Redrawn Map of the United States
Claim:  The federal government is planning to eliminate 16 states from the U.S.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] The America you know and love could look completely different in a matter of weeks. Under a plan circulating the D.C. corridor right now, up to 16 states are at risk to be terminated due to epic fiscal mismanagement. These states would simply be wiped from existence and merged into their neighbors. We've even seen the redrawn map of the U.S. and it's nothing less than terrifying. California may be forced to become a part of Mexico without any state strong enough to absorb it! Origins:  This item about a plan "circulating the D.C. corridor right now" to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. is nothing but more of the usual financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on by the folks at Wall Street Daily.  This latest panic piece  is offered in a Wall Street Daily video featuring a number of talking heads issuing scary-sounding statements about how the "U.S. government is only months away from a total financial collapse," then lurches head-on into tinfoil hat territory by describing some nebulous plan supposedly being hatched in Washington (by whom, exactly, is never explained) to carve the United States into ten economic regions, eliminating 16 states in the process by merging them into neighboring states (and, apparently, getting rid of a 17th state by kicking Hawaii out of the U.S. altogether).   video And according to Wall Street Daily, this remarkable, radical transformation of the United States, which hasn't yet been discussed, proposed, or voted upon by Congress, and which has somehow escaped the notice of the entire of the U.S. news media (other than Wall Street Daily, of course), is going into effect in a mere matter of weeks, by 15 October 2013:  Not surprisingly, this "redrawn map of the United States" just happens to correspond exactly with a map of administrative regions for the government agency most frequently mentioned in crazy conspiracy theories, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): FEMA  Aside from its sheer ridiculousness, this purported scheme for the federal government to enact a forcible redrawing the United States has a major problem in that it isn't possible, because the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits it.  Article IV, Section 3 of that document declares that states cannot be formed from, or merged with, other states without the consent of both Congress and the legislatures of the affected states: declares New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. So, if this is nothing but nonsense, what's the point to it?  The point is that if you make up a bunch of stuff that sounds sufficiently alarming, and you promote your product as something that will help protect people against this scary thing that isn't really happening, you might be able to lure some gullible folks into sending their money (i.e., a "very limited, introductory offer" price of $49.50, plus a yearly "discounted rate" of $79) to you: money It's crucial that you obtain a copy of the redrawn map of the United States and spread the word quickly about its existence. Circulate it amongst your friends and family. Let them know that this threat is real. That soon, the very state that they call their home... where they've raised their family, paid taxes and planned their future in, may soon no longer exist. Whether or not your state is targeted for termination, its essential that you begin taking steps, such as the ones contained inside the Mayflower Maneuver, to best position yourself for the future. And that means staying informed continually about this developing situation. Last updated:   18 September 2013
During the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, 2011, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman touted his record on taxes. When he was governor, he said, Utah had historic tax cuts. We created a flat tax in the state of Utah, exactly what needs to happen in this country.This isnt the first time Huntsman has made that claim. Our PolitiFact team in New Hampshirechecked a similar comment Huntsmanmadeat a July 4th, 2011, house party in Belmont, N.H. At that July 4 event, Huntsman said that when he was governor, he worked with the state Legislature to create a flat tax that cut income taxes by 30 percent.Since Huntsman didnt repeat the claim that this tax changes had cut income taxes by 30 percent, we will only rate him now on the question of whether his administration created a flat tax in the state of Utah.When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how Huntsman began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005.We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens, but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states, Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005.Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years.When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent.This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most of the deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bond income or deducting from income the withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts.The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utahs new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people do. )Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit from state taxes some of what they claim as deductions and tax exemptions under the federal tax code. The credit phases out and goes away from those making very high incomes in the state.This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis.There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study.Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax.The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some minor blemishes' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch. )While we gave Huntsman a Mostly False for his previous statement, most of our downgrade stemmed from our criticism of his claim that his policies cut income taxes by 30 percent. The system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasnt a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors. But it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax -- a single rate for all income groups. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True. Claim:  Chase Bank does not allow cash deposits made by non-account holders.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Chase bank this morning would not accept cash deposit, when the person depositing the cash was not the account holder.  I was told that "banking laws prohibit someone who is not the account holder from depositing cash to an account." (This actually happened to me!) Origins:  In January 2014, JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the U.S., announced that in order to head off potential money laundering issues, it would be implementing a policy that requires customers making cash deposits to show identification and that prohibits customers from depositing cash into personal accounts on which they are not listed as account holders: announced  The policy applies only to cash deposits (not negotiables such as checks or money orders) and only to deposits made into consumer and business accounts (not investment, Treasury and commercial accounts). The restrictions, for example, limit the ability of parents to deposit cash into the accounts of their children who might be away from home (e.g., at college or on vacation) if the parents are not listed as joint account holders, but Chase customers can add authorized signers to their accounts to work around this limitation. According to a Chase spokesperson, the policy change was related to efforts to bolster the bank's anti-money laundering efforts: "It's an excellent idea. I guarantee other banks will follow suit very shortly  if they're smart," said Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches anti-money laundering and counterterrorism at Fordham Law School. "The hard thing with cash is you can't tell where it's coming from once it goes into an account," said McAvoy. "I think Chase is trying very hard to be ahead of the curve. Part of it is they are under the microscope [due to a $2 billion settlement over criminal charges related to the Madoff scandal], but I think they are really trying to do the right thing." settlement It is not accurate to say that this limitation on cash deposits is "banking law," however.  Banks are required by law to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000, but they are not required to turn down cash deposits made by non-account holders  the latter restriction is purely a voluntary policy that Chase has chosen to implement on its own; other banks may or may not follow suit. Last updated:  20 September 2014 Bernie Sanders lines up fairly close to Donald Trump when it comes to the topic of trade. To some, that means Sanders has some explaining to do. In aninterviewwith theNew York Daily News, Sanders attempted to detail his position. Its about a fundamental inequity in labor standards, Sanders suggested, enabling human rights abuses at the cost of American jobs. I do believe in trade. But it has to be based on principles that are fair, Sanders said. So if you are in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 65 an hour, or you're in Malaysia, where many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions, no, I'm not going to have American workers competing against you under those conditions. Sanders has made trade a big topic on the campaign trail  highlighting Hillary Clintons comments and votes in favor of trade deals. (PolitiFact has documented a lengthy comparison of the two.) Here, we wanted to fact-check Sanders claim that workers in Malaysia  which would be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership  are forced into working under slave-like conditions. In a word, yes. Not only is forced labor widely documented by labor and human rights groups, its openly acknowledged by the U.S. government. From cell phones to sneakers to palm oil The Sanders campaign referred us to a 2014reportfrom Verit, an NGO that monitors labor standard compliance. Verit interviewed 501 workers in Malaysias electronics industry (the countrysleading sector), and found that 28 percent of them were coerced under both global standards and Malaysian law. This work has led us to conclude that forced labour in this industry is systemic and that every company operating in this sector in Malaysia faces a high risk of