Does the term 'Bar' in the 'Bar Exam' imply a covert collusion among lawyers?
One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017.
Two days into the 2020 new year, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, setting off an escalating series of events that included Iran pulling out of its 2015 nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers, threats of retaliation traded in both directions, and the Iraqi parliament voting to end the presence of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. escalating series Critics of the president's decision voiced fears that it brought the U.S. to the brink of yet another long, bloody war in the Middle East. But some of Trump's supporters pointed out that former President Barack Obama also engaged in drone warfare.  For instance, social media users widely shared a statistic that Obama ordered 542 drone strikes while president, resulting in the deaths of 3,797 people, including 542 civilians. Snopes.com readers asked us to verify the figures. Here is an example of the information and how it was being used on social media. We have cropped this Twitter user's name out for privacy reasons.Other than an apparent typo in the civilian death-toll count above, the figures being shared are based on the reporting of political scientist Micah Zenko, who in 2017 reported for the non-profit research organization Council on Foreign Relations that "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians." Zenko's figures are based on U.S. military press releases and news reports.  reported As Zenko noted, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released two reports tallying drone strikes under the Obama administration. The first reported that there were 473 strikes between January 20, 2009, and December 31, 2015, in "areas of active hostilities" that included Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The second reported that there were another 53 strikes in the same region for 2016, bringing the total to 526, a figure that doesn't include Obama's final 20 days in office in January 2017.  first second The reports provide ranges for fatalities, with 2,372 to 2,581 "combatants" killed from 2009 to 2015, and 64 to 116 civilians killed in that time frame. In 2016, one civilian was killed while the report states anywhere from 431 to 441 combatants were killed. Exact figures on total number of strikes and resulting casualties depend on the source. Independent organizations that have tracked air strikes made in the U.S.-led global war on terror generally produce figures that are higher than those produced by the U.S. government. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for example, reported there were a total of 563 air strikes authorized by Obama, "largely by drones," which hit targets in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Meanwhile, New America, a public policy think tank, estimates there were 571 drone strikes under the Obama administration in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. depend on reported estimates The drone program under Obama and the strike that killed Soleimani are not apt comparisons. The U.S. has been carrying out drone warfare in the region since the administration of George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor. Although such warfare has always been controversial, the fallout over the killing of Soleimani is the result of his status in the Iranian government. As Reuters reported, "Major General Qassem Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran. He answered only to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." His killing, per Reuters, "struck at the heart" of leadership in Tehran. reported In March 2018, Trump revoked an Obama executive order requiring an annual disclosure of civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also reported that the number of drone strikes ratcheted up during Trump's first year in office, doubling in Somalia and tripling in Yemen. revoked Zenko, Micah."Obamas Final Drone Strike Data."
Council on Foreign Relations.20 January 2017. Zenko, Micah."The (Not-So) Peaceful Transition of Power: Trumps Drone Strikes Outpace Obama."
Council on Foreign Relations.2 March 2017. Purkiss, Jessica and Jack Serle."Obamas Covert Drone War in Numbers: Ten Times More strikes than Bush."
Bureau of Investigative Journalism.17 January 2017. Reuters."Slain Soleimani was Iran's Second-in-Command."
