumer Protection and Choice Act,H.R. 4018in November. Half of the 24 cosponsors are from Florida, including Wasserman Schultz, and nine of the cosponsors are Democrats. Canovas website said Wasserman Schultz voted on the bill, but it was only referred to a committee without a vote. (After we pointed that out to Canova senior adviser Richard Bell, the campaign changed the website to say co-sponsored instead of voted.) The bill states that if the bureau determines that a states law meets the federal requirements, then only state law will apply. It would also delay federal regulations for two years, which would allow states to come up with their own laws. More than 200 consumer or civil rights groups -- including the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America -- wrote aletterto Congress urging them to defeat the bill. They argued that the bill favors an industry-backed Florida law and would hurt consumers. Floridas 2001 payday loan law was a compromise and included protections that were intended to help the poor avoid an endless cycle of debt. But the loans leave consumers stuck on a debt treadmill in Florida, where they have racked up $2.5 billion in fees since 2005, according to the Center for Responsible Lendings Marchreport. In the past year, the average Florida payday loan had an annual rate of 278 percent. Richard Cordray, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, disputed Ross description of Floridas law as the gold standard during a congressional hearing on March 16. In Florida, these loans are still being made above the 300 percent, and they are being rolled over on average nine times, Cordraysaid. Bartlett argued that Wasserman Schultz has fought against abusive payday lending practices and pointed to her vote on a separate bill in 2015. She voted against HR 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, which opponents argued would have prevented the Justice Department from going after the financial industry. Racial discrimination in car loans Canova also said Wasserman Schultz prevented action to stop racial discrimination for car loans. This part of Canovas attack relates to a2013 bulletinfrom the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which recommended steps for auto lenders to avoid discrimination. The bulletin was intended to provide clarity about existing law. But theHouse of Representativespushed back against the bureau by passing a bill to nullify the bulletin. The bill passed the House 332-96 in November 2015 and hasnt had a vote in the Senate. Wasserman Schultz was one of 88 Democrats who voted in favor of it, while 96 Democrats opposed it. Proponentsof the bill -- including auto dealers -- said the bureaus efforts would increase costs for consumers. Groups that representedminoritieswanted the new guidelines. This legislation in no way prevented the CFPB from addressing racial discrimination in car loans, and the congresswoman does not support that as a policy position, her spokesman said. The bill hasnt been acted on, and discrimination investigations can continue. A few months after the House vote,Toyotaagreed to a $21.9 million settlement to black and Asian buyers. Our ruling Canova says Wasserman Schultz after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans. Her campaign committee and PAC have taken $309,020 from commercial banks since her re-election campaign in 2006 -- about 2 percent of the total. That includes $15,000 in donations from Goldman Sachs to her leadership PAC. The payday loan bill hasnt had a vote in the House yet, although Wasserman Schultz is a co-sponsor. The bill would not prevent the bureau from regulating payday loans entirely, but it would cede power to the states, including Florida, which has its own payday law that some advocates have criticized as weak. She voted for a bill that squashed bureau guidelines that were intended to provide clarity about the law on racial discrimination related to car loans. We rate this claim Mostly True. The nasty political ads have been gone for weeks, but the launch of a marketing campaign aimed at trumpeting Ohios improving economy offers a preview of the next great election battle.JobsOhio, the states private economic development agency, is on air witha 30-second commercialthat celebrates workers of all stripes and conveys an optimistic message.The agency is the brainchild of Republican Gov. John Kasich, who has ridden Ohios rising fortunes to rising poll numbers. And the Thrive in Ohio spot, which also asks viewers to share their success stories ona web site, has rankled Democrats hoping to unseat Kasich in 2014.Never mind that the spot doesnt feature Kasich or identify him or the governors office in any way. Democrats see a calculated political move bankrolled by state development money. The push also includes print advertising and will cost $1.4 million,the Columbus Dispatch reported.Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, one potential challenger to Kasich, haspublicly calledon Kasich to suspend the campaign, declaring it a waste of taxpayer dollars.Given the dust-up surrounding the JobsOhio blitz and the role the states economy is sure to play in the gubernatorial race, PolitiFact Ohio decided to evaluate the claim central to the TV spot.In the past year alone, Ohio businesses have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country, an unseen narrator says, his words scored to an inspirational piano melody. And its only the beginning.So how does the statement stack up when peeled away from such slick marketing?Laura Jones, communications director for JobsOhio, cited employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Via email, Jones said the numbers showed that from October 2011 through October 2012, only California, Texas and New York created more jobs than Ohio.Jones referred us to the bureausRegional and State Employment and Unemployment report. According to seasonally adjusted employment numbers in October, 30 states reported statistically significant increases in employment year-over-year -- Ohio among them.Table E, found on page seven of the 21-page