Kasichs budget increases state spending from $50.5 billion to $55.6 billion. This is the second largest, two-year spending increase in Ohio history.
The irony behind Gov. John Kasichs $55.6 billion two-year budget proposal is that a Republican leader who subscribes to the politics of limiting government spending is actually proposing to tap the states checkbook for a lot more cash than his Democratic predecessor ever did.Thats a fact not lost on state Rep. Armond Budish, a Beachwood Democrat, who grabbed a  pen and paper last month to rail against The Columbus Dispatchs endorsement of the governors proposal.Despite the dramatic cuts targeted at schools and local communities, Kasichs budget increases state spending from $50.5 billion to $55.6 billion, Budish wrote in a letter the newspaper published May 14. This is the second largest, two-year spending increase in Ohio history.It is true that the governors budget makes deep cuts to public education and local governments, especially in larger urban areas. And it is true that the current state operating budget which covers fiscal years 2010 and 2011 passed under former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and expires on June 30, made just $50.5 billion in appropriations. It marked the first time in more than four decades that an Ohio biennial budget actually spent less than the previous budget.PolitiFact Ohio decided to check Budishs numbers.Ohios general revenue funds budget is part of a larger state fiscal document called an all funds budget. The general revenue fund is where state taxpayer money goes. It includes income, sales and other state taxes. The all funds budget, which is about double the general revenue fund, also includes money raised through various state licenses and fees and federal draw down funds for federally mandated spending and other items that lawmakers have little control over.Budishs numbers refer to the general revenue fund.In another letter to The Dispatch, one written in response to Budishs, state Rep. Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, said the GRF accounts for less than half of total state spending.Susan Ackerman, senior budget and fiscal analyst for the Center for Community Solutions, said that Amstutz is correct, but that Budishs message is in better context. When thinking of the budget, the figure to focus on is the general revenue fund number, not the all funds figure, she said.I think the budget to really watch is the GRF budget. The GRF budget is funded by Ohios tax revenues and it is the budget that lawmakers have the most discretion over, therefor it gives you the most accurate picture of what the states priorities are, Ackerman said.The all funds budget is an important number, too, she said. But the problem in Ohio is there is a lot of double counting in our all funds budget.For example, state tax refunds are counted as expenditures in the all funds budget even though the state is essentially just giving back money that taxpayers overpaid, Ackerman said. And sales of state goods from one state entity to another is considered an appropriation under the all funds figure even though the money never technically left the states coffers.GRF is really where your tax dollars go, she said.But is the spending level proposed by the governor is the second highest increase in the states history.We started by asking where the House minority leader got his facts. Budishs staff pointed us to a general revenue fund chart maintained on the Ohio Office of Budget and Management web site that lists the states operating budgets back to 1968. Thats just 43 years; not exactly inclusive of all Ohio history but enough information to test Budishs point.Kasichs proposal represents a $5.1 billion spending increase for a state still limping back from a crippling economic recession and deficit somewhere between $4 billion and $8 billion. The largest spending increase since 1968 came under Republican Gov. Bob Taft. The 2000-01 budget, which spent $40.4 billion, was $5.3 billion greater than the previous budget.Were talking actual numbers here, not percentage gains or losses.Since information prior to 1968 is difficult, at best, to completely recapture, PolitiFact Ohio wanted to add some perspective for the numbers that are available. The 1968-69 budget spent just $2.4 billion, so it appears safe to assume that never in Ohios history prior had the state witnessed a spending increase greater than $5.1 billion from one budget to the next. From that perspective, Budishs statement seems logical.Lawmakers and the public have traditionally focused on the general revenue fund because it is the figure that lawmakers have direct say so over how to spend.Knowing that the GRF represents part of all state spending, and that the all funds budget is much larger, is an additional point that provides clarification.And while Budish couldnt provide documentation for his Ohio history reference, it is clear that Ohio has never passed a general revenue fund budget prior to 1968 that is anywhere in the stratosphere of what lawmakers are presently debating in the Statehouse.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Budishs comment Mostly True.
Gov. Bob McDonnell has proposed spending an additional $2.2 billion on state employee and teacher pensions during a two-year budget period that will begin July 1.The governor, in presenting his biennial budget plan to the General Assemblys money committees on Dec. 19,saidhis pension proposal, if approved, would be the largest employer contribution to the Virginia Retirement System in history.We wondered whether the total $2.21 billion infusion over two budget years would truly be historic.Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has made a number of proposals to reform the Virginia Retirement System, which is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. But the governor also added to VRSs woes early in his term by convincing the legislature to divert $620 million in scheduled pension contributions to balance the states general fund, which pays for education, public safety and health programs.Under McDonnells new proposal, Virginia would pay roughly $600 million for state employee pensions during the 2013-14 budget years. Another $1.6 billion would be contributed to teacher retirement funds, with local governments picking up $1 billion of the sum and the state government paying $600 million.Tucker Martin, McDonnells director of communications, told us the governors claim that the $2.21 billion total contributions would be historic was based on VRS data.The VRS figures show the largest employer contribution to date came in the 2007-08 biennial budget when total state and local contributions were $1.72 billion. Thats lower than McDonnells proposal.The retirement system started in 1942, but VRS doesnt have records of employer contributions before 1973.Jeanne Chenault, a VRS spokeswoman, said the number of teachers and state employees before 1973 would have been lower, so its unlikely that contribution amounts would have exceeded 1973 levels.The VRS data shows annual contribution amounts without adjusting for inflation. So we did that work ourselves to see McDonnells claim could survive another test.It did. Even when adjusting for inflation, the 2007-08 contributions were still the high-water mark for employer contributions to the pension system, coming in at just more than $1.8 billion in current dollars. McDonnells proposal eclipses that.Our Ruling:The governor said his proposed $2.21 billion employer contribution for state worker and teacher pensions would be the largest in VRS history.For as far back as the data goes, the governors statement is correct even when adjusting for inflation.We rate the claim True. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who testified before Congress in September 2018 that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while they were both in high school in the 1980s, was the focus of a number of baseless and false rumors spread in an attempt to tarnish her credibility.  number baseless false rumors spread attempt tarnish credibility One of the more disturbing smear campaigns centered an alleged photograph of Ford from 1982 that was shared along with comments insinuating that she was too physically unattractive for a handsome young man such as Brett Kavanaugh to target for sexual assault: A number of individuals also shared this fake photograph alongside a genuine image of Brett Kavanaugh from his high school yearbook in order to strengthen their flawed argument that "handsome" Brett would never assault "ugly" Ford: shared yearbook   This comparison did not a use a real photograph of Christine Blasey Ford, but nonetheless it was widely shared on Twitter, Facebook, internet forums and web sites along with comments claiming that it was "proof" of Kavanaugh's innocence as he would never sexually assault someone who was "ugly": comments claiming proof innocence sexually assault This is Dr. Ford in 1982. I am going to go ahead and say this proves that she is lying. Christine Blasey ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! Im pretty sure no one was banging this chick in 1982. #justsaying #christineblaseyford #kavanaugh #metoo Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. She must have been fending off men with a stick. ??????? This was Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Theres NOT enough beer on the planet.... Christine Blasey Ford in 1982. Proof positive Kavanaugh is innocent! This is Christine Blasey Ford in 1982 , I think she was delusional, " some thing did happen to her ! But not with who she dreamed up ! These pictures are of Christine Blasey Ford the paid accuser and Judge Brett Kavanaugh from 1982, is confirmation of his innocence ... I don't think Brett would have been 1000 miles close to where Christine Blasey Ford was. What say you all? This picture was also shared by Lanny Lancaster, the Cabarrus County (North Carolina) GOP chairman, with the caption:  This is the alleged sexual assault victim. Wow. Lancaster defended his decision to share the photograph to the News Observer, arguing that he was simply trying to show that the media's portrayal of Ford was inaccurate: caption News Observer I didnt say anything. I just said this is her picture. Basically, the media is distorting the facts on this lady. Everything shes said is made up. She has no evidence whatsoever. I support that theory, Lancaster said. Lancaster said he takes issue with how the news media is portraying Fords early life. The media wants you to think she was a beautiful young lady who was on her way home from the tennis courts ...  Lancaster said. I just wanted you to see the real person. I wanted people to see that this is really her. The problem with the argument implied here is twofold. First, sexual assaulters targets victims based on factors other than physical appearance. The notion that physical attractiveness of the victim is a primary criterion in such attacks is a myth that perpetuates the harmful notion that it is a woman's fault for being assaulted: myth Myth: Only certain kinds of people get raped. It cannot happen to me. FACT: Rapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has worked with victims from infancy to ninety-two years of age and from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Myth: Women incite men to rape. FACT: Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape. Second, this photograph does not show Christine Blasey Ford, in 1982 or in any other year. This picture is one of an as-yet unidentified person which has been used for various memes ever since it first appeared on the internet in "Bad Yearbook" and "Bad Family Photo" galleries around 2011. Blasey Ford's name was never attached to this photograph until September 2018, when internet trolls began to claim so without evidence in order to tarnish her credibility. Bad Yearbook Bad Family Photo Here are genuine images of Christine Blasey Ford taken from her 1982 and 1984 yearbooks:    WorldWideInterweb.com.  "The 100 Worst Yearbook Photos of All Time."
