Are retailers employing 'vanishing ink' on receipts as a strategy to deter returns?
The holiday shopping season often spurs rumors that retailers use "disappearing ink" on receipts, making it difficult for consumers to use paid-for warranties or return unserviceable merchandise. Some rumors were more broad, involving anecdotal concerns about "disappearing ink" receipts, addressing retailers: I know you are in business to make money. I know that fraudulent returns cut into your profit margin, so you feel the need to tighten up your return policies. I am totally on board with that. BUT, could you please then stop using disappearing ink on your receipts? I just had my baby shower, and EVERY SINGLE gift receipt from your store was so faded, it was barely legible. Then, you tried to give me a hard time because your computers couldn't read the receipts, therefore making my duplicates off the registry unreturnable (but improper registry maintenance is a whole other issue.) To sum up. You require receipts? Then print legible receipts. Thank you. Others were more specific, claiming very clear timeframes30 to 45 daysand practices governed the legibility of receipt ink. Iterations of that sort asserted companies deliberately sought out to ensure that no receipts past a certain point could be used, presumably rendered void when the ink "disappeared" by design: PLEASE READ: Learned something new tonight...I guess you guys need to be made aware of (if you don't already know)...I was informed this evening after making a purchase with an extended warranty from Wal-Mart that I needed to go home and make a photo copy of the receipt and file with the warranty card. I curiously asked why and the lady told me that Wal-Mart now uses disappearing ink. My jaw dropped. So this means after 30 -45 days moving forward, you will no longer have a legible receipt from Wal-Mart for returns or warranty usage or credit card issues. Heads up guys ! This will be a problem for many ! I understand the reason they gave for this action, but it sure makes for a difficult life for the honest folks in this world.   Don't forget to take a picture of your receipts. Disappearing ink is one big snowjob, so be ready for the storm.... 30 days and presto-change o. Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon. 2003 However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains: maintains Walmart will accept a non-receipted return or exchange provided it meets the following conditions: The refund verification process accepts the return.The government issued ID must not be altered and is accepted by Walmart. To return or exchange items without a receipt, you are required to present a valid government issued photo ID. Information from the customer ID will be stored in a secured database of returns activity that Walmart uses to authorize returns. At Lowe's the policy reads, in part: the policy reads, in part In most instances, your receipt can be retrieved by using the original credit card, checking account number, MyLowe's card or by your phone number. For returns without a valid receipt, in-store credit may be issued for the items current selling price. Lost or stolen gift cards can only be replaced for the remaining balance by presenting the original receipt. Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse: notes surveyed Our survey of 12 large retailers policies regarding returning items without a receipt shows most allow it  within limits. Although a staunch no receipt, no return policy is rare, it does still happen, and there can be individual store quirks that make the return process difficult to predict. Store policies tend to be tiered, with full refunds reserved for those who meet the gold standard: They return the entire item, in its original packaging, quickly, with a receipt. The further you vary from the gold standard, the less you get back. Credit card holders may find that using their cards provides an added avenue to a refund, since some retailers will look up a credit card transaction and let you use that as proof of purchase for a return. As to how youll get your money back, its typical for stores to return it in the same way it was tendered. So if you used a credit card, expect to get the money back in the form of a credit on your cards statement. Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons: explained Receipts are typically printed on thermal paper, a chemically coated paper that produces text and image when heat is applied to its surface. Since this kind of paper is susceptible to heat and UV light, extended exposure to these elements will ultimately cause gradual fading. If you are in the mood for experimenting, place a receipt that you dont need under a hot iron for about 10 seconds. The heat from the iron will change the color of paper to black. Oil and humidity are also factors to blame. Now if youre wondering why the use of thermal paper is so widespread despite this massive disadvantage, its because they are very low cost and the equipment used to print it is low maintenance, since it doesnt need ink or ribbon cartridges. That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts: story If you keep paper receipts, this could happen to you, too. That's because more retailers are using thermal paper. Heat and light fades the ink. Although it was clearly true that many receipts faded over time, the claim involving "disappearing ink" was a misnomer. Retailers' well-known reliance on thermal paper due to its cost efficient nature led to the generation of fragile receipts, particularly those exposed to heat or light. The phenomenon was real, but the cause was often misinterpreted by concerned consumers. Early iterations of the rumor also antedated the rise of online retail giants, e-receipts, smartphones with storage capabilities, and other technological advances that served effectively as a "receipt" for consumers. Behnken, Shannon.  "Sales Receipts Have Ink That Fades, Making Returns Harder."