report, breaks down the employment trends by state. Since October 2011, according to preliminary data, Ohio has added 96,500 jobs. Indeed, that increase ranks fourth, behind the more-populated California, Texas and New York.Because the report was dated Nov. 20, three days after JobsOhio posted the commercial to YouTube, PolitiFact Ohio went back to look atthe previous months report, which evaluated the period from September 2011 and September 2012. We found the Buckeye State in the same position: fourth among states with statistically significant employment increases.We also checked with George Zeller, an economic research analyst from Cleveland. He was familiar with the Thrive in Ohio campaign and, after paging through the BLS reports agreed that the numbers cited by JobsOhio were legitimate.But what do the numbers prove?What theyre saying there is that Ohios No. 4, Zeller said. What you have to recognize is that of course were going to gain more jobs than Vermont, because Vermont is smaller. There are 50 states, so being fourth is higher than others. But were by no means at the top.Zeller makes a valid point. Ohio, by virtue of being one of the nations most populous states, is destined to have and add more jobs than smaller states. Ohio is the seventh-most populous state,according to Census figures, ranking behind California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania. In terms of jobs added, Ohio is up there with other highly populated states.Zeller also noted that Ohios recovery, while real, is coming slowly. At current pace, said Zeller, citing his research, it will take the state 11 years to recover all jobs lost during the recession.Theres nothing untrue about what [JobsOhio] said, Zeller continued via telephone. Now does that mean that we are outstripping the rest of the country? No. First of all, because we lost more jobs than the rest of the country did  we have to do a lot more to make them up.Of course Democrats will come armed with other numbers as the gubernatorial fight nears. They often citeBLS datathat show the states unemployment rate began dropping in early 2010, under Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and and Democratic President Barack Obama.To their point, its worth noting that public policy set outside Ohio affects the states economy. Exhibit A: The federal governments bailout of the U.S. auto industry, a huge Ohio employer.As such, Democrats argue that Ohio was en route to economic recovery months before Kasich defeated Strickland in the November 2010 election. Ironically, Kasichs constant ballyhooing of these improved prospects was at odds with the message pushed by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and might have helped Obamas re-election bid this year.Now that the race for the White House in the rearview mirror, it is no surprise that Democrats see the JobsOhio commercial as the unofficial kickoff of Kasichs re-election campaign. Perhaps that makes this the unofficial kickoff of PolitiFact Ohios monitoring of the contest, whether its FitzGerald, Strickland or another candidate who takes on the incumbent governor in 2014.For its Thrive in Ohio campaign, JobsOhio said businesses here have created more jobs than almost every other state in the country over the last year. A second later, the ads narrator added: And its only the beginning. That qualifier is appropriate given the perspective Zeller supplied. Considering Ohios size, a statement about the states comparatively high level of job creation is not the ultimate benchmark of success.JobsOhio seems to realize this. On the Truth-O-Meter, the agencys statement rates True. Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005. This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case. On 8 May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his administration's plans to withdraw the U.S. from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. Shortly afterwards, the Facebook page "Far Left Veteran" shared a meme with a related quote attributed to Major General Paul D. Eaton: withdraw meme Paul D. Eaton   Maj. General Eaton is a retired U.S. Army officer who commanded operations to train Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003-04 before returning to the U.S. to become Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. That Eaton made the comment attributed to him above is documented by his verified Twitter account, where he posted that comment on the same day President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran deal: I have served with foreign Soldiers and armies all my professional life - including Iranian. The American Military word was trusted. I deeply regret @realDonaldTrump decision to walk away from the Iran Deal. He dishonors America and puts us and our allies at risk. #IranDeal @realDonaldTrump #IranDeal  Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) May 8, 2018 May 8, 2018  In a statement published on VoteVets.org, the major general provided additional opinion on the issue: statement Today, Donald Trump has moved us closer to a war with Iran, while he has also moved us closer to a nuclear war with North Korea. All this while we wage a war in Afghanistan. By decertifying the Iran deal, and putting the question of new sanctions before Congress, Iran will now consider restarting its nuclear program. Should Congress reinstitute sanctions, Iran will undoubtedly speed towards nuclear weapons, putting us on the path to war. If Congress inserts new triggers for sanctions, Iran will likely consider whether staying in the deal is worth it, at all. At the same time, North Korea now knows that any deal signed by the United States is not worth the ink it is written in, when it comes to Donald Trump. That chops diplomats off at the knees, as they struggle to find a non-military solution to the crisis in Korea. It moves us closer to nuclear war with North Korea. In short, today Donald Trump has put us on the path to two new wars, with nuclear weapons. We are very much less safe today, than we were yesterday. The path we are now on  massive loss of human life, on the scale of millions  is not a positive development for America, or humanity. We implore Congress to step in, and rein in this president. VoteVets.org.  "Statement of Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton, Former Iraq War Commander, Senior Adviser to VoteVets, on Trump Decertifying Iran Deal."
