CHEERS Study
Claim:   An EPA study proposed paying families to allow their children to be exposed to pesticides. Status:  Multiple:  The EPA planned to deliberately expose youngsters to pesticides in order to study what effects those chemical compounds may have on children:  False.  The EPA planned to study children who live in an area where pesticides are used year-round:  True.  The proposed study was canceled in April 2005:  True. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] EPA Will Use Poor Kids as Guinea Pigs to Test Toxic Chemicals Dear friend, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to launch an outrageous new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years. For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation. The study entitled CHEERS (Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old. Please take a moment to follow this link and join tens of thousands of citizens in petitioning the EPA to terminate this study prior to its proposed launch in early 2005. More information, related newspaper headlines and petition here:  https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm https://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm Please also forward this message. Origins:  Yet again an interesting mix of truth and scare has been loosed upon us all. While the November 2004 e-mail quoted above was relatively factual, its wording left those who received it with an impression far removed from the truth. While the proposed investigation was real, the nature of the test subjects was misunderstood, leading to those who heard of to arrive at some erroneous  conclusions. Through a research project known as the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), the United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to gather data about pesticide and household chemical exposure in very young children. The study was set to begin in the summer of 2005 in Jacksonville, Florida, and would have entailed monitoring 60 infants (newborn to just shy of 13 months old) for a period of two years. However, while the e-mail left readers with the impression that poverty-stricken families were for the price of a camcorder and $970 heartlessly offering up their tots as lab rats, the little ones to be deliberately sickened by cruel scientists intent upon advancing human knowledge even at the price of 60 babies potentially dealt life-long serious physical ailments by exposure to dreadful chemicals, the truth was quite different. One of the reasons the EPA chose Duval County, Florida, as the site of this research had to do with year-round pesticide use in that area. The children who would have been the subjects of the study live there. In other words, if all the clipboard-wielding EPA people stayed home and the project were canceled before it began, these same children would be exposed to these same pesticides and in the same amounts, due to nothing more sinister than where their parents chose to settle and raise their families. The EPA would not have been administering pesticides to children. Children who were already exposed to pesticides due to where they lived would have been studied by the EPA. Given that these youngsters were coming into contact with noxious chemicals because of where they lived, the EPA saw a good opportunity to examine the effects of such compounds on small children by studying subjects drawn from this particular group. CHEERS would have tracked 60 of these little ones over the course of two years, measuring not only their exposure to pesticides but also to ordinary household chemicals (cleaning products and the like). The parents of kids taking part in the study would have had to keep very careful logs on which products were used and in which amounts in their homes. They would also have been required to videotape their tykes being studied and maintain logs of the little ones' activities. For this, and for allowing researchers into the family domicile every few months to assess the children being observed and to examine the homes, these parents would have received a $970 stipend and would have been allowed at the end of the two years to keep the video cameras. Update: On 8 April 2005, the proposed study was canceled. As to why, Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said: Last fall, in light of questions about the study design, I directed that all work on the study stop immediately and requested an independent review. Since that time, many misrepresentations about the study have been made. EPA senior scientists have briefed me on the impact these misrepresentations have had on the ability to proceed with the study. I have concluded that the study cannot go forward, regardless of the outcome of the independent review. EPA must conduct quality, credible research in an atmosphere absent of gross misrepresentation and controversy. Additional information:       Overview of Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study  (EPA)        CHEERS Fact Sheet  (EPA)  Last updated:  31 August 2005    Sources:   Allison, Wes.  "Nelson Vows EPA Delay Over Pesticide Study."   St. Petersburg Times.  8 April 2005  (p. A6).    Eilperin, Juliet.  "Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study."   The Washington Post.  26 October 2004  (p. A3).    Kirkpatrick, David D.  "E.P.A. Halts Florida Test on Pesticides."   The New York Times.  9 April 2005  (p. A15).   Associated Press.  "Pesticide Study with Children Delayed."  CNN.  12 November 2004.
