Candy Crush Saga
Claim:  King Digital Entertainment, maker of Candy Crush Saga, copied their game from CandySwipe and is attempting to cancel the latter's trademark. OUTDATED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2014] There is an "open letter" being circulated that is supposed to have been written by an Albert Ransom from Runsome Apps, Inc, that states that he trademarked a game called CandySwipe prior to King.com creating CandyCrush and that King.com is trying to take over his trademark.  Is this true?   Synopsis:  As of 16 April 2014, the parties in the dispute discussed below have announced the withdrawal of their claims against each other, so this item is no longer current: announced I am happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my dispute with King over my CandySwipe trademark and that I am withdrawing my opposition to their mark and they are withdrawing their counterclaim against mine. I have learned that they picked the CANDY CRUSH name before I released my game and that they were never trying to take my game away. Both our games can continue to coexist without confusing players. Origins:  In February 2014, King Digital Entertainment, the company behind the massively popular Candy Crush Saga game, announced they had filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of stock.  King said they expected to raise $500 million in capital, with some analysts predicting that the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) could value the company as high as $5.5 billion based largely on the strength of Candy Crush Saga: filed The game, which involves matching brightly coloured sweets on a grid to solve various puzzles, was played over 1 billion times a day in December [2013], according to the filing. Candy Crush is free but players pay for options within the game. It has proved a lucrative combination. King's profits grew over 7,000% last year, according to the filing. In 2012 the company's revenues were $164.4 million and its net profit $7.8 million, in 2013 those figures rose to $1.88 billion and $567.6 million respectively. But the filing also reveals that King's fortunes are currently closely tied to the continued success of Candy Crush. The game accounts for 78% of King's total gross bookings, according to the filing. Its second most popular game, Pet Rescue Saga, had 15 million daily active users in December, a fraction of Candy Crush's 93 million. King noted in its filing that "a small number of games currently generate a substantial majority of our revenue." However, King has been the subject of controversy due to similarities between Candy Crush Saga and CandySwipe, the latter being an earlier iteration of a comparable game concept and visual design which its creator, independent developer Albert Ransom, maintains King copied from him.  Ransom posted an open letter to King on the CandySwipe web site, criticizing the company for attempting to wrest theCandySwipe trademark away from him: CandySwipe open letter Dear King, Congratulations! You win! I created my game CandySwipe in memory of my late mother who passed away at an early age of 62 of leukemia. I released CandySwipe in 2010 five months after she passed and I made it because she always liked these sorts of games. In fact, if you beat the full version of the android game, you will still get the message saying "... the game was made in memory of my mother, Layla ..." I created this game for warmhearted people like her and to help support my family, wife and two boys 10 and 4. Two years after I released CandySwipe, you released Candy Crush Saga on mobile; the app icon, candy pieces, and even the rewarding, "Sweet!" are nearly identical. So much so, that I have hundreds of instances of actual confusion from users who think CandySwipe is Candy Crush Saga, or that CandySwipe is a Candy Crush Saga knockoff. So when you attempted to register your trademark in 2012, I opposed it for "likelihood of confusion" (which is within my legal right) given I filed for my registered trademark back in 2010 (two years before Candy Crush Saga existed). Now, after quietly battling this trademark opposition for a year, I have learned that you now want to cancel my CandySwipe trademark so that I don't have the right to use my own game's name. You are able to do this because only within the last month you purchased the rights to a game named Candy Crusher (which is nothing like CandySwipe or even Candy Crush Saga). Good for you, you win. I hope you're happy taking the food out of my family's mouth when CandySwipe clearly existed well before Candy Crush Saga. I have spent over three years working on this game as an independent app developer. I learned how to code on my own after my mother passed and CandySwipe was my first and most successful game; it's my livelihood, and you are now attempting to take that away from me. You have taken away the possibility of CandySwipe blossoming into what it has the potential of becoming. I have been quiet, not to exploit the situation, hoping that both sides could agree on a peaceful resolution. However, your move to buy a trademark for the sole purpose of getting away with infringing on the CandySwipe trademark and goodwill just sickens me. This also contradicts your recent quote by Riccardo in "An open letter on intellectual property" posted on your website which states, "We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they do and the games they create." I myself was only trying to protect my hard work. I wanted to take this moment to write you this letter so that you know who I am. Because I now know exactly what you are. Congratulations on your success! Ransom's statement was penned in response to King's own open letter on the trademark issue, in which the company maintained that they were simply acquiring "Candy"-related trademarks in order to ensure that their "hard work is not simply copied elsewhere" and to defend their product against "games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics" (without commenting on the claim that the similar CandySwipe game antedated Candy Crush Saga by about two years and therefore could not have been copied from the latter): open letter There has been a vigorous debate both inside and outside King about how we protect our intellectual property. I want to set the record straight about where we stand on these issues, and clarify our philosophy on intellectual property. At its simplest, our policy is to protect our IP and to also respect the IP of others. We believe in a thriving game development community, and believe that good game developers  both small and large  have every right to protect the hard work they  do and the games they create. Like any responsible company, we take appropriate steps to protect our IP, including our look-and-feel and trademarks. Our goals are simple: to ensure that our employees' hard work is not simply copied elsewhere, that we avoid player confusion and that the integrity of our brands remains. Lets talk about trademarks, and the use of the words "Candy" and "Saga" in casual gaming. Let's start with the fact that Candy Crush Saga has become one of the most successful casual games in history. Millions of people play the game every day. Not surprisingly, some developers have seen an opportunity to take advantage of the game's popularity, and have published games with similar sounding titles and similar looking graphics. We believe it is right and reasonable to defend ourselves from such copycats. To protect our IP, last year we acquired the trademark in the EU for "Candy" from a company that was in bankruptcy  and we have filed for a similar trademark in the U.S. We've been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common word for specific uses. Think of "Time", "Money" "Fortune", "Apple", and "Sun", to name a few. We are not trying to control the world's use of the word "Candy"; having a trade mark doesn't allow us to do that anyway. We're just trying to prevent others from creating games that unfairly capitalise on our success. As Metro chimed in, however, even though King may