  22 August 2012. Fallon, Brian.  "Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing.'"
  Politico.  1 October 2018. Specht, Paul.  "NC Republican Leader Uses Photo to Mock Christine Blasey Ford. Its Not Her."
  News Observer.  3 October 2018. The images above come from, respectively, CNN's television coverage and a photo snapped by freelance photographer Mark D. Phillips (who subsequently sold his picture to Associated Press) as New York's World Trade Center towers burned after the terrorist attack on 11 September 2001. Neither image was manipulated. Mark D. Phillips Finding demonic images in photographs and other visual representations  especially those depicting scenes of death and disaster  is an age-old human behavior employed to ascribe catastrophes to evil forces beyond our control, or (as in the following example) to fix blame on a target of choice (rather than the real perpetrators): [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Don't these photos of Satan at the world Trade Center catastrophe tell us that the current seat of Satan's power is the World Trade Center? Don't these photos depict Satan being awakened from his hiding place in the World Trade Center? For it is the international bankers who operate from Fed, the CFR and the World Trade Center who create first, second and third world debt. Usury according to the Bible is Satan's method for enslaving the world under his priesthood, the accountants and bankers of the world (IMF, World Bank Group, WTO). All of this will usher in 666 which is an economic mark of commerce according to the Book of Revelation (Ch 13,17). This mark will also be a religious affiliation of worship which will damn the soul eternally of all who partake we are told. And then there are those who take the additional step of deliberately creating such images:   Pareidol is the technical term for our penchant for finding specific images amidst randomness. Just as people see all sorts of images in clouds, so viewers can find anything from an ordinary ball of smoke to the face of Satan himself in these kinds of pictures. But do we really need to find the visage of the devil here to know that evil was behind the events pictured? Pareidol ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  A Face in the Smoke?  (KUSA-TV Denver) A Face in the Smoke?  (KUSA-TV Denver) One of the many "fortunate discovery" scenarios people sometimes fantasize about involves taking possession of a dwelling and turning up something of great value left behind by a previous resident  perhaps a forgotten stash of currency, discarded coins that were once common but are now worth a pretty penny to collectors, jewelry hidden away and never retrieved, etc.   Purchasing an old farmhouse and discovering the property included a barn stuffed full with a few hundred vintage automobiles is a reverie probably outside the range of even the most optimistic daydreamer's imaginings, but that's the backstory that was created to enliven a set of photographs circulated in early 2007 that showed an "eclectic collection of old cars in a decaying building." A dream come true. A NY man retired. He wanted to use his retirement money wisely, so it would last, and decided to buy a home and a few acres in Portugal. The modest farmhouse had been vacant for 15yrs.; the owner and wife both had died, and there were no heirs. The house was sold to pay taxes. There had been several lookers, but the large barn had steel doors, and they had been welded shut. Nobody wanted to go to the extra expense to see what was in the barn, and it wasn't complimentary to the property anyway..... so, nobody made an offer on the place. The NY guy bought it at just over half of the property's worth, moved in, and set about to tear in to the barn..... curiosity was killing him. So, he and his wife bought a generator, and a couple of grinders..... and cut thru the welds. What was in the barn...............?     The referenced pictures (the full set is viewable here) were indeed taken in a barn somewhere in Portugal, but the "lucky find" aspect of the story doesn't quite ring true.  As Tom Cotter of Sports Car Market magazine noted when he looked into this story: here Huge collections of cars don't just happen. Cars are accumulated  sometimes lovingly, sometimes not  by someone with a purpose. I was sure this collection was not assembled by accident; nobody would simply sell an old farm and fail to mention to the new owners the stash of old cars in the barn. What Cotter found out by tracking down the photographer was that the owner of the barn (and the 180 or so vintage cars contained within) was not a lucky buyer who had just purchased the property and was astonished to find a treasure trove in one of the farm buildings.  