There's no real evidence in the last 20 years that growth from tax cuts has made up lost revenue.
The Trump administration unveiled a one-page list of tax reform principles inspired by the theory that tax cuts can unleash enough economic growth to cover lost revenue. President George H.W. Bush famously derided this as voodoo economics, and present-day critics are no less dismissive of what they see as magical thinking by the White House. The Trump administration will say, 'Well, hey, tax cuts are going to create growth, growth is going to create revenue, that's going to offset all this deficit,' Rana Foroohar, a CNN economic analyst and Financial Times columnist, told CNN April 26. Well, there's no real evidence in the last 20 years that that has happened. We decided to investigate this claim. First, the big changes under the White House proposal: the business tax rate drops from 35 to 15 percent for both big and small corporations alike, personal income tax brackets go from seven brackets to three (10, 25, and 35 percent), and the so-called standard deduction -- the amount of personal income not subject to federal income tax -- will be doubled, while some other deductions are removed. Theres isnt much more detail than that, making it difficult to put a price tag on the proposal. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or CRFB, attempted to analyze the one-pagers potential effect on the debt, making a lot of assumptions along the way. Their best guess, which was quickly eaten up by Trumps critics on TV, was an increase to the debt of $5.5 trillion, or somewhere between $3 trillion to $7 trillion. Theres other ways to offset tax cuts than economic growth: you can raise rates on other taxes, like through a tax on imports, as House Republicans want. Or you can limit tax breaks, cut spending, or do some combination of these, and its certainly possible the Trump administration will explore these options. AWhite House fact sheetby chief economic advisor Gary Cohn on April 26 did make a passing reference to nixing some tax breaks for the wealthy. But the administration has offered no specifics on paying for the cuts, and as ofApril 20Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was still insisting, The deal will pay for itself. So lets set aside for now the other ways the administration may seek to offset lost revenue from tax cuts. For Trumps tax cuts to pay for themselves, the economy would have to grow by $5.5 trillion, or roughly a sustained 4.5 percent, for the next 10 years, according to CRFB. Thats a mark that any president is unlikely to hit. Trump promised during the campaign to have4 percent growth per year.Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has since said thetarget is 3 percent growth. In reality, the average annual growth rate since 2001 has been 1.8 percent,according to Vox. Most experts we interviewed concurred with Foroohar that the idea that tax cuts could spur the level of growth needed is not realistic. One economist went further than Foroohar, noting that steep tax cuts may actually impede economic growth. Several experts cautioned that isolating tax cuts as the sole cause of whatever economic conditions are to follow is more than a little tricky, since good or bad economic conditions can coincide with tax cuts and affect federal revenue. Another caveat is that tax cuts can be manipulated to look as if theyre boosting growth when theyre really not -- asweve shownbefore. While tax cuts dont pay for themselves fully, tax cuts can generate some growth. For instance, take a 2005 study by the Congressional Budget Office that asked what would happen if Americans got a 10 percent income tax cut. Under CBOs most optimistic projection, nearly one-third of the tax cut would be offset by additional tax revenue over 10 years. (Well get to their pessimistic projection soon.) N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University economist and former chairman of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, shared a similar view. A reasonable rule of thumb, in my judgment, is that about one-third of the cost of tax cuts is recouped via faster economic growth, Mankiw said. Edward Kleinbard, a professor of law and business at the University of Southern California, said smart corporate tax reform could stimulate the economy somewhat -- but at a net loss. A really well-designed corporate tax reform package, including a rate cut, would be accretive to growth, he said, but not enough to pay for any resulting large-scale deficits. So tax cuts can create some growth, according to the experts. But are there any historical cases of tax cuts producing so much growth they fully pay for themselves? I am not aware of any credible evidence (in the U.S.) over the last several decades of a broad-based tax cut paying for itself, said Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. I don't think this is at all controversial among actual economists. Kleinbard was similarly emphatic: There is no time in modern history where tax cuts could be said to pay for themselves. According to Kleinbard, the 1981 tax cuts triggered massive federal deficits and were largely reversed within three years. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was basically revenue neutral, he said, meaning tax cuts were virtually offset by spending cuts. He added that President Bill Clintons tax hike was followed by robust growth, while the George W. Bush tax cuts led to anemic growth. None of the experts interviewed cited evidence that tax cuts under President Barack Obama produced sufficient growth to pay for themselves either. On the contrary, theres some evidence that tax cuts can be a drag on the economy -- like the 2005 CBO study mentioned earlier. When the CBO studied the effects of a hypothetical 10 percent income tax cut for Americans, not all the projections were as rosy as the finding above. Under the CBOs most pessimistic projection, tax cuts would lead to a 3 percent increase in lost revenue over 10 years. Indeed, tax cuts can have a number of adverse effects that may actually impede growth, according to Kleinbard. One example is a phenomenon known as the crowding out effect. The basic idea is that tax cuts create deficits that cause the government to borrow more money and therefore enter deeper debt, which can make private sector borrowing more expensive. Our ruling Foroohar said, There's no real evidence in the last 20 years that growth from tax cuts has made up lost revenue. We searched high and low and found no economic experts who could point us to evidence of tax cuts fully paying for themselves. Neither the modern historical record (using fair benchmarks) nor government analyses we looked at supported the claim that tax cuts create enough growth to eventually offset lost revenue. On the contrary, theres evidence that tax cuts may actually hinder economic growth. We rate Foroohars statement True.