In his new film,Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore makes a case that the richest Americans used to shoulder a much bigger portion of the tax burden back in the years of his childhood. In the 1950s, A lot of people got rich  and they had to pay a top tax rate of 90 percent, Moore says in the film. Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the topmarginaltax rates were over 90 percent. So does that mean that someone in 1955 making a half million dollars had to fork over $450,000 of it to Uncle Sam? No. We are talking here about marginal tax rates. Moore doesn't go out of his way to explain this, so we will. The marginal tax rate is the top rate of income tax charged to individuals on their last dollar of earnings. So in 1955, for example, when the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, that was the tax rate owed on a person's income over $300,000. That person would, however, pay 20 percent on the first $2,000 of income; 21 percent on the next $2,000 in income; 24 percent on the next $2,000 and graduated on up to the highest rate. On average, a person making, say, $500,000 would pay substantially less than 90 percent of their income in federal taxes. The top marginal tax rates peaked in 1952 and 1953 at 92 percent for income over $300,000. Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center did some math for us to give this some perspective. In 1952 and 1953, Williams said, when the top income tax rate was 92 percent for income over $300,000, a person would have to make waaaay more than $300,000 to actually end up paying an average of 90 percent of their income. According to Williams, someone would have to make $2,328,400, and therefore pay $2,095,560, to get to that 90 percent threshold. But people with income of less than $2.3 million  remember we're talking about 1952 and 1953  would have paid, on average, something less than 90 percent, and perhaps much less. Still, Moore's point is valid. The top marginal tax rates paid by the richest Americans were far higher in the 1950s than they are now. In 2009, the top marginal rate was 35 percent on income above $372,958. And although Moore didn't use the term marginal tax rate, he did say top tax rate. People without CPAs might mistake that for a person's average tax rate (it's not), but it's valid wording. And so we rule this one Mostly True. A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' owing a lack sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details for the sake of trying to frame her as being irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes":  Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016. revealed The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities: op-ed I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans, and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations -- however slowly but surely. Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC.  sued Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company. reported Bluestein, Greg.  "Georgia 2018: Abrams Owes More Than $50K to IRS."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  14 March 2018. Abrams, Stacey.  "Commentary: My $200,000 Debt Should Not Disqualify Me for Governor of Georgia."
  Fortune.  24 April 2018. Elliott, Richard.  "Investment Company Sues Brian Kemp Over $500K Loan."
  WSB-TV.  12 June 2018. Judd, Alan.  "For Brian Kemp, Suit Over Bad Loan Reveals Political, Financial Perils."
  Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  21 September 2018. Gov. Rick Scotts $1 billion tax-cut request is giving the Florida Legislature plenty to chew on, especially after state economists warned that revenues wont be as high as once thought. Scott wantsa range of cuts, including a reduction in the sales tax on commercial rents and a $770 million break for manufacturers and retailers by getting rid of their corporate income tax. Despite concerns over how the size of his request will affect the budget, Scott was confident the math makes it an easy decision for lawmakers. We have plenty of money to be able to do tax cuts, Scott saidJan. 20, 2016, after state economists warned tax revenues would be less than previously estimated. Let's look at history. We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown. Scott hasused this linerepeatedly inrecent weeks. We wondered whether revenues have continued to grow even as Tallahassee has passed tax changes over recent years. Revenue roundup Scotts line about 50 tax cuts is a talking point that just keeps on growing. We have rated claims about him cutting24 tax cuts,40 tax cuts, andmore than 40 tax cuts,Half True, because Scott counted many small tax changes for specific industries as overall tax cuts. Whats new this time around, in a nutshell, are 16 provisions passed in 2015, most of which were part of a$429 million tax-cut package. The full list is largely comprised of esoteric tax credits (mostly for businesses), changes in unemployment compensation and sales tax holidays. There also was a rate reduction on the Communications Services Tax on cellphone and cable servicethat amounts to about $21 per $100 on a billand a $60,000 cap on taxes for boat repairs. Several of those may help businesses, but really dont often do much for everyday Floridians, especially if they needed to collect unemployment. Many times, local governments may raise taxes to make up for their own lost revenue. In short, its arguable whether all of those qualify as tax cuts, but they did have an impact on how many tax dollars the state brought in. Economists told us, however, that while you can project how much year-over-year revenues may be changed from cuts, its tough to attribute any concrete economic growth to those changes. Because of overall economic growth, tax revenues have been rising since Scott became governor as the state was climbing out of the Great Recession. We surveyed several years of general revenue, which is funded by taxes and fees and can be used by the Legislature for any purpose, alongside the state's rate of economic growth. Fiscal year General revenue Growth rate 2008-09 $21 billion -12.8 percent 2009-10 $21.5 billion 2.4 percent 2010-11 $22.55 billion 4.8 percent 2011-12* $23.6 billion 4.7 percent 2012-13 $25.3 billion 7.2 percent 2013-14 $26.2 billion 3.5 percent 2014-15 $27.7 billion 5.7 percent 2015-16 $28.4 billion 2.1 percent State economist Amy Baker noted that even with Floridas economy growing, that growth rate is currently below the states historical average, and the cumulative effects of prior tax changes are eating into revenues more than expected. State budget forecasters have announced that tax revenues will come in at$400 million less than previously expected. Scotts office has rejected those figures in pursuit of his biggest round of tax cuts, saying the Legislature has plenty of money to play with. But while its apparent that revenues have gone up even as Scotts tax changes have been implemented, experts said its tough to directly link them. They said there are three main reasons Floridas revenues have grown during the nationwide recovery: Population growth, rising property values and overall inflation. More than 1 million people have moved to Florida since 2010, property values are recovering from the housing bust, and inflation makes tax collections go up as costs go up. Basically, more people are paying more taxes on things that cost more. Norton Francis, senior research associate with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said that despite being thethird-largest state, the growth rate for Floridas tax revenues has started tolag behind the national average. What you need to look at is, are (tax revenues) growing more than they used to? Norton asked. It could be that its come back as a whole, but its hard to pin that to a tax cut. Our ruling Scott said, We've cut taxes 50 times and look what has happened to our revenues. They've grown. Scott has a debatable definition of tax cuts, but the states tax revenues have increased since he took office. Economists told us it would be difficult to attribute growth specifically to tax changes. The national economic recovery, population growth, higher property values and inflation are the major factors for the states growth. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. After signing a coronavirus and economic relief plan into law, President Joe Biden turned to an infrastructure proposal as his next legislative priority. Cabinet members, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have fanned out to promote the presidents $2 trillion-plus package, while critics of the plan are complaining about the cost. In an interview on NBCs Meet the Press April 4, Buttigieg emphasized that the expenditures would be covered by revenue increases. The vision the president has put forward (in the infrastructure bill) is fully paid for,he said. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. The president himself re-emphasized the importance of this point in a speech touting the plan on April 7. Weve got to pay for this, he said. Buttigieg is largely correct, though there are some important caveats to note. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on NBCs Meet the Press on April 4, 2021. (Screenshot) Bidens proposal, called the American Jobs Plan, would provide funding for highways, bridges, ports, airports and transit systems, as well as infrastructure for water, the electric grid, and expanded high-speed Internet access. It would also support retrofitting and upgrading homes, commercial and federal buildings, schools, child care facilities and veterans hospitals, and it would invest in research and development. The proposal also includes items not traditionally considered infrastructure, such as funding to support home health care workers and job training, and pro-union provisions. In all, the proposal comes with a price tag of more than $2 trillion over a decade. To pay for it, Biden would lean heavily on new or higher taxes on corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, preventing U.S. corporations from claiming an offshore tax haven as their place of business, eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels, tightening tax enforcement by adding employees to the Internal Revenue Service, and changing other taxes that hit corporations. Republicans have attacked both the spending and revenue sides of Bidens proposal, arguing that some of the items in it are not really infrastructure, and that raising corporate tax rates could lead businesses to leave the United States. Biden said in his April 7 remarks that hes open to compromise on what a bill ultimately includes. For this article, well focus on whether the spending portions of the plan are equaled by the revenue-raising portions, as Buttigieg said. The White House pointed us to thefact sheetit has released on the plan, which makes that claim, but doesnt get into details. However, at least two independent groups have analyzed the plan and found that Buttigiegs formulation checks out. One was published by theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It found that the plan has approximately $2.65 trillion in new costs over eight years. Over the first 10 years, the group found, the plan would increase the deficit by about $900 billion. However, over a longer, 15-year period the one Buttigieg cited  the plans revenues would match its expenses and would actually reduce deficits beyond that. The other analysis, published by the University of PennsylvaniasPenn Wharton Budget Model, came to a similar conclusion. The Penn group said the Biden plan would spend $2.7 trillion over 10 years and raise $2.1 trillion in that period, expanding the deficit by about $600 billion. However, the group found that over 15 years, it would generate more than $3.6 billion, which would be more than enough to cover its costs. Projections are always just that  projections. Rght now, there is not even a formal bill, so the spending and revenue provisions could shift in either direction before theyre signed into law. For instance, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.  