The owner was an automobile dealer in the 1970s and 1980s who had built up an assemblage of cars over the years and stashed it in the barn (locking and soldering the doors shut when the structure was full) and who simply hired a photographer to document his collection: I was eventually able to contact the photographer who was contracted by the cars' owner to shoot the photographs that would ultimately appear on millions of car-guy computer monitors beginning on January 20 [2007]. Manuel Menezes Morais shot the photos, but he was sworn to secrecy about the cars' location and the owner's name. However, he was able to obtain permission from the elusive owner to give me the following information: The owner of the cars was a car dealer in the 1970s and 1980s, and decided to save the more interesting cars that came through his doors. When the barn was full, he padlocked and "soldered" the doors shut. (Perhaps welding was too permanent.) Web sites varied on the number of cars: 58, 100, and 180 were speculated. According to Morais, there are 180 cars in the barn. And, aw shucks, none of the cars is for sale. A partial inventory of the various models of automobiles stored in the barn can be viewed here. here Cotter, Tom.  "Portuguese Barn Find: Fact or Fiction?"
  Sports Car Market.  May 2007. Sen. Elizabeth Warren did not leave her signature issue behind when she became presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trumps most pugnacious critic. Donald Trump has already offered his big wet kiss to Wall Street. He has said, Hey guys, if I get in, I'm going to roll back all of those regulations, because it makes it too hard for banks to cheat people,  Warren said in a June 28 interview onThe View. Trump never said he wanted to make it easier for banks to cheat people, but he has said he wants to roll back regulations on Wall Street. In the context of the interview, Warren is likely referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act, the premier piece of legislation regulating the banking industry after the crash. Warren has been a consistent crusader for stricter regulation of the financial industry. Early in the campaign, Trump distinguished himself from his rivals for the Republican nomination with some tough language directed toward Wall Street. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky, Trump said in aCBS interview in August. Atother points, he extended a similar critique to Wall Street Guys in general. Trump said that hedge fund managers get away with murder, but hes been unclear about what hed do to change that. One concrete Trump proposal on Wall Street was changes to the tax code that would change tax provisions benefitting hedge fund managers, but because of separate tax cuts for partnerships, his tax plan actually had the effect ofsubstantially improving their position. On Dodd-Frank, Trump has gone on the record again and again saying that the law is bad news for the economy and the banking industry. Hes called it a disaster, and a very negative force. Well before he launched his current presidential run, Trump attacked increased regulation after the financial crisis, which he said prevented loans to all but the very wealthy. And while it's not the same thing as a big wet kiss to Wall Street, Trump has said he expects bankers to appreciate his position. I think things have to be done with (Dodd-Frank), and I think Wall Street would like to hear that, Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. The only bit of wiggle room here is that Trump has been inconsistent about how much of Dodd-Frank would be left when he finished with it. He has said he would get rid of it, repeal it or, almost word-for-word from Warrens statement, roll that back. He has also said, however, that there are some aspects you could leave, and that could be changed greatly instead of being eliminated. In Trumps most recent statement about Dodd-Frank, in a mid May interview with Reuters, he said he would release a plan within two weeks that would be close to a dismantling of Dodd-Frank. A month after his Reuters interview, the plan, which would presumably settle this question, has not been released. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Our ruling Warren said Trump wants to roll back all of those regulations on Wall Street banks. While we dont know what Trumps plan would look like exactly, he certainly wants to scrap a lot of the law. It might not be right to say all of those regulations, but Trump himself has been unclear on that point. We rate this Mostly True. The idea that United States citizens can gain access to secret funds because of a government-created "strawman" is a persistent myth  and one was debunked long ago as a get-rich-quick scheme promulgated by shysters with links to far-right groups: When your birth certificate was monetized and converted into a UNITED STATES Government Bond shortly after your birth by your Mother, your net worth became unlimited, into Billions of Dollars, without your, nor your Mothers, and Fathers, knowledge. When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy in 1933 under the bankruptcy (Straw man) law known as HJR 192, pledged