On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. In late 2019, concerned readers asked us about a series of widely shared Facebook posts that claimed to include photographic evidence of a new tactic being employed by sex traffickers in the state of Florida, and in the city of Tampa, in particular.  The earliest example of the post that we found was published on Nov. 19. It included three photographs that appeared to show a road at night, with a car pulled over and a person lying on his or her back in the middle of the road. The message read: read "This Shit Happened To My Lil Brother Last Night In Tampa, Sex Trafficking Is Real, These People Lay In The Middle Of The Road And Act Like Their Car Broke Down Or Play Hurt For You To Stop. When U Get Out The Car They Attack. If Yall See Anything Like This, Dont Hesitate To Run Their Ass Over. If U Scared Then Try Your Best To Go Around, But Whatever You Do, Dont Get Out Of Your Car, Lock Your Doors And Keep It Moving....!!!!!!!!!!!"   Over the course of the following days and weeks, the same or similar messages, using the same photographs, were shared hundreds of thousands of times. In some cases, the "lying in the road" method was identified as a sex trafficking ruse specific to Tampa, and in other cases specific to the state of Florida. In still other instances, no geographic marker was provided, giving many readers the impression that sex traffickers all across the United States were using the same ruse. In each case, the Facebook post claimed that the photographs were merely one illustration of a broader trend of incidents, and that the purported "lying-in-the-road" ruse was a prevalent sex trafficking tactic.  some cases Tampa Florida still other In reality, we found no evidence to support or corroborate the claim that a pattern of incidents existed, in Tampa, in Florida, or anywhere in the United States, in which sex traffickers attempted to kidnap unsuspecting motorists by tricking them into stopping their cars by lying in the middle of the road. Nor did we find any evidence that the photographs included in the November and December 2019 Facebook posts showed a specific incident of attempted sex trafficking.  A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (akin to the "state police" found in other states) told Snopes that the agency "has not heard of this tactic in Tampa or elsewhere." A spokesperson for the Tampa Police Department told Snopes much the same and emphasized that "No such incident took place in Tampa." The spokesperson added, "We have not heard of this method or tactic being used in our jurisdiction." A spokesperson for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (the county where Tampa is located) also told Snopes: "No reports have been filed related to this incident or matching what is described in the post, so we can not confirm if it is related to human trafficking or if it is even real." Laura Palumbo, communications director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, told Snopes in a statement that: "Our organization is not aware of any reports of human trafficking similar to the one described in these viral social media posts ... Although it may be possible that in isolated incidents human trafficking attempts like this have occurred in the past, it is unlikely that this is a common trend." Both Theresa Prichard, associate director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, and Kathleen Kempe, senior director of the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, also told Snopes they had never heard of any such sex trafficking tactic.  It's not clear what the origins of the photographs were. We put a series of questions to the Cornelius King Facebook account above where the trafficking post originated, requesting to speak to his brother, who according to the post was a firsthand witness to the alleged incident shown in the photographs. We asked whether he, his brother, or anyone else had reported the alleged incident to any law enforcement agency, the exact time and location of the incident, and we requested any evidence that might corroborate the claim that the alleged incident was connected to sex trafficking. We received no response.  It's also unclear whether the photographs were authentic or staged, perhaps as part of a stunt, prank, advertisement, or film of some kind. If they were authentic, it's not clear what the motives or state of mind were of the person shown lying in the road. The photographs themselves do not contain any elements or features whose presence indicates a connection to sex trafficking, in particular, as opposed to several other explanations. Since we have not yet discovered the origins of, and facts surrounding, the photographs, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that they show a specific instance of attempted kidnapping or sex trafficking. However, based on the responses provided by several law enforcement agencies and relevant non-profit organizations, we can say that no broader pattern or trend of incidents exists in Tampa, or Florida, or in the United States, whereby motorists are tricked into stopping their cars by a person lying in the middle of the road, as part of a sex trafficking plot.  All of the widely shared Facebook posts cited above claimed that the photographs were an illustration of a broader trend. As a result, we are issuing a rating of In November 2019, we received a few emails from readers alerting us that they had received an email from someone purporting to be from Netflix that asked them to update their payment information: I believe there is a scam going around in regards to Netflix. My husband received a notice that something is wrong with our account and the link given doesnt go to an actual Netflix website. They ask for all the profile information including a credit number and info. I checked the actual website and our account is in good standing and all the info is accurate.    This is not a genuine email from Netflix. This email is an attempt to steal credit card information and is known as a phishing scam.  Phishing scams use various forms of bait (hence the name) in an attempt to trick people into giving up personal information, such as passwords or credit card information. These scammers may promise a prize, such as a cash giveaway, in order to entice people to give up their information. Or, as in this case, pose as a trusted company. This Netflix phishing scam has been circulating since at least 2017. In December 2018, so many people had reported they were targeted with a version of this scam that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a statement called "Netflix phishing scam: Dont take the bait": statement Phishing is when someone uses fake emails or texts to get you to share valuable personal information  like account numbers, Social Security numbers, or your login IDs and passwords. Scammers use your information to steal your money, your identity, or both. They also use phishing emails to get access to your computer or network. If you click on a link, they can install ransomware or other programs that can lock you out of your data. Scammers often use familiar company names or pretend to be someone you know. Heres a real world example featuring Netflix. Police in Ohio shared a screenshot of a phishing email designed to steal personal information. The email claims the users account is on hold because Netflix is having some trouble with your current billing information and invites the user to click on a link to update their payment method. Readers can find additional tips on how to spot and respond to this scam here. The FTC has also published a few tips on how to spot similar scams, which we've reproduced below: here How to Recognize PhishingScammers often update their tactics, but there are some signs that will help you recognize a phishing email or text message. Phishing emails and text messages may look like theyre from a company you know or trust. They may look like theyre from a bank, a credit card company, a social networking site, an online payment website or app, or an online store. Phishing emails and text messages often tell a story to trick you into clicking on a link or opening an attachment. They may Netflix has also addressed the phishing scams that have targeted the company's users. The help section of the Netflix website (located at help.Netflix.com) informs readers they can always check the standing of their accounts on the official Netflix website, and that they should never give payment information to third-party outlets: help.Netflix.com Netflix website,  If you suspect you have received a fraudulent email or text message that appears to be from Netflix, follow these tips to keep your information safe and secure, and follow the steps below to report the message: How do I report a suspicious or phishing email or text message (SMS)? If you received a suspicious or phishing email, forward it to phishing@netflix.com and delete the email. Please include the message header information, which can be found using this Google article. phishing@netflix.com Google article If you received a suspicious text message (SMS), forward it to phishing@netflix.com using the steps for your device below. phishing@netflix.com Engadget.  "How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams."
  Retrieved 14 November 2019. Lawler, Richard.  "FTC Issues Warning About a Netflix Phishing Scam."
  Engadget.  26 December 2018. Tressler, Colleen.  "Netflix Phishing Scam: Dont Take the Bait."