forced labour in their operations, Dan Viederman, chief executive of Verit,toldthe Guardian in 2014. The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines forced labor usingfour dimensions: unfree recruitment, work and life duress, impossibility of leaving an employer and penalty or menace of penalty. The Malaysian electronics industry violated all these guidelines in some capacity. Like the indentured servants who came to America in the 18th century, the vast majority of foreign workers  largely from other parts of Southeast Asia   were charged excessive job-finding fees and had to take on debt to pay them off, effectively tethering them to the job (unfree recruitment). One in five workers were also deceived about their wages or other employment conditions, and one in three lived in and often confined to crowded, unsafe housing provided by their employer or recruitment agency (work and life durres). Verit also found that 94 percent of workers had their passports withheld by the factory or agent (penalty), though the practice is prohibited by local labor laws . Fifty-seven percent said they couldnt leave their jobs out of fear of getting slapped with high fines, losing their passport, being reported to the authorities or other forms of retribution (impossibility of leaving an employer). But forced labor is by no means limited to one sector. Malaysia has thefourth-largest migrant worker populationin the world, and its 3 million to 6 million foreign workers all are vulnerable to exploitation in a variety of industries, said Abby McGill, the campaigns director for the International Labor Rights Forum. The State Departmentnotesthat passport confiscation was widespread and generally unpunished, and has placed Malaysia in its Tier 3 watch list for human trafficking  the rating reserved for the worst offenders  in2001,2007,2009and2014. In addition to electronics, the U.S. Labor Department currentlyliststhe garments and palm oil industries where labor abuses occurs (palm oil is also cited for child labor). Human Rights Watchreportedon exploited migrant domestic workers in 2011. Amnesty Internationalchronicledthe stories of trafficked, trapped and physically and sexually abused workers in a variety of industries from agriculture to construction in 2010. They buy and sell us like cattle, a 25-year-old Bangladeshi working for a palm oil producer whose customers includes U.S. agricultural giant CargilltoldtheWall Street Journalin 2015. Free trade and chained work The debate over whether free trade stymies, improves or has no bearing at all on working conditions is an ongoing one. International labor standards are actually included in many trade agreements.The United Statesmonitors worker conditions in partner countries, and has spent $275 million to support labor rights since 2001, according toa 2014 Government Accountability Office audit. But despite this, the GAO concluded that theres still a lot of room for improvement. The USTR and Labor Department lack a strategic approach to systematically assess whether partner countries conditions and practices are inconsistent with labor provisions in (free trade agreements), according to the audit. Academics have also pointed out these provisions are oftenambiguous,difficult to enforceorsimplyignored. In other words, agreements on paper dont necessarily translate to improved conditions in real life. Malaysia is actually a prime example of labor rights possibly taking a backseat to free trade. In 2015, it wasupgradedto Tier 2 for human trafficking by the State Departmentover the objections of its own human rights experts. Many perceived the move to bepolitically motivated, as the improved rating made the country eligible to join the TPP. Because of Malaysias poor labor record, it also signed abilateral agreementwith the United States, promising to implement workers rights and protect against forced labor before obtaining trade benefits.Human rightsandlaborrightsgroups, however, are skeptical this will lead to actual reform. The devil is in the details of actual implementation, and Malaysia is a very corrupt place where those with connections and money can get away with not complying with the law  as both Malaysian and migrant workers have found out frequently over the past two decades, said Phil Robertson, the deputy director of Asia at Human Rights Watch. Said McGill of the International Labor Rights Forum: Given that they get everything they want upfront whether they change anything or not (not an ideal negotiating strategy), the labor enforcement provisions are so weak there isn't a stick to force them to comply. That approach has never worked in the history of free trade agreements. No reason to think it will start now. Nonetheless,manyhavearguedyoucanhaveyourfree trade and be humane, too. A2010 study, for example, found that labor conditions have improved in Cambodia as a result of labor provisions in a trade agreement signed with the United States. But many argue that improved working conditions are actually a cascading effect of global trade, not regulation itself. The kinds of adjustments that go with free trade, while painful in the short run, lead to improved labor conditions in the long run, Stanford labor economist Robert Flanagan said in aninterviewabout his book,Globalization and Labor Conditions. Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged that some are certainlyworseoffas a result of global trade. He pointed out that working conditions were terrible in the United States a century ago, but improved when the economy developed and standard of living rose. Do we really think it would a good idea for the U.S. not to have been able to trade in 1916 or 1886? Burtless said. It is very hard to think of anything that has delivered a bigger improvement in the lives of poor workers than expanding their ability to sell to other countries. Period. End of story. To pretend otherwise, that youre going to protect their workers by keeping their products out of our country, flips on its head policies most conducive to improving their lives. Our ruling Sanders said, In Malaysia  many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions. Forced migrant labor and passport withholding is widely documented across Malaysia by human rights and labor groups. The United States acknowledged the abuses in several government reports and databases. While there is a debate about whether free trade can help curtail these abuses, there is no debate to the veracity of Sanders claim. We rate it True. In mid-March 2018, readers began to ask whether it was true that Toys R Us locations had stopped accepting gift cards as a form of payment as of 11 March 2018: is it true toy retailer, Toys R Us is no longer accepting gift cards after 3/11/18? Many linked to a 10 March 2018 Scotsman.com article about a similar situation, but it focused on Toys R Us locations specifically in the United Kingdom: article Toys R Us have said on their website: Gift cards and vouchers will be honoured until Sunday, 11 March [2018]. There are no refunds for cash value on any gift cards. But customers are encouraged to redeem such vouchers as soon as possible as stores may be subject to closure without notice. News about UK-based locations proved confusing to some readers, and the gift card announcement coincided with matters related to Toys R Us' fiscal solvency in the United States. A post shared to shopping site SlickDeals in March 2018 posited that those in possession of Toys R Us gift cards ought to use them sooner rather than later: locations posited Multiple reports are out there that TRU is going into liquidation bankruptcy next week. If you have gift cards, they'll be trash the moment they announce, most likely. Use those cards this weekend if you don't want them to be worthless. Hold onto receipts if they manage to avoid liquidation, you can just return the items if you didn't have anything much you wanted right now. If not, at least you got something for your paper. Also remember to check your rewards total and use those points/certificates as well! The post referenced a 9 March 2018 CNNMoney article about the closure of UK-based Toys R Us locations, and the state of the retailer's finances in the United States.  article On 13 March 2018, CNBC cited reports of a liquidation plan in progress: cited Toys R Us, the iconic U.S. retailer, is in the process of drafting the court motion for its liquidation plan, a source familiar with the situation told CNBC on [13 March 2018]. The retailer could file as soon as the end of [14 March 2018], making the motion official. It will then begin to wind down the storied toy retailer, after more than half a century in business. A liquidation will most likely result in the closing of all of Toys R Us' 800 stores in the U.S. As of midday on 14 March 2018 the web site ToysRUs.com still accepted gift cards as payment, and the site offered customers the option of purchasing physical or virtual versions at checkout: purchasing   Although articles speculated that Toys R Us gift cards might soon become worthless in the United States, and UK outlets have stopped accepting them, no definitive information about their future is yet available. speculated In response to our inquiry, a representative for Toys R Us replied: Thanks for asking! Please know that we are not going out of business, but we are making changes to the number of stores we have. In the meantime, our stores are operating as usual and you can also continue to shop online at https://www.toysrus.com and https://www.babiesrus.com. Additionally, our customer registry, credit, warranty and loyalty programs will continue as normal. We will also continue to sell and accept gift cards as always. On 15 March 2018, a representative for Toys R Us said the chain planned to honor gift cards for a 30-day period. However, the Better Business Bureau advised consumers to use the cards "sooner rather than later."  said Bomey, Nathan.  "Toys 'R' Us Gift Cards Are Good For The Next 30 Days."
  USA Today.  15 March 2018. Goldman, David.  "Toys 'R' Us To Close All Of Its UK Stores."
  CNNMoney.  14 March 2018. Hirsch, Lauren.  "Toys R Us Prepares Plan To Liquidate Its Business."
  CNBC.  13 March 2018. Jackson, Russell.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards No Longer Being Accepted In Stores."
  The Scotsman.  10 March 2018, LaMonica, Paul.  "Toys 'R' Us Could Go Out Of Business. That's Bad News For Lego And Barbie."
  CNNMoney.  9 March 2018, Peterson, Hayley.  "Toys R Us Gift Cards Could Be Useless In A Matter Of Weeks."
  Business Insider.  13 March 2018, ToysRUs.com.  "Gift Cards."