all Americans as collateral (debt slaves) against the national debt to the International Bankers; gave all the land to the international bankers (Federal Reserve Corporation); and confiscated and outlawed all the gold except for one ounce for each person; thus, eliminating the lawful means (Gold and Silver Coins) by which you could legally pay your debt, the UNITED STATES also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay. In 1933, the UNITED STATES Government declared that they would pay all of YOUR debts with the money they receive from your labor, birth certificate, and Social Security registered number by what is known as your Reserve Account worth Billions! The UNITED STATES Corporation Government did that by providing what is known as the Exemption Account. The bankers loan credit and not money, because there has not been any lawful money since 5 June 1933. The Exemption Account is your exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that something is your credit. This secret has been hidden for over 79 years. Your value to society was then and is still calculated using actuarial tables. At birth, average value bonds were created from your birth certificate. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars at your birth when your mother unknowingly gave her baby, you, away to the UNITED STATES Government. These birth certificate bonds were collateralized by your birth certificate and your mothers maiden name under an Act of Congress in 1921. Then your birth certificate bond became a negotiable instrument just like any security instrument under UCC Article 3, code of commercial law in which the world trade falls under. The bonds are hypothecated and traded on the stock market until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes. People all over the world buy and sell your bond every day over the stock markets as investments. All that credit created is technically, and rightfully, yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption Account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number, without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number from the UNITED STATES CORPORATION of America."  The "strawman," the theory states, is an entity created by an alleged 1933 "House Joint Resolution" marking U.S. residents as collateral for the country's loans. Though it is unclear how prevalent it is today, the FBI has classified the idea of birth certificate "redemption" as a common form of bond fraud: classified Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accountsoften referred to as U.S. Treasury Direct Accountsfor all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Trainers and websites will often charge large fees for kits that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failures to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times. This scheme predominately uses fraudulent financial documents that appear to be legitimate. These documents are frequently referred to as bills of exchange, promissory bonds, indemnity bonds, offset bonds, sight drafts, or comptrollers warrants. In addition, other official documents are used outside of their intended purpose, like IRS forms 1099, 1099-OID, and 8300. This scheme frequently intermingles legal and pseudo legal terminology in order to appear lawful. Notaries may be used in an attempt to make the fraud appear legitimate. Often, victims of the scheme are instructed to address their paperwork to the Secretary of the Treasury. Filing these types of "frivolous tax submissions" can incur a $5,000 fine, though authorities give offenders 30 days to retract the documents. The Treasury Department's office of the Inspector General published an example of a "sight draft" while warning that they were being used "in an attempt to pay for everything from cars to child support": incur warning  The Treasury also provided us with an April 2009 guidance they sent to financial institutions advising them how to report loan modification scams, which included a description of a hidden "account" being used as a bogus payment: guidance A homeowner maintains that he/she does not need to pay a mortgage because the loan contract is invalid, or the customer attempts to pay with a bogus sight draft, Federal Reserve Bank/Treasury letter, or check that accesses a Treasury Direct Account. Such homeowners may be committing fraud or may have been duped by individuals who claim government-related contracts are illegitimate. Other homeowners may have unsuspectingly paid for illegitimate or bogus pay-off documents. A spokesperson for the Treasury told us on 17 January 2017 that these types of scams have not been a "recent issue of concern" for the department's investigators. However, they are still reported to its financial crimes enforcement division. reported The Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 report that the redemption "movement" can be traced back to a South Dakota man, Roger