appear to be the villain in this story, neither side may be correct in claiming the high ground since both CandySwipe and Candy Crush Saga are notably similar to other games dating from the mid-1990s, and what is being disputed is merely the name that each side is using for their version of the game rather than a claim to the original idea itself (i.e., this is a tussle over trademarks, not copyright): Part legal drama, part time travel story, this one has it all. Candy Crush developer King have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons lately, as they continue their attempts to trademark the words 'candy' and 'saga'  which led to them threatening to sue Viking game 'The Banner Saga.' For an encore it later transpired that King had purposefully cloned somebody else's game when a publishing deal fell through. Which was sadly ironic considering how paranoid they are about other people copying them. And now they're responding with legal action of their own, against the makers of CandySwipe, by claiming that it's a clone. Despite the fact that Candy Swipe came out two years before Candy Crush. In fact it's worse than that, as Kings attempts to have CandySwipe's trademark cancelled revolves around them buying the rights to an even earlier game called Candy Crusher. This, they hope, will allow them to claim that they are the original trademark holders of everything video game and candy-related. Although it's hard not to side with Ransom in all this, the idea of all these developers suing each other over who cloned who seems slightly absurd considering they're all just copies of Bejeweled anyway. Indeed, the modern match-three style puzzler has barely changed at all since the days of Nintendo's Panel De Pon/Tetris Attack in 1995. Although the true originator of the concept is little known PC title Shariki, from a year earlier. Shariki  Metro also reported an attempt by developers to challenge King's trademark maneuvering by creating "as many games with the word candy in them as possible": Indie developers have fought back against developer King's increasingly bizarre legal actions with a game jam called 'Candy Jam'. To the uninitiated it may look like just another Bejeweled clone, but Candy Crush Saga is currently one of the most popular video games in the world. This means British developer King suddenly has a lot of power and influence, which naturally it's already started to abuse. It's the slightly unhinged nature of the abuse which is unexpected though, with the company currently trying to trademark the word 'candy' so that nobody else can use it. But King's plans don't stop there, as they're also suing Kickstarter game 'The Banner Saga' because it has the word 'saga' in its name. Ignoring the fact that most people omit the word Saga when saying Candy Crush's name, 'The Banner Saga' is an adult-themed tactical role-playing game with a notably morose atmosphere. Although it does contain lots of angry vikings, at no point in the game are you invited to match together three-similarly coloured sweets. Even so Kings legal filing insists that: "The use and registration by Applicant of the mark The Banner Saga for Applicant's goods is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or deception in the trade, and among purchasers and potential purchasers, with Opposer's Saga Marks, again resulting in damage to Opposer." We're trying to keep upbeat but frankly the whole business is deeply depressing in its unbridled corporate greed.  The only positive element to the story is that indie developers have organised an event called Candy Jam to protest King's actions and to make as many games with the word candy in them as possible. The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) has also weighed in on the issue, describing King's trademark efforts as "overreaching" and "predatory": weighed As an advocacy organization for game developers, the IGDA diligently monitors issues that may restrict a developer's ability to create and distribute his or her work. After reviewing the Trademark filing and subsequent conduct by King Inc. in relation to its popular game, 'Candy Crush Saga,' we feel we should comment. While we understand and respect the appropriate exercise of Trademark rights, King's overreaching filing in its application for the Trademark for its game "Candy Crush Saga," and its predatory efforts to apply that mark to each separate word contained in that name, are in opposition to the values of openness and cooperation we support industry wide, and directly contradict the statement King's CEO, Riccardo Zacconi, made on 27 January. Our Business and Legal Special Interest Group will be providing a more comprehensive analysis of this issue from its perspective soon. Last updated:  17 April 2014    Rushe, Dominic and Stuart Dredge.  "Candy Crush Game Maker Aims to Raise $500M in IPO."   The Guardian.  18 February 2014.    Agence France-Presse.  "Candy Crush Developer Defends Trademarking 'Candy' After Backlash."   28 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Makers Sue The Banner Saga, Trademark the Word 'Candy'."   22 January 2014.    Metro.  "Candy Crush Saga Makers to Sue Game They Copied."   13 February 2014.    Reuters.  "Candy Crush Saga Developer King Trademarks the Word "Candy.'"   22 January 2014.
In thevideoannouncing his run for California governor, RepublicanTravis Allensaid he wants to reduce the states crime rate and its high taxes. We recently fact-checked Allens claims on crime in the video. The Orange County state assemblyman earned aMostly Falsefor his statement that crime is on the rise in all the states major metros. We found he cherry-picked data from an uptick in crime in 2015 and ignored the states decades-long decline in crime which continued in early 2016. Given the importance of taxes in California, we also decided to examine Allen's claims on this topic. Ive seen our taxes increase to be among the highest in the nation, Allen said in the campaignvideoon June 22, 2017. In California, we must get serious about cutting our taxes. Californians pay among the highest taxes in the entire nation. Allen makes his claim at about the 0:15 minute mark of the video above. Was Allen right? Are Californias taxes really among the highest in the nation? We set out on a fact check. Our research We decided to examine where California ranks in key tax categories, including income, sales and property taxes. Additionally, we looked at how California measures up in a more comprehensive category: Its overall state-local tax burden. We also spoke with several tax experts for some context on these rankings. They all said comparing tax rates is doable but messy, noting that states assess taxes in different ways. Allens campaign did not respond to our request for evidence to support his claim. Heres what we found in each key tax category: Income tax Californias top tier income tax rate is the highest in the nation at 13.3 percent, according to theTax FoundationandCalifornia Taxpayers Association. Its the rate paid by Californians who earn more than $1 million annually. Maine had the second highest top rate at 10.15 percent, followed by Oregons 9.9 percent, as of Jan. 1, 2017. Several states have no income tax, including Nevada, Washington, Texas and Florida. Of course, only a fraction of Californians pay the top income tax rate, noted Annette Nellen, professor and director of the graduate tax program at San Jose State University. A recentSacramento Bee analysisof state tax data found 61,000 households, or 0.4 percent of the states 16 million total, reported income of more than $1 million in 2014. This is a very small percentage of the population, Nellen said. Not everybody is paying that. So, if someone was to say we have really high taxes in California, sometimes thats interpreted as everybodys paying a really high tax when in California we also have a fairly high exemption for individuals and children which might cause some lower-income folks to not pay any California income tax at all, at least not directly. Per capita, Californians pay $1,991 annually in state income