  Accessed 14 March 2018. Updated 15 March 2018, 9:46 A.M.: Added a statement from a Toys R Us representative. Updated 16 March 2018, 1:39 P.M.: Added confirmation of 30-day expiry made by company representative. Claim:  Image presents information about Costco CEO James Sinegal. PARTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] Is this true? Costco CEO pays his employees $17 hour plus benefits and resists Wall Street demands to cut pay and benefits.  Origins:   This graphic featuring a photograph and information about  Costco warehouse store chain CEO James Sinegal was circulated in November 2012 and was generally accurate, but a bit outdated.   Jim Sinegal co-founded Costco and served as the company's President and CEO for nearly three decades, but he stepped down from those positions in January 2012 (although he remains a company advisor and a member of the Costco board of directors).   The accompanying text about employee pay and benefits and Sinegal's resistance to Wall Street criticisms appears to have been drawn from a July 2005 New York Times profile of Sinegal and Costco: Combining high quality with stunningly low prices,  [Costco products] appeal to upscale customers  and epitomize why some retail analysts say Mr. Sinegal just might be America's shrewdest merchant since Sam Walton. But not everyone is happy with Costco's business strategy. Some Wall Street analysts assert that Mr. Sinegal is overly generous not only to Costco's customers but to its workers as well. Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other  retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands. Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business." He also dismisses calls to increase Costco's product markups. Mr. Sinegal, who has been in the retailing business for more than a half-century, said that heeding Wall Street's advice to raise some prices would bring Costco's downfall. Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies. Similarly, Slate wrote in 2008 that: It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check"  a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent. In my interview with Costco CFO Richard Galanti, he mentioned Jim Sinegal every couple of minutes, attributing the company's high wages to the CEO's personal values. CFO Galanti acknowledged having at times argued with his boss, urging him to curb Costco's generosity on health care. (Sinegal eventually agreed with him, reluctantly, in 2003 but insisted that care remain affordable to employees.) Sinegal's kindliness is impressive, but he's also 72 years old and thus won't be around forever. Perhaps he's created a corporate culture strong enough to outlast him, but that's impossible to predict. In a November 2010 report of data gathered by the job site CareerBliss.com, Costco employees gave the company "the highest ratings for salary, benefits and work-life balance." CareerBliss.com According to Yahoo! Finance, in 2011 Jim Sinegal's  total yearly compensation as a Costco company executive, including salary and bonuses, was $629,000, and he garnered another $12,300,000 through the exercise of stock options. Yahoo! Finance Last updated:  28 November 2012    Featherstone, Liza.  "Wage Against the Machine."   Slate.  27 June 2008.    Goldwert, Lindsay.  "Costco Employees Give company Top Ratings ."   New York [Daily News].  29 November 2010.    Greenhouse, Steven.  "How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart."   The New York Times.  17 July 2005.    Schmit, Julie.  "Costco Wins Loyalty with Bulky Bargains."   USA Today.  23 September 2004. Gov. Rick Scott boasted about job growth, his signature issue, during his second annualstate of the state addressJan. 10, 2012.In the past year, Floridians, not government, created almost 135,000 new private sector jobs. We netted more than 120,000 total jobs in the first 11 months of 2011; the third most of any state in the nation.Were Scott's numbers right?James Miller, a spokesman for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, pointed to his department's Decemberpress releasebased on BLS data that showed 120,200 net jobs between January and November 2011. That includes 134,800 private sector jobs added, but 14,600 government jobs lost.We turned to theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statisticsto verify.Data from the BLS shows total nonfarm seasonally adjusted jobs in Florida grew from about 7.16 million to 7.28 million, or an increase of about 120,200 between January and November 2011. So that gets us to Scott's claim about netting more than 120,000 total jobs.But the BLS would call that a 10-month change -- not an 11-month change because those numbers start with January and don't show how many jobs were added between December and January.Scott might have wanted to look at the first 11 months of 2011 rather than the 12-month net change because he was sworn into office Jan. 4, 2011, and 11 months of data is available for that year so far. Scott appears to have lopped off theDecember 2010 job loss figuresfrom before he was governor.The BLS provides data for states' 12-month net jobs change, which was 110,500 for Florida for private jobs and 98,000 for total nonfarm jobs (both not seasonally adjusted.) Those figures put Florida third behind Texas and California.Florida is the fourth most populous state in the country behind California, Texas and New York so its not particularly impressive that it would net the third most number of jobs. And by focusing on the number of added jobs rather than the unemployment rate, Scott is able to tell a more positive story. Florida's unemployment rate was 10 percent for November. Only four states had a higher rate -- California, Nevada, Mississippi and Rhode Island. Illinois and North Carolina tied with Florida.Our rulingScott said, In the past year, Floridians, not government, created almost 135,000 new private sector jobs. We netted more than 120,000 total jobs in the first 11 months of 2011; the third most of any state in the nation. Scott's figures are correct, although what he has done here is point to a 10-month job change. We also question how significant it is that Florida ranks third for new jobs, given that we're one of the largest states population-wise. Our unemployment rates would suggest we still have quite a way to go. Still, Scott's numbers are on track. We rate this 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. In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements.  Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker       A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis.  "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents."   WXYZ.  26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy.  "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam."   CBS News.  26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady.  "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa."   WTSP.  26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.  "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?"   18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Tracker."   Accessed 27 January 2017. With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, U.S. Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs.The suburban Milwaukee congressman, who was first elected to the House in 1979, didnt hesitate in replying.Weve got to address the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Sensenbrenner told the editorial board of theMilwaukee Journal Sentinelon Sept. 29, 2011. Its 35 percent.Sensenbrenner argued that if corporate taxes in the U.S. were lower than they are in other parts of the world, more U.S.-based multinational companies would repatriate their profits back to America, creating more jobs here.Its Sensenbrenners opinion that lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate would create jobs. We cant check an opinion.But we can check whether the rate is 35 percent and if it is the highest in the world.Sensenbrenners district director, Loni Hagerup, pointed to a 2011reportfrom theOrganization for Economic Corporation and Development, a Paris-based group of 34 large, industrialized democracies.The widely quoted report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, tops among the member countries.Next in line were France and Belgium (both 34 percent), and then Australia, Japan, Spain and Mexico (each 30 percent).Seems pretty straightforward. Sensenbrenner is right, right?Lets first look at two points:1. Combined corporate tax rateSome analysts, when comparing countries, use the Paris groups report but cite a different figure -- the combined corporate tax rate, rather than merely the corporate tax rate. The combined rate includes not only federal but also state tax rates for corporations. The combined corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent, which ranks second behind Japans 39.5 percent.But Sensenbrenner was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs, so the corporate tax rate -- not the combined rate -- is relevant here.2. Limitations of the corporate rateWe consulted experts at two Washington, D.C. research organizations --TaxFoundationpresidentScottHodgeandRoberton Williams, senior fellow at theTax Policy Center. Both said Sensenbrenner is correct in stating that the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and that the rate is the highest in the world, but they added some context to the discussion.Williams said the corporate tax rate is not a good measure of the taxes that corporations actually pay. While some corporations might pay the full 35 percent rate, many pay considerably less, depending on the types of investments they make, depreciation they take and other factors that reduce taxable income, he said.Hodge agreed. He added, however, that the effective federal tax rate (after deductions) that corporations pay is about 26 percent -- and that also is among the highest rates of all industrialized nations.Our conclusionAsked what the federal government could do to create jobs, Sensenbrenner said lower the corporate tax rate, which he said was 35 percent and the highest in the world. A widely quoted annual report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and is highest among 34 large, industrialized countries. Two experts agreed with the rate and the ranking.We rate Sensenbrenners claim True. In December 2019, readers asked us about reports that claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had proposed changes to the way Social Security disability payments are made, which could cause thousands, even hundreds of thousands, to lose their benefits.  On Dec. 12, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune posted an article with the headline "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients." The article reported that: Inquirer Tribune "The Trump administration is proposing changes to Social Security that could terminate disability payments to hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly older people and children. The new rule would change aspects of disability reviews  the methods by which the Social Security Administration determines whether a person continues to qualify for benefits. Few recipients are aware of the proposal, which is open for public comment through January." The left-leaning website Common Dreams published an article with the headline "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands.'" That story reported: article "Activists are working to raise public awareness and outrage over a little-noticed Trump administration proposal that could strip life-saving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people by further complicating the way the Social Security Administration determines who is eligible for payments." On the face of it, the changes proposed by the Trump administration would not, in fact, directly or immediately strip disability benefits from thousands of would-be recipients, rather the changes would introduce more (and more frequent) eligibility reviews for those who wish to receive them. However, some critics have argued that those increased bureaucratic requirements would over-burden some would-be recipients, in particular especially vulnerable recipients, and would ultimately (albeit indirectly) result in thousands losing disability benefits.  The Social Security Administration distributes disability benefits in two principle ways: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their previous Social Security tax contributions and history of work, and is paid out of the Social Security insurance fund; and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which typically provides benefits to people based on their disability status and inability to work, and is paid out of general tax coffers.  ways In order to prevent potential abuse and waste in the system, the Social Security Administration conducts "continuing disability reviews," essentially investigating whether each recipient still has a disabling condition, and if so, which kind. Those reviews take place more or less frequently, depending on the nature of each individual's disability, broken into three "medical diary categories," as follows: reviews In November, the Social Security Administration published its proposals to make several changes to the review system. The most significant proposal was to add a fourth medical diary category, "Medical Improvement Likely." Recipients placed in that category would undergo a review every two years. proposals According to a document accompanying the proposals, the decision to introduce the fourth category was made, in part, because the administration saw a pattern whereby some in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category were being prematurely subjected to re-evaluation, after six-18 months, before a medical improvement had the chance to take hold, and some in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category had successfully treated their impairment comfortably within the three-year review interval. The introduction of the new category would therefore mean the bureaucratic burden on some recipients would actually be lessened, since they would be subject to review less frequently, though clearly it would also mean others would be subject to more frequent reviews. On the whole, the administration has estimated that, between 2020 and 2029, the new category would tend towards requiring more frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Possible" category, rather than less frequent reviews for those currently in the "Medical Improvement Expected" category:   The administration expects the introduction of the "Medical Improvement Likely" category to lead to an 18 percent increase in the total number of reviews undertaken over the next decade. This would therefore lead to an increased up-front cost in administering the disability benefits programs, and an increased aggregate bureaucratic burden to recipients (even if some individual recipients would actually undergo reviews less frequently).  Greater scrutiny of individual cases, and enhanced enforcement of eligibility criteria, results in some recipients no longer being deemed eligible, and no longer receiving either SSDI or SSI, which saves money for the Social Security insurance fund and the Treasury, respectively. For the 2015 fiscal year, for example, the Social Security Administration calculated a 19.9:1 return on investment rate for disability benefits enforcement  meaning that for every $1 spent on performing reviews, the government would save $19.90 on disability benefits that would otherwise have been paid, over the course of a lifetime, to recipients who are now deemed ineligible. To be specific, the administration estimated that the $717 million spent on reviews in 2015 would ultimately save $14.3 billion in lifetime disability benefit payments.  calculated So the introduction of the Trump administration's proposals is highly likely to ultimately lead to thousands of disability benefits recipients no longer receiving those benefits  both because some will be overburdened by the bureaucratic demands of more frequent reviews, and because some recipients whose medical status no longer meets the eligibility criteria will have that ineligibility discovered sooner. A considerable measure of truth, therefore, exists in the reports published by the Philadelphia Inquirer and Common Dreams. However, those articles failed to mention an important component to the administration's proposals: They would not change how a recipient's eligibility is determined, only how often that determination takes place. As the proposal stated: "We are not changing the Medical Improvement Review Standard that we use to determine whether a person continues to meet the disability requirements of the Act." This means that, while the proposed increase in the number and frequency of reviews was highly likely to ultimately cause thousands to lose their benefits, that loss of benefits would not be arbitrary, or based on an application of a new and different standard for determining whether someone's health has improved. The standards and criteria for assessing whether an improvement has taken place would be the same as currently exist, and only the frequency of those reviews would change. In other words, some recipients would be subject to more frequent reviews, but if those more frequent reviews result in a finding that the recipient still has a qualifying disability or impairment  based on the same criteria as currently apply  the recipient would continue to receive disability benefits.  It could be that, as some critics have argued, the proposal represents an elegant way for the administration to save money by removing thousands from the recipient rolls without having to change eligibility criteria  the latter a move that would be more likely to cause public outrage or political opposition. However, on its face at least, the proposal involves enhanced enforcement of existing eligibility standards and criteria. That's an important distinction, and a significant omission from news articles that reported, with some justification, that the Trump administration had proposed changes to Social Security disability benefits that would cause thousands to be stripped of those benefits.  argued Lubrano, Alfred. "Trump Administration Proposes Social Security Rule Changes That Could Cut Off Thousands of Disabled Recipients."
 The Philadelphia Inquirer/The Chicago Tribune. 12 December 2019. Johnson, Jake. "'A National Disgrace': Trump Proposes Social Security Change That Could End Disability Benefits for Hundreds of Thousands."
 Common Dreams. 16 December 2019. Social Security Administration. "Proposed Rule -- Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews."
 Federal Register. 18 November 2019.