whose support would be required for any Democratic bill  has already said he wont support a corporate tax hike to anything higher than 25%. And under a 25% corporate tax, a lot of revenue would disappear. Similarly, some of the bills spending items could also disappear during lawmaker negotiations. Another asterisk is that these analyses are based on eight years worth of spending and 15 years of revenue increases, which is an unusual method. Typically, congressional legislation is judged based on what happens during a 10-year window. Buttigieg wouldnt have been able to say the plan paid for itself over the standard, 10-year budget window, so his focus on the 15-year time frame is a bit of cherry-picking. And the revenue impacts 15 years down the road are going to be harder to predict than the impacts in 10 years. That said, theres nothing economically significant about the 10-year window, said Marcos Dinerstein, an economist with the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Its just a convention. Just looking at a 10-year window can miss the benefits of policies like infrastructure and research and development that often take a while to start generating returns. Buttigieg said Bidens infrastructure proposal is fully paid for. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. Two independent analyses back up the notion that the new spending will be evened out by the new revenue raised in the plan after 15 years. But long-term projections like this are always tricky, and a 15-year time frame is unusual for evaluating the budget impact of legislation; under the typical 10-year time frame, the plan would not be fully paid for. We rate the statement Mostly True. For years, internet users have shared a fake quote that was attributed to Anne Frank that said, "Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness." Anne Frank Frank became a famous and important historical figure after her death in early 1945 for writing a series of works, most famously her diary, while she hid from Nazis during World War II. death a series of works  A statue of Anne Frank in Amsterdam, November 8, 1963. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)  A Google search showed results for the fake candle quote with Frank's name on various websites, including AZQuotes, Goodreads, QuoteFancy, and QuotePark. AZQuotes Goodreads QuoteFancy QuotePark We also found a seemingly endless wall of quote memes on Google Images:  Courtesy: Google Images  According to Google Books, the quote has been printed and attributed to Frank in numerous works, the first of which appeared to be published no earlier than 2013. This would be a red flag in the case of any purported decades-old quote. According to Google Books Facebook was littered with the fake quote, including several posts made in early January 2022, the same time when this fact check was first published. was littered with the fake quote several posts made in early January 2022 In 2018, "Harry Potter" author J. K. Rowling tweeted the fake Frank candle quote: tweeted  Courtesy: @jk_rowling/Twitter  The official Twitter account for the country of Israel once tweeted it: tweeted  Courtesy: @Israel/Twitter  In fact, the fake candle quote spread so much across the internet that even the U.S.-based Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect once accidentally shared it by mistake: Anne Frank Center shared  Courtesy: @AnneFrankCenter/Twitter  This fact check does not serve to fault any of the institutions that are dedicated to educating the world about Frank's life and the history of the Holocaust. Rather, perhaps the debunking of fake quotes such as this one could potentially inspire readers to share more of the genuine passages from her writing. Holocaust Anne Frank Fonds is a foundation that was started by Anne's father, Otto Frank. Before his death in 1980, he designated it as his "universal heir and legal successor." Anne Frank Fonds A spokesperson for the foundation confirmed to us that the candle quote was fake and that there was no record of Frank ever having said the words, "Look at how a single candle can both defy and define the darkness." We also did not find any trace of the quote in Frank's works, nor did we find if it had been misattributed from a different author. The spokesperson said that fake quotes are "an ongoing battle" and that "new false quotes tend to pop up every so often."  Photographs of Anne Frank are on display at the Jewish Museum in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by STR / AFP via Getty Images)  We previously debunked another fake Frank quote that read, "Dead people receive more flowers than the living ones because regret is stronger than gratitude." There's no evidence that she ever said these words. debunked In September 2018, a photograph went viral on social media along with a caption which claimed it showed a woman named "Brittany L." holding a leopard she had just killed during a hunting expedition. On 10 September, the wildlife artist Sue Dickinson posted the photograph to her Facebook page along with a message which read as follows: posted This is Brittany L. She just killed this male leopard in his prime. According to SCI (Safari Club International) this leopard ranks as potentially the 9th largest leopard ever hunted. She's a cretin. Please share if you agree. Let's name and shame her.   Dickinson's post was shared hundreds of thousands of times within a week and was re-published through multiple accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, including the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Naomi Campbell The image is authentic and captures a woman posing with a real leopard that she herself killed. The photograph was first posted on 7 September 2018 to the web site of Safari Club International, a hunting organization based in Tucson, Arizona, as part of a group of new entries into the organization's online record book: posted SCI members share their hunter pride SCI Members hunt all over the globe, and are proud to share their successes. By entering their successful hunts in the SCI Record Book, they are not only documenting their hunting legacy for future generations, they are also adding to one of the largest and most comprehensive wildlife databases in the world. The URL of the controversial photograph contains the words "Brittany L" and "leopard," so it was reasonable for internet users to deduce that the woman shown with the leopard had the first name Brittany and a surname beginning with the letter "L." Indeed, we can confirm that Brittany L. is the woman shown in the photograph (rather than the name of the person who submitted it to SCI's record book). On 7 September, SCI posted more details about "Brittany L.'s" leopard photograph on HuntForever.org, a website affiliated with the organization. That blog post has since been removed, but we obtained an SCI newsletter email dated 7 September with content identical to the blog post's embedded in it (despite the post's having been removed from HuntForever.org itself). affiliated That blog post described the contentious photograph as follows: "Brittany L. is featured here with her African leopard that potentially ranks number 9 overall and scores 18 4/16." described Safari Club International.  "SCI Members Share Their Hunter Pride."
  7 September 2018. A photograph dating from 1948 depicting an apparent show of "charity" on the part of the Ku Klux Klan towards an elderly black couple in Alabama continues to circulate online, although details behind the actual encounter are sparse. The photograph shows 106-year-old Jack Riddle and his wife, Rosie, both former slaves, seated in front of a group of Klansmen (including one dressed as Santa Claus), flanking a radio the group had reportedly given to the couple as a gift:  The image, which was published in newspapers in California and Pennsylvania (among other states), has resurfaced periodically on social media platforms, although it is typically accompanied by little in the way of information about how and why the Klansmen approached the Riddles with their "gift."  John Giggie, an associate professor of history at the University of Alabama, told us that the photograph is "the type of image that Klan members would dream of" at the time: It captures the Klan fantasy of returning to a time when black Americans were enslaved and white Americans could lord over them with impunity. The given year of the image is important -- 1948 -- as it marks the emergence of the Dixiecrats, who left the Democratic Party in 1948 over its rising interest in civil rights. In that context, the photo functions as a warning to blacks and those who would support them in their freedom struggle. Giggie added that the photograph also "screams hyperbole": The idea of former slaves literally clasping the hands of a Klansmen  dressed as Santa Claus, no less -- and sitting next to a radio seems to create a studied photo in which the Klan is merging examples of American modernity with those of its enslaved past. There is also the nagging sense that this is simply an absurd parody of Klan bravado. The idea of former slaves sitting with Klansmen seems to at least suggest a mockery of Klan pretensions of power and acceptance. Time magazine also published a brief item about the pictured meeting on 3 January 1949 under the heading "Manners and Morals:" published In Talladega, Ala., a white-hooded delegation of Ku Kluxers and a white-bearded Santa Claus presented a radio to Jack Riddle, a 107-year-old Negro and his wife, Josey, 86, so they could have their wish, to "hear the preachers." Grand Dragon Samuel Green explained that this demonstrated the "heart of a Klansman," called in photographers to take the most incongruous picture of the week.  A separate photograph of the encounter was collected in the book From the Picture Press, published by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1973: collected  The museum's caption for the photograph stated that Green and his cohorts "publicized the 'good will' visit ten days before it occurred." However, at least one related clipping posted online has, at the very least, been misattributed. Some blog posts concerning the Riddles' photograph cite a brief op-ed attributed to the Milwaukee Journal newspaper on 26 December 1948: Because the klan's professions and practices vary so much, we suggest that northerners maintain a healthy skepticism about any regeneration of the klan. It will take more than pretty words, and a few gifts to Negroes, to wipe out the record of terror, intimidation and violence that has been synonymous with the name klan. And as for that radio gift to Jack Riddle, the klan's good will toward the Negro will be more convincing when it is concerned with the welfare, the education and the civil rights of all Negroes. The problem of Jack Riddle not having a radio set is only a very small part of the over-all picture of the Negro in the south.  In 1995, the Journal merged with the Milwaukee Sentinel to become the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. When we contacted that successor newspaper regarding the 1948 clipping, assistant managing editor for visual journalism Sherman Williams told us that "This article does not appear in the 12/26/48 edition of The Milwaukee Journal. The article does not match the typography or style of the newspaper then." The photograph was also copyrighted by Getty Images, who told us that it was originally shot by a photographer from the Keystone Press Agency. At least two phone numbers listed under that name are invalid, while emails sent to addresses listed under Keystone did not produce responses prior to publication. copyrighted According to an obituary published in Jet magazine in January 1953, Jack Riddle died at the age of 111. published Time.  "Manners and Morals."
  3 January 1949. West Virginia Memories.  "Old Newspaper Articles (and Book Mentions) About American Slaves, Former Slaves, And Their Descendants (N-Z)."
  Accessed 27 November 2018. Szarkowski, John.  From the Picture Press.
  Museum of Modern Art, 1973.  ISBN 087070334X. On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes.  The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds  In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge The bipartisan plan to raise the nations debt ceiling included formation of a 12-member congressional committee to consider cuts in spending and tax reform.After voting in support of the plan, Ohio's Sen. Sherrod Brown said in an interview that Congress needed to turn its focus to job creation exclusively. And he said that tax reform should close loopholes that the debt-ceiling deal didn't touch.For example, he said, They didnt close the tax loopholes for Wall Street hedge fund managers who pay a lower tax rate than does a sheet metal worker in Parma or a school teacher in Cleveland.That got PolitiFact Ohios attention. Could wealthy Wall Street investors have a lower tax rate on their compensation than average workers?We asked Brown's office how he supported his remark. Press secretary Allison Preiss responded with a pile of sources.Let's start the review by identifying our subject. Hedge funds are investment funds similar to mutual funds, but are not subject to the same rules and regulations, are typically more aggressive, and traditionally have been limited to wealthy investors. Most set very high minimum investment levels.Managers of hedge funds typically charge investors 2 percent for managing their money, meaning that a $10 billion hedge fund takes in $200 million in fees. Managers also can collect a percentage of the profits from trades they make, usually 20 percent.AR Magazine, the hedge fund trade publication, began estimating compensation in the industry a decade ago, the Reuters news agency said earlier this year, noting that calculating the earnings of top hedge fund managers involves a degree of guesswork and alchemy, since funds don't publicly disclose compensation.AR's annual report on the 25 richest hedge fund managers said they collected about $22 billion in compensation last year.Topping the charts in hedge fund pay was John Paulson of Paulson & Co., who earned a reported $4.9 billion. That is billion with a B, and that is for the year 2010.A study by the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the top 25 hedge fund managers combined appear to have earned more than all the CEOs of the companies in the S&P 500 combined. That study put the average pay at hedge funds for highly compensated employees -- not just the managers at the top of the scale -- at $3.2 million a year.Using the federal income tax rate schedule for 2010, a single individual earning $3.2 million (or $4.9 billion) would fall in the top tax bracket that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation, which is 35 percent. That rate starts at income of about $370,000.But hedge fund managers typically dont pay taxes on their income the same way other Americans do, as PolitiFact has noted before.The bulk of hedge fund managers income is typically considered carried interest -- that is, their share of profits from the funds they manage. When a fund has capital gains and those gains flow to the manager, they are taxed as a capital gain, not as ordinary income.The tax rate on capital gains is 15 percent, rather than the 35 percent on compensation that would be paid by everyone else, including other types of Wall Street managers. (The taxpayers with the top 400 incomes paid an average rate of 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the most recent update of the Internal Revenue Service, which issues an annual report on the top 400 taxpayers. )Hedge fund managers don't necessarily pay even 15 percent, however. They can pay no current income tax at all, by leaving their carried interest money in the hedge fund and deferring the tax bill to a later date -- even decades later -- when they eventually cash out of the fund.What about the other two individuals in Brown's statement?According to the most recent figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in May 2010, the average salary for a sheet metal worker in the Cleveland area, spanning Elyria to Mentor, is $47,200.According to a May 2010 survey by The Plain Dealer, using information from the Ohio Department of Education, the average teacher salary in Cleveland is $65,575.Using the federal income tax rate schedule, both single individuals and heads of households at those income levels would fall in the tax bracket of 25 percent.That 25 percent is higher than the capital gains rate of 15 percent that the carried interest tax loophole allows hedge fund managers to pay on their income.On the Truth-O-Meter, that gives Brown's statement a rating of True. Channeling U.S. Rep Joe Wilson, the Republican from South Carolina who shouted You lie! during President Barack Obama's speech to Congress in September, the Republican Party of Texas has accused the president of lying when he said