  FTC.  26 December 2018. In a town hall in St. Petersburg, Fla., an audience member challenged Obama about speaking out on issues affecting the black community, including the subprime mortgage crisis, among other issues. Why is it that you have not had the ability to not one time speak to the interests and even speak on behalf of the oppressed and exploited African community or the black community in this country? the man asked. Not true, Obama replied. I think you're misinformed about when you say not one time. Every issue you've spoken about, I actually did speak out on, Obama said. I have repeatedly said that many of the predatory loans that were made in the mortgage system did target African-American and Latino communities, Obama said. He went on to defend his record on other civil rights issues. We wondered if Obama's statement on the subprime mortgage was true, so we looked through press releases, transcripts and news stories to find out. Most notably, on Oct. 18, 2007, Obama wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission asking it to investigate subprime lenders to determine whether minority borrowers have been victims of discrimination. Obama wrote in his leter that there was already substantial evidence to indicate this was so. Black families are paying more for home loans than similarly situated white families. Effective action to address this disparity is long overdue, Obama wrote. On the campaign trail, Obama has also discussed the same issue several times, though we found most of our examples of him discussing it before Hispanic audiences. On June 28, 2008, Obama told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, We have to stabilize the housing market. And the Latino community as well as the African-American community was particularly hard hit when it comes to foreclosures. On Feb. 19, 2008, Obama was at a campaign event in San Antonio, Texas, and discussed the need for people having mortgage problems to receive help negotiating with their lenders. My suspicion is that it's very important we have Spanish-speaking counselors because I know that both the African-American community and Hispanic community have been disproportionately targeted by some of these practices. It's not a campaign theme he hits over and over again, but Obama has made the statement several times, and the 2007 letter is particularly strong evidence to bolster Obama's argument. We rule his statement True. Way back in the olden days of 2007, readers were asking us about this much-circulated bit of helpful advice concerning automobile fuel level displays: I have been driving for many years. One would think I would have noticed the little secret on my dash that was staring me right in the face the whole time. I didn't and I bet you probably haven't either. Quick question, what side of your car is your gas tank? You probably can't remember right away especially if you drive more than one car or if you do a rental while on vacation. My solution was to uncomfortably stick my head out the window, strain my neck and look. If you don't do this in your own car you definitely have done it in a borrowed or rental car. If you look at your gas gauge, you will see a small icon of a gas pump. The handle of the gas pump will extend out on either the left or right side of the pump. If your tank is on the left, the handle will be on the left. If your tank is on the right, the handle will be on the right (see attached images). It is that simple! Why don't the dealers share such important information with car buyers? I have on purpose asked many car salesmen since I found this out and 'THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THIS - NOT ONE DID'. As anyone who has driven a rental car well knows, it is indeed useful to have some sort of indicator on the instrument panel that reveals which side to refuel on. Sadly, "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" (as the e-mail was often titled) was a bit of misinformation or a misunderstanding: while the indicator it described was real, the "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" message misidentified its nature. The nozzle-and-hose side of the fuel level (or "low fuel") indicator, which is usually presented as an icon depicting a gas pump, doesn't consistently correspond with the side of the car where the fuel door is to be found, nor does its placement on the instrument array (left side versus right side) tell whether you should bring the passenger's or driver's side up next to the pumps at your local gas station.  There's no magic to it. Although "The World's Best Kept Auto Secret" will prove true for some vehicles, it won't for others, it's akin to the many folkloric "tests" for determining an unborn child's sex, it has only two outcomes (the icon's nozzle-and-hose side and the side the vehicle's fuel door is on match or they don't), so this "secret" will work  sometimes but not always. (Yes, we know that some vehicles have their fuel doors in the back, but there are so few of them that for the purpose of this discussion we might as well ignore that possibility.)  sex The fuel icons in modern cars do inform drivers which side to refuel on, but it's not the placement or shape of the fuel icon that carries that information: Nearly all newer models of automobiles include a small arrow or triangle next to the fuel icon that indicates which side of the vehicle bears the fuel door.  As seen in the graphic example displayed below, sometimes the arrow and fuel handle are on opposite sides of the icon; it's the former, not the latter, that signifies where the gas cap is:  There's no agreement among auto manufacturers as to which side the gas cap should be on (which, if they would just choose one side or the other, would solve the whole problem right there: you'd then always know which side of your vehicle to park closest to the pump). It would make more sense to consistently position the aperture on the passenger's side, both because it's easier to get out of your vehicle when you don't have to weasel your bulk past the gas pump you've just parked next to, and because should you run out of gas on the highway, it's a lot safer to pour more in when you're not standing next to the traffic whizzing by you. An argument can also be made for placing the gas cap on the rear of vehicles. Were it there, you would no longer need be concerned about getting any particular side of your car sidled up to the pump:  provided the rear of the vehicle were somewhat close to the refueling array, it wouldn't matter if the gas pump island were to the left or the right.  Yet another solution would be to have two fuel entry doors, one on each side. That notion, however, fails on cost. According to Rick Asher, a spokesman for General Motors, the cost of putting a gas cap on both sides of a vehicle would far exceed the value of the added convenience for the vast majority of people. Which leaves us right back where we started, which is having to make mental note of which side a vehicle's fuel door is on when driving rentals or other cars unfamiliar to us (or try checking the side-view mirrors to see where it is before pulling up to the pumps). Cichowski, John.  "An Idea on Gas-Cap Issue We Can All Get Behind."