  WFLA.  23 June 2014. Cabrera, Kristen.  "Major Retailers' 2016 Return And Receipt Policies."
  CreditCards.com.  22 December 2016. Walmart Help Center.  "No Receipt Returns In Stores Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Lowe's Service Desk.  "Returns and Refunds Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. CVS.com.  "Returns Policy."
  Accessed 14 December 2017. Panda Paper Roll Company.  "Thermal Paper: Why It Fades And How To Restore It."
  Accessed 14 December 2017.
A photograph purportedly showing three naked women campaigning for Democrats ahead of the 2018 midterm election was shared by a Facebook user in November 2018: shared   This picture has virtually nothing to do with Democrats, the 2018 midterm elections, or U.S. politics in general.  This image is a photograph taken in 2005 and shows a protest staged at the entrance of the Presidential Palace in Mexico City, Mexico. The picture was snapped by Juan Barreto and is available via Getty Images with the following caption: Getty Images MEXICO CITY, MEXICO: Naked women, from the '400 People Movement', protest at the entrance of the Presidential residence of Los Pinos in Mexico City, against the expropriation of their lands by federal deputies,16 May 2005. AFP PHOTO/Juan BARRETO (Photo credit should read JUAN BARRETO/AFP/Getty Images) The pictured women were members of an indigenous organization known as "the Movement of 400 Peoples" who were participating in an annual protest to demand the return of land they say was taken from them by the government. According to a 2008 report from the Inter Press Agency, the group has been holding such marches in the nude since 2002: Press Agency Every year, some 300 indigenous people from the eastern Mexican state of Veracruz march naked through the streets of the capital to demand land. But while their unusual form of protest certainly attracts attention, there is little chance that it will achieve their goals. The protesters, most of them from the Nahua indigenous community, are members of an organisation known as the Movement of 400 Peoples. The organisation suffered a heavy blow in 1992 when the police evicted them from a parcel of over 2,000 hectares of private land in Veracruz that they had occupied in 1988. Following the eviction, they began to demonstrate in the capital to air their grievances. First they demanded the release of 100 members of the group imprisoned on charges of squatting, theft, assault and murder. Once this had been achieved, they began to call for the restitution of the land they originally occupied or to be granted ownership of other land, as well as punishment for the authorities who evicted them 15 years ago. In 2002, during one of their annual visits to the capital, where they spend two or three months living in tents set up between the busy downtown thoroughfares of Reforma and Insurgentes Avenues, they decided to take off their clothes as a form of protest. Since then, they have continued to stage their nude demonstrations every year. Cevallos, Diego.  "MEXICO: A Naked Call for Indigenous Peoples Right to Land
  Inter Press Agency.  2 January 2008. Although the custom is sometimes more honored in the breach than in the observance, the U.S. Flag Code states that "During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart." Flag Code  Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism, Illinois senator (and Democratic presidential hopeful) Barack Obama caused something of a stir in September 2007 when he was seemingly spotted not observing the hand-over-heart protocol during a playing of "The Star-Spangled Banner" at an Indianola, Iowa, steak fry attended by the six top Democratic presidential candidates: Boy, that's exactly who we need as President! Does this man not cross his heart when the National Anthem is playing, or when the flag is raised or lowered? OR, was this an accident on his part? Photo shows 4 of them, including the infamous Hillary... Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name). The article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE. How in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief?  The photograph itself is real, one of several images of the Iowa steak fry event published by Time, and shows then-Senator Barack Obama standing with his hands clasped just below his waist, while New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, New York senator Hillary Clinton, and Ruth Harkin (wife of Iowa senator Tom Harkin) stand with their hands held over their hearts. It's difficult to establish context from a single still image, but other accounts (including ABC News video of the event) documented that the picture was as described: Time  (It's not clear from the photograph or the video just what the candidates were looking at. The Flag Code advises that they should be "standing at attention facing the flag," but none of them is facing the flag displayed behind the platform on which they're standing. Presumably another flag was in place off to the right of the platform, since most of the candidates were facing that direction.) As we noted earlier, although the U.S. Flag Code still specifies that those present should stand "with the right hand over the heart" during the playing of the U.S. national anthem, that particular form is one that has generally come to be observed less and less consistently among the general public over the decades: Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web. Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of The Star-Spangled Banner. "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant." As for whether this incident was an "accident," whether Senator Obama habitually declines to perform the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there's any particular meaning to the (non-)action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded: "Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. In no way was he making any sort of statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." The senator himself said that "My grandfather taught me when I was two. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing." When television's Inside Edition ran a segment on this issue, they included some images (supplied by the Obama campaign) of the senator standing with his hand over his heart during other playings of the national anthem:   The text accompanying some versions of the e-mailed photograph claimed that Senator Obama "refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance." The activity taking place during the scene in the photograph involved the playing of the U.S. national anthem, not a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The following video clip shows Barack Obama reciting the Pledge during the opening of U.S. Senate sessions:  During the Democratic candidates' debate on 15 January 2008, Senator Obama directly refuted the three primary rumors about him that were then circulating via e-mail: that he is a Muslim, that he was sworn in to Congress on the Quran, and that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance:  This item saw renewed interest in April 2017, when First Lady Melania Trump seemingly had to nudge her husband, President Donald Trump, to place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem while celebrating the annual White House Easter Egg Roll:  A spoof article about Barack Obama's stance on the U.S. national anthem was later circulated via e-mail as a genuine statement the then-senator. spoof Adair, Bill.  "E-Mail Assailing Obama's Patriotism Misses Mark."
  St. Petersburg Times.  9 November 2007. Cornwell, Rupert.  "Obama Discovers Perils of Not Wearing His Patriotic Heart on His Sleeve."
  Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  25 October 2007. Halperin, Mark.  "Steak and Stump Speeches in Iowa."
  Time.  16 September 2007. Golab, Art and Abdon M. Pallasch.  "'I Decided I Won't Wear That Pin on My Chest'."
  Chicago Sun-Times.  5 October 2007. "Obama Captured on Tape Not Putting His Hand Over His Heart During the National Anthem."
  FOX News  (Hannity & Colmes).    23 October 2007. Aug. 26, 2020: Outdated video links have been updated. In November 2015, a photograph began circulating online via sites such Imgur and Facebook showing a restaurant bill from a customer who purportedly stiffed his waitress and mocked her for being an immigrant: Imgur Facebook  The identity of the original friend of a friend who posted the image wasn't clear, but a FoxNews.com article provided some additional information about the circumstances under which the controversy began: article After serving a customer at Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, Calif., an Asian waitress received a short note scribbled on the receipt instead of a tip, according to NBC Los Angeles. It read, Tip for U.S. citizens only." The server is from Thailand and in the U.S. legally on a visa with the hope of obtaining a green card one day. According to NBC, on Nov. 11 a male diner paid for his meal of kung pao spaghetti that totaled $22.84 --which would have meant the server got $3.43. But after discovering the nasty note, it's believed another diner snapped a photo of the receipt, which included the man's name--and posted it online. An earlier report from Los Angeles television station KNBC included a brief video segment about the ensuing controversy: report Despite massive social media interest in the receipt and its unpleasant message, the man whose name appeared on the slip of paper hasn't responded to media requests for his version of events. He's neither confirmed nor denied he left the message, and hasn't e-mailed a response to any of the several media outlets covering the viral controversy. Although KNBC included CCTV footage of the man purportedly entering Bamboo Thai Bistro in Redondo Beach, California, on 11 November 2015, that clip didn't definitively indicate he signed a receipt (much less left a rude, anti-immigrant message on a piece of paper which included his full legal name). A report from the Daily Breeze of Los Angeles County's South Bay left it unclear whether the man was a take-out customer or a diner who was waited upon by the server: report A 15 percent tip would have been $3.43, but the male customer wrote Tip for U.S. Citizens Only on the tip line for his $22.84 receipt for kung pao spaghetti. It was really bizarre, said the owner, who asked to be identified only as Adison. She thought she did something wrong. She is one of the best workers here. The man ordered his food and got up and left. I went outside to go do something and, when I came back in, my waitresses were showing me the receipt, Adison said. This guy left this. Searches for Jason Naglich restricted to a few days before the 11 November 2015 date supplied by the restaurant revealed he had no Internet presence of which to speak. How a fellow customer who was not party to the transaction came to view the receipt (as the restaurant claimed) was unclear. The restaurant's owner later said he feared litigation as a result of the controversy. restricted So while the story has drawn massive interest from across the country, little about Naglich and