taxes, which ranks fourth highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation. Sales tax While only a fraction pay the states top income tax rate, everyone who lives here or visits pays Californias highest-in-the-nation sales tax rate of 7.25 percent. Four states tie for the second-highest statewide sales tax rate, at 7 percent: Indiana, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, according to the Tax Foundation. States with no sales tax include Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and Delaware. When adding state and local sales taxes, California rank drops to 10th highest. This combined tax rate varies across the state. In some parts of Los Angeles County, for example, it tops 10 percent, said David Kline, a spokesman for the California Taxpayers Association. The association researches tax data and opposes what it calls unnecessary taxes. Property tax Unlike Californias income and sales tax rates, the state's average effective property tax rate is among the lowest in the nation, at 0.72 percent, or 36th among states, according to the Tax Foundation. Thats due to voter approved Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases to no more than 2 percent per year. New Jersey had the highest property tax rate at more than 2.1 percent, according to a2016 reportby the Tax Foundation. Still, Kline said, property tax in California is compounded by additional taxes, such as parcel taxes and Mello-Roos assessments, or fees charged to property owners in a specific area to pay for public improvements such as streets and parks. Those can add hundreds or thousands of dollars every year, he added. Total tax burden In addition to ranking individual tax categories, the Tax Foundation produces a more comprehensive category it calls the State-Local Tax Burden. It measures the share of income in the state that goes to state and local taxes. California ranked sixth highest on this list at 11 percent. New Yorkers faced the highest burden at 12.7 percent, followed by Connecticut at 12.6 percent. Alaskans paid the smallest share of their income, 6.5 percent, in state and local taxes. We asked Joe Henchman, vice president of the Tax Foundation, about the accuracy of Allens claim that Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. I think its a fair comment to make, Henchman said. Unless youre being really specific about a particular type of tax, California is usually at the high end of the states. Its almost always in the top half of the states in terms of a tax or its burden or how much people pay. And its often in the Top 10. Exceptions do exist, he said, such as Californias low taxes on wine (44th highest), spirits (40th) and beer (28th), compared with other states. Nellen, the San Jose State University tax professor, agreed Californias taxes are generally high and said Allens claim is mostly backed up by the facts. Growth and taxes In recent years, top Democrats in California have deflected criticism about the states high taxes by pointing to strong employment and GDP growth. Gov. Jerry Brown, for example, has repeatedly pointed to themore than 2 million jobsCalifornia has created since he returned to office in 2011. Allen has criticized Browns recent signing of a 12 cent per gallon increase in the states gas tax. That move is expected to make Californias gas tax second highest in the nation, behind Pennsylvanias, once it goes into effect in Nov. 1, 2017. Henchman said, for now, Californias economy has succeeded despite its high taxes. Nobody moves to California because of taxes, he said. They move in spite of the taxes, because of other positive benefits. Theres good weather, theres Silicon Valley, theres great universities, theres Hollywood, etc., etc. Those, for a lot of people, make it worth paying the taxes, to a point, Henchman added. Our ruling Republican candidate for governor Travis Allen recently claimed Californias taxes are among the highest in the nation. Allens statement is broad and needs clarification. But when looking at some of the most important tax categories, including income, sales and gasoline taxes, theres a lot of truth to his claim. California has the highest top tier income tax and the highest state sales tax in the nation. Its important to note that the top rate income tax is paid by only a fraction of households in the state, and that the sales tax rate drops to 10th in the nation when local and state sales taxes are examined state-by-state. Notably, it does not have one of the nations highest property tax rates, at 36th highest. Allens claim is accurate but needs this additional information. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. UPDATE:An earlier version of this fact check described California's property tax rate as 0.72 percent. We have clarified that this is the state's average effective property tax rate. Visit our Tracking the Truth serieshereto see all of our 2018 governor's race fact-checks. Governors race Allenis one of several Republican candidates to announce a run for California governor. The others include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and former state Assemblyman David Hadley of Manhattan Beach. Several prominent Democratsare also competing in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. They include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa, California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. During theJuly 31, 2011, edition of NBCsMeet the Press, Jennifer Granholm -- a Democrat who served as governor of Michigan from 2003 to 2011 -- was asked to bring her own experience to bear on the debate over the federal debt ceiling.Clearly the entitlement question has to be addressed, Granholm said, referring to the rising cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is a major contributor to the growing federal debt.However, Granholm told host David Gregory that she was skeptical about whether such cuts would be a boon for the economy at large.I can tell you, David, I cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, Granholm said. And where is Michigan in terms of its economic growth? Cutting did not result in economic growth. What results in growth is making sure you've got a good business climate for businesses to grow and prosper. And so we've got to cut where we can in order to invest where we must in order to grow the economy. And it's that investment side that I worry that those who are affiliated with the tea party or who are on the far right don't realize that other countries are co-investing with businesses in order to create jobs in their countries.If we do nothing more than just cut, she continued, that will continue to accelerate the lack of growth in (gross domestic product). So we've got to realize that the strategy here must be very specific. Yes, you've got to reform entitlements, but you've got reform entitlements and invest in order to grow because the quickest way to take down your deficit is through growth.We wondered about three elements of Granholms comments: whether she cut more as a percentage out of government than any state in the country this past decade, how poor Michigans economic growth has been over the same period and whether spending cuts to state government hampered economic growth. (Separately, were looking at a comment from the same show by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in which he accused Granholm of supporting the highest tax increases in the history of Michigan, which helped push unemployment from 6.8 percent to 15.3 percent. )Well take up the three claims in order.Did Michigan cut more from its government than any state in the country?To answer this question, we turned toThe Fiscal Survey of States, a twice-annual publication of the National Association of State Budget Officers that offers fiscal data for the 50 states going back to 1979.We determined that the most appropriate data to use were figures for annual expenditures from the 50 states general funds. Well acknowledge up front that this is not the only measure that could be used to compare how much state governments have been cut. In fact, Michigans state revenues flow into two accounts, the general fund and the school-aid fund, and the numbers we looked at only take into account the general fund. However, fiscal experts told us that the general fund offers a reasonable yardstick for state spending, and it also turned out to be the same measurement Granholm used, according to a spokeswoman. (Then theres the eternal statisticians lament: When comparing all 50 states across a period of nearly a decade, you take the statistics you can get. )We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholms tenure.And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didnt? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If theyd been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe.Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said.Well address the causes of these declines in a moment, but for now, we can say that by this measure, Granholm is right that spending on government declined faster in Michigan than in any other state between 2003 and 2010.How poor was Michigans economic growth during Granholms tenure?To answer this question, we looked at gross domestic product data for Michigan as published by the U.S. Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis. (Just as the bureau calculates the national gross domestic product, it does the same for individual states.) Once again, we compared Michigans GDP for 2003 and 2010.By this measure too, Michigan performed worst in the nation. Its gross domestic product rose by 6 percent over that period (again, not adjusted for inflation). That may sound okay, but its not. Its only about one-third the rate of the next worst-performing state -- Ohio, at 17 percent growth. And its less than one-fifth of the increase of the nation as a whole, which was 31 percent.So where economic growth is concerned, Granholm is right again: Michigans performance during her tenure was uniquely poor among the 50 states.Did spending cuts to state government hamper Michigans economic growth?The cuts to government almost certainly hampered Michigans economy. But experts say that they werent the primary cause of the states poor economic performance.Long-term troubles in the automotive industry, the national recession and raising taxes on businesses and individuals were all partially to blame, said Patrick L. Anderson, an economic analyst in East Lansing, Mich., who wrote a report released by Granholm's successor elected in 2010, Republican Rick Snyder.Charles Ballard, an economist at Michigan State University and author ofMichigan's Economic Future: A New Look, added that even before the national economic crisis of 2008, the auto industry limped along for much of the decade, with General Motors, Ford and Chrysler losing market share steadily. In Michigan, we dont have Honda plants -- we have GM, Ford and Chrysler plants. Two of those companies went into bankruptcy. For better or for worse, we are home to the portions of the industry that did the worst.Meanwhile, Ballard added that Michigans tax structure -- which doesnt tax most services or Internet sales and mail-order -- exacerbated the fiscal impact of these economic problems.If the sectors that arent taxed are growing faster than those that are, the sales tax applies to an ever-shrinking portion of the economy, Ballard said. So if you put the tax law on autopilot, the portion of your economy going to tax revenues shrinks every year.In fact, Michigans revenues peaked in 2000 and are not projected to return to peak until 2020, said Arturo Perez, a state budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. No other state has had a similar revenue situation.Given this backdrop, a more appropriate way of thinking about it is that a poor economy in Michigan caused a drop in state tax revenue, which in turn forced Granholm to cut government services -- not the other way around. Declining tax revenue is a much more urgent factor for state governments than for the federal government, since most states are constrained from using deficit spending. (Michigan is one, though unavoidable deficits may be resolved in the next fiscal year.) This means that tax revenues play a more direct role in determining spending levels than they do at the federal level.The plain fact is that state economic growth rates are in the short run linked to the demand for products that are produced in the state -- products like autos in Michigan, oil in Texas, sunny vacations in Florida and gambling holidays in Nevada, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. Demand for these products can have booms and busts that are completely unrelated to a states typical tax rate or spending level. In the short run, when demand for a states products plummets, its state tax revenues fall, forcing the state to trim state spending or increase state tax rates. Our ruling Theres strong evidence supporting two of Granholms statistical claims -- that government spending has fallen faster in Michigan than in any other state, and that the states economic performance has been especially poor compared to other states.However, in theMeet the Pressinterview, Granholm was trying to use her experience as a governor to make a larger point about how cutting government did not result in economic growth. She's probably correct that government cuts hampered her state's recovery, at least in the short term, but Michigans experience over the last decade suggests that the reverse is an even bigger factor -- that is, poor economic growth hurts tax revenues and, in turn, forces government cuts. This doesnt mean that Granholms point is inaccurate, but in trying to apply a state lesson to a federal problem, shes ignored a key factor in how state fiscal policy works. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True. Claim:  The plastic strip embedded in U.S. bank notes enable the Feds to tell how much money you have on you.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] This past weekend, a friend visiting our house told us that the anti-counterfeiting strip put in newly printed paper money can be used to determine how much cash you are carrying.  She said that the ever-present "they" at the airport have a machine that can determine how much cash you have on your person or in your luggage, and if you are carrying a sufficiently large amount of cash, you will be detained by the police and interrogated until you confess your guilt as a drug smuggler.  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] I did not get this in an e-mail but my bank teller in Kirksville, MO told me this one.  Evidently there is an urban legend floating around that the new "security strip" in the new $20's can be read by satellites with the implication being the Govt. can beam a satellite on you and eventually, when all the bills in circ. will have these, be able to tell how much $ you are carrying around.  