  Accessed 9 May 2018. Elizabeth Warren pins a lot of hopes on her ultra-millionaire tax. The Democratic presidential candidate would like to put a 2% levy on assets over the $50 million mark, and 3% on those over $1 billion. The revenues would pay for her plans to pay for universal child care, student debt forgiveness and other programs she has in mind. In a Fox News op-ed, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation noted that a wealth tax isnt a new idea. Joel Griffith said many European nations have tried it. And scrapped it. Of the 14 wealthy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it, Griffith wroteApril 28. We found different numbers, but there has been a turn away from wealth taxes. And with Warrens plan on the table, the European experience is worth exploring. Griffith got his numbers from an article on the website of theTax Foundation, a group that is concerned about the ways that taxes distort business decisions. The foundations analysis drew on data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based international body that has its roots in the post-war recovery of Europe. The OECD datashows 13 countries collected revenues from net wealth taxes in 1996, measured in local currency. But it shows 14 when measured as a percentage of GDP. We cant account for the difference. Theres another twist. One of those countries is Austria, but Austria ended its wealth tax in 1994. So the actual count that year was either 12 or 13. (Its only slightly off from what Griffith wrote, but we care about these details.) Tallying the countries that have a wealth tax today is even trickier, largely because definitions vary. We found room for debate over what constitutes a wealth tax. All wealth taxes tax things that are owned, not money earned, but they vary in a couple of key respects. They might target the wealthy (Norways tax, for example, affects net worth above 1.48 million Norwegian Kroner) or a broader swath of residents. And some tax all assets, while others  such as Belgium with stocks and bonds, or France with real estate  focus only on specific assets. A 2018 report from the respected German-based think tankIfo Institute for Economic Researchcounted just three countries with a wealth tax: Switzerland, Norway and Spain. But the authors noted that Italy and the Netherlands also tax wealth in limited ways, and France swapped a broad wealth tax for a narrow one on real estate wealth that kicks in on property worth at least 1.3 million Euros. The international accounting firmErnst and Youngaffirmed that Italy does have a wealth tax. Another accounting firmKPMG reported in 2018 that Belgiumadded a wealth tax when it imposed a tax on securities, such as stocks and bonds. To make things even more complicated, some OECD countries dropped, added, or changed their wealth taxes since 1996. The Tax Foundation article Griffith relied on said that today, six OECD countries had wealth taxes in one form or another. (One of its charts showed four, but that stopped counting in 2017.) How to sort this out? By the strictest definition, today only three wealthy OECD countries have a wealth tax. With a looser standard, as many as seven do. (Some tallies include Hungary, but it might not count as a wealthy country, as the claim says.) The general reason European countries dropped their wealth taxes was they were more trouble than they were worth. In Germany, the tax was found unconstitutional, but it wasnt raising that much money anyway. Areview of the wealth tax optionby the European Commission said that in the past, determining the value of assets was challenging and cheating was easier. Opportunities of avoidance and evasion reduce the capacity of wealth taxes to generate revenue, and they contribute to the perception that wealth taxes produce little net benefit, the report said. Decisions to repeal net wealth taxes have often been justified by efficiency and administrative concerns, OECD analystswrote in a 2018 report. The revenues collected from net wealth taxes have also, with a few exceptions, been very low. Switzerland reaps far more than other nations, taking in revenues equal to 1% of GDP. But Norway brings in 0.4% and Spain 0.2%. Of the countries that did away with a wealth tax, Denmark was typical. In 1996, the tax brought in just 0.1% of GDP. The earlier taxes also tended to reach down into the middle class, not just the uber-rich. Getting rid of them was politically popular. For some, the European experience casts a deep shadow over Warrens proposal. Wojciech Kopczuk, an economist at Columbia University, warned that no matter what, valuing assets is tough. (Warrens) plan would apply only to the very rich, Kopczuk said. That does not at all resolve administrative problems. Those are as daunting in the United State as in Europe. On the other hand, Kopczuk added that a tax that starts at $50 million could hold popular support. Theres also a difference in overall tax regimes. The OECD analysts said that the arguments for and against a wealth tax depend on all the other tax laws in a given country. In that light, Reuven Avi-Yonah, director of the international tax program at the University of Michigan Law School, said Europe is not at all like America. Income tax rates and sometime inheritance taxes are higher in Europe, Avi-Yonah said. This means there is less need to tax the rich through a wealth tax. Weve looked before at the debatewhether Warrens plan would raise as much as she hopes. Warrens campaign staff told us that they have learned the lessons from Europe. They argue that focusing on the 76,000 wealthiest people and taxing all assets with no complicating exceptions would lighten the administrative burden. Theres also a hint that Europe is taking a second look at wealth taxes. Both the