the purported receipt (beyond the original assertion) has been confirmed. It's possible that a diner by that name chose to add insult to injury by stiffing his waitress and blaming it on her immigrant status. It's similarly possible that as with prior claims of this variety, someone somewhere along the line fabricated the slip's message. However, diners swept up in previous hoaxes have quickly spoken up to correct the story once it came to their attention, whereas Naglich has yet to address the rumor. fabricated Claim:  St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch runs a charity called Backstoppers that sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund. : : St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch was the president of Backstoppers, an organization aimed at supporting the families of first responders in crisis, during the controversy in Ferguson.      : Backstoppers sold "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts to raise money for the policeman's defense fund.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2014] Is St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch Helping RaiseMoney for Ofc. Darren Wilson?   Origins:  On 24 November 2014, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced in the course of a lengthy press conference that a grand jury had declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Ferguson teenager Michael Brown. The decision was both controversial and widely criticized, and it intensified existing criticism regarding McCulloch's putative partiality toward law enforcement officers. McCulloch is the president of the board of Backstoppers, a local organization that supports the families of first responders (particularly those killed in the line of duty). A Washington Post opinion column published following the press conference on 24 November 2014 criticized McCulloch's role in the Mike Brown case with respect to his personal and professional history: president criticized Asked Monday night whether he had any regrets about the way he handled the case, McCulloch replied, "No, not at all." This shouldn't be a surprise, given McCulloch's history. That his father, a police officer, was killed by a black suspect doesn't by itself disqualify him, but his record should have: not a single prosecution of a shooting by police in his 23 years on the job. Four times he presented evidence to a grand jury in such a case and didn't get an indictment; now he can add a fifth. The points made by the columnist were not unique; in fact they dovetailed with rumors that started in St. Louis in the weeks following Brown's death. According to claims that began to circulate on or around 15 September 2014, McCulloch's partiality outstripped even his charitable work and record of not prosecuting officers. Several blog posts from mid-September 2014 focused on an Internet fundraising effort using the web site Teespring.com. Folks with an interest in the case noticed an online T-shirt fundraiser selling shirts that read "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" (with "PRO POLICE" printed on the back) touted a connection between Wilson's defense and McCulloch's organization. The shirt's description explained: explained "I SUPPORT OFFICER D. WILSON" is an officer inspired design to show support for officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department in Missouri. Donations from purchases will be divided between a fund set up for Officer Wilson at gofundme.com as well as The BackStoppers Inc. organization which can be visited at backstoppers.org for more information. A post on 14 September 2014 included the following board member list (which did not reflect McCulloch's move from Vice President to President of the organization):  The controversy made it to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by 15 September 2014, at which time the newspaper spoke with Backstoppers' executive director, Ron Battelle. Battelle told the outlet Backstoppers had not initiated the fundraiser, was not affiliated with it in any fashion, did not know who was responsible for selling the shirts, and should any money be offered from the proceeds to Backstoppers, the group would reject the funds. newspaper The controversy abated but resurfaced on 25 November 2014 in the wake of McCulloch's statement to the press on 24 November 2014. A Facebook user shared an image questioning Backstoppers' connection to the shirts: shared  In response, Backstoppers issued a statement via Facebook, reiterating the fundraiser was not connected with their organization: statement Contrary to recent posts on social media, The BackStoppers is not participating in or has benefited from any fund raising activity involving the Ferguson matter. We scrutinize our contributions and if we receive funds involving the Ferguson matter, those funds would be rejected by the Board of Directors. Our mission is to provide assistance to families of police, fire and EMS officers who die in the line of duty. We are currently helping 66 families which includes 64 children. This is and always will be our first priority! We greatly appreciate the support of the St. Louis community! Thank You!! Ultimately, only nineteen "I support Ofc. Darren Wilson" shirts were sold during the initial Teespring campaign. It isn't clear who created the fundraiser or how the proceeds were distributed; but any party is free to raise funds for any other party, and someone's pledging half their proceeds to Backstoppers does not indicate Backstoppers was necessarily involved with or even aware of the fundraising effort.    