This teller told me that she has had customers come in requesting "no new $20s" for this reason! We had a good laugh about it and we both agreed that the Govt. is going to be sorely disappointed if they turned this hypothetical satellite on us! Origins:  The ongoing effort to stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters has led to the inclusion of a number of security features in U.S. currency. One countermeasure in particular has come to be the focus of a widely-believed bit lore: the embedded inscribed security thread. According to scuttlebutt, the purpose of the thread isn't really to make it more difficult for the ill-intentioned to introduce   worthless currency into circulation by fooling its recipients into thinking it genuine, but instead to allow the government to know exactly how much money anyone is carrying at any particular moment. With the use of special scanners, or possibly a beam from a distant satellite, the Feds can quickly count the value of all bank notes being carried on or about one's person and thus track how much money is entering or leaving the country, and with whom. This knowledge, says the behind-the-hand whisperings, is used to finger drug dealers and smugglers. The rumor is bunk. The strip's sole purpose is the foiling of counterfeiters. It, along with a number of other security features worked into the nation's bank notes, make it far harder on the criminal element to produce phony bills that will be mistaken for the real thing. Other features include the microprinting of "The United States of America" within the rim surrounding the portraits on bills, a watermark displayed elsewhere on the bill of the figure in the portrait, and optically variable ink (OVI) which changes from green to black in the number in the lower right-hand corner of the bill when viewed from different angles. As for the suspect strip, it is made of polyester and is inscribed with the denomination of the bill. Nothing about the composition of these strips renders them detectable by scanner or satellite. In 2004, the false belief attaching to this security feature was enhanced by the claim of these bands containing RFID tags. As technology advanced, so did the rumor, leading many to microwave their $20 bills into ashen submission by falling for the canard that nuking their currency would disable these  RFID tags transmitters. Yet the belief about governmental detection of concealed sums via a subterfuge worked into the currency even predates the polyester security threads. In the 1980s, those similarly worried about being tracked by Big Brother fretted over the ink with which bank notes were printed, muttering to themselves that the "magnetic ink" they believed to have been used rendered the bills somehow magnetic and thus detectable by machine. Back then, the concern was more that this magnetic money would serve to pinpoint the location of the person carrying it rather than it give away how much of it was being ported, but it is another form of the same belief. One confirmation that nothing in and of itself is detectable about the polyester strips embedded in bank notes arises out of the news about security technologies now used at some U.S. airports, including Chicago's O'Hare. Were caches of greenbacks already being ferreted out via their embedded threads, descriptions of the BodySearch scanner, a device that uses special "backscatter" X-rays to produce images of items that might be concealed under passengers' clothing, would not always impart the glad tidings that this gizmo reveals the presence of currency as well as narcotics, plastic explosives, and plastic weapons.  While in the main, the "sneakily embedded technology allows for the surreptitious tracking of people or their assets" rumor attaches to currency and blames the government for the supposed spying, the belief also carries to other items and points fingers at other parties.  [Kamradt, 2003] Some students have not picked up their new ID cards through the re-carding project, which ends today, because of a rumor that there is a locator chip inside the IDs so Purdue can track their whereabouts. "To dispel the transponder rumors, I was closely involved in developing the requirements for production of the ID cards and I can ensure students that no secret electronic devices were embedded in these cards," said Terry Schroeder, project manager for the Purdue ID Re-carding Project. "From my understanding, most of the group that met to discuss this issue (as a result of distributed flyers) were wearing aluminum foil beanies."  [Mulkins, 2000] I heard that a person carrying a large number of $100 bills, going through the PikePass readers, could be detected and the exact amount of money determined. The authorities are using PikePass to detect drug dealers and then confiscating the money, even confiscating the money of innocent persons. (PikePass is a prepaid toll device containing a battery and a radio-frequency modulator placed on the windshield of a vehicle.  As a car bearing one travels under a transmitter overhanging a turnpike lane, the device intercepts the signal being broadcast and returns a signal exclusive to that particular PikePass customer. The signal is read, and the toll is subtracted from the customer's account.) PikePass Whereas student ID cards and prepaid toll signalers do at least have a whiff of the enigmatic to their technology, which works to encourage belief that some of that incomprehensibility might be of nefarious intent (we mistrust what we don't understand, after all), this next expression of the rumor is even farther afield: [Collected on the Internet, 1999] I recently received an email telling me that I need to take the labels off my canned good and mark the bare cans with a marker, or at least black out the UPCs. Why? Well, it seems the government has helicopters equipped with scanners that can read the UPCs of the food you have stored. Ostensibly, the government is doing this so they can confiscate food for redistribution in the up coming Y2K breakdown of society. When asked to verify, the poster informed me she was told this by a 'family friend" who flies one of these scanner-equipped helicopters. Of course he doesn't want to be named for his own safety, but he risked telling his dear friends because he loves them. While most folks will laugh off the thought of their soup cans spying on them, the same cannot be said of the belief that their long green is being counted by surveillance satellites sent into orbit by a government intent upon keeping tabs on its citizens  a great many appear to believe that.  Barbara "watch your money, don't worry about your money watching you" Mikkelson Sightings:  In a first-season episode of television's The X Files ("E.B.E.," original air date 18 February 1994), a member of a group that believes the government is up to any number of monstrous conspiracies takes a $20 bill from Agent Scully, holds it up to the light, rips the left side off, and pulls out its security strip, saying, "They use this magnetic strip to track you. Whenever you go through a metal detector at an airport, they know exactly how much you're carrying." Additional information:        Inscribed Security Thread   (Secret Service)        Money Design Features   (Secret Service)        The Redesigned $20 Note   (Bureau of Engraving)   Last updated:  19 May 2011   Garber, Andrew.  "New Airport Gadgets Strip, Sniff, Scan."  The Seattle Times.  23 October 2001  (p. A1).   Kamradt, Kori.  "Officials Dismiss Rumors About New IDs."  The [Purdue University] Exponent .  14 November 2003.   Mulkins, Phil.  "PikePass Can't Count Dope Dealers' Money."  Tulsa World.  28 July 2000.   Webb, Tom.  "U.S. Currency to Get Makeover."  The Denver Post.  14 July 1994  (p. A4).   Zane, Maitland.  "Counterfeit-Proof Cash Makes Its Debut."  The San Francisco Chronicle.  26 July 1991  (p. A1).   The Associated Press.  "O'Hare Officials Install Scanner, Hoping to Replace Body Searches."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  23 November 1999  (p. B2). One of President Barack Obamas signature issues at the moment is a push to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Its such a popular policy, he said in aspeechon March 5, 2014, that even Republicans have little quarrel with it. When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage, Obama said, not only is it good policy, but the majority of the country, including half of Republicans, agree with it. We wondered whether polling data backed up this claim. So we looked at independent polls taken recently that asked about the minimum wage. A review of the polling data suggests a more nuanced situation than Obamas claim suggests. Our first look at the data showed that a minimum-wage hike is popular among Americans broadly. For instance, when theCBS News-New York Timespollasked, Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? in February 2014, the poll found 65 percent support. And that was actually down a bit from the 72 percent support registered in the January edition of the poll. Similarly, aPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll from January asked whether respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and found 73 percent support. But what about Republicans specifically? More than half of Republicans