Elvick, who has ties to the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist organizations: traced Elvick first started spreading his crackpot vision in the 1980s, when he was the national spokesperson for Committee of the States, a white supremacist group Elvick started with William Potter Gale, who had previously founded the Posse Comitatus, a violent anti-Semitic organization. By 1990, Redemption groups advised by Elvick were active in 30 states and several provinces of Canada, and had tried to pass more than $15 million in bad checks. Elvick was eventually convicted of personally passing more than $1 million in sight drafts, and, in a separate case, of filing fraudulent IRS forms. He spent most of the 1990s in federal prison. Elvick was indicted again in Ohio in 2003 and charged with corruption, extortion, and forgery, but his courtroom behavior derailed his trial: During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors by changing his plea to guilty. The inspector general's office for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, noted the use of "UCC" (Uniform Commercial Code) in a 2015 bulletin concerning right-wing sovereign citizen groups, pointing out members commonly use the term in fraudulent documents: bulletin sovereign citizen  FBI.  "Common Fraud Schemes  Redemption/Strawman/Bond Fraud."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Legal Information Institute.  "26 U.S. Code  6702  Frivolous Tax Submissions."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Treasury.  "Bogus Sight Drafts/Bills of Exchange Drawn on the Treasury."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Southern Poverty Law Center.  "His 'Straw Man' Free, A Scammer Finds the Rest of Him Isn't."   27 July 2005. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  "Integrity Bulletin."   Summer 2015. Alexander, Dean C.  "The Sovereign Citizen Movement: Threats and Responses."   Security Magazine.  1 June 2016. A gun reform group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, has turned its focus to New Hampshire, running a TV ad that criticizes Republican congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia not only on gun ownership, which is the groups main focus, but also on the minimum wage and equal pay for women. In a 30-second spot titled Strange Ideas, Giffords group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, asserts that Garcia holds views different from a majority of New Hampshire residents. Marilinda Garcia has some strange ideas. Most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage. Garcia opposes it. Most people support guaranteeing women get equal pay for equal work. Garcias against that, too. Garcia even opposes closing the loophole that allows dangerous criminals to get a gun without a background check. Granite Staters deserve commonsense leadership, not Marilinda Garcia. PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to check the record on those claims. In this item, well check Garcias stance on a minimum wage increase. Garcia, a state representative, is challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, a Democrat, for the 2nd Congressional District seat. The Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC unveiled the advertisement in September, just as it stopped airing a controversial TV ad that accused a congressional candidate in Arizona of opposing legislation that aims to prevent convicted stalkers from buying guns. On-screen, the New Hampshire ad cites a WMUR-TVpoll from Februarythat found three-quarters of New Hampshire residents supported raising the state minimum wage to $9 an hour. That provides support for the ads claim, though its worth noting that a federal proposal supported by President Barack Obama and other Democrats would push it higher, to $10.10 an hour. At the time the poll was conducted, the New Hampshire Legislature was considering a bill (HB1403) to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.25 in 2015, and then to $9 in 2016. The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found that 59 percent of residents strongly supported the increase and another 17 percent somewhat supported it. Eight percent strongly opposed it and 5 percent somewhat opposed it. Another 11 percent were neutral or don't know enough to say, according to WMUR. New Hampshire is the only state among its neighbors without a higher wage than the federal floor of $7.25, and it has the lowest minimum wage of any New England state. The minimum wage is $8.73 an hour in Vermont, $8 in Massachusetts and $7.50 in Maine. All told, it is one of 18 states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum of $7.25, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. About a month after the poll, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted toincrease the states minimum wageby a vote of 173-118. Legislators voted mostly along party lines, with five Democrats voting against it and four