Last updated:  26 November 2014 < A four-line poem, also known as a quatrain, allegedly written by 16th-century philosopher Michel de Nostradamus described predictions of a future plague that would fall upon the world. (Some assumed that this so-called plague referred to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Snopes has previously debunked here.) here The alleged quatrain went on to describe a feeble man who was set to rule the western world with a jezebel after the plague. According to Snopes readers, renditions of this poem appeared to suggest that this man and jezebel either referred to U.S. President Donald Trump or President-elect Joe Biden, depending on the person sharing the poem. In the end, this fool ruler will cause the great eagle  presumably the United States  to suffer and fall. The below meme circulated in early 2021:   It is unclear where this quatrain originated from or who the original poster was. Nostradamus, who was also a French physician, first published Les Prophties in 1555. It is thought that his collection of poems, which are compiled in 10 sets of verses of 100 quatrains each, contain mythological and astrological predictions for the future world. In the centuries that followed his original publication, he has remained prominent in modern popular culture, often among internet users who share fabricated predictions falsely attributed to him. Les Prophties remained prominent Nostradamus is credited with accurately predicting many historical events, according to Rare Books Digest. And though many of his poems are largely vague and could apply to a number of events, some of his predictions do come eerily close to actual events. Rare Books Digest eerily close But the meme in question does not appear to make that list. A look through The Compleat Works of Nostradamus did not reveal any mention of a jezebel or a feeble man. And though the word plague was mentioned more than 30 times in the Nostradamus text, there is no instance where it occurs alongside the same wording as in the meme. look The Compleat Works of Nostradamus reveal Furthermore, it is also important to note that the quatrains written by Nostradamus do not follow chronological order. So, while they may be broken down into what the author considered to be centuries, these do not directly translate to the century in which any prediction was anticipated to occur. Claim:  Former USAF General Dick Hawley delivered a caustic speech about "thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Speech from the former ACC commander (now retired and not restricted to being politically correct), Gen Hawley.  Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed.  You've heard them too.  Here they are: 1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative.  Say it with me now and free yourselves.  You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean, "We're perfect." Okay?  The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.  The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers." 2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it.  Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence.  However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead.  Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead.  D-E-Well, you get the idea. 3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us." For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us.  Starting in the late seventies,  under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites.  "After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate.  Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans.  Finding humans is not possible with satellites.  You have to use other humans.  When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part.  It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world.  You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys.  Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella." Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years. 4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help.  The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying.  The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power.  Mohamed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds (I'm sorry, one of the "alleged hijackers," according to CNN-they stopped using the word "terrorist," you know), is the son of a Cairo surgeon.  But you knew this, too.  In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking.  At least, that was my excuse.  It's the same today.  Take the Anti-Global-Warming (or is it World Trade? Oh-who-knows-what-the-hell-they-want demonstrators) They all charged their black outfits and plane tickets on dad's credit card(!) before driving to the airport in their SUV's. 5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians?  Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar.  I'm crushed.  I think we're all crushed. Please come back.  With a cherry on top?  Why don't they just change their names, anyway?  It's happened in the past.  Think about it.  How many Adolfs do you run into these days?  Shortly after that, I remember watching TV with my jaw on the floor as a government official actually said, "That little old grandmother from Sioux City could be carrying something." Okay, how about this: No, she couldn't.  It would never be the grandmother from Sioux City.  Is it even possible?  What are the odds?  Winning a hundred Powerball lotteries in a row? A thousand?  A million?  And now a Secret Service guy has been tossed off a plane and we're all supposed to cry about it because he's an Arab?  