favor a minimum-wage increase, polls found, but in most of these polls, less than half of Republicans supported raising the wage to $10.10, the amount Obama is seeking. One poll that did not specify a target amount for the minimum-wage hike was conducted byQuinnipiac University. It asked, Would you support or oppose raising the national minimum wage, which is now $7.25 an hour? Among Republicans, 52 percent expressed support, while 45 percent said they opposed it. That provides some support to Obamas claim. But once respondents were asked by other pollsters about the $10.10 figure -- a roughly 40 percent increase from todays federal minimum wage -- Republican support sagged. The clearest example is aCBS-New York Timespollfrom February that asked, As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Republicans expressed 42 percent support, 54 percent opposition. Another clear example was anABC News-Washington Postpollfrom December, 2013 that asked, The minimum wage in this country is now $7.25 an hour. What do you think it should be? Among Republicans, only 21 percent favored keeping it the same or lowering it, but even fewer respondents -- 7 percent -- favored a minimum wage in excess of $10. Two other polls showed Republican support close to 50 percent, but falling just short. However, the differences were within the margin of sampling error -- it's possible that more than half of Republicans were in support of a $10.10 wage, though also possible that the actual support level was even lower than the official result. ACBS-New York Timespollfrom January that asked the same question as the February poll found that Republicans expressed 48 percent support, 51 percent opposition to a $10.10 wage. And anNBC News-Wall Street Journalpollfrom December 2013asked, I'm going to mention a number of different amounts and for each one, please tell me if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose raising the hourly minimum wage to that amount. When presented with the $10.10 rate, 47 percent of Republicans expressed support. One poll clearly supported Obamas position. The JanuaryPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll found 53 percent of Republicans backing a $10.10 minimum wage, with 43 percent opposed. The significance of the $10.10 figure is not academic. According to a March 6accountin theWashington Post, early last year, White House strategists rejected (the $10.10 figure), worried that it could destroy jobs and anger the business community just as the regulation-heavy Affordable Care Act was about to take effect. Instead, former officials say, the White House settled on a more cautious path,unveiling a $9-an-hour minimum wageproposal  a target even lower than Obamahad proposedduring the 2008 campaign. However, thePostreported, the lower amount disappointed advocates for the working poor, as well as congressional Democrats, who were already pushing to set the $7.25 wage closer to $10 an hour. Over the past year, Obama reconsidered, casting off initial concerns in favor of unifying his party ahead of this falls midterm elections. In other words, White House officials had long realized there was a difference in the degree of public support for a $10.10 minimum wage and a smaller hike, so it would be misleading for Obama to now imply that majority Republican support for an unspecified minimum-wage hike means that Republicans automatically support the presidents proposal to raise the wage to $10.10. Our ruling Obama said, When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicans agree with it. Republicans do support a minimum-wage hike if you don't specify a dollar figure. But once you mention the $10.10 target Obama wants, his case gets shakier. We rate the claim Mostly True. On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes): article The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world. The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000  or about 27%. But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval. From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texass estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies. No other state saw a comparable increase. The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas' unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas): strict defund In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texass reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the states family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services  such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams  to only half as many women as before. Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas' legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data: piece Apparently, the researchers did some adjusting of their own. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), maternal mortality rates have been alarmingly increasing for years. That modest increase, lead researcher Marian MacDorman imagines, was a huge increase. In 2000, the MMR was 10.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (equating to 30 tragic deaths). By 2009, this rate had nearly tripled to 28.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (resulting in 116 deaths). Thats a modest increase? In 2010, the MMR actually decreased to 24.6. Then, MacDorman et al claimed: Texas had a sudden increase in 2011-2012. If by sudden they mean over ten years of significant increases ... sure. They completely ignored the fact that from 2010 to 2011, the MMR rose from 24.6 to 30.7 (an increase of about 25 percent). From 2011 to 2012, the increase was only 3%, rising to a rate of 31.6 ... not doubling! That didn't stop Slate.com and a host of media outlets from declaring: After Texas Slashed Its Family Planning Budget, Maternal Deaths Almost Doubled. In 2013 it rose another 25 percent to 39.5 (claiming the lives of 153 women). Heres the clincher, though. Texas MMR dropped in 2014 in rate and total maternal deaths. Neither the peer-reviewed study nor any of the leftists in the news media mention this. Both items cited the study, titled "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate"  published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study's title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality: PDF To develop methods for trend analysis of vital statistics maternal mortality data, taking into account changes in pregnancy question formats over time and between states, and to provide an overview of U.S. maternal mortality trends from 2000 to 2014. Similarly, its conclusion singled out no state by name and made no specific reference to Texas: Despite the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, the estimated maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, DC, increased from 2000 to 2014; the international trend was in the opposite direction. There is a need to redouble efforts to prevent maternal deaths and improve maternity care for the 4 million U.S. women giving birth each year. Texas' second namecheck in the study was benign, noting that the overall rate of maternal mortality was so low that only California and Texas served as sources of by-state data  due not to their specific outcomes, but to the size of their populations: It would be preferable to analyze data individually for each state; however, maternal death is a rare event, and the number of cases (396 U.S. deaths in 2000 and 856 in 2014) was not sufficient to support individual state analysis for all but the most populous states (California and Texas). But the "Results" portion of the introductory page noted that California's and Texas' statistics trended differently and provided a primary finding that colored media coverage of the findings: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 20112012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported. Much of the research hinged on pinpointing and adjusting for what was described as "the pregnancy question" (which was "added to the 2003 revision of the U.S. standard death certificate"), defined by the World Health Organization as death