  The [Bergen County] Record.  20 January 2006  (p. A3).

 Huntsville Times.  "Gas Cap Adaption Not Worth the Cost."
  4 December 2005  (p. A2). The prospect of clipping the wings of Big Bird came up Feb. 5 when  Richard Licht, Governor Chafees director of administration, made an appearance on ABC6s On the Record with Buddy Cianci.The host, former Providence Mayor Vincent Buddy Cianci was grilling Licht on Chafees proposal to eliminate funding for Channel 36, now known as Rhode Island PBS, the states only public television station.Chafee's proposed budget, crafted to close a projected shortfall of $120 million to $125 million, would cut off funding to the station after Dec. 31, 2012.CIANCI: What have you got against 'Sesame Street'?LICHT: I love Sesame Street. I have grandchildren and I always watched it with all four of my children. Tough times make for tough choices.CIANCI: But 'Sesame Street'? My God.LICHT: Hopefully, Channel 36 will be aggressive, go out and find some good charitable sponsors to help support this.CIANCI (facetiously): Especially in this economy, they're going to just fork over $800,000.LICHT: We aren't the only state cutting back on public television. It's not anything that we're happy about and, again, that's something that might be reversed [if better higher revenue estimates come in], but the facts are, tough times, tough choices.We were interested in whether Licht was correct that other states are cutting back on public television and, if so, how many.We called the governor's office to ask for Licht's source.Meanwhile, we talked to David Piccerelli, president of Rhode Island PBS.The proposal is to fund us through December 31 of 2012 and then shut off funding altogether, he said. In the current fiscal year, the state contributes $922,000 to RIPBS's total budget of $2.9 million. That's 31 percent.Another 27 percent comes from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund stations throughout the United States. (The CPB itself has been repeatedly threatened with the cutoff of federal funds by conservatives. )The remaining 42 percent comes from fundraising. Piccerelli said about 85 cents out of every dollar raised is from individual donors. Corporate support accounts for no more than 15 cents, down from close to 30 cents on the dollar around 2004-2005, before the Rhode Island economy took a faceplant.Piccerelli said some states HAVE been cutting back their support; Chafee's office sent us information confirming that.Last June,New Hampshire Public Television eliminated20 full-time workers and cut staff salaries by as much as 10 percent after it lost $2.7 million in state funding, or about 30 percent of its budget.At the same time, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, backed by the state legislature,eliminated funding for New Jersey public television, which resulted in the 40-year-old New Jersey Network being taken over by WNET in New York and NJN's nine radio licenses being sold to stations in New York and Philadelphia.Stacey Karp, director of communications for the Association of Public Television Stations, said four other states -- Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania and South Carolina -- have also eliminated funding. For details, she sent us to Skip Hinton, president of theNational Educational Telecommunications Association, a professional association that represents stations in every state.He told us that 38 states were providing direct support to public broadcasting in 2007. It's now down to 32.Of the 32, most have seen pretty significant reductions in state funding over the last four years, he said.At least one state -- Illinois -- increased its contribution to public television, boosting funding by 16 percent last year, following cuts in previous years.Our rulingRichard Licht, Chafee's director of administration, said, We aren't the only state cutting back on public television.Turns out, hes right. Five states have eliminated funding and others have cut their contributions.We rate his statementTrue. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Claim:  The Corporate Angel Network, an organization that coordinates free air travel for cancer patients, began when Coca-Cola executives arranged for the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels to fly a liver from San Diego to Houston in time for transplant into a little girl.  Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] On November 1, 1986, a Coca-Cola corporate jet arrived at Elisabeth City, North Carolina, carrying the CEO and several members of the Board of Directors. At the same time as it was arriving, a Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was about to take off. It was headed to Memphis, Tennessee to pick up a little girl by the name of Crystal Grant and carry her on to Good Samaritans Children's Hospital in Houston, Texas, to undergo a liver transplant.  As the Coast Guard Falcon 20 jet was beginning its takeoff, it blew both front tires, causing the jet to veer off the runway and run into a fence line.  The pilots of the Coca-Cola plane watched the events and slowly began to hear reports over their cockpit radio about the other jet's mercy mission. The CEO and his passengers witnessed the scene, and asked the pilots what was going on. Once the CEO had learned of the situation, he asked to be taken to the Coast Guard Station so he could speak with the Station Commander.  