Didn't it have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that he filled out his forms incorrectly  three times?  And then left an Arab history book on his seat as he strolled off the plane?  And came back?  Armed?  Let's please all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically.  I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them." SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"?  I wish I had one that says, "You First.  No More Pearl Harbors." Dick Hawley Origins:  Yes, Gen. Richard E. Hawley is a real person, a United States Air Force general who served as commander of the USAF's Air Combat Command until his retirement in 1999, but no, he didn't write or deliver the speech quoted above.   This "speech" is actually a column by humorist Larry Miller which appeared in The Daily Standard Gen. Richard E. Hawley Air Combat Command The Daily Standard People have been making New Year's resolutions for a long time. Usually they're personal and last no longer than a smoke ring or one of Tom Daschle's smiles. You know the drill: "I'm going to cut down on my drinking, lose a few pounds, and read more books." Of course, by January 3rd, you get drunk, order a pizza, and buy a satellite dish.  This year, though, my resolutions won't be personal, and they won't look forward. They'll look back. Four months back. As you know, since September 11, our leaders and soldiers have done a fine job, frequently a brilliant job. (I mean, please, how about that Rumsfeld? If he were a woman, I'dWait. Come to think of it, I'd still do nothing.) I don't even care that so many of our fellow Americans have been contrary and mealy-mouthed. What makes me want to scream like an actress and throw things is this: Since the attack, I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are:  [ . . .] So here's what I resolve for the new year: To never forget our murdered brothers and sisters. To never let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."  I resolve to be more vigilant and watchful. A good warning sign that these mutts were nuts was when they started dressing their women in heavy-duty, baby-blue bubblewrap. Any man who doesn't want to glance at a woman is, by definition, already very easy to talk into killing himself. Then again, to be fair, we haven't seen their women.  To scream, "Keep going!" when everyone else says, "Stop."  I'll just cut down on my drinking next year. Hell, I really wasn't planning to, anyway. General Hawley said of the words now mistakenly attributed to him: There is a piece zooming around the internet that attributes some pretty forceful statements to me, Dick Hawley - one time fighter pilot, General, thoughtful consultant, neophyte strategist, master of the artful compromise. The words did not flow from my pen, but if the e-mails mean anything, those words are now indelibly linked to my name. So do me a favor - if you receive this, please send it on to the same people to whom you forwarded the one that I did not write.  It's not that I don't share many, if not most, of the sentiments attributed to me, but the piece is just not my style. Here's what I would have said if I'd been asked to comment on those five important issues. 1) Goodness, Evil and Relativity: There are some really good people in this world.  They volunteer to help those who need it, and ask nothing in return. There are also some really bad people in this world.  They exploit those who need help, or who have less wit or "charisma", and motivate them to join in committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against people they don't even know. Then there are the rest of us.  Average people who try each day to do no harm, to provide for their families, to do an occasional act of kindness. The evil that was perpetrated against our land on 9/11 was the product of Mullahs who see our prosperity and power as a threat to their control over the uneducated Muslim masses on whose shoulders they ride through life. And so they preach hate. They are evil. 2) Violence begets violence:  It's true.  Violence does beget violence.  But sometimes there is no alternative but to confront those who would perpetrate evil acts against us.  This is one of those times.  We are blessed to have courageous men and women willing to put their lives on the line to track down and annihilate those who have been so imbued with evil as to be beyond redemption.  But violence is not a strategy.  It is a necessary and fully justified reaction to an unimaginable threat.  But it is not a strategy.  If we are to win this war, we must defeat the Mullahs.  And to defeat the Mullahs, we must find ways to separate them from their uneducated flocks. We cannot kill all those who have been taught to hate us, nor should we wish to.  Far better to change their minds than to change their state of being. 3) The intelligence community let us down:  Well, maybe just a little.  Lots of senior and not so senior intelligence people became just as enamored of high tech gadgets as their political masters.  The protests over our evisceration of the human intelligence component of the agency were not very loud or forceful. Keeping spies on the ground is a high risk and often dirty business, and it wasn't just liberal politicians who didn't have much stomach for it. 4) Poverty is the breeding ground for terrorists:  No, it isn't; but religious extremism is.  The Mullahs fear our wealth and power because it shows that a secular society with democratic institutions and a free market economy can do a better job of taking care of its peoples' needs, both spiritual and physical, than the oppressive Islamic regimes that they aspire to lead.  