Republicans voting for it. We checked theroll callto see how Garcia voted, but on three successive votes on March 12, 2014, related to the minimum wage bill, Garcia did not cast a vote. Later, in May, the Republican-controlled State Senatekilled the bill, with all 13 Republicans voting against it and 11 Democrats voting in favor of it, a process in which Garcia played no official role. An earlier legislative battle over the minimum wage in New Hampshire also sheds light on Garcias record. In 2011, the New Hampshire legislature, with a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, passed a bill that deleted the states minimum wage, meaning that the states lowest wage would be the federal minimum. At the time, New Hampshires minimum wage was $7.25 an hour, the same as the federal amount, but critics said the bill was intended to keep the states minimum wage as low as possible. In the House, Garcia was one of 236 legislatorsto vote in favorof that bill, HB133. After passing the state Senate, Gov. John Lynch vetoed the measure. Both the House and Senate overrode Lynchs veto, and Garcia was one of261 members of the House to vote in favorof overriding the governor. So, while Garcia has no voting record on the 2014 minimum wage increase in New Hampshire, she did take a clear stand on the 2011 law tying the states minimum wage to the federal one. As further evidence of Garcias opposition to increasing the minimum wage,  the ad cites an article fromThe Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress,which reported that Garcia opposes a minimum wage hike. That article, publishedJune 9, introduced Garcia -- then considered an underdog in the Republican primary against state Sen. Gary Lambert -- to a national audience. The article reviews her record as a state legislator and points to how some GOP establishment figures had feared Garcia would be viewed as too conservative in a general election race. The article quotes Garcia saying in a March interview that while increasing the minimum wage superficially seemed like a good idea, it wouldnt actually help anybody much more and could in fact hurt. It actually has negative outcomes in many areas. One would be, if were trying to encourage people to educate themselves further so they dont have to stay in a minimum-wage job anymore, raising [the minimum wage] lowers the incentive to do that, she said. Garcias stance hasnt changed since then. In an email message to PolitiFact New Hampshire, Kenny Cunningham, the Garcia campaigns political and communications director, reinforced the position. A one-size-fits-all minimum wage from Washington, D.C., is counter-productive. Economists agree it would increase unemployment, particularly amongst teenagers, Cunningham said. Instead, Marilinda wants to reduce Americas highest-in-the-world corporate tax rates and rein in job-killing regulations. Our ruling An ad from the liberal Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC says most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, but Marilinda Garcia opposes it. Polls from when the New Hampshire Legislature was considering raising the states minimum wage showed that a majority of residents surveyed supported increasing the wage from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $8.25 and eventually to $9 an hour. And Garcia has gone on the record criticizing attempts to raise the minimum wage, saying its effects could be counter-productive and could lead to negative outcomes. She also cast several votes in 2011 that effectively kept the state minimum wage the lowest in the region. The claim needs a slight clarification. As backup for the assertion that most people in New Hampshire want to raise the minimum wage, the poll cited a poll that asked residents about a $9 minimum wage. Its not clear whether residents would support a hike to the higher level of $10.10, as the president and congressional Democrats are seeking. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True. A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' owing a lack sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details for the sake of trying to frame her as being irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes":  Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016. revealed The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities: op-ed I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans, and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations -- however slowly but surely. Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC.  sued Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. reported Bluestein, Greg.  "Georgia 2018: Abrams Owes More Than $50K to IRS."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 March 2018. Abrams, Stacey.  "Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me for Governor of Georgia."
  Fortune.  24 April 2018. Elliott, Richard.  "Investment Company Sues Brian Kemp Over $500K Loan."