2 Januar 2020. Purkiss, Jessica, et al."US Counter Terror Air Strikes Double in Trump's First Year."
Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 19 December 2017. When it comes to taxing businesses, the United States is leading the world, according to Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos.As he looks to unseat Democratic incumbent Robert Menendez this November, Kyrillos has refused to sign an anti-tax pledge, but maintained in an Aug. 20 interview on WOR-AM that hes looking to lower tax rates.We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, in the world, said Kyrillos, a state senator representing Monmouth County. So, Im about reducing tax rates.As far as the corporate tax rates on the books, Kyrillos claim is on the money. However, when you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.For this fact-check, were focusing on two different types of corporate tax rates: statutory and effective rates.To back up Kyrillos claim, a spokeswoman pointed to the top statutory corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent in the United States. That figure represents a combination of federal, state and local tax rates imposed by law before any tax breaks.Once Japan reduced its combined corporate tax rate in April, the U.S. rate became the highest among industrialized nations, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group.So, Kyrillos claim about a first-place finish is on target in terms of statutory rates.But the United States does not necessarily lead the world when you consider the effective tax rates paid by U.S. businesses. Due to various tax breaks, those rates are typically lower than the top statutory rate.In a September 2011 report, the Tax Foundation summarized the findings of the latest 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world. Due to different methodologies, those studies determined U.S. effective tax rates ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, according to the report.The United States did not rank first in any of those studies, but in 10 of them, U.S. effective rates ranked among the top five highest for the countries analyzed, the report states. However, the effective rate in Japan will likely drop, possibly moving the United States to the top spot in future studies.Apart from that Tax Foundation report, its worth noting that a separate analysis found thirty Fortune 500 companies, including General Electric, didnt pay any federal corporate income taxes over the 2008-2010 period. That study was done by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.So, whats the better measure -- statutory or effective rates?According to Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge, statutory rates make for better comparisons. Effective rates are unpredictable and vary across different industries, but the statutory rates are fixed, Hodge told us. (The effective tax rate) will differ from industry to industry and business to business, whereas the list price is what it is and everyone starts at that point, Hodge said.But Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, argued that effective tax rates provide the best measure of comparison for overall tax burdens. Aparna Mathur, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, added in an e-mail that both are equally valid measures of looking at the burden of the corporate income tax.Our rulingIn a radio interview, Kyrillos claimed, We've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world.Its accurate that, at 39.2 percent, the United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate among industrialized nations. But with various tax breaks, U.S. effective corporate tax rates range anywhere from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, studies show.Those effective tax rates may not land in first place, but theyre still among the highest in the world.We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Claim:  Food tasters work on behalf of U.S. presidents. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2013] Does President Obama have a food taster?  If so, is that unique to him, or is it standard policy?   Origins:  Food tasters are a concept long associated with important personages such as political leaders and business tycoons.  The most common image of a food taster is someone who serves as a guinea pig for his  employer, sampling meals before they are served to ensure that no one has tampered with them (particularly by introducing poison or some other harmful substance).  Food tasters can serve other functions, however, such as ensuring that foods do not include ingredients that, although ordinarily innocuous, might nonetheless pose a problem for a particular diner, such as wine used in the preparation of a dish intended for someone who is abstaining from alcohol, or an ingredient that a person with specific food allergies might have a sensitivity to.  Or a taster may simply function as someone who is intimately familiar with the preferences of his employer and serves to ensure that food is prepared to the latter's culinary satisfaction. Whether food tasters are employed on behalf of U.S. presidents when they're away from the White House is a subject that the Secret Service refrains from officially commenting on, but it's something of an open secret that they are: The US Secret Service has always refused to confirm that US presidents travel with a food "taster," in line with their policy of discretion on all security related issues. But it is known the Service goes to great lengths to scrutinise the source and the preparation of food served to US presidents whenever they eat out of the White House to ensure it is not tampered with. Nonetheless, a March 2013 report about President Obama's supposedly declining to partake of the main course during a lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill because his taster was not present apparently took many readers by surprise: report "Unfortunately, you know, the president can't," said [Maine Senator Susan] Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting. "He looked longingly at it," Collins continued. "He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting." This is a subject the press has covered before, though.  When the Obamas visited France to mark the 65th anniversary of D-Day in June 2009, for example, the Agence France Presse reported: A US "taster" tested the food being dished up to President Barack Obama at a dinner in a French restaurant, a waiter said. "They have someone who tastes the dishes," said waiter Gabriel de Carvalho from the "La Fontaine de Mars" restaurant where Obama and his family turned up for dinner. "It wasn't very pleasant for the cooks at first, but the person was very nice and was relaxed, so it all went well," he said on the Itele news channel. The Obama Foodorama blog also noted of a September 2012 fundraiser in Tampa that: Obama Foodorama President Obama hailed Food Network star and celebrity chef Tyler Florence's menu as "outstanding" at a $20,000/plate dinner fundraiser held in the backyard of a mansion owned by a billionaire's daughter in the Palma Ceia neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.  Host of the show The Great Food Truck Race, Florence created a complicated six-course menu that included chicken fried quail, crispy fried pork belly, and a squash and quail egg ravioli.  The chef and his team  including wife Tolan Florence and pastry chef Matt Masera  tweeted comments, the menu and photos from behind the scenes, revealing that the President was accompanied at the event by a special food taster, identified as a White House chef. Mentions of presidential food tasters have also turned up in the media during earlier administrations, such as a New York Times account of President George W. Bush's inaugural lunch in January 2001: The president's tasters were on the job by 6 a.m., not just to make certain no one was trying to poison him, but to make sure the mushrooms that were to decorate the tenderloin of beef at the inaugural lunch for teetotaler George W. Bush were not cooked in wine. The tasters, Navy mess specialists who travel around the world with the president, watched the preparations in a makeshift kitchen just off Statuary Hall in the Capitol. [Correction: Although the president does not drink alcohol, his diet does not exclude foods prepared with it. A food taster who made sure on Jan. 20 that mushrooms for the meal were not cooked in wine had been told mistakenly that the president avoided alcohol in all foods.] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on restaurant screening efforts by a food taster when President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major visited that city in February 1994: As their staffs scrambled to assemble a five-hour whiz through Pittsburgh, President Clinton and British Prime Minister John Major sent their appetites ahead of them. Planning went on with a team of advance schedulers and security experts fanning out to sites around the region for possible places for Major and Clinton to tour. The search for the right restaurant took special talents  a security man was sent to check out the food at area restaurants. "The guy appeared to be a professional food taster because he weighed about 400 pounds," said Tom Pastorius, owner of the Allegheny Brewery and Pub on the North Side, where a government agent walked in and announced he'd been ordered to check out the food for some very important potential diners. Food tasters were also mentioned in a New York Daily News article on White House perks published during the administration of George H.W. Bush in 1992: Among the fringe benefits available to senior White House aides are budget-priced meals in the exclusive, Navy-run White House mess, and use of White House tennis courts and the presidential box at the Kennedy Center. A select few on the senior staff can pump iron in the Secret Service gym. The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries and White House staff receive a wide range of perks. President Bush gets the most, of course: rent-free housing in the Executive Mansion, free travel on luxurious helicopters, airplanes and armored limousines, a free weekend hideaway at Camp David, Md., and free medical care. He also has a tennis court, workout room, horseshoe pit, swimming pool, theater, bowling alley, extraordinarily well-kept gardens and a staff of more than 90 maids, butlers, carpenters, florists, electricians and cooks  and a food taster. Joe Murray also touched on the subject in a 1988 article for the Cox News Service: Everybody probably knew it but me, that Ronald Reagan has a food taster. How I found out was by reading all the way through the news story about the President suffering nausea, vomiting and related stomach problems. This was the night before his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita, which, I suppose, is neither here nor there. Hardly anything I read surprises me much anymore. But the last paragraph was the exception: "As a security measure, Reagan's food is routinely tasted by an aide. (White House spokesman) Fitzwater said he did not know if the tester had also become ill." Last updated:  17 March 2013    Murray, Joe.  "Let's Consider This Presidential Food Taster Thing."   The [Daytona Beach] News-Journal.  26 January 1988  (p. A4).    Roddy, Dennis B.  "Food Taster Precedes Clinton and Major."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  26 February 1994  (p. A1).    Agence France Presse.  "President Obama's French Food Tested by 'Taster.'"   7 June 2009.    [New York] Daily News.  "Congress, Losing Perks, Takes Long Look at Others'."   