certificate language recording "The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes." The WHO also provided for late maternal deaths via a separate but similar checkbox: "The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy." Although the phrasing "termination of pregnancy" typically is understood to mean "an abortion" in layman's speech, the researchers and WHO used it to mean the end of a pregnancy via live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion. Researchers noted that state-by-state adoption of the pregnancy question vis a vis death records led to findings that required some adjustment to reach conclusions. While some states immediately adopted the guideline in 2003, others waited years. By January 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia included the question on their death certificates; that incongruous state-by-state data pool led to efforts on the researchers' parts to calibrate the data and parse it. The study noted that Texas (which adopted the question in 2006) demonstrated results that led to "uncertainty" in the final report: California is the only state that revised their death certificate with a pregnancy question inconsistent with the U.S. standard. The California question only asks about pregnancies within the past year. In addition, there were changes over time in specific data provided by California to the National Center for Health Statistics for deaths at less than 42 days, making use of this measure impracticable. Thus, maternal and late maternal deaths were combined for the California trend analysis. Finally, we estimated maternal mortality rates for 48 states and the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2014. California and Texas were excluded from this estimation: California because it does not provide comparable data and Texas as a result of uncertainty regarding recent trends (see Results). In that section, researchers described Texas' atypical spike in maternal mortality and noted that the laws in question were not likely sufficient to account for the spike (referencing a "future study" to obtain more information on Texas): Texas had an unrevised question about pregnancies in the past 12 months and revised to the U.S. standard question in 2006. Adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas show only a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, from a rate of 17.7 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2010. The slope of this regression line was 0.12 (95% CI 20.22 to 0.46) (564 maternal deaths and 4,246,835 live F4 births) (Fig. 4). However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states. Joinpoint trend analysis was done separately for the 20002010 and the 20112014 periods because the trends for these two periods differed widely.  The Texas data are puzzling in that they show a modest increase in maternal mortality from 2000 to 2010 (slope 0.12) followed by a doubling within a 2- year period in the reported maternal mortality rate. In 2006, Texas revised its death certificate, including the addition of the U.S. standard pregnancy question, and also implemented an electronic death certificate. However, the 2006 changes did not appreciably affect the maternal mortality trend after adjustment, and the doubling in the rate occurred in 20112012. Texas cause-of-death data, like with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase. There were some changes in the provision of womens health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several womens health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by raceethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding. The study's introduction cited "[e]arlier studies [which] identified significant underreporting of maternal deaths in the National Vital Statistics System," reiterating in its "Discussion" section that variations by state impeded the research: For example, had the National Center for Health Statistics and the Texas vital statistics office both been publishing annual maternal mortality rates, the unusual findings from Texas for 20112014 would certainly have been investigated much sooner and in greater detail. The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren't yet confident that slashed funding for women's healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was "an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle: told I think everybody is at a loss to understand why Texas saw such an increase in maternal mortality rate. We posited that the documented changes in provisions in women's health services happened in this same time period, but it's hard to knowin the absence of in-depth case review of maternal mortality data in Texashow that lined up with those changes. As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn't appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths): data  So the September 2016 study on the United States' maternal mortality rate published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology identified a steady increase in maternal deaths in Texas and cited state laws and funding as a potential (not proven) factor in that post-2011 uptick. But study authors bemoaned a lack of comprehensive record-keeping nationwide that impeded research, and the first year maternal deaths began increasing in Texas was 2003 (before clinics were affected by legislative efforts to reduce abortion).   Bomberger, Ryan.  "The Truth About Texas Maternal Mortality Rates and the Epic Defunding of Planned Parenthood."
  Townhall.  26 August 2016. Goodwyn, Wade.  "Texans Try to Repair Damage Wreaked Upon Family Planning Clinics."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. MacDorman, Marian F. et.al.  "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate."
  Obstetrics and Gynecology.  September 2016. Peters, Adele.  "Texas Has the Worst Maternal Mortality Rate in the Developed World."
  Fast Company.  26 August 2016. Redden, Molly.  "Texas Has Highest Maternal Mortality Rate in Developed World, Study Finds."
  The Guardian.  20 August 2016. On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts. passed budget legislation debt ceiling Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar argued in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions."  argued in a May tweet   (Image Via @IlhanMN/Twitter) What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added): U.S. Department of the Treasury The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a restriction imposed by Congress on the amount of outstanding national debt that the federal government can have. The debt ceiling is the amount that the Treasury can borrow to pay the bills that have become due and pay for future investments. Once the debt ceiling is reached, the federal government cannot increase the amount of outstanding debt, losing the ability to pay bills and fund programs and services. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit  49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to Bipartisan Policy Center: Bipartisan Policy Center   (Image Via Bipartisan Policy Center) In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans.  $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion wishes It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all  government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic."  $77 billion in "offsets" Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. mandatory spending sequester By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Limit, Save, Grow Act spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion Davis, Susan. "Trump, Congress Reach Agreement On 2-Year Budget Deal." NPR, 22 July 2019. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744104213/hill-and-trump-administration-close-in-on-2-year-budget-deal. "Debt Limit." U.S. Department of the Treasury, 17 Apr. 2023, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/debt-limit. Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, February 2023 | Congressional Budget Office. 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58945. Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/. Accessed 3 May 2023. "House Republicans Pass US Debt Bill, Push Biden on Spending." AP NEWS, 26 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/speaker-mccarthy-debt-biden-republicans-d4995f10a26d6c8bfa89a2bbfd1de93c. Interactive: Recent History of the Debt Limit | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-history/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Sequestration | Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/sequestration#:~:text=Sequestration%20refers%20to%20automatic%20spending,but%20not%20all)%20government%20programs. Accessed 3 May 2023. Tausche, Kayla. "GOP Group Assembles Debt Ceiling Wish List  for 2018." CNBC, 30 Nov. 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/gop-group-assembles-debt-ceiling-wish-list----for-2018.html. The Debt Limit Through the Years | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-through-the-years/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Torry, Harriet, and Anthony DeBarros. "WSJ News Exclusive | Economists in WSJ Survey Still See Recession This Year Despite Easing Inflation." Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2023. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-easing-price-pressures-economists-in-wsj-survey-still-see-recession-this-year-11673723571. Trump Signs Budget Deal and Suspends Debt Ceiling until 2021. 2 Aug. 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-the-budget-deal-negotiated-by-congress-and-the-white-house/. "What's behind the Looming 'x-Date' on the US Debt Limit?" AP NEWS, 24 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit-ceiling-cap-2b76f685cff4a284021f9b5c2c95cd4c. Claim:  Country singer Charlie Daniels authored an opinion piece about press coverage of the Paula Deen racial controversy. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July  2013] The was attributed to Charlie Daniels about Paula Deen.  Did he write it?  I think that if anything exemplifies the overt prejudice and determination of the American media to report only the news that suits their social and political interests and concept of what does and does not fit their agenda, it's the totally overblown coverage of something Paula Deen said 20 years ago, and some party she planned that she wanted to resemble a plantation scene featuring black male waiters in period dress. If Hollywood plans a movie featuring black waiters in a plantation scene or portray women as prostitutes or cast minorities in caricature roles does the media get upset and start calling the movie moguls racists? Is there any grown person who could truthfully declare under oath that they have never uttered something that someone might find personally offensive? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Do the twenty-year-old words of a lady with a television cooking show trump the lie an Attorney General told Congress, or officials at the IRS usurping the rights of the American public and pleading the fifth amendment when confronted about it or the hiding of the facts surrounding the murder of four Americans at a Consulate in Libya or the incredibly shabby image of a president taking a one hundred million dollar vacation in this economy while closing down tours of the White House or the NSA invasion on the privacy of millions of unsuspecting citizens? [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Grammy award-winning singer/musician Charlie Daniels regularly writes and posts opinion pieces about current political topics to the "Soapbox" section of the Charlie Daniels Band web site. As he notes in his periodic explanations of his efforts: Soapbox explanations From time to time in this column I feel somewhat obligated to explain myself, what I am, what I believe and what I am attempting to do by writing the things I write. It seems that as we acquire new readers there is some misunderstanding of what the soapbox is all about, so here we go again. First of all, this column is a series of essays made up of my personal opinion, my experiences and my beliefs.  I don't claim that the essays in this column represent anybody but myself. As far as the intellectual content is concerned it is being written by a man with limited formal education and the grammar, punctuation and spelling may from time to time leave something to be desired, but I will however, get my point across. I happen to believe very strongly in the things I write about, from the point of a private citizen who happens to love his country and its people and wants what he considers best in the national interest. My articles will range from the profound to the ridiculous, the sad to the humorous, the informative to the inane. It is not meant to be a news column and I'm not good at remembering dates and names. This above-quoted "The Press and Paula Dean" article was published by Charlie on 1 July 2013 in response to a racial discrimination controversy involving celebrity chef Paula Deen that broke in June 2013, stemming from a lawsuit filed by a former employee of restaurants owned by Deen and her brother, Earl "Bubba" Hiers. The Press and Paula Dean Last updated:  8 July 2013 On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "God First Ministries" shared a message claiming that posts containing the word "Amen" were being banned by the social media site: Speak up America! Don't let our Freedom of Speech be silenced!Share to show FB we will say AMEN!    The comment section of the Facebook post displayed above quickly filled with messages (including many simply consisting of the word "amen"). On 17 June 2016, more than week after this message was posted to Facebook, it had accumulated close to 7,000 comments and had been shared more than 60,000 times. But curiously, Facebook had not deleted this message:   In addition to the proliferation of "amen" posts on Facebook, several groups and pages containing the word "Amen" (such as Peruvian band Amen, the advertising agency Amen Communications, and the political group Trump Amen Time To Win) are still operating on the web site, showing that the word has not been flagged for removal, either. Amen Amen Communications Trump Amen Time To Win The Facebook post displayed here (like all "type amen" posts) is a version of the common like farming scams, in which a Facebook page shares a salacious, outrageous, and often inaccurate post for the sole purpose of gaining likes and shares. Typing "amen"  or anything else  below a post contributes to its popularity on the site and bypasses certain algorithmic controls Facebook has against scams in advertisings. This social popularity can later be leveraged for monetary gain.  like farming popularity Facebook hasn't banned "type amen" posts. However, since Facebook is a private company and users of the site have to agree to its terms of service in order to sign up for an account, placing controls on its content would not constitute a violation of freedom of speech. terms Claim:  Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen.   Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless      Origins:  The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis."   However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated.  To wit:  The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen  A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service."  Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program.  So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone.  A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important  can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful.  The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one.  As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless":  those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated:  16 June 2009    Sweet, Lynn.  "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?"   Chicago Sun-Times.  6 March 2009  (p. C10).    Associated Press.  "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu."   The Australian.  7 March 2009. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: