The Unexpected Inheritance
Legend:  Two men traveling together check into a country inn run by a relatively young widow.  One of the men ends up spending the night with the widow, and to avoid any future entanglements he deceptively gives the widow his partner's name before departing the next morning.  The man never tells his partner about the incident, and a year later the partner receives an unexpected letter from a lawyer, informing him that the widow has died and left him the inn and a sizeable chunk of money in her will, in remembrance of the wonderful night of pleasure he gave her. Example:  [N Dhuibhne, 1983] Two men, John and Mick, went to Kilkenny for the day.  Evening came and as they were enjoying themselves they decided they would put off the journey back to Dublin till the following day.  They proposed to stay the night in the pleasant hotel they were in, which belonged to an attractive widow whom they were getting to know.  They spent an enjoyable evening in the bar and made their way to their separate rooms.  However, when all was quiet, Mick made his way to the widow's room and would have been seen, if there were anyone to see him, returning to his room in the early morning.  When they were leaving the widow called Mick aside.  "Now I know," says she, "that you have put your names in the register, but I just want to be sure who's who," taking out a notebook and pen.  Mick, a quick thinker, gave John's name and address. Mick had forgotten all about Kilkenny until, nine months later, he had a telephone call from John, who seemed to be highly excited. "Hello! Hello! Is that Mick? Listen, do you remember that outing we had to Kilkenny?  Hello! To Kilkenny, yes. Well, I don't know what to make of it. I've had a letter from a Kilkenny solicitor.  Do you remember that nice widow whose hotel we stayed in? Well, the solicitor says she has died and left me the hotel and a lot of money as well.  I don't understand it." Origins:  As folklorist Jan Brunvand points out in The Choking Doberman, "fantasies of unlimited sex and of sexual favors granted with no strings attached" are often accompanied by twists of fate or poetic justice in modern legends.  In this tale, the two elements blend neatly: a man needlessly lies about his identity to a woman he sleeps with in order to avoid possible future entanglements; as a result, his friend, not he, reaps the unexpected rewards. As for how old this legend is, its plot had been used so often by aspiring writers that it merited inclusion in a 1946 round-up of abused storylines:  [Young, 1946] An attractive young fellow goes to Atlantic City, for a holiday. He meets a charming girl from Baltimore, and has an affair with her. He does not give her his right name  instead, he gives her the name and address of one of his friends in New York City. When he leaves, the girl is in love with him, but to him the girl is just another girl. And he never, of course, hears from her. The girl returns to Baltimore. A short time later, she dies  and leaves a large estate to the villain's friend. It also appeared the previous year in a humor collection: [Cert, 1945] Two friends motored home from a fishing trip in Maine. On a lonely country road they encountered engine trouble. Who answered their knock at the nearest farmhouse? Right! The farmer's beautiful daughter. She gave them dinner and let them stay overnight. Six months later one of the friends received an ominous-looking legal document. A frown disappeared as he read it, and then he phoned his fishing companion. "I say, Tom," he said. "Did you by any chance spend a little time with that beautiful farm girl the night our car broke down?" "Why, yes," answered Tom sheepishly. "And did you, in a moment of Machiavellian cunning, give her my name and address?" "Now, don't get sore about that," broke in Tom. "Where's your sense of humor?" "Oh, I'm not a bit sore," his friend assured him. "I just thought you'd like to know I heard from her lawyer. She died last week and left me the farm and $12,000 in cash." Last updated:  9 July 2007    Sources:  Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Choking Doberman.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1984.   ISBN 0-393-30321-7   (p. 133). The Choking Doberman   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Mexican Pet.  New York: W. W. Norton, 1986.   ISBN 0-393-30542-2   (pp. 127-128). The Mexican Pet   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (p. 88). Too Good To Be    Cerf, Bennett.  Laughing Stock.  New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1945  (pp.179-80).   N Dhuibhne, ils.  "Dublin Modern Legends: Intermediate Type List and Examples."  Baloideas: The Journal of the Folklore of Ireland Society. Vol. 5; 1983  (pp. 55-70).   O'Brien, Edna.  "Hers."  The New York Times.  26 September 1985  (p. C2).   Young, James.  101 Plots Used and Abused.  Boston: The Writer, Inc., 1946  (p. 20)    Reader's Digest.   "Laughter: The Best Medicine"  August 1989  (p. 70).   Also told in:  Fiery, Ann.  The Complete and Totally  Book of Urban Legends.   Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001.  ISBN 0-7624-107404  (pp. 98-102). The Complete and Totally  Book of Urban Legends   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 122). The Big Book of Urban Legends
The issue doesn't generate many headlines, but proposed changes in trucking's Hours-of-Service regulations have stirred hot controversy in the industry.When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the economic impact of the changes, the title alone hinted at some of the issues involved: The Price of Uncertainty: How Much Could DOT's Proposed Billion Dollar Service Rule Cost Consumers This Holiday Season?The Hours-of-Service regulations set limits for when and how long commercial motor vehicle operators may drive. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which developed the rules, says they were based on an exhaustive review of research on the science on driver alertness and working hours, and strike the crucial balance between safety and economic vitality.The committee chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio's 4th District, stressed how widely the regulations would be felt: The vast majority of all retailers, and 80 percent of all U.S. communities, depend solely on trucks to deliver and supply the products sold in stores or ordered on-line, he said.That caught the interest of PolitiFact Ohio. We asked Jordan's office for more information.Jordans press secretary, Meghan Snyder, said the 80 percent figure came from the American Trucking Associations, which cited the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide.Darrin Roth, director of highway operations for the American Trucking Associations, confirmed that. He said his group had found the number of communities served by railroads -- 18.3 percent -- and did the inverse.He sent us the spreadsheet from atlas publisher Rand McNally showing state-by-state figures for rail service.It had the 18.3 percent figure. It also showed a slightly smaller percentage for Ohio, where 627 communities of a total 3,516 (or 17.8 percent) were shown having rail service.We found that puzzling for another reason. Census data on the website of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted show Ohio with 247 cities, 691 villages and 1,308 townships, for a total of 2,246 divisions.That's 1,270 fewer than the number of communities cited by Rand McNally. Where did they get their figure?Rand McNally's media relations department told us that they have not produced the Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide in many years, so we can't query the database any longer to specifically explain the difference in Ohio.In fact, the spreadsheet the American Trucking Associations provided lists its data source as from May 2000.The atlas makers mapping specialists provided this explanation about the communities: Rand McNally included unincorporated places into the count which would make our number higher. Rand McNally had its own criteria for smaller populated places that would differ from the Census. Over the last decade that we produced the Commercial Atlas, Rand McNally continually analyzed and removed some of these smaller populated places year after year as population decreased from these older places or they went out of existence. These sometimes included rail yards, postal facilities, parks, etc., with small populations around them. In some portions of the country, this could result in significant differences between the Census reporting of 'community' and ours.In other words, city neighborhoods and rural crossings that are not distinct governmental entities might have been counted as communities. And while an area like Greater Cleveland most definitely has rail service, not all of the area's hundreds of neighborhoods and suburbs do.Jordan's statement originates with a credible source -- Rand McNally. And the cited data backs his claim that 80 percent of all U.S. communities depend solely on trucks to deliver and supply the products sold in stores or ordered online.But it also should be noted that Rand McNally hasnt produced the Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide in many years, and it is that data that the American Trucking Associations used to generate the figure of 80 percent. Thats a piece of information that provides clarification.On the Truth-O-Meter, Jordans claim rates as Mostly True. Claim:  70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:  1. John F. Kennedy died there in 19632. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after3. Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day  every day) A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.' Crikey, that's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas. According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million. The average patient in Parkland's maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE. The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child  her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries werefree and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.) How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects? Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the U.S. illegally  now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a U.S. citizen.) These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable. Because these women are illegal immigrants they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate  identification  no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income  an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word. My husband is a pilot for the United States Navy (yes, he fought in Iraq) and while the health care is good, we Navy wives don't get any of these perks! Car seats? Diapers? Not so much. So my question is this: Does our public medical care system treat illegal immigrants better than American citizens? Yes it does! As I mentioned, the care I have received is perfectly adequate but it's bare bones, meat and potato medical care  not top of line. Their (the illegals) medical care is free  simply because they are illegal immigrants? Once again, there is no way to verify their income. Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.) There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County. So the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this? As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her. In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement. Origins:  Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital is familiar even to many non-Texans as the site where both President John F. Kennedy and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was himself shot by Jack Ruby), were transported for emergency life-saving procedures in November 1963. Now, in 2006, Parkland Memorial is well known for its maternity program, which includes nine prenatal clinics and employs 72 doctors training to  become obstetricians-gynecologists and 45 nurse-midwives. According to the Dallas Morning News, in 2005 Parkland Memorial staff delivered 15,590 babies, an average of more than 42 infants per day. In a pair of June 2006 articles, the Morning News reported that a recent patient survey indicated 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants (while a similar New York Times article pegged the yearly tally for 2005 as "at least 56%").  The hospital spent $70.7 million delivering babies born there in 2004, with taxpayers covering about 40% of the costs ($31.3 million) directly, and federal and state funds (primarily Medicaid) making up the remainder.  Because of large payments from the Medicaid system, Parkland still ended 2004 with a $7.9 million surplus in obstetrics. A recent hospital analysis concluded that the average maternity ward patient at Parkland is a 25-year-old, married Hispanic woman giving birth to her second child.  The Parkland staff does not ask maternity patients whether they are illegal immigrants, so the preponderance of illegal aliens among this group has to be inferred through other means.)  (Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act [EMTALA], hospitals are obligated to provide care to pregnant women in need of emergency help, and those that fail to do so are subject to fines of up to $50,000 per violation and exclusion from Medicare and state health care programs.)  EMTALA Parkland's policies contrast with those of the public hospital system in neighboring Tarrant County: Uninsured Hispanic immigrants with uncertain immigration status have flocked in recent years to public hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards in Texas, California and other border states. Their care has swelled costs for struggling hospitals and increased the health care bills that fall to states and counties, giving ammunition to opponents of illegal immigration who complain of undue burdens on local taxpayers.  As a result, health care has become one of the sorest issues in the border states' debate over illegal immigration. Facing harsh criticism from residents, public hospitals are confronted with an uneasy decision: demand immigration documents from patients and deny subsidized care to those who lack them, or follow the public health principle of providing basic care to anyone who needs it.  In Texas, two of the biggest public hospitals chose differently.  The Parkland Health and Hospital System, which serves Dallas County, offers low-cost care to low-income residents with no questions asked about immigration status.  "I don't want my doctors and nurses to be immigration agents," said Dr. Ron J. Anderson, the president of Parkland. "We decided that these are folks living in our community and we needed to render the care." In Fort Worth, in neighboring Tarrant County, JPS Health Network requires foreign-born patients to show legal immigration documents to receive financial assistance in nonemergencies, like elective surgery and the treatment of routine or chronic illnesses. Executives said that their first responsibility was to legal residents, but that they were uncomfortable about having to make such distinctions. Administrators from both hospital systems indicated that some of the common assumptions made about immigrants who seek medical care at those facilities (and at other Texas hospitals) are misconceptions: While Texas border hospitals often get "anchor babies"  children of Mexican women who dart across the border to give birth to an American citizen  most illegal immigrants who go to major hospitals in Texas can show that they have been living here for years, said Ernie Schmid, policy director at the Texas Hospital Association. Many immigrant families have mixed status; often a patient with no documents has a spouse or children who are legal.  Most immigrant patients have jobs and pay taxes, through paycheck deductions or property taxes included in their rent, administrators at the Dallas and Fort Worth hospitals said. At both institutions, they have a better record of paying their bills than low-income Americans do, the administrators said.  The largest group of illegal immigrant patients is pregnant women, hospital figures show. Contrary to popular belief here, their care is not paid for through local taxes. Under a 2002 amendment to federal regulations, the births are covered by federal taxes through Medicaid because their children automatically become American citizens.  These cases are not affected by new regulations that went into effect on July 1 [2006] requiring Medicaid patients to provide proof of citizenship, Texas health officials said. They said they believed that only small numbers of illegal immigrants had received other Medicaid benefits.    Last updated:  25 August 2015     Sources:   Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Is Brimming with Babies."   Dallas Morning News.  11 June 2006.    Jacobsen, Sherry.  "Parkland Will Treat All Moms-to-Be."   Dallas Morning News.  12 June 2006.    Preston, Julia.  "Texas Hospitals' Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration."   The New York Times.  18 July 2006  (p. A1). Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while stumping for his wife in Los Angeles this week: Americas mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, which trails only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. Its often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the countrys economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt such a big issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. But they werent the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time. Republicans said they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs, and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have let people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 refinance at 3.86 percent, the article said. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, or $50 billion. Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a campaign stop for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016, at the West End Community Development Center in Greenville, S.C. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) Our research As theyve campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. But doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Also, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But theres no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan to another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers. PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky. The borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis said, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton said at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and theres no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have helped. We rated his 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. Scam:  The IRS (or the Department of Justice) is sending out notifications of "complaints in regards to business services" via e-mail.   Example:  [Collected on the Internet, May 2013] Internal Revenue Service You have received a complaint in regards to your business services. The complaint was filled by Mr./Mrs. Filelio BALDIZAN on 05/29/2013/ Case Number: 165430554448 Instructions on how to resolve this complaint as well as a copy of the original complaint are attached to this email. Disputes involving consumer products and/or services may be arbitrated. Unless they directly relate to the contract that is the basis of this dispute, the following claims will be considered for arbitration only if all parties agree in writing that the arbitrator may consider them: Claims based on product liability; Claims for personal injuries; Claims that have been resolved by a previous court action, arbitration, or written agreement between the parties. The decision as to whether your dispute or any part of it can be arbitrated rests solely with the IRS. The IRS offers a binding arbitration service for disputes involving marketplace transactions. Arbitration is a convenient, civilized way to settle disputes quickly and fairly, without the costs associated with other legal options. Origins:  People generally associate the name "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS) with "trouble" (i.e., rarely does an envelope from the IRS bear good news), so messages that appear to issue from the IRS usually grab a recipient's attention and are therefore excellent bait for phishing schemes and other scams.  The key point to keep in mind to protect oneself  from this form of fraud is that neither the IRS nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) sends out unsolicited e-mails or ask taxpayers to supply detailed personal and financial information (including PINs and passwords) via e-mail. Phony "complaint in regards to your business services" messages (like the example cited above) that have been appearing in inboxes since May 2007 use the lure of seemingly official IRS communications to trick recipients into clicking on links or opening attachments, with predictably harmful results.  In this case, the payoff was apparently not the usual direct phishing scheme (i.e., an attempt to lure the unwitting into providing sensitive personal and financial information) but the planting of a Trojan Horse on recipients' computers: The Internal Revenue Service has alerted taxpayers to the latest versions of an e-mail scam intended to fool people into believing they are under investigation by the agency's Criminal Investigation division. The e-mail purporting to be from IRS Criminal Investigation falsely states that the person is under a criminal probe for submitting a false tax return to the California Franchise Tax Board. The e-mail seeks to entice people to click on a link or open an attachment to learn more information about the complaint against them. The IRS warned people that the e-mail link and attachment is a Trojan Horse that can take over the persons computer hard drive and allow someone to have remote access to the computer. The IRS urged people not to click the link in the e-mail or open the attachment. Similar e-mail variations suggest a customer has filed a complaint against a company and the IRS can act as an arbitrator. The latest versions appear aimed at business taxpayers as well as individual taxpayers. The IRS and the DOJ advise "Recipients of questionable e-mails claiming to come from" either agency should not open any attachments or click on any links contained in the e-mails. Instead, they should forward the e-mails to phishing@irs.gov or file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).  advise phishing@irs.gov IC3 Last updated:  29 May 2013 On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services  new tweet  Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k)  Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont."
CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History."
CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart."
MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement."
CNBC.28 June 2019. A chunk of residential Northwest Austin has bridled at the prospect of a low-rise office park becoming much more. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also since modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in the three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The soonest construction was planned to start was around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact  We reached out to city officials at first, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola told us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developers request. That report, Duncan said,  indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was finished--a 478 percent uptick. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email it looks like the traffic figures indeed came from the developers consultants study. However, she noted, a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said hed heard the revision talk and for that reason, he said, his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outflanked. Im sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies  Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which looked to us like the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted  unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips means daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development, say, or trips there on city buses. An unadjusted count rolls in trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips expected once the project is finished, Bryan Golden told us by email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by a professional engineer, Bobak J. Tehrany, for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, said the redevelopment on completion in 2031 would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to some 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex  which breaks out to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. That is, he said, the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the roadway segments which were evaluated, though he also said that doesnt mean the roadways had exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis--taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenners firm told us by email--suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 of late. We didnt get a fix on why the count of current-day traffic went down. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This is taking into consideration the trips which already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is done, nearby traffic would be up 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips of late. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less  By phone, Drenner pointed out the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He said this latest analysis was based on Spires modified development planhalving the number of residential units and reducing retail uses  filed with the city April 30, 2015. Drenner said, too, the developers are suggesting $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden counseled that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031--again, provided theres no expansion on the site. Our ruling  Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment say: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developers original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the 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. One of the forms of political expression that frequently arrives in our inbox for verification is the "evil plan" warning, items which present the notion that some malevolent entity (ranging from Communists to Satan himself) not only expressed an intent to destroy our society from within, but outlined a specific plan for doing so. A quote attributed to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin that a reader emailed us in November 2011 exemplifies the genre: Soviet dictator Josef Stalin "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."   The specifics of these plans (no matter how long ago they may supposedly have been formulated) generally relate to current events, and the political purpose of circulating them is to make readers aware that trends which threaten the health of our society are currently in place (i.e., "This is EXACTLY what is happening now!"), and to warn them that we must be vigilant about holding our course and stopping or reversing the encroachment of these socially unhealthful trends. This form has been expressed in such widely circulated items as Paul Harvey's "If I Were the Devil" essay, an (apocryphal) quotation by Karl Marx about the perils of consumer debt, and an (also apocryphal) warning from Abraham Lincoln about the accumulation of vast wealth in the hands of a few. If I Were the Devil Karl Marx Abraham Lincoln The putative quotation from Stalin referenced above is another item of this genre, one which presents the concept that Communist enemies of the U.S. viewed patriotism, morality, and spirituality as America's greatest assets and cannily plotted that the U.S. could be made to collapse from within if these values were sufficiently undermined (and which, of course, serves as an admonition to American readers to be attentive in maintaining these values). Whatever level of truth one might find in this sentiment, however, it's highly unlikely that Stalin ever spoke these words. Proving a negative is often an uncertain proposition, but our reasons for believing this quotation to be of dubious origin are: Josef Stalin Internet Archive Stalin documents letter Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 16 January 1994 (p. G1). "Readers Respond to 'The Day After'."Lawrence Journal-World. 23 November 1983 (p. 9). Stalin Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/subject/index.htm. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Stalin, Joseph, 1879-1953 | The Online Books Page. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Stalin%2c%20Joseph%2c%201879-1953. Accessed 15 Sept. 2022. Updated [Sept.15, 2022]: Sources and links refreshed. Former GOP state Sen. Don Huffines recently launched gubernatorial bid is wagering that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott isnt Republican enough for Texas. According to his nascent campaign website, the border is too open, the voter rolls are too rife with illegal aliens, and the taxes are too high. To cure the state of its taxation problem, Huffines campaign proposes an unusual solution for a state that already doesnt collect income taxes  the elimination of property taxes altogether. Texans have some of the highest property taxes in the nation, and the tax only goes up, his campaign website says. We will put the broken property tax system on a path to zero, it continues. Theres little question that property taxes in Texas have generally been rising year over year. The Texas Comptrollers Biennial Property Tax Report shows that single family home values have been on the rise since 2010, resulting in a corresponding rise in the property taxes levied by local governments in each of those years. In 2010, local governments in Texas collected $40.2 billion in property taxes. By 2019, the latest year for which data is available, that number had risen to $67.2 billion. Nearly half of these totals is collected from property taxes levied on single family homes. But has this rise launched Texas taxes into the realm of high-tax states like New York, California and New Jersey? Does Texas now have some of the highest property taxes in the nation, as Huffines claims? State and local governments depend on tax revenue flowing from three different categories, explained Kevin Erdmann, a tax policy expert at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. There's three pretty basic areas of taxation: sales tax, income tax and property tax, he said. Those are the big three to choose from and each state has chosen to weight each one slightly differently. But at the end of the day they all have bills to pay. Texas is one of nine states that doesnt collect income tax revenue, therefore relying more heavily on the two other areas of taxation. I don't think there's much dispute about Texas focusing on property taxes. Typically in discussions about tax bases, Texas will be referenced as a state that's a good example of a state that depends on property taxes as a revenue source, Erdmann explained. But there isnt a perfect method for comparing Texas dependence on property tax revenue to other states. This is partly because states tax real property in a variety of ways. For instance, while some states impose a tax rate on a homes market value, others impose it on a percentage of the market value, according to the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan and pro-business think tank. In some states, counties also can differ in how levies are calculated. According to Janelle Cammenga, a policy analyst with the Tax Foundations Center for State Tax Policy, theres a variety of ways property tax burdens on residential properties can be measured. There are a couple different ways you can compare, none of them are perfect, but they can all kind of give you an idea of where Texas is going to lie, Cammenga said. For instance, state rankings could be organized by property tax collections per capita, which would provide a rough estimate by dividing a states total residential property tax payments by its number of residents. Under this methodology, Texas would have the 13th highest property tax burden with Texans paying $1,973 per year, according to a Tax Foundation analysis. Washington D.C., New Jersey and New Hampshire would top that list, each with over $3,000 in annual per capita property tax payments. Another way to rank states would be to compare states effective tax rates on owner-occupied housing, or the average amount of residential property tax payments. This method takes home values into account by expressing this average amount as a percentage of home value. Here, Texas would rank No. 6, with homeowners paying about 1.6% of their home value in property taxes per year, according to the Tax Foundations analysis. New Jersey again tops that list, followed by Illinois and New Hampshire. This methodology also was used in an analysis cited by Huffines campaign spokesperson. According to this Wallet Hub study, released earlier this year, Texas effective tax rate is the 7th highest in the nation. A third way to compare is by looking at how property tax burdens compare across counties. For instance, which states have the most counties with median property tax payments of over $5,000? New Jersey has 19 counties in which the median property tax burden is higher than $5,000 per year  the highest in the nation. Texas would rank 7th, after New York, Illinois, California, New Hampshire and Connecticut, according to the Tax Foundation. In Texas, the high watermark is set by Collin County, where the median property tax burden is $5,600. Fort Bend County and Travis County follow with median taxes at $5,563 and $5,439, respectively. Its safe to say that Texas tends to have pretty high property taxes, Cammenga said. Whether or not its the highest  that really hard to say. They're probably not, but it is up there. It's unclear exactly how feasible it would be for a state to eliminate property taxes altogether, especially one that already doesnt collect income taxes, experts said. In 2018, property taxes made up 44% of state and local tax collections in Texas. Both experts we spoke with agreed that, if Huffines were elected and able to fulfill this campaign promise, Texas would be the first state in the nation to eliminate property taxes. Eliminating that is a really tall order. That's almost half of (Texas) tax collections, Cammenga said. I don't know of a state that has eliminated property taxes, because it's such an essential part of local finances. I don't think there's another state that has literally zero property tax, Erdmann said. Huffines has pledged to eliminate property taxes if elected governor. He justifies this pledge by claiming that Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the nation. There are several different ways to compare and rank states property tax burden. From the ranking methodologies reviewed here, Texas has between the 6th highest and 13th highest property taxes. Huffines statement is somewhat subjective  theres no absolute way to define some of the highest. Nonetheless, experts generally agree that, even though theres no standard way to compare and rank states property tax burden, Texas is heavily dependent on property tax revenue. We rate this claim Mostly True. On 14 June 2015, a number of Florida news outlets published a seemingly remarkable photograph, sent to them by a man named Richard Jones, showing a raccoon riding the back of an alligator like a surfboard: published  The peculiar sight may have been endearing, but it also left many viewers questioning the image's authenticity. Photographer Richard Jones's explanation of how he snapped the image was that he was walking with his son along the Oaklawaha River in the Ocala National Forest when they came across a raccoon. Their appearance startled the creature, he said, which sought the safety of the water, where it hopped onto the back of an alligator. The raccoon was only "riding" the alligator for a short while, Jones said, as the gator quickly slipped underwater and the raccoon scurried back onto land:  Had a wonderful morning with the family in Ocala National forest and took an equally wonderful photo! We were walking along the Oaklawaha river watching some gators warm up in the morning. My son went through some palm fronds to catch a different angle and frightened a raccoon. It must have been asleep because it stumbled toward the water and hoped on top of the gator we were watching. I snapped a lucky picture right when the gator slipped into the water and before the raccoon jumped off and scurried away. Without the context you'd think the raccoon was hitching a ride across the river. Pretty amazing. Definitely the photo of a lifetime. Included a second one my wife took or the area. You have my permission to share the photo and use the photo in any way. I don't want anything in return. Just thought other people might enjoy it. However, not everyone took the photograph at face value. The Florida Times-Union published it but included a disclaimer stating that they hadn't confirmed its authenticity:   published The photo of the gator with raccoon in tow seems to have gone viral on social media, and the story has been picked up by several other media outlets. And although we haven't been able to confirm the authenticity of these images, this was too good of a story to leave our viewers out of the loop. DISCLAIMER: Mr. Jones did not leave a phone number in his email so that we could confirm the authenticity of the image. We did try to contact him via his email address and we also requested he phone us. At the time this story was posted, we still have not received a call or email from Mr. Jones.   The Ocala Star Banner was more skeptical, opting not to publish the photograph due to questions about its authenticity and a lack of response from the submitter:Until now, the Star-Banner has declined to publish the photo because we still have questions about its authenticity. We have reached out to the photographer, a man named Rich Jones, but [have] not heard back from him. Heres a summary of our concerns: +Scope: The raccoon seems out of proportion -- too big -- compared with the alligator. +Feet: Even zooming in, you cant tell whether the raccoon has feet. +Tail: Dont raccoons usually have longer, fluffier tails? +Posture: That is an unusual pose for a raccoon. It almost looks like a taxidermy piece. +Gator: The alligators eye has an odd color, shape and placement. Its body seems rubber-like. +Mask: The raccoons mask seems like an add-on. When a photographer in London captured a somewhat comparable image of an animal "riding" another animal in February 2015  a rather amazing picture of a weasel hitchhiking on the back of a woodpecker in flight  a small army of photoshop experts also declared that picture to be fake for similar reasons. But in that case the photographer made himself available for interviews, and the consensus remains that that photograph was real. captured consensus While Jones didn't come forward with more information about the image, a performance artist who goes by the name "Zardulu" did. In December 2016, Zardulu told the Washington Post that she was responsible for a number of social media hoaxes, including this photograph of the raccoon riding an alligator: Washington Post In 2015, there was an incredible viral photograph, a lucky shot, that showed a raccoon perched on the back of a swimming alligator. A man named Richard Jones told the local news that hed snapped the picture himself, and a lot of Florida news outlets ran with it. The story spread to larger publications. It went viral. There were plenty of doubters, of course. But also many believers, people who would prefer to live in a world where a raccoon could use a predator as a ferry. And that preference is exactly what Zardulu understands so well. I staged the raccoon and the alligator, Zardulu said. The animals are taxidermied; she sprayed each with a commercial product used to waterproof leather to protect them from the water. Zardulu showed us photographs of the setup, and some of herself, in costume, clutching the animals:   Weber, Greta.  "Raccoon Rides Alligator in Florida  Is It for Real?"
  National Geographic.  16 June 2015.


 Ohlheiser, Abby.  "She Staged a Viral Story. You Fell for Her Hoax. She Thinks Thats Beautiful."
  The Washington Post.  14 December 2016. WFTV.  "Man Snaps Picture of Raccoon on Top of Gator in Ocala National Forest."
  14 June 2015. Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison ina July 29, 2013 speechat theGovernmental Research Association policy conferencehosted by Milwaukees Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers,arguedthe changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level,  Walker said. Its why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining, Walker added. He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people. Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there wasnt a need to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walkers claim, lets stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a fundamental individual right. Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing right to work limits on private-sector unions, though hes not pushing it now. Thats one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional. But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDRs views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDRs sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelts views on this issue. And its easy to see why: The presidentsAug. 16, 1937 correspondencewith Luther C. Steward,  the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organizations 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees have a logical place in Government affairs, he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walkers comment: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service, he wrote. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. Roosevelt didnt stop there. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations, he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said the government is the people, he had Roosevelts next line in mind. The employer, Roosevelts letter added, is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFEs bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDRPresidential Library sitepoints out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's official position on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at aJuly 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walkers claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government. Roosevelts response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join any union they want, he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay, Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents? Roosevelt: Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isnt any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise. Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it impossible for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didnt leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase insurmountable limitations. What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letters significance. Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike, public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartintold Salon.comshortly after Walkers dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelts words meant he believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits. The union chief,William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelts views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasnt until 1962 that President John F. Kennedysexecutive orderallowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelts 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, theGeorgetown University history professorwho told Salon that Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike. When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official,believes Roosevelt appeared opento bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVAs board, appointed by Roosevelt,chose as a matter of policyto recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. TheTVAepisode is the only effective rebuttal offered to the words in FDRs letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelts thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDRs TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walkers action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDRs views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We wont judge that for this item, but well end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walkers move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two mens views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR felt there wasnt a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelts 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDRs deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelts positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but its limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a logical place for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walkers narrow statement True.