31 March 1992. Dan Patrick framed his case for ordering Texas schools to shift money toward higher teacher salaries by suggesting that less than a third of school spending currently reaches teacher pocketbooks. The Republican lieutenant governor,addressing reportersbefore the July 2017 start of a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, said: Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers. By email, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia offered as the basis of Patricks claim astate publicationpresenting statistics such as student enrollment. We did not spot information in the document speaking to what Patrick said. Texas Education Agency figures But when we reached out to the Texas Education Agency, spokeswoman Lauren Callahan responded by pointing out state-posted figures for the 2015-16 school year, the latest year of audited spending totals. That year, according to the agency, state governmentrecorded receipts of $58,796,907,294related to public schools from state, local, federal and other revenue sources. The same year,according toanother agency web page, 347,328 teachers were paid combined base salaries of $18,023,516,741, averaging $51,892. That $18 billion breaks out to 31 percent of the nearly $59 billion in total receipts. Some more money went to teachers, though, in nearly $1 million in stipends such as whats paid to teachers that oversee extracurricular activities, Callahan told us. The resulting total teacher compensation, $19,005,561,634, divides out to 32 percent of the total education receipts. Additional money goes into other salaries. According to the agency, Texas schools in 2015-16 paid more than $24 billion to 68,699 teacher support staff  broken out by TEA into more than 20 job categories including counselors, school nurses and athletic trainers  plus 237,460 administrative, professional, paraprofessional and auxiliary staff  with spending on all employee salaries accounting for more than 70 percent of school-related receipts. Keep in mind, though, Patrick singled out the share of all spending solely devoted to teacher pay. School district advocates When we asked finance experts who advocate for school districts if the equation based on TEA data holds up, we heard back that the math works, but the total-spending figure folds in spending deserving of an asterisk. In emails,Joe Wisnoski, a former TEA finance administrator who advises and lobbies for school districts, andTom Canbyof the Texas Association of School Business Officials each suggested its unfair to compare the $18 billion spent on teacher salaries to total receipts, which count money that doesnt play into school employee salaries, each expert wrote. Wisnoski suggested its more appropriate to compare spending on teacher salaries to operating expenditures, which means not judging the teacher salaries against any money districts raise in bond proceeds or whats spent on capital projects such as buildings or to pay off debt. Wisnoski noted that none of those funding streams would be available to could be diverted to salaries anyway. According to the TEAs posted figures for 2015-16, 2015-16 all funds operating expenditures for schools totaled nearly $49.5 billion --of which the spending on teacher salaries accounted for 36.4 percent, Wisnoski said and we confirmed. There are lots of ways to include or exclude things in the world of school district finances, Wisnoski said, and what is most appropriate somewhat depends on the person making the point and the specific point being made. Canby called the equation that got us to 32 percent of all spending going to teacher salaries a misleading apples divided by oranges calculation. He said he would gauge the share of spending on teacher salaries, starting from 2016actual expenditure totalshe said he fetched from the statesPublic Education Information Management System. Those figures suggest that teacher salaries cost $19,131,375,774 with benefits adding $3,429,356,293. The resulting $22,560,732,067 accounted for 47.7 percent of $47,303,105,584 in operating expenditures statewide, Canby noted. Canby also emailed us a web link to a July 2017commentaryby TASBOs executive director, Tracy Ginsburg, stating that the group had been unable to verify numbers aired by Patrick indicating that of $163,000 spent per classroom, $52,000 is paid to classroom teachers. Ginsburg encouraged readers to consider a June 2017reportby Moak, Casey & Associates, the lobbying and consulting firm whose associates include Wisnoski. That report says that in 2015-16, Texas school employee salaries and benefits absorbed 79 percent of $46.4 billion spent on basic educational costs. The share of that spending on teacher salaries alone doesnt appear in the report, which states that instruction accounted for 61 percent of basic costs, taking into account some 333,000 teachers plus 63,700 education aides. The instruction entry in the report says: Also included here are the salaries and benefits costs of 4,500 librarians as well as the books and other materials that can be found in Texas school libraries. The cost of instructional materials and staff development are also included in this category as instructional costs. Our ruling Patrick said: Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers. This percentage, we found, aligns with the simple comparison of total teacher salaries to all funds spent on public schools. But its worth clarifying that not all funds can be diverted to teacher salaries. You could also say that close to half of available school spending in 2015-16 went to teacher salaries. We rate the statement 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. A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities:  However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to  and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that. Claim:  A Marathon service station owner in Pontiac, Illinois, refused to do business with U.S. soldiers. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] THIS HAPPENED IN PONTIAC, IL I have a good friend who used to ride the van with me to work. Her brother is a friend and is in the military over in Bagdad. I've always told her she's my hero and I wish I had a tiny bit of her nerve. Read what she did last night (below)...and I can honestly see her doing this. She doesn't take cr@p off anyone. Feel free to pass this on...maybe this guy's business will go under!  