Says state Senate recall challenger Sandy Pasch voted to cut school aid by nearly $300 million.
The target in one of themostcompetitiveof Wisconsins nine Senaterecallracesis state Sen.Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, an architect of a 2011-2013 state budget that reduces aid to public schools by nearly $800 million.But one of the states major political players, the conservativeClub for Growth Wisconsin, is turning the tables. It claims Darlings challenger, state Rep.Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, also backed a sizable school funding cut.The attack is part of aradioadthat began airing about a week before Pasch won the Democratic primary.Club for Growth, whichadvocatesfor limited government and minimal taxation, mostly branded Pasch as a tax-and-spender in the ad. But at one point, the female narrator says Pasch voted to to cut school aid by nearly $300 million.Club for Growth also makes the school aid claim in similar ads that have targeted two other Assembly Democrats who are challenging incumbent Republicans in recall races,accordingto theLa Crosse Tribune.They are Rep. Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, running against Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse; and Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo, challenging Luther Olsen of Ripon. Those elections, and the Pasch-Darling contest, are on Aug. 9, 2011.When we asked for evidence to back the claim against Pasch, Club for Growth spokesman R. J. Johnson cited a May 2009Milwaukee Journal Sentinelarticle.It referred to the 2009-2011 budget submitted by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, which proposed cutting state aid for schools by $290 million. That was before the Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, voted on the budget.But a month later, Pasch joined all but two Assembly Democrats inapprovingthe spending plan. The final budget cut general school aid by$294 million-- to $9.3 billion -- over two years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.So, Club for Growth Wisconsin is correct in saying Pasch voted to cut school aid nearly $300 million. But is that whole story?In the same article cited by Club for Growth, Doyle said total spending on public schools would actually rise by about 5 percent because schools would get an additional $877 million in federal stimulus funds. That seemed to indicate that stimulus money would more than offset the state aid reduction. Gillian Morris, Paschs campaign spokeswoman, said that was also her understanding of what happened.But that was not the case.According to the fiscal bureau and the state Department of Public Instruction, the $294 million aid reduction took into account both the cut in state funds and the federal stimulus money that was added in.In other words, the stimulus money was not enough to offset the state funding cut. The net result for schools was a reduction in funding of $294 million.In sum, Club for Growth Wisconsin claimed that Pasch voted to cut nearly $300 million in aid to schools. The record shows the claim was on the mark.We rate the statement True.
During the Democratic debate in economically distressed and racially diverse Flint, Mich., CNNs Don Lemon asked both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders the same question: In a speech about policing, Lemon said, the FBI director, James Comey, borrowed a phrase saying, Everyone is a little bit racist. What racial blind spot do you have? When it was Sanders turn to answer, he began by talking about several specific examples of racial discrimination. He then drew a contrast with what whites experience. When youre white, you dont know what its like to be living in a ghetto. You dont know what its like to be poor. You dont know what its like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car, Sanders said. Several readers asked us to take a closer look at Sanders comment that when you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor. Sanders' point was that white people havent had to contend with racism based on skin color. But when he moves into the subject of whites experience with poverty, hes on weak ground. Sanders suggestion that white Americans havent experienced poverty is undercut by statistics calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau. Since the 1960s, the Census Bureau has tracked the numbers and percentages of Americans by race who have an income level that puts them at the poverty line. Heres the most recent data, for 2014:  Category Number in poverty Poverty rate Americans of all races 46.7 million 14.8 percent White 19.7 million 10.1 percent African-American 10.8 million 26.2 percent Hispanic 13.1 million 23.6 percent Asian-American 2.1 million 12.0 percent By this measure, Sanders was certainly wrong to suggest that whites havent experienced poverty. In 2014, there were actually more white Americans in poverty -- 19.7 million -- than members of any other group. Part of the reason, of course, is that there are more white Americans than there are members of minority groups overall. (Whitesaccount for62 percent of the population.) Still, even though whites have a lower poverty rate than other groups -- roughly 10 percent -- even that percentage is hardly trivial. The numbers are similar if you raise the income level slightly. At125 percent of the poverty level, the number ofwhite Americansrises to about 26.5 million. Thats a lot of white people who are in or near poverty. This was a misstatement. A lot of white people know what its like to be poor, said Julia Isaacs, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. If you look at the poor as a group, minorities are disproportionately represented. Still, the white population is large enough that the majority of the people in poverty are white. Thats been the case since at least 1970. We calculated the racial and ethnic makeup of the population at the poverty line in roughly 10-year intervals, using data for the four categories above. Census data is available back to 1990 for all four groups, and they exist for all but Asians back to about 1970. Year Percentage of people in poverty who were white Percentage of people in poverty who were black Percentage of people in poverty who were Hispanic Percentage of people in poverty who were Asian 2014 54 19 23 4 2010 54 19 24 3 2000 56 21 20 3 1990 57 25 15 2 1980 62 27 11 NA 1970 64 28 9* NA * Data is for 1972 Its easiest to grasp the scope of white poverty when using the following graphic, which was provided to us by Christopher Wimer, a research scientist at the Columbia University Population Research Center. Its similar to the chart above, except that it uses a more precise, though still experimental, measurement of poverty that is adjusted for geography, government benefits and other factors not captured in the traditional poverty measurement. The share of whites in the population of Americans in poverty is shown in purple. As the chart indicates, the white share has fallen, but its still the largest of any of the four groups studied. Sanders said the day after the debate that he misspoke,telling reporters, What I meant to say is when you talk about ghettos traditionally, what you talk about is African-American communities. There is nobody on this campaign  who's talked about poverty, whether it's in the white community, the black community, the Latino community, more than I have. Our ruling Sanders says that when you're white ... you don't know what it's like to be poor. On the contrary -- the most recent figures show that nearly 20 million white Americans are experiencing poverty. While thats smaller as a percentage than it is for other racial and ethnic groups, thats still a lot of people. In raw numbers, its actually more than any other group. We rate his claim False. As the House and Senate were finishing the details of a joint version of the Republican-backed tax bill, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., was defending the Houses version as friendlier to Americans of modest means. In anappearanceon Miamis WPLG-TV on Dec. 10, Curbelo was asked about the pattern of Americans being projected to gain from the GOP tax bills in the first few years after its passed, but then paying more in taxes closer to 10 years after passage. Curbelo responded to the question by touting the advantages of the House-passed version compared with the Senate-passed version. The House bill does have a lot more permanent relief for middle income and even lower income families long term, permanently, Curbelo replied. The Senate bill, their budget rules are different so they had to put these gimmicks in the bill, frankly. We, in conference, are insisting on the House provisions to make the middle-class relief permanent. We wondered whether Curbelo was correct that he House bill has a lot more permanent relief for middle-income and even lower-income families than the Senate bill does. Curbelo is correct that in the Houses version of the tax bill, several key provisions -- its replacement of seven existing tax brackets with four, the raising of the standard deduction, and an expanded child tax credit -- are permanent. All of these provisions in the Senate bill expire after 2025. Theres only one significant provision in the House bill that would expire -- a family tax credit worth $300 credit for the taxpayer, spouse, and non-child dependents. That provision sunsets in 2022 under the House bill. (A similar, $500 credit in the Senate bill would expire in 2025.) The pattern of eventual tax increases in the Senate bill is stronger than from the House bill,thenonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxationfound. By 2027, every income group below $100,000 would see an increase, on average. So Curbelo has a point that several key House provisions are written to be permanent, unlike the equivalent provisions of the Senate bill. Its important to note, however, that sunsetting provisions arent the only cause of later tax increases. Other factors the following provisions of the House bill (and also the Senate bill):  The amount of the child credit is not indexed for inflation. By contrast, the provision it effectively replaces -- the personal exemption -- is indexed for inflation. The rate brackets would grow more slowly from year to year because they would be adjusted by a less generous measure of inflation. The earned income tax credit -- a refundable credit for low-income Americans who are employed -- would also increase more slowly because of the same change to the inflation