The Mullahs are the problem, not poverty, but poverty does make it easier for the Mullahs to spread their evil - as do governments that tolerate and even reinforce their hateful message. 5) Profiling: We are at war here!  We are not talking about traffic stops. If we were at war with Iceland, I would expect those charged with our defense to pay very close attention to any Icelander who ventured near our shores.  In this war I expect them to pay very close attention to Muslims with ties to the places that spew hatred against us.  Random checks when there are no such obvious targets available are a good way to keep the evil ones guessing, but let's not make small children and grandmothers take their shoes off while we watch far more likely candidates walk aboard unchecked. 6) Resolutions:  a. Never forget that what happened on September the 11th of 2001 was an act of war.  b. Never sit silently by while someone tries to justify what happened on that day as an understandable reaction to U.S. policies in the Middle East or elsewhere.  c. Fly our nation's flag proudly - it represents this world's greatest hope to move beyond the pain and suffering that inflict so many across the globe. Richard E. HawleyGeneral, USAF, RetiredFormer Commander, Air Combat Command Last updated:  8 March 2008    Sources:   Miller, Larry.  "You Say You Want a Resolution."   The Daily Standard.  14 January 2002. In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). Claim:  By default, all U.S. federal income tax refunds paid in 2010 will be issued in the form of U.S. savings bonds.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2010] Please be aware that when filing your income taxes for 2009 earnings, the IRS has decided that all refunds due clients will be paid in US Savings Bonds unless you choose to "opt out". So watch carefully and find the area on the forms or inform your preparer of your intentions regarding this.  I would think that MOST PEOPLE would not want to receive savings bonds as opposed to a refund check in the event of a refund comingto them.   Origins:  Income taxes are a subject of near universal agreement: Nobody likes paying them, nearly everyone thinks they're too high, and many folks are disgruntled that they have to pay their taxes in advance (through payroll withholding) and wait until the following year for the government to refund any overage.  To most, it would be adding insult to injury if, as suggested above, the government stopped issuing income tax refunds in cash (via check or direct deposit) and instead started paying them out in the form of U.S. savings bonds (especially since savings bonds generally cannot be redeemed for their full value until the purchaser has held them for one year). However, the described refund switch isn't happening this year; someone has misinterpreted the introduction of a new option as a system-wide change to be imposed on everyone by default. In his weekly radio address of  5 September 2009, President Obama announced new initiatives for retirement savings, one of which was the following: radio We'll make it easier for people to save their federal tax refunds, which 100 million families receive. Today, if you have a retirement account, you can have your refund deposited directly into your account. With this change, we'll make it easier for those without retirement plans to save their refunds as well. You'll be able to check a box on your tax return to receive your refund as a savings bond. But taxpayer participation in the described initiative isn't a mandatory or default plan, and (for now, at least) it isn't as simple as "checking a box on your tax return." For refunds to be issued in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has implemented a program under which taxpayers may opt to receive part or all of their refunds (up to $5,000) in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds. This program is described in the "Buying Savings Bonds" section of the IRS' informational page entitled "Taxpayers Can Now Use Refunds to Buy Savings Bonds": program page This year, a taxpayer for the first time can request a portion of his refund be used to buy up to $5,000 in low-risk, liquid Treasury I Bonds, which earn interest and protect owners against inflation. The resulting bonds will be issued in the taxpayer's name. If the refund is a joint refund, the bonds will be issued in the names of both taxpayers. No beneficiary may be selected. The taxpayer need not have a TreasuryDirect account to purchase I Bonds using this option. You can buy Savings Bonds in denominations of $50, $100, $200, $500 and $1,000. You buy them at face value, meaning if you pay $50 using your refund, you get a $50 Savings Bond. In any single calendar year, you can buy up to a total of $5,000 of U.S. savings bonds of any series whether using your refund or some other method. If you buy $250 or less of Savings Bonds with your refund, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued. If the amount is over $250, then $50 Savings Bonds will be issued up to $250 and the fewest possible additional Savings Bonds will be issued for the remaining amount. Follow the instructions on Form 8888 to tell the IRS to make a direct deposit of the amount you designate to an IRA, to buy U.S. savings bonds, or to a savings account or other savings vehicle. As noted in that description, the program for receiving refunds via savings bonds is an option taxpayers can request to participate in; not a default applied to everyone except those who specifically take action to opt out of it.   