As some of you may know the Marathon gas station in front of what use to be Underdogs and across from the Pawn shop (in Pontiac) is owned by a Pakistani. I've heard some rumors the last 6 months or so that a couple of our soldiers have stopped in, dressed in fatigues, after drill and he would not allow them to purchase anything in the store. They were asked to leave and told their business is not wanted or needed. Apparently this happened again on Sunday. You don't know how much of what you hear is actually true so I stopped in last night on the way to the B & G club. I don't really know why, I'm not sure what I thought I was going to say or do but I had to check this guy out. Luckily he was working. I took my water up to the counter and waited while he played with the tape roll on the machine. I had my wallet out so I could pay him when he was done.. Right there in my wallet was my standard military picture of my brother in front of the flag (most of you know he is serving outside Baghdad right now). He finished what he was working on and was extremely friendly to me as he rang up the water. I placed my wallet on the table and pointed to my brother and asked what he would do if he came in for a water (I couldn't help myself). As uncomfortable as it was with only the two of us in that small store he told me in what was a poor attempt of English that "I give no water, no nothing to him, he may leave", his attitude completely changed. I was taken back, I couldn't believe what just happened. I closed my wallet and left my water on the counter and told him that if he must leave then I must leave too. I could not believe it. I sat in my car and didn't know whether to laugh at him or cry.  I guess the reason I'm telling you this is so you can make a decision on whether or not to give him your business. I guess that is why it's America, he is able to come to this country, own a small business taxfree, and refuse business to anyone he wants. It is also our right to stop every person we know from EVER going there again and running his sorry a** out of town. Origins:  The years since the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003 have brought us a panoply of (false) rumors about business owners and employees in the U.S. who have supposedly openly celebrated terrorist attacks on America and/or refused to do business with U.S. servicemen. Most often the businesses targeted by such rumors are gas stations, convenience stores, or other small shops, since those types of businesses are frequently owned, operated, or staffed by immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, or by persons mistakenly assumed by Americans to be Mid-East immigrants).  (See, for example, "The Hole in the Middle," "This Bud's Not for You," "Leatherneck Cold Shouldered," "The Shunned Serviceman" and "Shell Game.") The Hole in the Middle This Bud's Not for You Leatherneck Cold Shouldered The Shunned Serviceman Shell Game The  item quoted at the head of this page began circulating in February 2006 and fits into this same genre of rumor type (i.e., the shunning of U.S. servicemen by Arab/Muslim business owners) by claiming that the "Pakistani" owner of a service station and convenience mart  in Pontiac, Illinois, recently refused to sell goods to U.S. servicemen, brusquely sending the soldiers away empty-handed, as well as openly proclaiming to a civilian customer (one whose money he would readily accept) that he would similarly decline to do business with her serviceman brother.  The account specifically identifies a Marathon gas station at 922 W. Custer Avenue in Pontiac, and as is typical of such accounts, it errs in its details and has proved to be unverifiable.  The Marathon service station referred to has been owned since November 2003 by Satvinder Singh, who wasn't present on the day of the alleged incident, and who is neither a native of Pakistan nor a citizen of that country. (He's a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India and has been a resident of the U.S. since 1989.) Mr. Singh himself denies that any such incident took place: Nothing in that e-mail is true. I respect everybody. I wouldn't refuse service to anyone. I am so mad because this is my business. I don't want to lose any of my business. All people are welcome at my store. I don't know why this happened. Mr. Singh's wife, Rupinder Kaur (also a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in India), elaborated for the Pontiac Daily Leader:  Kaur pointed out that neither she nor her husband is Muslim, and said they appreciate the service of members of the Armed Forces. "They go there, they don't know if they're going to come back," she said of members of the military serving in places like Iraq. "My blessings will go always for them. We are depending upon them. They're fighting for us. They're saving us, and why would we want to do such a thing like don't serve them." She said neither she nor her husband was involved in politics. "All customers are welcome. We will never discriminate against anybody," Kaur said. "All the customers, to me, are angels ... We respect all of our customers." The only persons they won't sell to, she added, are minors trying to illegally buy cigarettes or alcohol. "We card them, and we card them hard, because we don't want them to get into trouble." Kaur said that she and her husband are just "normal people" who are trying to make a success of their business, Super Petroleum. "We invested in Pontiac knowing that Pontiac is a good community," she said, noting that the business employs two local persons, generates property and other taxes, and contributes to the city's economy. The station was one of two Pontiac businesses robbed on the same day in December, and one of the two American flags Singh put up was stolen. Moreover, attempts by the Central Illinois Pantagraph to verify any element of the account have proved fruitless: The Pantagraph has been unable to find anyone with a firsthand account of the incidents described in the e-mail, several versions of which have circulated widely throughout