Says the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Joe Kyrillos said increased revenues are needed to deal with the national debt, but the path to that goal isnt paved with tax hikes.Rather, Kyrillos said, he wants to lower taxes to stimulate growth.Well, we're going to have to raise revenue and I want to do it through growth. I want to lower tax rates. I want to make sure that America doesn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is what we have now, and lower the rates for everybody, Kyrillos said during a debate tonight with his Democratic rival, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, that aired on NJTV.Are corporations in the United States subject to the highest tax rate in the world?The statutory rate for businesses is the highest among industrialized nations. But for the rate businesses actually pay -- whats called the effective tax rate -- the United States ranks among the highest, but not at the very top, according to studies.We checked a nearly identical claim that Kyrillos made during an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM. Then he said, we've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We rated that statement Mostly True.At that time, a spokeswoman for Kyrillos cited the nations top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent. That rate is a combination of federal, state and local tax rates before any tax breaks are factored in.Japan used to have a higher statutory rate than the United States. But in April, Japan reduced its rate and the U.S. took first place among industrialized nations, according to the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group.So on that point, Kyrillos is right.Since businesses receive a number of tax breaks, the effective tax rate for corporations in the U.S. isnt the worlds highest, but its still up there.More than a dozen of the most recent studies on effective corporate tax rates across the world found businesses in the U.S. paid an effective rate between 23 percent and 34.9 percent, according to a September 2011 report from the Tax Foundation.The effective rate varied between the studies the Tax Foundation looked at because of different methodologies.In those studies, the U.S. never ranked first in the world. But in 10 of the studies, the nations effective corporate tax rate ranked among the top five highest.Its worth noting that an analysis by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, found that 30 Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period.As for what is the better measure -- statutory rates or effective rates -- we found mixed views.Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, told PolitiFact New Jersey in August that because statutory rates are fixed they make for better comparisons, whereas effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens.Then Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingKyrillos repeated a claim he made before that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Thats true for the nations statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. When Japan lowered its statutory rate, the United States moved into first place.Even when accounting for various tax breaks, the effective rate is still among the highest.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate this statement Mostly True.To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.
In July 2023, we began to receive emails from readers asking if it was true that social media platform Twitter was rebranding to "X."   We also found posts repeating the claim on social media platforms like Facebook, Reddit, and TikTok. Facebook Reddit TikTok The claim is true. Twitter owner Elon Musk did rebrand Twitter to X. At the time of writing, Twitter had already begun replacing its famous bird logo with a stylized X. "And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds," Musk tweeted on July 23, 2023. tweeted And soon we shall bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds  Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 23, 2023 July 23, 2023  Reputable news organizations like the Associated Press (AP), The Verge, NBC News, and CNNall reported on the rebrand. AP reportedthat Musk had founded a startup in 1999 called X.com, which later became PayPal, and that he also calls his son with singer Grimes "X" for short. Associated Press (AP) The Verge NBC News CNN reported which later became PayPal his son with singer Grimes At the time of writing, Twitter's bird logo was still displayed as its logo on the company's web page that discussed branding. "Our logo is our most recognizable asset," the page said. "That's why we're so protective of it." said However, Twitter's sign-up page looked like this:  (Twitter) In an article about the replacement of Twitter's bird logo, The Verge wrote: The Verge The bird theming runs deep, and it's not clear that X Corp. (as Twitter has legally been known for months now) will be able to replace it entirely. We've previously written about changes to Twitter's platform, including a false claim that U.S. President Joe Biden's Twitter account had been designated as a business account. false claim About Twitter | Our Logo, Brand Guidelines, and Tweet Tools. https://about.twitter.com/en/who-we-are/brand-toolkit.html. Accessed 24 July 2023. Chan, Kelvin. "Elon Musk Reveals New X Logo to Replace Twitter's Blue Bird." AP News, 24 July 2023, https://apnews.com/article/twitter-x-logo-blue-bird-musk-0689e9a5c3a217afc2fbefeaf0e6d8a8. Da Silva, Chantal. "Twitter Rebrands to 'X' as Elon Musk Loses Iconic Bird Logo." NBC News, 24 July 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-loses-iconic-bird-logo-rcna95880. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. "Was Biden's Twitter Account Designated for Business?" Snopes, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bidens-twitter-account-designated-for-business/. Valinsky, Jordan. "Elon Musk Rebrands Twitter as X | CNN Business." CNN, 24 July 2023, https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/tech/twitter-rebrands-x-elon-musk-hnk-intl/index.html. Warren, Tom. "Twitter Is Now X as the Little Blue Bird Disappears." The Verge, 24 July 2023, https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/24/23804973/twitter-x-logo-brand-replacement. Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015. In February 2013, the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) announced they would be staging an event called the "Million Muslim March," which they hoped would gather one million people in Washington, D.C., on 11 September 2013, the twelfth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to press the U.S. government into revealing "the truth" about those attacks: AMPAC The American Muslim Political Action Committee is hosting what it hopes will be a gathering of one million people in Washington, D.C., on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 to urge the government to reveal "the truth" about the attacks."We want to hold President Obama accountable for his empty promises of creating a transparent government," march organizer Isa Hodge said. "What exactly have we spent all our money, lost lives and taken lives for? The entire record of the 9/11 Commission has never been released." Protesters will also denounce "FBI traps," "illegal tapping and surveilling of Muslim Americans" and "media propaganda making the word terrorist synonymous with Muslim," he said. After negative public reaction, AMPAC changed the name of their event to the "Million American March Against Fear" (MAMAF), which they describe as offering the following events: We invite you to stand with and join us to Rally Against Fear at 12 noon on The National Mall, then the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House, to hold truth to power at the three major branches of American government.We ask all individuals and organizations working for peace to attend this collective action to tell our Government leaders we want transparency and policies of peace. In the past 12 years since 9/11 the United States government as failed to protect and promote Constitutional liberties and human life, here and abroad. We feel that accountability in government has been ignored and the time has arrived to collectively speak truth to power. Speaking will be experts and individuals on the lack of transparency and questions plaguing 9/11, steady erosion of domestic civil liberties, drone policy and the very dire effect of these on of plight of American Muslims here at home, and Muslim communities globally in the scope of U.S. imperialism, and the modern face of resistance to unmanned aerial surveillance and warfare. In August 2013, motorcyclists began organizing a "2 Million Bikers to DC counter-event, which they hoped would bring even larger numbers of bikers on a Washington ride-through to "pay tribute and offer respect to those that lost their lives on that day 12 years ago, and to salute our troops engaged in the War on Terror": 2 Million Bikers to DC Example:  [Collected via Facebook, September 2013] I keep seeing posts on Face Book saying that President Obama denied bikers a permit to ride in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 but did allowMuslims the same privilege. True or false? However, the National Park Service (NPS) has jurisdiction over the issue, and the NPS has declined to issue the group a "no stop" permit that would facilitate their ride through Washington by granting them a police escort and a waiver for red lights, stop signs and other traffic signals. The NPS cited traffic issues and manpower requirements in denying the request: The National Park Services confirms that it has denied the permit for the ride-only, non-stop event after looking at it in terms of disruption and resource management.NPS spokeswoman Carol Johnson said the group's permit application was examined like all others, using the Code of Federal Regulations. Johnson said the group had asked to ride through what's called Memorial Core, near the Memorial Bridge, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. with 2,000 motorcyclists. NPS decided that the large ride would require closures of important roadways, block access to Rock Creek and George Washington Parkways and would cause a severe disruption to traffic. A police escort would also be needed. "It's just a case of what they asked for in the permit applications," Johnson said. The Metropolitan Police Department [said] the group was asked to move its ride to a weekend, when it would be less disruptive to traffic. "Solely to facilitate the speed and timeliness of the participants in itself does not fall within the definition of a First Amendment assembly, said police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump. The permits in question were under the purview of the NPS and the Metropolitan Police Department, not President Obama himself. The lack of a permit did not prevent bikers from riding through Washington on the 9/11 anniversary; the riders just weren't exempt from traffic laws and therefore couldn't navigate through the city nearly as quickly as they could have if they had been issued a "no-stop" permit. The two cases were dissimilar in that AMPAC requested a permit for a smaller gathering in a fixed location and submitted their request several months in advance; the 2 Million Bikers group requested a no-stop permit for a much larger group involving miles of roadways, street closures, and police escorts, and they didn't submit their request for a no-stop permit until a few weeks before the event, as documented by this 30 August 2013 Facebook post: Neither group came anywhere close to the "millions" of participants referenced in their event names: the Million American March Against Fear was said to have drawn between a few dozen and a few hundred people, while news accounts cited estimates for the 2 Million Bikers to DC event at somewhere between 10,000 and 75,000 participants. 10,000 75,000 Many Internet postings later claimed that Washington police had estimated the 2 Million Bikers event turnout at between 800,000 and 1.2 million participants, but we have found no documentation (other than repetition of rumor) confirming that local police made any such estimate, and when we queried the Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) about the issue, the Director of the MPD's Office of Communications confirmed that "the Metropolitan Police Department does not provide crowd estimates."   Brenzing, Bob.  "10,000 Bikers Circle Washington for 9/11."
  WUSA-TV [Washington].  12 September 2013.   Davidson, Jacob.  "2 Million Bikers to DC: Motorcycle Riders Roll into Washington."
  Time.  11 September 2013.   Lee, Caroline.  "'Million Muslim March' 2013 Has Low Turnout, Lost in Sea of Motorcyclists."
  UPI.  11 September 2013.   Somers, Meredith.  "Bikers, Muslims Pledge Return to D.C. Next 9/11."
  The Washington Times.  11 September 2013. On Aug. 2, Cook County became the largest government in the United States to charge a tax on sweetened drinks. The debut of the penny-an-ounce charge for drinks sweetened with sugar or non-caloric sweetenerswasnt exactly smooth, nor was it particularly well received with the soft drink-consuming public. Customers who examined their receipts at some stores found they had been charged extra for flavored seltzer water -- which is not subject to the new tax -- while restaurant patrons discovered those free refills now cost one cent per ounce. Cook County sweetened beverage tax applies to free refills of lemonade.pic.twitter.com/PDztyTDIBl As soft drink consumers and sellers came to grips with the new charges, the libertarian Illinois Policy Institute  never a fan of any tax, and a particularly harsh critic of the tax habits of Cook County and Chicago  framed the drink tax in a consumer unfriendly light. The new tax will make soda sold in Chicago among the most expensive in the country, the institute said in a tweet and in theheadline of an articleon its website. That is a little like proclaiming the sun rises in the east, but given intense public interest in the soda tax we thought it was a worth a look anyway. Accompanying the institutes tweets were graphics illustrating the various taxes that now will be paid by those purchasing sweetened drinks in Chicago. The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a10.25 percent sales taxthat includes state and local portions and is thehighest of any major city in the United States. For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means youll pay 40 percent more at checkout. Thats how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well. Does that make Chicago-bought soda among the most expensive in the country? The institute grants its statement a lot of leeway by using the word among. Wherever the thirsty buy it, a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp. So the add-on cost of taxes is likely the prime factor behind any significant price differences. To date, the list of places embracing a soda tax is an extremely short one, hence Chicagos (and Cook Countys) emergence as among the most expensive places to pop for a pop. As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax. Issue-wise, this is right in the Illinois Policy Institutes wheelhouse. It not only piles expense onto an extremely popular category of consumer products, but it also comes swathed in nanny state good intentions for the health of Cook County residents. By strange coincidence, this health concern arrives just as Cook County finds itself in desperate financial straits. (Inanother article,the institute claims Cook County cant even get its nanny state act right, as federal rules prohibit applying the new tax to sweetened drinks purchased with food stamps. It notes that polling shows people with lower incomes are more likely to drink soda.) At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.) There have been many complaints that Cook Countys soda tax was sold to voters as an anti-obesity measure but also includes drinks containing non-caloric sweeteners. But theordinance itselfcontains extensive language citing studies that link even diet drink consumption to kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and obesity. Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax. Thus, even among the eight places in the nation taxing or preparing to tax consumers by the ounce for sweetened soft drinks, Cook Countys measure reaches an especially broad swath of consumers. The Illinois Policy Institute cites Cook Countys new sweetened drink tax as making soda sold in the city of Chicago among the most expensive in the country. With Chicago already charging the nations highest sales tax of any major city plus a 3-percent soft drink tax, its almost certain that consumers in the city paid among the highest prices for soft drinks in the country even before the Aug. 2 arrival of the sweetened drink tax. But Chicago truly moved into a select group when its home county joined the seven other cities that have enacted or are poised to enact by-the-ounce taxes on sweetened soft drinks. With a nod toCaptain Obvious, we raise a glass of flattened, left-out-in-the-open Coke in the direction of the Illinois Policy Institute as we rate this statement True. In December 2020, right-leaning observers and prominent Republican politicians cried foul after a federal court judge blocked attempts to remove thousands of names from voter rolls in Georgia, ahead of January's two U.S. Senate run-off elections in the state.  On Dec. 28, Politico reported that: Politico A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner  the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state  concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties. The bulk of the registrations that the counties sought to rescind, more than 4,000, were in Muscogee County, which Biden won handily in November. An additional 150 were from Ben Hill County, which Trump won by a wide margin. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by tweeting: "This is absurd. This is an obvious case for recusal. For Stacey Abrams sister to refuse to recuse  and issue this decision despite her indisputable bias  undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system." Donald Trump Jr. wrote "Nothing shady here..." tweeting wrote Doug Collins, the outgoing Republican congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2020, said Abrams Gardner should recuse herself from the case because "her own sister is a party!" said   In reality, Abrams was not a party to the case on which her sister ruled in December 2020. Collins stated a significant falsehood in claiming otherwise.  Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Leslie Abrams Gardner are indeed sisters. Over the years, Abrams has repeatedly confirmed as much, including when she congratulated Abrams Gardner on her U.S. Senate confirmation and appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Georgia, in 2014 and 2015. 2014 2015 The case in question was Majority Forward and Gamaliel Warren Turner vs. Ben Hill County Board of Elections et al. Majority Forward is a non-profit voter registration organization, and Turner is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia. According to Abrams Gardner's Dec. 28 ruling, the basic facts of the case were as follows. Earlier in December 2020, Tommy Roberts  a City Council member in Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County  challenged the eligibility of 328 registered voters in the county. Based on his own cross-referencing of the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database, Roberts contended that those voters had moved out of the state and were therefore no longer eligible to vote in Ben Hill County.  ruling The board of elections in Ben Hill County determined that Roberts' challenge to the eligibility of 152 of those voters was likely valid, and they designated those 152 voters "pending hearing" and contacted them to advise that they would only be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the January 2021 Senate run-off election, and would subsequently have to "cure" those ballots by providing proof of their residency. In Muscogee County, a man named Ralph Russell brought a similar challenge, claiming to have found 4,033 registered voters in Muscogee County who, according to the National Change of Address database, had moved out of state. The Muscogee County Board of Elections determined that Russell's challenge was probably valid, and contacted those 4,033 "targeted voters" to inform them they could only cast provisional ballots, and would have to provide proof of residency. Turner was one of those targeted voters. On Dec. 23, Majority Forward challenged the actions of Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, and filed for a temporary restraining order on Dec. 27. On Dec. 28, Abrams Gardner granted that order, meaning the counties were ordered, for the next eight days, not to remove the targeted voters from registration lists, or require them to cast only provisional ballots. Since that time period covered the Jan. 5, 2021, elections, the targeted voters were therefore allowed to vote as normal in the U.S. Senate run-off elections. Abrams Gardner's reasoning can be examined in the ruling itself.  ruling The defendants in the case filed a motion to request that Abrams Gardner recuse herself. They argued, in part, that Fair Fight  the voting rights group founded and chaired by Abrams  was involved in similar litigation before the U.S. District Court in Georgia's Northern District, and the same lawyers represented Fair Fight and Majority Forward in the cases. They also argued that Abrams Gardner's ruling in the Majority Forward case could have a bearing on the judge's decision-making in the Fair Fight litigation, which directly involved Abrams, since she is the chairperson of that organization. The defendants wrote: motion wrote In addition, any relief rendered in the instant case as it relates to the NCOAR [National Change of Address Registry] would likely be cited as persuasive authority in the Fair Fight Litigation. Abrams interest could therefore be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. For this reason, Judge Gardners impartiality might reasonably be questioned were this case to proceed before her. In a footnote to her Dec. 28 ruling, Abrams Gardner noted the request for her to recuse herself, but stated simply, "The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal." Abrams Gardner added that "an order detailing the court's reasoning" was forthcoming. As of Dec. 31, no such order was available on the case's online docket.  Contrary to Collins' claim, Abrams was not a "party" to the Majority Forward litigation on which her sister ruled in December 2020. However, she is the chairperson of Fair Fight, a voting rights organization that acted as a plaintiff in a very similar case, albeit in a different U.S. District Court, in Georgia, at the same time.  Whether that connection, in combination with her familial relationship with Abrams Gardner, should constitute grounds for recusal, is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation. But Collins undoubtedly erred when he claimed that "Stacey Abramss sister is ruling on a case in which her own sister is a party!" Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 ]In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $200 Home Depot coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message contained a link that redirected bargain hunters to a web site adorned with Home Depot's logo that has nothing to do with the real Home Depot:   The $200 Home Depot coupon scam is very similar to other schemes that targeted Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. While each scam has slight variations, they all feature three main components. First, they require people to like or share the message on Facebook in an attempt to spread the scam around the Internet. Second, they direct people to complete a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers. Lastly, these scams never end with a "free" rewards, because users must first agree to sign up for several costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print to claim their coupons. Costco Amazon Kroger In April 2017, another Facebook coupon scam targeted Home Depot. In that iteration the chain was purportedly doling out $50 coupons "to celebrate Mother's Day, and links directed users to www.homedepot.com-grabitnow.us (a URL clearly unaffiliated with the legitimate Home Depot website): Home Depot   Home Depot didn't address the 2017 Facebook coupon scam on their social media channels as of 24 April 2017, but it was nevertheless clearly not a legitimate promotion affiliated with the chain. The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Claim:  Barack Obama's net worth increased over $10 million from 2008 to 2012. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October  2012] Seen on Facebook: Tea party's photo of  President Obama on a golf cart purporting his net worth 12/31/07 and 12/31/11  Origins:  This graphic claiming that Barack Obama's net worth had increased from $1.3 million at the end of 2007 to over $11.4 million by the end of 2011 was widely circulated in October 2012.   It's fair to say the Obamas' net worth has increased significantly during the time Barack Obama has been President, but fixing a specific  dollar amount to that increase is difficult: net worth figures for politicians are typically derived from analyzing financial disclosure forms, a method which leaves room for a good deal of interpretation. financial disclosure Certainly the dollar figures displayed in the above graphic were not just pulled out of thin air: CNN/Money did peg Barack Obama's net worth at $1.3 million in 2007, and some sources (such as this Associated Press article) stated his net worth in mid-2012 to be around $11.8 million.  CNN/Money Associated Press Other sources vary widely regarding the latter figure, however.  In mid-2012 Forbes estimated the Obamas' net worth to be $5.7 million (down slightly from the previous year), OpenSecrets.org put the figure somewhere in the broad range of "$1,566,014 to $7,764,999," and other sources listed similarly broad range estimates such as "somewhere between $2.6 million and nearly $8.3 million." Forbes OpenSecrets.org other sources The Forbes report noted why the online version of its article included a considerably lower estimation of the Obamas' net worth than the print version of its article had: The current issue of Forbes magazine values the Obamas at a shared net worth of nearly $9 million, based on the May 16, 2011 financial disclosure, the most up-to-date as of press time. The day after our issue went to press, Obama released his new financial disclosure form, showing that: 1) the Obamas have taken money out of treasurys; 2) book money is decreasing; and 3) the family still owes on its mortgage, disclosed for the first time. The latest disclosure also gave new information on the familys college