Taxpayers who wish to take part in this new program must proactively indicate their desire to do so by filling out and submitting IRS Form 8888 with their returns. Form 8888 Additional changes may be coming in future years, but taxpayers filing federal income tax returns in 2010 for income earned in 2009 need not "watch carefully" to avoid receiving their refunds as savings bonds. Last updated:  26 January 2010    Liberto, Jennifer.  "Obama to Workers: We'll Help You Save."   CNNMoney.com.  5 September 2009.    Nicklaus, David.  "How to Promote Savings? The Humble Savings Bond Is Part of the Answer."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  9 September 2009.    Rosato, Donna.  "Help Consumers Save More of Their Dough."   Money.  January 2010.    Tompor, Susan.  "Put Away Debt, Put Money Into Savings."   Detroit Free Press.  7 January 2010.    Trumbull, Mark.  "Uncle Sam Wants You to Save More Money."   The Christian Science Monitor.  5 September 2009. Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman. Not news? Well, Moorhead, executive director of the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy/Texas Impact, also wrote that according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Texas once again outstripped the national poverty rate in 2014, as we have done since at least 1959. Thats 56 years--a long time to be better at poverty. We wondered. To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959  31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures. Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty. Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison: SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015) Measuring poverty Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says. Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau. An experts look Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014. But Dillon and bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein told us that comparative year-by-year figures start only in 1980. Since 1980, Dillon summed up, the Texas poverty rate has generally bounced between 15 percent and 17 percent with a few exceptions. The fact that is it so consistent means that the rate of growth in the general population is basically on par with the rate of growth in the poor population. Sometimes they dont change at the same rate though, like after the recession, where the number of poor shot up but population growth was stable. This caused the poverty rate to increase. So the poverty rate is reflecting the interplay between total population change and poor population change, the latter of which is generally more affected by fluctuations in the economy. Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted. Dillon pointed out there were times the gap between poverty in Texas and the nation narrowed, including 2014. Broadly, he wrote, the gap grew through the 1980s until about 1988, at which point it peaked at a difference of 5 percentage points. Then the gap began to narrow, he wrote, expanding and contracting every few years until 2010 when it began to close. In 2014, Texas had a poverty rate 1.6 percentage points above the national rate, Dillon said. Thats the closest we have been to the national rate since 1984, when the gap was 1.3 percentage points. Several factors, Dillon said, explain why Texas has consistently had a bigger chunk of residents in poverty than the nation on average. The state is home to a larger foreign-born population than most states and is one of a few minority-majority states in that non-Hispanic whites make up a minority of the residents, he wrote. In comparison to their numbers, minority groups in Texas tend to be overrepresented among the poor. Education level is also strongly linked to poverty status, and Texas is the near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of the adult population with a high school degree, Dillon said. Finally, Texas has a higher percentage of children than most states and child poverty has been on the rise. Today, a quarter of Texas children live below the poverty line. Dillon said the narrowing gap between the Texas and national poverty rates might be explained by the state generally growing faster than most states due both to new births and migration from other places. As long as the mix of people moving to Texas are more likely to be above the poverty line than below it, this will drive the poverty rate down. Similarly, if births to non-poor families outpace those to poor families, this will also drive the rate down, Dillon wrote. Another indicator We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400. In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent. By phone, Moorhead agreed that using a standard measure of poverty across the country is insufficient to characterize the complexity of regional economies. But the SPM is a new measure too, she said, and rates havent been calculated retroactively to cover nearly all the years included in her Texas-U.S. comparison. Our ruling Moorhead said Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959. Available poverty rates for select years through 1979 and for 1980 through 2014 back up this statement. Yet poverty rates dont appear to be available for many earlier years. Also, a new supplemental poverty measure makes a case for the same share of Texans and Americans lately living in poverty provided regional differences in housing costs are factored in. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.