measurement. Curbelo said the House tax bill has a lot more permanent relief for middle-income and even lower-income families. Thats generally the case: Only one provision of the House bill thats likely to be claimed by Americans of modest incomes, a family tax credit, would expire within the first decade, whereas many key provisions in the Senate bill would sunset early. However, its worth noting that the expiration of provisions is not the only reason that taxpayers are projected to pay more closer to 10 years after the bills passage. Another one, unmentioned by Curbelo, is changed treatment of inflation adjustments in the House bill. We rate the statement Mostly True. An activist expressed elation after Austin voters rejected a $1 billion rail-and-roads proposition, going on to say the rail part of the plan would have been a financial headache. Jim Skaggs, founder ofCitizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014,news story, that the rail costs would have been imposed on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation. Mark Nathan, a consultant to Lets Go Austin, which advocated for the proposition, asked us to check Skaggs claim. All aboard! To our inquiry, Skaggs said by email he believes he learned of Austins dubious status from anAustin Business Journalstory. I do not have time to research it at the moment, Skaggs wrote Nov. 5, 2014. City spokeswoman: Mild ratechanges We hunted unsuccessfully for such a story while to our nudge, a city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado,said by emailthe city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since:  Source:Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1,page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014) Alvarado continued: Please keep in mind the city is only one taxing jurisdiction. Theres also the county, school district, health district and then more, depending on where exactly someone lives. Also, she said, appraisals are a factor for taxes, not just the tax rate. (She noted the 2015 tax rate is the same as the 2014 rate.) Indeed, surging property values are a driver in local government revenues, theAustin American-Statesmanhas noted; of late, an April 2014 news story quoted Travis Countys chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, saying taxable residential values  a homes market value minus property-tax exemptions  were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans. Austin versus other big Texas cities Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austinsproposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a bigger burst in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or Houston. Specifically, Quintero said, the percentage of median family income spent on property tax bills for median-value homes in the Austin area represented a little less than 1.1 percent in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2014, that figure had increased to just under 1.5 percent, representing an increase of 0.4 percent. The other big Texas cities demonstrated smaller increases over the period. National comparisons Then again, Skaggs said Austins tax increases were No. 1 among major cities nationally. We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-basedLincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study. Kerr, drawing fromthe latest study, issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and also that by one gauge, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most-populous cities. One institute analysis looked at how much revenue per resident different cities have taken in. Our takeaways: From 2006 to 2011, per-person property tax revenue collected in Austin by all local government units (including school districts, the city and the county) decreased 4 percent, as measured in constant 2011 dollars. Then again, per-person revenue from city property taxes alone went up 6 percent; Austin ranked 35th among the 50 largest cities for that rate of increase. Higher rates of increase were recorded by cities including Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Chicago, which had a 60 percent spike in per-person property tax revenue. Over a longer span, 2001 to 2011, Austin ranked 27th nationally for its 26 percent increase in per-person revenue from city property taxes. The Texas capital was outpaced in percentage growth by cities including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, New York and Los Angeles. Austin experienced a 2 percent increase in per-person revenue from all taxes from 2006 to 2011, ranking 25th in this way. Its increase trailed hikes occurring in the more populous cities of San Jose, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Another institute breakdown highlighted by Kerr shows Austin ranking among cities with the greatest increases in taxes on a median-valued home. Our snapshots: From 2009 to 2013, Austins effective tax rate on a median-priced home increased from 1.93 percent to 2.22 percent; that bump amounted to the 11th-greatest increase (0.29 points) in the 50 biggest cities. As of that year, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Jacksonville and Chicago were the cities more populous than Austin that ranked higher by this indicator. In this instance, the effective