  WSB-TV.  12 June 2018. Judd, Alan.  "For Brian Kemp, Suit Over Bad Loan Reveals Political, Financial Perils."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  21 September 2018. FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan?      Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan.    Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins:  On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated:  6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015 Claim:  E-mail claims a Mexican woman attempted to abduct a tot from a store in Tupelo, Mississippi. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Ok this is freaky but it really happened at the mall in Tupelo. Everyone please beware this Holiday Season. A couple of weeks ago a lady with two kids was shopping at JCPennys in the mall here at Tupelo.  One of her sons was pretty small and he was in a stroller buckled in and the other one was older and he was walking beside her. A mexican woman came by and told the lady how cute her little baby was...well the lady told her "Thank You" and went on her way. A couple of minutes later the mexican woman approched the lady again telling her how cute her little baby boy was. The lady again replied with thank you. As the lady turned her back to look at a piece of clothing the oldest son started screaming. The lady turned around to find that the mexican lady had unbuckled the baby and grabbed him out of the stroller and took off with him.  The lady ran after them and caught the mexican woman as the was getting out the door with her son. The only way that she caught her was the mexican woman had long hair and she pulled it and knocked her down. The lady held her in her custody until the authorities arrived. The lady  was shocked when the authorities asked her if she wanted to press charges. The lady replied back with heck yeah this is my son your talking about. Come to find out the mexican lady was here illegally. They are coming here to steal our kids and carry them across the border to sell to the black market... scary I know....but I had to pass on. Now you do the same.. Thanks and have a Great Day  This really happened to a relative of a girl that goes to church with me. They have the lady in custody that tried to take the baby. She was hispanic and finally admitted that she was taking the baby across the border to sell it. This was last Wednesday night, Nov. 15 at the JC Penneys at Barnes Crossing. They did not catch anyone that was accompanying the lady andwe don't know if she gave up any names. So there could still be predators out there. Warn everyone you know with small children. Very scary... Last night as our family was out eating out at a local resturant , one of my aunts shared with us a very disturbing event that happened this past Wednesday night at JC Penny. A lady was shopping with her 2 small children  one a baby in a stroller and the other a toddler that was just old enough to talk. The lady had her children both right next to her as she was looking at clothes and the toddler said "Mama that lady just got my sister". This mother started chasing this Hispanic lady and finally caught her by reaching out and grabbing her hair from behind. She then started screaming this woman has my baby. Security came and took care of the horrible situation and told the Mom - we can almost bet you the lady had a car waiting outside with a driver and ready to take off and sell your baby on the black market in Mexico. This mother's grateful thought was Thank Goodness my toddler could talk and tell me - because she never thought this could happen since her children were right next to her within arms reach. I am sure with the Holiday Season approaching us all, the distractions as we shop will be more - but I hope this will help us all to stay a little more alert while out and about doing our shopping. And better Yet lets all each day Ask for the Lord to Guide and protect us and our families! Origins:  In November 2006, these accounts describing a foiled child abduction at a store in Tupelo, Mississippi, began arriving in our e-mail. Akin to other Internet-circulated tales about attempted childnappings at large stores (such as the venerable canard about kids being pulled in store washrooms to be drugged and have their hair dyed by those attempting to make off with them, or the 2006 hoax about a failed child grab at a Blockbuster in North Texas), this one also proved to be a fiction. dyed Blockbuster According  to Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson and Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin, the story about a Mexican woman who initially admired a shopper's baby, then grabbed it from the stroller and ran off with it was pure invention. There hadn't been any such incident  no brave mom who seized the would-be abductor by her long hair and held her until police arrived, no baby-stealing illegal immigrant now behind bars awaiting trial, no ring of kidnappers frequenting Tupelo-area stores in search of product for a Mexican black market in American infants. The Mall at Barnes Crossing, a venue where the alleged foiled abduction was said to have taken place, did succeed in tracing the e-mails to their source. Mall manager Jeff Snyder indicated no legal action was contemplated against the rumor's originator, but he noted that this could well be the last time the Mall would be inclined to be so lenient regarding damage done to its reputation. The false story spread from inbox to inbox because it invoked not just the specter of the child-abducting stranger (a frightening enough figure all on its own) but melded into it a bogeyman of the moment, the illegal immigrant from south of the border. While illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico has long been a problem, prior to 2006 it was less of a concern to those not living in border states. In 2006, however, the illegal immigration issue was pushed to the center of the political arena, with some of that pushing taking the form of unsubstantiated rumors positioning all those who come into the U.S. on the sly as violent criminals. The fictive Mexican woman of this tale is presented as a kidnapper of small children, and not even one propelled by misguided maternal desire into taking youngsters so she could become their mother, but one motivated purely by avarice, in it for the cash that selling the purloined tots would bring. She is wholly and irredeemably evil and therefore held up as an example of the sort of person a "look the other way" attitude towards illegal immigration has allowed into the country. Her theft is not merely that of social services, it is of defenseless children; the cost of having her here is not merely a small increase in taxes paid by the typical family, but the risk that the next tot she or her compatriots snatch will be yours. Barbara "bogeyman the barricades" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2006    Sources:  Gray, Lloyd.  "Today's Falsehoods Spread Faster, Wider."  Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.  10 December 2006  (p. B4).