Once there, he asked the Commander if there was anything he could offer or do. The Commander said, in a frustrated voice, "Yeah, can you make miracles happen. We need a jet and we need one fast."  The CEO just smiled and said, "You've got one," pointing to his company jet. Within two hours the Coca-Cola jet was on its way to Memphis and the situation seemed under control.  But - unknown to them - a similar scene was playing out in San Diego, where the donor organ was being prepared for transport to Houston.  The aircraft lined up to take it to Houston had lost its ability to pressurize its cabin and a similar scramble was under way to find a replacement. Calls went out and everyone in San Diego made excuses - from corporate CEO's to airline managers - as to why they just couldn't help out.  Word of the dilemma made its way to Elisabeth City. The situation was reaching its last window of opportunity for the surgeons. Time was now becoming an enemy.  Again, the CEO of Coca-Cola was called to help out. He jumped on the phone and contacted his pilots, who were now in Houston. They told him there was just no way they could go from Houston to San Diego, retrieve the organ, and then return to Houston in time for the operation to take place.  The CEO began to consider what would be speedy enough to retrieve it in time. The answer came to him like a miracle. A call was placed to the Governor of Georgia, and he in turn placed a call to the Governor of California requesting help.  On   that day, sitting on the ramp at the Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego, were 8 brand new F18 Fighters wearing the colors of the "Blue Angels." They were waiting for their debut at an 'Air Show' November 6th.  It took four phone calls to reach the Air Station Commander, and two more to reach the Commander of the "Blue Angels." In less than an hour, Navy Lt. Tony Less, in Blue Angel No. 8, was gear-up and East-bound. His precious cargo was in the rear seat, securely strapped in place by four dress belts.  In Houston, neither the family nor anyone else knew what events had been unfolding.  Without the family or anyone else knowing, the local media had interviewed little Crystal moments before she was placed into the prepping room for her surgery. A reporter asked her if she were scared. Crystal said, "No, I'm not worried. My mommy told me that my Angel would watch over me."  It was an ironic statement indeed. At that moment, Blue Angel No. 8 was disengaging from an Air National Guard refueling tanker over New Mexico and making a mad dash for Houston. The clock was still ticking, and each movement of the hand went further against the surgeons.  With only 90 minutes to spare, Angel No. 8 landed on Houston's Hobby Runway 4L and rolled out to a stop surrounded by police cars and an ambulance to rush the organ to the hospital.  The transplant was successful, and Crystal returned home to Memphis in time for Thanksgiving.  The CEO of Coca-Cola lobbied the Fortune 100 companies to create "Corporate Angel Network," the name inspired by the event involving Coca Cola and the Blue Angels. To this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name "Crystal" written underneath.  A little over a month after the surgery the "Blues" made a planned detour to Memphis to say hello to a little girl named Crystal. And it was on that day, December 18, 1986, that Crystal met her Angel, the Angel who saved her life.  That was fourteen years ago. Today, Crystal Grant is 24, and every year she is personally invited by the Blue Angels to attend a show near her home in Memphis as the guest of honor. Origins:  Glurge involving specific, identifiable people and events are usually based upon a kernel of truth, even if that kernel has surrounded with layer upon layer of fiction, embellishment, and exaggeration.  This one, however, despite referencing names, dates, and places, is as devoid of anything resembling the truth.  The Corporate Angel Network is a real organization, and the Blue Angels are indeed the U.S. Navy's famous flight demonstration squadron, but after mentioning them, this piece takes a left turn from  Corporate Angel Network Blue Angels reality. The Corporate Angel Network works with a network of hundreds of different companies to make availableempty seats on regular business flights of corporation-owned airplanes to cancer patients traveling to or from treatment centers (a service provided without regard to a patient's financial status), and so far they have arranged over 13,000 such flights.  But none of the details provided here about its origins jibes with the truth. The founding of Corporate Angel Network had nothing to do with the CEO of Coca-Cola (in 1986 that position was held by Roberto Goizueta) "lobbying Fortune 100 companies," nor did it involve the participation of (or derive its name from) the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels squadron:  The Corporate Angel Network was started in 1981 by Priscilla Blum of Greenwich, Conn., and Jay Weinberg of Armonk, N.Y., both of whom are recovered cancer patients: Roberto Goizueta The idea of matching cancer patients and corporate shuttle flights began with Pat, who has been flying her Piper Comanche from Westchester for more than 30 years. Time and again, she saw corporate planes take off or land with only the pilot and one or two passengers aboard. Many were small planes, but others were Lear jets and Beechcrafts capable of seating as many as 10.  