Central Illinois. The woman whose name appears as the sender of the e-mail learned of the e-mail on Wednesday. When The Pantagraph contacted her Thursday evening, she declined to comment. Members of the Pontiac National Guard have been unable to find any soldiers within their unit who have experienced such discrimination. "To my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone in the store," National Guard public information officer Capt. Bud Roberts said. "It is not an issue. We don't dwell on rumors." The Livingston County Veterans Assistance Commission also has been unable to confirm information in the e-mail. Other evidence attests to the falsity of the claim: Singh said he spends very little time in the store and didn't work Sunday, when the incident is said to have occurred. "He is one of the nicest people you will ever meet," said Alec Durousseau, who works evenings at the station. "Everything in that e-mail is untrue. It's a complete lie." Tory Zarwell, another employee, and Durousseau said they have never seen Singh express anti-American feelings. They both pointed out an American flag flies in front of the station. Unfortunately, the result of the opprobrious e-mail  whether motivated by racism or some other form of spite  has been to cause undeserved harm to the reputation of the couple's business: The matter of the e-mails was brought to the owners' attention Wednesday evening by the employee who had been getting phone calls, including a caller who asked if he would be welcome if he came to the station because he had "heard" that someone had been refused service. Someone brought a printout of the e-mail to the station to find out if it were true.  On Thursday, every customer was asking about the Internet allegations about refusal to sell to soldiers in uniform. [Kaur] and her husband told their two employees to tell everyone who asked that the allegations were not true. Last updated:  27 February 2006    Sources:   Faddoul, John.  "Internet E-Mail Charges False, Business Owners Say."   The [Pontiac] Daily Leader.  24 February 2006.    Walters, Karen.  "Station Owner Taken Aback by Rumor Spread in E-Mail."   The [Bloomington-Normal] Pantagraph.  25 February 2006. Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.  Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. Taxes have been a hot topic in the political world lately. President Donald Trump has been calling for reduction of corporate taxes. This is something he talked about when visiting Missouri in August. However, income tax is a hot button topic in Missouri as well. State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, boasted on Twitter that a law he helped pass would be the first cut to Missouri income tax in over a century. The bill that I carried cutting MOs income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018, the senator tweeted on Aug. 30, 2017, with the hashtag moleg and tagging Missouri State Treasurer Eric Schmitt. Over a century? This seemed a little bit out there. When Koenigs office did not answer our inquiry, we started digging for ourselves. Koenig was referring to Senate Bill 509 from 2014. Koenig was the House handler for the bill, as a state representative at the time. What does the now law actually do to income tax though? Simply put, income tax rates will decrease by a tenth of a percent every year until the top tax rate is a half of a percent lower, or 5.5 percent instead of the current 6 percent. There will also be an increase in income tax deductibles for business income until it reaches 25 percent. To trigger the start of the law, the states gross income had to exceed income in one of the three previous years by $150 million. That happened in the last fiscal year, so now the bill will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. The prospect of decreasing income tax is appealing for taxpayers, but is this really the first time it is happening in over a century? We talked to Anne Rottman, the library administrator at the Missouri Legislative Library, about the last time Missouri saw a reduction in income taxes. I dont think there ever has been a cut, she said. It turns out, shes right. Missouri income tax was established in 1917. This tax was for a half of a percent annually on individuals income. Income tax saw revisions throughout the years. Graduated tax brackets were created in 1939 and have not been changed since 1972. The limit for deduction for federal income taxes was created in 1993. There were various other revisions and adjustments as well. However, none of these were decreases in the tax levied. For a century, tax law has been growing into what income tax looks like today. Why has there always been an increase and never a decrease? No idea why this approach took so long, said Joseph Haslag, an economics professor at MU. Others seem to be stumped as well. The half-percentage reduction of the tax rate per year gives the state legislature some time to adjust to having less revenue for the budget. Meanwhile, theres a more immediate impact for individuals: Tax brackets will now be adjusted annually based on percent increase in inflation. However, when it comes to the economy overall, it isnt as exciting as it sounds, Haslag said. For a revenue-test state like Missouri, the tax cut reduction will have small, very small, positive effect on Missouris economic growth, Haslag said. And while Koenig is correct that the states income rate has never decreased, its important to note that the legislature has enacted many income tax deductions that have the same effect of lowering someones state income tax bill. Beginning in 2016, for example, 100 percent of a military pension income became exempt from Missouri state tax. The state also created a new deduction for people from Missouri who relocated a business to Missouri. Koenig said that Senate Bill 509 would cut Missouri income tax for the first time in over 100 years. The truth of the matter is Missouri income tax has never been cut. Income tax laws were put in place in 1917. This was 