that a new federal mandate requiring individuals to have health insurance was not a tax. You lie! the party tweeted July 19. Obama said O-care mandate wasn't a tax. Now Obama admin says it is a tax. Did the Obama administration talk one way and then the other? Per the legislation that Obama signed into law in March, most people will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. There are exceptions, but individuals who aren't exempt and refuse to join a plan will be required to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The health care law calls the fine individuals must pay if they don't have insurance a penalty. In a Sept. 20, 2009, interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama denied that the mandate to buy health insurance was equivalent to a tax. For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama said. He noted that Americans are required to have auto insurance, but nobody considers that a tax increase. (Auto insurance is a state mandate, but all the states except New Hampshire require it of resident drivers.) When Stephanopoulos pressed Obama on whether the mandate was a tax, Obama said: I absolutely reject that notion. However, on July 16 The New York Times published a story that seemed to vindicate opponents of the health care overhaul who argued that the insurance requirement was a tax. The headline: Changing stance, administration now defends insurance mandate as a tax. Texas is one of 21 states challenging the law's constitutionality in court, but Virginia was the first to face the federal government in a July 1 hearing on its lawsuit. The New York Times pointed to a brief filed in that case by the U.S. Department of Justice defending the individual mandate as a valid exercise of the federal government's power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can impose taxes to provide for the general welfare under Article I of the Constitution. From the health-care law: The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased. The law then says that national health spending is projected to increase from $2.5 trillion  17.6 percent of the economy  in 2009, to $4.7 trillion in 2019. In its legal brief, the department says the penalty is also a tax because it will raise revenue  $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office  and because it's imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals who refuse to obtain health insurance and are penalized will have to report the fine as an addition to income tax liability, the brief says. The health care law itself doesn't mention Congress' taxing authority, instead noting that the mandate is protected under the Constitution's Article I commerce clause, which lets Congress regulate commercial activity that has a substantial effect on the national economy. The tax argument is the strongest argument, the Times quoted Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the law, saying. This bill is a tax. Because it's a tax, it's completely constitutional. Balkin is also quoted saying that Obama has not been honest with the American people about the nature of the bill. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich defended the law both ways last week, telling us: We believe that the Commerce Clause provides ample constitutional authority for the individual mandate. If anyone has any doubts about that  and we dont think they should  its also clear that that the mandate is constitutional under Congresss power to tax. Similarly, Steven Schwinn, an associate professor of constitutional law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, pointed out on his blog July 18 that the Obama administration has consistently defended the mandate in court primarily under the Commerce Clause, and secondarily under Congress' taxing power to promote the general welfare. Henry Aaron, a scholar who specializes in health care and tax policy at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said Obama was correct to say the mandate isn't a tax. A mandate is meaningless unless it is backed up by some 'or else,' as in 'obey the mandate or else,'  Aaron said. The administration asserted the legal power to impose a mandate. The mandate is backed up by a tax that has to be paid if the mandate is violated. You obey the mandate or you pay the tax. Upshot: In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Obama insisted the mandate to purchase health coverage is not a tax. But in defending its legality, the Justice Department argues in part that the mandate is a valid exercise of Congress' taxing power. From where we sit, Obama was trying to make a political point; the Justice Department, a legal one. In its tweet, the Republican Party overreaches when it says the administration now calls the mandate a tax. The administration (still) isn't doing that. But it does cite Congress' power to levy taxes as authority for the mandate. And that enables the GOP to score its own political point, based on what looks like the administration's runs at having it both ways. We rate the GOP's recap of Obama's early position and his administration's recent defense of the law as Mostly True.