savings plans, which allowed us to refine our valuation and  bring the sum down. The above valuation takes all this into account. Last updated:  16 October 2012 In November 2015, the biography of Frederick Trump, Donald Trump's grandfather, was condensed into two paragraphs and then passed around the internet via a meme. While some of the information included in the meme is accurate, much of it is either over-exaggerated or incomplete:  This particular rumor centers on the idea that Frederich Trump made his fortune via brothels and opium dens. While there is anecdotal evidence that Trump dabbled in prostitution, there is no proof that this made up the bulk of his fortune. In Gwenda Blair's 2000 book The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate, she described how Frederick Trump opened a series of restaurants and hotels during the Klondike Gold Rush in the 1890s. One of those hotels, The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel, was described as decadent and far superior to other restaurants in the area: book In the larder was salmon and an extraordinary variety of meats, including duck, ptarmigan, grouse, goose, and swan, as well as caribou, moose, goat, sheep, rabbit, and squirrel. Incredibly, the New Arctic served fresh fruit: red currants, raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, even cranberries. A small oasis of luxury, the Arctics menu was a vast improvement over what the two restaurateurs had been able to offer on the trail. An anonymous letter to the Yukon, however, claimed that The Arctic Restaurant and Hotel was also known for prostitution: I would advise respectable women traveling alone, or with an escort, to be careful in their selection of hotels at Bennett, he wrote. For single men the Arctic has excellent accommodations as well as the best restaurant in Bennett, but I would not advise respectable women to go there to sleep as they are liable to hear that which would be repugnant to their feelings  and uttered, too, by the depraved of their own sex. While it's unclear if Frederich Trump directly profited from prostitution at his hotel (or whether it even occurred there), it should be noted that the world's oldest profession was relatively commonplace during the Gold Rush. The meme also claims that Frederick Trump decided to go back to Germany when police started cracking down on "his criminal rackets." Again, this is based on little more than a morsel of truth, and does not tell the whole story. In 1901, Trump sold his assets and returned to Germany. While one could argue that Trump made the decision because he believed that police were going to start enforcing prostitution laws, that is only one factor that led to Trump's departure for Germany: Frederick Trump saw that it was time to leave. If Major Wood actually enforced the laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and liquor, hotels and restaurants would be far less profitable. Not only that, the economic boom was bound to be short lived. There was not nearly enough solid economic development to absorb these newcomers in any long-term way; when the placer deposits were emptied, they would go back home. Without the umbrella of gold, other local industries would not be strong enough to keep going on their own and compete with cheaper sources farther south. The boom was over, Frederick Trump realized... ... Frederick Trump left just in time. He avoided the uproar when his erstwhile partner hit the skids, and he avoided the economic decline that would soon sweep over White Horse. Once again, in a situation that created many losers, he managed to emerge a winner. He had made money; perhaps even more unusual in the Yukon, he had also kept it and departed from White Horse with a substantial nest egg. He had accomplished this goal of making and saving enough money to marry. But he had no intention of doing so in America. For this important moment, he would have to return to Germany. While the meme exaggerated Trump's involvement in "criminal rackets," it did correctly state that Trump returned to the United States after the German government determined that he had originally left Germany in 1885 to avoid taxes and the army. returned In summation, Donald Trump's grandfather Frederick Trump was a German immigrant who made his fortune by opening several restaurants and hotels in Seattle and British Columbia during the Yukon Gold Rush. While some of these hotels may have been used for prostitution, gambling, or other seedy activities common on the trail, it is incorrect to say that Trump built his fortune on illegal activities. Grier, Peter.  "Donald Trump: The Son of an Immigrant."
  The Christian Science Monitor.  24 August 2015. Blair, Gwenda.  The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a Presidential Candidate.
  Simon and Schuster, 2000.  ISBN 0-684-80849-8.