She contacted Weinberg, a friend and fellow volunteer for the American Cancer Society, who was working with patients at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan. From their conversation in the fall of 1981 the "Corporate Angel Network" was born.  "The name seemed appropriate," Weinberg recalled. "We would be using corporate aircraft and we would be flying missions of mercy."1 The Corporate Angel Network's first beneficiary was not a little girl from Memphis for whom a donor liver was flown from San Diego to Houston on a U.S. Navy F/A-18 in time for transplant, but a Detroit man who traveled to New York on a corporate jet for ongoing cancer treatment: The first passenger was 18-year-old Michael Burnett of Detroit, a patient at Sloan-Kettering who had just lost a leg to cancer. Burnett wanted to spend the Christmas holiday with family and friends in Detroit, but he needed to return to New York to continue his treatment.  Safe Flight Instrument Corp. was sending one of its planes from New York to Detroit on Dec. 22. Leonard Greene, Safe Flight's chief executive officer, had lost his second wife to cancer. Greene didn't hesitate. 1 This piece also oddly omits the names of many of its participants (the CEO of Coca-Cola, a Coast Guard station commander, a U.S. Navy air station commander, and the governors of Georgia and California are all identified as key players in this drama, yet none of them is identified by anything other than his title), and the two names that are mentioned don't correspond with available information.  No locatable news story mentions anything about a girl named Crystal Grant in connection with either the Blue Angels or a liver transplant, and although an officer named Tony Less was indeed the Blue Angels' Commander at one time, he served with the squadron in 1974-75, far too early to have been involved in the Corporate Angel Network's 1981 founding (or the fictional 1986 flight described here).  Additionally, the "fact" that "to this day Blue Angel No. 8 wears a small silhouette of an Angel praying on the canopy rail and the name 'Crystal' written underneath" is news the U.S. Navy.  Although eight pilots comprise the squadron, only six jets and six pilots are used during demonstrations.  The Blue Angels maintain an additional pair of two-seat jets used for publicity footage and rides for VIPs, as well as three spare jets, but none of the planes bears any artwork or writing other than the standard markings on its exterior. Tony Less The Corporate Angel Network has been able to accomplish a great deal of good for cancer patients thanks to the contributions of hundreds of companies, all of whom should be applauded for their generosity, but let's not allow sappy glurge about Coca-Cola executives and the Blue Angels to slight the honors due to the two people whose imagination and perseverance made the Corporate Angel Network a reality in the first place: Priscilla Blum and Jay Weinberg. Corporate "angels" do indeed help cancer patients.  And little Internet devils create glurge. Last updated:  22 February 2007    Sources:   Blake, Judith.  "You May Be Able to Call for Help When Traveling in an Emergency."   The Seattle Times.  2 February 1986  (p. K1).    Pray, Tom E.  "Corporate Angel Network Finds Friends in High Places." 1   The Westchester County Business Journal.  3 October 1988  (p. 1).    Richter, Paul.  "Transportation Made Available on Otherwise Idle or Unfilled Aircraft."   Los Angeles Times.  21 January 1985  (Home; p. 1).    Business Wire. The economic struggles of ordinary Americans are getting a good airing this presidential season and a statistical finding from the Federal Reserve provides ammunition for a candidate in either party who wants to make the case that too many people have been left behind. Washington PostreporterHunter Schwarzplugged some Fed data into a little segment called By the numbers, in the newspapers June 8, 2015, edition: 47: The percentage of Americans who cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money, according to the Federal Reserve. The dollar figure caught our eye. It seemed surprisingly low. Other researchers have tried to gauge the financial vulnerability of American households to an economic setback, but typically, the amounts they test are much higher, in the thousands of dollars. We thought wed take a closer look. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Board began asking Americans how well theyre doing financially. In May, the Fedreleased the 2014 results. The questions ranged from retirement planning, to how people managed any student debt they might have, to whether they think their overall situation is headed up or down. To measure participants sense of financial vulnerability, the survey asked them to imagine they had an emergency expense that cost $400, and it asked them how they would cover it. The better-off group said they would use cash-on-hand or a credit card that they would pay off in a month. Others said they would use a credit card but take time to pay it off, or they might borrow from a family member or a pay-day loan company, or they might sell something. And some said there was no way they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. Across the more than 5,800 people who completed the online survey, 53 percent said they would be able to pay essentially immediately. That left 47 percent who said they could not. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent), the report said. Interestingly, making over $100,000 a year was no guarantee of security. About a quarter of the more affluent group said that at the very least, they would pay off the $400 over time. As this chart from the report shows, ethnicity and income strongly affected the ability to absorb a $400 outlay. Other studies George Washington University business professor Annamaria Lusardi and two colleagues (Daniel J. Schneider at Princeton University and Peter Tufano at Oxford University) conducteda similar surveyin the depths of the recession in 2009. Their study asked people how they would handle a sudden $2,000 bill that they had to pay in 30 days. About half the respondents said they would probably or certainly be unable to cope with such an emergency out of their own funds. Lusardi said she considers the results comparable. The Federal Reserve had a lower amount, but it had to be paid right away, she told PunditFact. We gave people more time, so I think the percentages are consistent. In fact, even with five years separating the surveys, it is the similarity in the responses that caught her eye. Lusardi said it is a sign of the recessions deep damage to the typical Americans balance sheet. Until recently, the labor market and wages have been stagnant, Lusardi said. In the recession, many families used up their reserves of liquidity. It takes a long time to reestablish a good financial situation. There are other indications that most Americans live with a limited financial cushion. When the government shutdown for two weeks in 2013, aUniversity of Michigan research teamtracked a hefty drop in household spending among government workers. Even though their paychecks were interrupted only a short time, households cut their outlays in half, and many delayed paying their mortgages and credit card bills. Some racked up high cost credit card debt that took them up to nine months to pay back. Lusardis 2009 research included a number of other western nations. For the record, the United States ranked sixth out of eight in residents saying they would certainly or probably be able to manage a sudden $2,000 bill. Rank/Country Percent able to cope Rank/Country Percent able to cope 1. Italy 80.1 5. Portugal 54.1 2. Netherlands 73.2 6. United States 50 3. Canada 71.7 7. Germany 49.4 4. France 62.8 8. United Kingdom 47.8  Our ruling Schwarz said 47 percent of Americans cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money. The only caveat here, and its a very minor one, is that figure represents the number of people who say they cant make that payment, based on a Federal Reserve Board survey. The Federal Reserve Board results are in line with a similar study and related research. We rate the claim True. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) Claim:  In 2006, U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke out against raising the U.S. government debt limit.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2011]   'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'    Origins:  In 2006, while serving his first term as a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack Obama made the remarks attributed to him above during discussion in the U.S. Senate prior to the call for votes on raising the debt limit. The full text of his remarks in the Senate on 16 March 2006 are:     The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.    Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.    Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.    And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like    bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans  a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.    But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to thecommonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.    Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.    Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.    I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.    The shortened quote now attributed to him is a verbatim capture of the opening and closing paragraphs of his remarks of 16 March 2006. (The Senate vote held later that day on a resolution to increase the debt limitpassed by a 52-48 margin, with Senator Obama voting against it.) passed President Obama has undergone a change of position regarding raising the debt limit. In a 15 April 2011 Good Morning America interview, President Obama said this of his reasons for doing so:     Last updated:  7 October 2013    Congressional Record.  "Remarks by Sen. Barack Obama."    16 March 2006.   Farley, Robert.  "Obama Says Reagan Raised Debt Ceiling 18 Times; George W. Bush 7 Times."    St. Petersburg Times.  26 July 2011.   Stephanopoulos, George.  "President Obama One-on-One."    Good Morning America.  15 April 2011.   Werner, Erica.  "WH: Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit."    Associated Press.  11 April 2011.