100 years ago exactly. Its not over 100 years, but Koenig was pretty close. Its worth noting, however, that Missouri has created a long list of deductions that could reduce a persons state income tax bill without having to decrease the overall tax rate. Koenigs statement is accurate but needs that clarifying information. That meets our definition of Mostly True. A 46-year-old wealthy investment manager in Kentucky is mounting a Republican primary challenge to the states senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Matt Bevin comes from the tea party wing of the GOP. Early polls suggest Bevin has a ways to go before he could unseat McConnell, but Kentucky voters sent libertarian favorite Sen. Rand Paul to Washington, and Bevin has the money to get his message to party activists. The two candidates have begun trading attack ads. The latest from Bevin ties McConnell to the financial rescue measures passed by Congress as the economy headed into a tailspin in 2008. Heres the key text fromBevins ad: Announcer: After pushing the Wall Street bailout through the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell bragged (video clip of McConnell) This has been the Senate at its finest. Announcer: And what are fact-checkers saying about Mudslinging Mitchs latest attacks on conservative Matt Bevin? Misleading (image from Washington Post) Doesnt add up (image from local Fox news) Like Obama campaign attacks (image from Washington Post) After 30 years in Washington, voting for one bailout after another, slinging mud is all Sen. McConnell has left. The ad plays to antigovernment sentiment among people who see Washingtons multibillion dollar intervention in 2008 as a gross overreach of public power and a favor to the financial elite. We will examine this specific claim the ad makes to link McConnell to specific actions. Did McConnell push the bailout, formally known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, through the Senate? To answer that, we have to go back to September and October 2008. As the housing market bubble burst, the web of investments that bound just about every financial player to each other threatened a global freeze on lending. On Sept. 29, 2008, three days before the Senate vote on TARP, two leading voices from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, described the situation. In The bailout package: Vital and acceptable, Edwin Meese, President Ronald Reagans attorney general, and Stuart Butler wrote: Some key parts of the credit market are on the verge of gridlock, resulting not just in the collapse of major financial institutions but also in credit disruption that is severely weakening the long-term prospects of non-financial companies. And while this is currently most visible in Wall Street and in the financial sector, it is only a matter of time before the fallout hits Main Street, with potentially devastating economic effects for typical American households. President George W. Bush was pressing for passage of a $700 billion bailout. So were GOP presidential nominee John McCain and the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. In late September, an effort to get a bill through the House of Representatives had just failed. The action shifted to the Senate where McConnell played a key role in negotiations. In afloor speechright before the Senate voted, McConnell took credit for the package and urged his fellow Republicans to approve the emergency intervention. After extensive consultation between the majority leader and myself and the leaders in both parties here in the Senate, we believe we have crafted a way to go forward and to get us back on track, McConnell said. This is the only way to get the right kind of solution for the American people. The Senatepassed the TARPon a vote of 74 to 25, with 40 Democrats, one independent and 33 Republicans including McConnell voting in favor. Nine Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against it. On the night the bill passed, McConnell joined Republicans and Democrats in a quickpress conferenceto mark the moment. This has been the Senate at its finest, McConnell said. In the years that Ive been here, I cant recall a single time, where in this close proximity to an election, both sides have risen above the temptation to engage in partisan game playing if you will, to address an issue of great magnitude. We should note that part of the compromise that produced TARP included a provision to release the money in two installments. When a vote came for the second infusion of cash, in January 2009,McConnell joined 32 Republicansand nine Democrats in a failed effort to oppose it. McConnell said he voted for the first installment on the condition that it be used to prevent a systemic economic collapse but didn't like that part of it was used to help the auto industry. The current (Bush) administration used these funds for the auto industry, a move that I opposed. Now Congressional Democrats are urging more of the same, McConnell said in astatement. The American people still don't have assurances that this money will not be wasted or misused to play favorites. According to arecent Treasury report, of the $420.61 billion dollars spent under TARP including the governments stake in the insurer American International Group, $420.49 billion has been returned to the government. Our ruling Bevin said that McConnell pushed the Wall Street bailout through the Senate. The record shows that McConnell actively supported emergency government intervention in the financial markets and spoke openly of playing a key role in crafting compromise legislation. However, to say that he pushed the bill through the Senate downplays that other political leaders, including the Republican president and the partys presidential nominee, also pressed to get the measure passed. The ad also ignores that in January 2009, there was a second bailout funding vote and on that one, McConnell voted no. Still, McConnell worked hard to get the initial bailout through the Senate. We rate the claim Mostly True.