rate is not the rate by which a government unit can generate the revenue it raised the year before. Rather, the study defines the effective rate as the total tax on a median-priced home divided by its total value, which takes into account variations in assessment rates and value exemptions across localities. While Austins effective tax rate in 2013 was ahead of its rate in 2009, it was less than the 2.44 percent rate of 2005. In 2013, property taxes on a median-value Austin home ran $1,049 ahead of those taxes on such a home in 2005, up nearly 26 percent. That percentage increase placed Austin 10th nationally in this way behind Portland, San Jose, Denver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Albuquerque, Columbus and Cleveland -- and only San Jose, Portland and Philadelphia had greater dollar increases than Austin. Among, say, the 15 largest cities as of that time, Austin ranked third behind San Jose and Philadelphia for the percent change in net tax 2005-2013. Over a shorter period, 2009-2013, Phoenix, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, New York and Jacksonville experienced greater increases in net property tax on a median-value home. (Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston and Indianapolis had smaller increases.) Our ruling Skaggs said Austin has the fastest-growing tax increases of any major U.S. city. Among the nations largest cities, Austin appears to have had the third-fastest growth in its property-tax bite on a median-valued home from 2005 to 2013. It seems reasonable to speculate local taxpayers feel the pinch. However, Skaggs didnt provide nor did we find a sign of Austin ranking first in tax growth among the countrys major cities. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On 20 January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a highway sign in Maryland urging drivers to "consider Canada" in avoiding Inauguration Day traffic was widely circulated on social media:  This image was just a prank, however, a digitally manipulated version of a more mundane image. The Maryland State Highway Administration published a genuine photograph of the sign on Interstate 270 showing that it actually read "Consider Metro": published  State Highway Administration spokesman Charlie Gischlar told the Baltimore Sunthat he sent some workers out to the site after viewing the viral image and confirmed that the words "Consider Canada" did actually appear on the traffic sign: "Whoever did it, though, Ihave to give them credit  it looks real." confirmed We also reached out to the Maryland State Highway Administration to confirm that the sign never read "consider Canada": @danieljevon No it did not @danieljevon  MD State Highway Adm (@MDSHA) January 20, 2017 January 20, 2017  Dance, Scott.  "Viral image of 'Consider Canada' highway sign a hoax, SHA says."
  Baltimore Sun.  20 January 2017. One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017. Claim:  Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections.  On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published  A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju  Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014  Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.:  Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally  in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different:  Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama.  Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x  Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism  it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about?   Last updated:  11 November 2014 Appealing unsuccessfully to spend more money from the states so-called Rainy Day Fund, state Sen. Rodney Ellis hearkened to legislative history, saying in floor debate May 16: Members, this legislature has voted to use virtually all of the Rainy Day Fund four times since its creation in the late 1980s. The sad truth is that Texans and the (fund) are being held hostage to politics.Back story: GOP Gov. Rick Perry has said hes agreeable with taking about $3.1 billion from the fund, formally called the Economic Stabilization Fund, to help cover the state budget that runs through August. But Perry and many Republicans oppose tapping the fund, which is fed by state oil and gas oil production taxes, for the 2012-13 budget. Perry contends it needs to be protected in case of natural disasters.Democrats, noting the projected multi-billion-dollar shortfall in state revenue needed to maintain current programs, say the current dire circumstances justify taking more from the fund.And is Ellis correct about past legislatures voting four times to virtually empty the fund?Jeremy Warren, Elliss spokesman, said the senator relied on a report by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank that advocates for programs serving the poor. To help balance the 2012-13 budget, the center has urged lawmakers to use the fund, which is projected by State Comptroller Susan Combs to have a balance of $9.7 billion by the end of August 2013, or about $6.6 billion if lawmakers stick with applying $3.1 billion from the fund to this years deficit .The centers Feb. 21reportsays: In 1991, the Legislature spent the funds entire balance ($28.8million) on public schools, and in 1993, spent the entire balance ($197 million) for criminal justice.In 2003, to deal with the last economic downturn, the Legislature appropriated $1.3 billion from the Rainy Day Fundalmost every penny of the balance the (state) comptroller forecast through 2005, the report says. Again in 2005, the Legislature appropriated $1.9 billion in Rainy Day funds, using roughly half for 2005 shortfalls, and the other half for 2006-07, spending almost all the $2 billion that was forecast to be available.Next, we confirmed the amounts of rainy-day money that lawmakers could have spent in each of these instances by reviewing biennial revenue forecasts made by respective state comptrollers. Finally, the Legislative Reference Library guided us to a Feb. 3reportby the House Research Organization, a non-partisan arm of the Texas House, specifying how much money the 1991, 1993, 2003 and 2005 Legislatures appropriated from the fund.Punch line: The centers recap is accurate.We rate Elliss statement True. The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016. In 1975, photographer Garry Gross took several nude photographs of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields that were later published in a Playboy publication called Sugar and Spice. This series of photographs has been the source for controversy for decades. But many internet users were blissfully unaware of the images until one appeared in a meme featuring a photograph of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and passed around on social media:   The girl in the background of this meme is indeed a naked 10-year-old Shields, and the photograph was truly published by Playboy. Although this meme may have given some viewers the impression that the image appeared in Playboy magazine itself, the picture was actually featured in the Playboy Press publication Sugar and Spice. The above-displayed photograph is one of many that Gross took with the consent of Shields' mother, Teri Shields, in 1975. In 1981, with Sugar and Spice out of print and Shields' profile on the rise, Shields sued Gross, arguing that the photographer should not be allowed to continue to profit from the images, and that the photographs would cause her irreparable harm.  sued The lawsuit was dismissed in a 4-3 decision by the New York State Supreme Court. Justice Edward Greenfield stated that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" except to "possibly perverse minds," and that while the images might cause Shields personal embarrassment, they did not constitute "irreparable harm" as Shields' profile had risen in the years since the photographs were taken. decision Greenfield also criticized Shields' mother for trying to "have it both ways," saying the actress had starred in provocative roles in movies such as Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby:  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com Here's an excerpt from a contemporaneous article published by the Washington Post: Washington Post Washington Post: It was Mom who decided six years ago to let Gross take pictures of her nude daughter for a book, published the next year by Playboy Press, called "Sugar and Spice." Then a funny thing happened to little Brooke: she burst out of her cocoon and turned into a great big star, just like that. Suddenly the pictures acquired a new and alluring value; and suddenly Brooke and Mom decided that, with the book out of print, Gross had no business peddling the pictures anywhere else, even though Mom had signed a release for them. So they went to court, where Justice Greenfield ruled against them. He said that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" and that Brooke would not suffer irreparable damage if they were republished; he ruled that Gross had not violated the terms of the release. And so long as he was at it, Justice Greenfield delivered himself of a tidy lecture on the subject of stage motherhood. He described Teri Shields as "a concerned mother"; he said she lived not merely "for" her daughter but also "through" her. He said that her behavior was "maternally protective and exploitative," that she wanted "to have it both ways" by representing Brooke as "sexually provocative and exciting while attempting to preserve her innocence." An appellate court overturned the decision, but in 1983 the original verdict was upheld. upheld This wasn't the only time these nude images of Shields were at the center of a controversy. In 2009, artist Richard Prince, known for "reproduction" photography, used one of Gross' images of Shields for an artwork entitled "Spiritual America." The photograph was set to be displayed at the Tate Modern Gallery, but it was removed after Scotland Yard suggested that it might violate London's obscenity laws. violate Associated Press.  "Judge Lambasts Actress' Mother."
  11 November 1981. Higgins, Charlotte and Vikram Dodd.  "Tate Modern Removes Naked Brooke Shields Picture After Police Visit."
  The Guardian.  30 September 2009. Yardley, Jonathan.  "Sugar and Spice and Not Nice."
  The Washington Post.  16 November 1981. Gambardello, Joseph.  "Judge Scolds Brooke Shields' Mother for Exploiting Daughter."
  UPI.  11 November 1981. Turner, Christopher  "Sugar and Spice and All Things Not So Nice."
  The Guardian.  2 October 2009. On 2 January 2017, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin posted a message referencing a quote from former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher about socialism, along with a link to a story about Dan Price, the CEO of Gravity Payments, who took a drastic pay cut to raise the minimum salary at his company to $70,000 and then had to rent out his home in order to make ends meet: posted Margaret Thatcher  The linked story was not current news; it was originally published by Young Cons on 1 August 2015: published Back in April we told you about Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments, who said he would pay every single one of his employees $70,000 annually. Every single one, from the lowest skilled workers on up. Now, as expected, Price has fallen on hard times financially, even having to rent out his own home. The Young Cons article was based on a comment Price made in a video interview with the New York Times. Price, who slashed his own $1 million pay package to provide a minimum salary of $70,000 to all his employees, told the newspaper that he had received mixed reactions about the new pay structure and was still adjusting to life on his own much lower salary. comment Price's relevant comments come at the 2:30 mark of the following video:  My hope is that I'll be right at the end of the day. But I actually don't think that the idea is so good to guaurantee that I'll be right. I'm working as hard as I've ever worked to try to make it work. I'm renting out my house right now to make ends meet for myself. I haven't made this little amount of money since I was in my early 20s. It helps that I'm 31 and don't have kids. And no girlfriend to tell me I'm crazy. Price did indeed put his house up for rent on AirBnB (an online marketplace and homestay network). The first review for the listing was posted in June 2015, and the house was reviewed eight additional times (with the most recent review as of this writing coming from August 2016). AirBnB However, Price's actions didn't necessarily demonstrate any failings of socialism, indicate that Gravity Payments was suffering financially, or show that Price had "fallen on hard times." Price told Today in August 2016 (more than a year after he made his initial salary announcement) that some of the financial adjustments he made, such as renting out his house during the summer, were neither permanent nor based purely on financial necessity: Price himself made some cutbacks to adjust to the lower salary, although more out of sensibility than necessity. He now rents his house on Airbnb during the summer to make extra cash, and sleeps in the guest room at a friends house. You might call it a sacrifice, he said, speaking from the borrowed room. But to me, its fun. It feels good. Price is quick to state the obvious: that any life adjustments hes made as a result of earning less after earning so much more are hardly putting me in some horrible, awful position. Of course, even as he's emerged as a champion for income equality, he wont be making $70,000 forever, and that was never the plan. When I made the announcement, I said I would just put my salary back where it was once the companys profits had gone back to where they were, Price said. I expected us to take a big step backwards. Price's salary adjustments sparked massive interest in Gravity Payments (a credit card processing company), and according to an article published by Inc Magazine, the company's revenues and profits doubled in the six months following Price's announcement: doubled Six months after Price's announcement, Gravity has defied doubters. Revenue is growing at double the previous rate. Profits have also doubled. Gravity did lose a few customers: Some objected to what seemed like a political statement that put pressure on them to raise their own wages; others feared price hikes or service cutbacks. But media reports suggesting that panicked customers were fleeing have proved false. In fact, Gravity's customer retention rate rose from 91 to 95 percent in the second quarter. Only two employees quit  a nonevent. Jason Haley isn't one of them. He is still an employee, and a better paid one. We talked to a close associate of Dan Price's at Gravity Payments who confirmed all of the above for us.  Mr. Price chose to put his house up on Airbnb during the summers months not out of financial necessity, he said, but because Price lives alone and has far more room than he needs (in addition to plenty of friends and acquaintances in the area with whom he can stay), so why not let others enjoy his beautiful home part of the year and raise some extra revenue in the process?  He also noted that because the company's revenues and profits have shot up dramatically since the minimum wage announcement (rather than sharply declining, as initially expected), Price could have returned his salary to its previous much higher level but has so far opted not to. Murray, Rheana.  "Gravity Payments' $70K Minimum Salary: CEO Dan Price Shares Result Over a Year Later."
  Today.  11 August 2016.

 Keegan, Paul.  "Here's What Really Happened at That Company That Set a $70,000 Minimum Wage."
  Inc Magazine.  November 2015. Cohen, Patricia.  "A Company Copes with Backlash Against the Raise That Roared."
  The New York Times.  31 July 2015.