OECD and the European Commission wrote of a renewed interest in wealth taxation. Griffith said that of the 14 wealthy OECD countries with a wealth tax in 1996, 10 have since then abandoned it. We found there are different ways to consider wealth taxes, and Griffith used the strictest one based on dated information. We found that either 12 or 13 countries had a wealth tax in 1996, and nine ended their taxes since then. Today, six or seven European nations have some form of a wealth taxes, either broad ones or narrow ones. The meaning of the European experience from two decades ago is debatable, but thats not the basis for our ruling. We looked only at the countries and their tax laws. The numbers in the statement are off. European countries did move away from the wealth taxes, but not quite to the extent stated in the op-ed. We rate this claim Mostly True. FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. The Trump administration and Senate and House leaders have revealed a framework for tax legislation that proposes tax cuts for business, a reduction in tax brackets, and the elimination of several tax breaks. What the plan means for Americans remains to be determined. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan is entirely dependent on one thing: what happens to the child tax credit. The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families, Rubio said on WFLA on Oct. 15. How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit. We wondered whether increasing the child tax credit will be the only way that working families can gain under the framework. What we found is that the child tax credit is indeed central in the current tax proposal. However, the plan is so tentative that its premature to say that will be the only way working families will see relief. Rubios team sought to back up his assertion with apress releasethat included two charts. Both charts relayed the same message: In order to help working families, a tax plan must increase the child tax credit and make the credit refundable. So in Rubios mind, expanding  not just increasing   the child tax credit is key in seeing working families prosper. The Trump-backed tax frameworkproposes increasing the creditfrom the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out. Experts agreed that expanding the child tax credit is one of the central provisions that will shape the impact that middle-income households will experience under the framework. Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the existing, $1,000 child tax credit is already quite large. Parents with children under the age of 17 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child. If they owe more than $1,000 in taxes, then the credit lowers their tax liability, or the total amount of tax left on their income. If parents owe less than $1,000 in taxes then the tax liability is reduced to zero. In its current form this tax credit is nonrefundable. Greenberg said that under current law, a married household with two children making $60,000 would owe about $3,733 in individual income taxes before taking the child credit into account. After taking the child credit into account, the households individual income tax burden would fall to about $1,733. (His math assumes that the household takes the standard deduction and does not claim any other major credits, exclusions, or other provisions.) Still, its not just about increasing the credit. Transforming it into a refundable credit is also important. In 2015, Rubio and Mike Lee, R-Utah, releaseda tax planthat connected the child tax credit to the payroll tax, which would have increased the refundability rate.At the time, experts were unsure whether this would have benefitted low-income families because it didnt include an expansion for them. Another reason why expanding the child tax credit is important is because the current framework eliminates the personal exemption  that is, the untaxed income pegged to the number of dependents on their return. This provision disproportionately benefits households with children. To compensate for eliminating it, the plan proposes increasing the child tax credit. It looks like theyll pay more under the current framework, but thats where the child tax credit comes into play, said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. It does its magic and wipes away that tax liability. Its worth emphasizing that the details of the child tax credit are a work in progress. Right now, the plan does not specify how much the credit would increase or which incomes level would qualify. More broadly,little is knownabout the thresholds of new income tax brackets, which could greatly affect the distribution of benefits. From the sketchy details we have of the basic (framework), its pretty fair to say the child tax credit is key, said Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California. As a result, the credit has emerged as one of few options available to policymakers looking to change the tax burden on middle-income households. Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, bemoaned the focus on a specific tax break such as the child credit, favoring instead overall tax simplification. In that context, Edwards said, policymakers have lots of ways to cut taxes on moderate-income Americans. Maag, meanwhile, pointed to proposals outside the framework that would expand the earned income tax credit. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a very large increase in that credit -- a refundable credit targeted at low-income working Americans -- that would provide benefits to low- and middle-income families Rubio said if tax reform efforts dont expand the child tax credit, there will be no tax relief for working families. Thats a bit overstated, since the tax proposal is in its early stages. That said, judging by whats in the initial framework, experts say that the child tax credit is one of the few levers that could significantly affect the size of the tax burden for middle-income households. We rate this claim Mostly True. In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks