Americas federal business tax rate is the highest in the world.
Duringa speechin which he warmed up to U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryan, gave a shout-out toVince Lombardiand even name-droppedKanye West, president-electDonald Trumpalso reaffirmed his promise to cut taxes. Trump appeared Dec. 13, 2016 with vice president-electMike Penceand a host of Badger State Republicans, including Ryan, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center. This stop on his multi-state thank-you tour was mostly a campaign-style rally, but there was some policy, too. Midway into his remarks,Trump said: Were going to undertake one of the great tax reforms and simplifications in American history. This includes a massive tax cut for themiddle-classand middle-class families from Wisconsin, too. Were also going to lower ourbusiness tax rateso that new companies will come to our shores and hire workers in cities like right here. Is that OK? Thats what we want. Were going to bring our rates down from 35 percent, were going to try to get it down to 15 percent. So, right now -- and by the way the jobs will pour in -- so, right now, were the highest-taxed nation in the world. And when we finish, well be one of the lower taxed, one of the lower. Whether the president-elect keeps his promises on taxes will be something to be determined by PolitiFact Nationals Trump-O-Meter, whichwill be launchedin 2017. But we can answer now whether Americas business tax rate is the highest in the world. Top U.S. rate: 35% The corporate income tax rates in the United States range from15 to 35 percent. And that 35 percent top rate -- at least as a statutory rate (more on that below) -- is relatively high. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishesthe top corporate tax ratesfor the35 countriesthat belong to its organization, which includes most advanced, industrialized nations. The U.S top rate of 35 percent ranks first, just ahead of France, 34.4 percent; Belgium, 33 percent; and Australia and Mexico, 30 percent. On the low end: Switzerland, 8.5 percent; Ireland, 12.5 percent; Latvia and Canada, 15 percent; and Germany, 15.8 percent. Sometimes references are made to a combined corporate tax rate, which includes federal and state corporate taxes; the U.S. combined rate is38.9 percent. But Trump was referring to the 35 percent federal rate, the one he vows to reduce. There are, however, two clarifying points to make. Other nations, and what is paid To back Trumps statement, his campaign cited aForbes articlethat noted the United States has the highest corporate rate among industrialized nations. But Trump didnt limit his statement to industrialized nations. The accounting firm PwC tracks the top federal corporate tax rates for155 countries.That listshows five other countries that also have a top rate of 35 percent: Argentina, Chad, Congo, Malta and Zambia. And there are two countries with higher top corporate tax rates: United Arab Emirates, 55 percent; and Puerto Rico, 39 percent. It also needs to be understood that Americas 35 percent top rate is the statutory rate -- before deductions -- but U.S. companies arent actually taxed at that rate. Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. Indeed, aMarch 2016 reportby the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability, although larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. And aMay 2016 paperby Reed College economics professor Kimberly Clausing found U.S. multinational firms have used tax planning to generate effective tax rates that are far lower than the statutory rate, and often in the single digits. Our rating Trump said Americas federal business tax rate is the highest in the world. The top corporate tax in the United States is 35 percent, highest among the worlds industrialized nations. But five smaller nations have the same rate and two smaller ones, United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, have rates above 35 percent. Also, the 35 percent U.S. rate is only the starting point, given that corporations can use exemptions and deductions to effectively reduce that rate and pay lower taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True.
Over the past month of their hotly contested race for governor, Republican challenger John Kasich has accused Gov. Ted Strickland of raising taxes on Ohioans, a charge the Democratic governor has vehemently denied.Kasich has leveled the tax hike charge in his public speeches, during both gubernatorial debates and in campaign commercials. He says the governors decision last December to halt a scheduled 2009 income tax cut essentially took away $844 million in refunds earmarked for Ohioans and instead gave it to the government.A television ad from the Republican Governors Association released this month features still photographs of Strickland with a woman speaking: Ted Strickland promised not to raise taxes. He broke that promise.Strickland says he didnt raise taxes, he only temporarily froze a planned income tax cut to fill an unexpected budget hole. Stricklands running mate Yvette McGee Brown certainly feels comfortable with that explanation.They had the nerve to say, the Republican Governors Association, that this governor (Strickland) raised taxes $800 million on Ohioans. Not true, Brown said during a rally on Sept. 27 in Cleveland with Strickland standing behind her. And I wish PolitiFact would go check that.So, we are.The tax issue Kasich is referencing is Stricklands decision last year to halt the final year of a five-year, 21-percent across-the-board income tax cut that started in 2005. The move saved the state approximately $840 million, money the governor used to fill a budget hole. The only alternative, Strickland insists, was to cut the equivalent amount of cash out of primary and secondary education.Strickland is careful to characterize his move as having frozen the final year of that tax cut and not having eliminated it altogether. The difference: whats frozen can be thawed and used, but it might not be possible to replicate what has been completely erased.We have cut the state income tax 17 percent since 2005, Strickland said during his Oct. 7 debate against Kasich, taking credit for the first four years of the tax cuts. Strickland became governor in January 2007.And the governor notes that the postponed final year tax cut is scheduled to be reinstated next year after the current budget cycle expires. Also, the decision to freeze the tax cut required legislative approval, which means the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate had to OK the deal and it did  narrowly.But having received the first four years of the tax cut, Ohioans were already looking forward to the final year, 4.2 percent reduction, Kasich said, until the governor snatched it away.He raised taxes last year to the tune of $840 million, Kasich said on Oct. 4 during a press conference at the Ohio Republican Party headquarters.To be fair, Strickland had to find a source of revenue or would have had to slash programs. Ohio law requires the state budget be balanced. And part of the reason for the shortfall can be pinned on Republicans, whoincreased spending in seven consecutive budgets while they controlled the General Assembly while also cutting taxes.And the truth is Ohioans didnt pay any more in taxes for 2009 over what they paid in 2008, and maybe less once you factor in some inflationary indexing. So, this was not a tax hike in that sense, which Kasich concedes.But he argues it is an increase when residents are forced to pay more in taxes than they had been promised, or to look at it another way, get back less in their state income tax refund than they anticipated.Those who owed the state after filing their 2009 taxes, owed a little bit extra thanks to Stricklands tax freeze. Stricklands decision cost a family of four earning $60,000 a year about $78 last year.Strickland prides himself on having made tough decisions in rough economic times. One of those decisions was postponing the income tax cut which meant taking money out of the pockets of Ohioans.But while the freeze is expected to be lifted next year, there are no guarantees that will happen in what is still a rough economic landscape for Ohio. And state taxpayers, who had to pay more in income taxes than what had been promised, may continue to pay at the higher rate.We rate Kasichs statement Mostly True. Comment on this item. Legend:  Native American warns U.S. vice-president about American immigration policy. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Food for Thought ... Recently someone was browsing through the 40th Anniversary Issue of Reader's Digest (dated Feb. 1962) and came across this reprint from the Washington News.  And found it quite interesting considering our current debates! The Quote: "Vice President Lyndon Johnson received the following message from an Indian (Native American) on a reservation: 'Be careful with your immigration laws.  We were careless with ours.'" Origins:  Whenever the debate about U.S. immigration policy flares anew, many debaters quickly rush into one of two camps: those who believe that a flood of illegal immigrants is undermining the  American economy and culture, and those who assert that America's foundations were built upon the bedrock of immigration, and that all U.S. residents other than Native Americans are themselves immigrants or the descendants of immigrants.  That last point is common fodder for humor, with many jokes playing on the notion of "Indians" sagely and sardonically cautioning "white men" (or others) to avoid the same dangers they themselves faced from the European settlers who colonized the North American continent.  (A familiar anecdote about a subversive greeting provided to NASA officials by a Navajo is a sample of this form.) NASA The example reproduced above was mined from the same vein, a joke that enjoyed brief currency in the American press during the early summer of 1961, primarily through its retelling by Representative E.Y. Berry of South Dakota.  In true urban legend fashion, even though the tale was spread by a single source, in just a few weeks' time it was reproduced in multiple versions with differing details.  For example, on 2 July 1961, the Washington Post ran it this way: As Rep. E. Y. Berry tells it, Chief Ben Wildhorse, a South Dakota Sioux, came to Washington and was given an audience by the Vice President.  The Chief's advice to the Vice President: "Young man, be careful with your immigration laws.  We were careless with ours." In this instance the Native American is identified by name and tribe, but the vice-president is referenced only by position. (Most people, as in the Reader's Digest example quoted above, simply filled in the name of the then-current vice-president, Lyndon Johnson.) Three weeks later, the Chicago Daily Tribune printed the same item, only in a slightly more elaborate version that didn't name the Indian chief and had the Sioux offering his advice to Lyndon Johnson's predecessor in the vice-presidency, Richard Nixon: Rep. E .Y. Berry recalls the time a Sioux Indian chief from South Dakota called on former Vice President Nixon to discuss tribal land matters. As he was leaving the Vice President's office, the chief said he had some advice to impart. "Be careful with your immigration laws," the Indian said, "unfortunately, we were careless with ours." The same story had appeared a month earlier in the Chicago Defender, in yet another version that again identified the Sioux chieftain (but gave him a different name); had him imparting his wisdom to Nixon's predecessor, the late Alben Barkley; and classified the tale as "an old Indian proverb": Rep. E .Y. Berry Monday repeated an old Indian proverb for the edification of Congressmen studying immigration problems.  Sioux chieftain Ben American Horse, Berry said, once advised the late Vice President Alben W. Barkley to "be careful with your immigration laws.  We were careless with ours." Finally, a 1965 version combined elements of both this anecdote and the NASA/Navajo joke referenced earlier in this article: Many people no doubt remember the aging Sioux Indian Chief Ben American Horse's well-known remark to the late Alben Barkley, Harry Truman's vice president. "Young man, let me give you a little advice," said the chief.  "Be careful with your immigration laws.  We were careless with ours." A sequel to this, which might have been prompted by the Gemini flights, is now suggested by [South Dakota] Sen. Karl Mundt. A Sioux Indian from South Dakota wrote Mundt wanting to know "why you white people want to go to the moon.  There is no Indian land to take away up there!" For what it's worth, Ben American Horse was a real Sioux chieftain, and he did visit Washington in 1955, when Alben Barkley was a U.S. senator and Richard Nixon was vice-president.  However, we couldn't find any contemporaneous news accounts that reported his making (to either man) the "immigration" remark attributed to him  all such accounts we turned up dated from 1961 or later, after Barkley was dead and Nixon was out of office. Last updated:  11 August 2006    Sources:   Albright, Robert C.  "Lone Sunbeam Pierces Pall of Off-Year Loss."   The Washington Post.  2 July 1961  (p. E1).    Gabbett, Harry.  "Visiting Sioux Chief Pays His Disrespects to Things."   The Washington Post.  8 March 1955  (p. 27).    Trohan, Walter.  "Washington Scrapbook."   Chicago Daily Tribune.  23 July 1961  (p. 22).    Indiana Evening Gazette.  "Litterbug in Trouble with Him."   11 September 1965  (p. 8).    United Press International.  "Chuckles in the News."   Chicago Daily Defender.  28 June 1961  (p. 19). In early 2022, folk-rock legend Neil Young found himself the target of a laughable conspiracy theory after he spoke out against COVID-19-related misinformation. On Jan. 24, Young wrote that he wanted his music removed from the streaming platform Spotify, unless the company ended its agreement to host Joe Rogan's podcast, which has on several occasions provided a forum for potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. In response, Spotify removed Young's back catalog from its library, rather than cutting ties with Rogan.  wrote misinformation removed In the midst of that controversy, vaccine skeptics and COVID-19 conspiracy theorists shared a ludicrous conspiracy theory claiming that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer  which produces a widely-used COVID-19 vaccine  either owned the rights to Young's music catalog or, through a chain of connections, held sway over the rock star and influenced, or even ordered, his pro-vaccination stance.  For example, some social media users posted a meme with the text, "When you realize Neil Young's music catalogue is owned by Pfizer": posted meme   Others did not explicitly claim that Pfizer itself owned some or all of Young's catalog, but did suggest that the company held sway over him, by way of a series of connections, and that therefore Young's opposition to Rogan and his criticism of vaccine misinformation should be dismissed as the result of corruption and self-compromise, rather than a principled stance.  did suggest series connections On social media, a conspiracy theorist who uses the moniker An0maly outlined the theory in helpful detail, starting with the observation that in January 2021, Young reportedly sold half of his catalog to a U.K.-based investment fund called Hipgnosis, for around $150 million. An0maly continued: outlined the theory So, 50% to UK investment fund Hipgnosis. In October of 2021, Blackstone and Hipgnosis Song Management launched [a] "$1 billion partnership to invest in songs, recorded music, music IP and royalties." Interesting. Blackstone is "an American alternative investment management company" who, interestingly enough, in 2020 announced the appointment of "Jeffrey B. Kindler, former chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as [a] senior adviser." Now I don't know the answer to this, but did Neil Young independently make the decision to try and blackball Joe Rogan for questioning big pharma and the government narrative? Or was it a team decision with a multi-billion-dollar investment firm who also owns a big chunk of his music? The first point to note here is that, even among those promulgating the Young-Pfizer theory, it is not seriously suggested that Pfizer itself  which is, after all, a pharmaceutical company  owns the rights to any of Young's music. That claim can be dismissed.  Before assessing the logic behind the theory, and its coherence, it's worth briefly evaluating the accuracy of each of its components. First, it appears to be true that, in January 2021, Young sold half of his songs to Hipgnosis. In a news release, Hipgnosis wrote: "...The Company has acquired 50% of Neil Youngs worldwide copyright and income interests in his entire song catalogue comprising 1,180 songs." news release Secondly, it is also true that in October 2021, Blackstone bought an ownership stake in Hipgnosis, as demonstrated in news releases published by both companies. Finally, it is also true that in August 2020, Blackstone hired Jeff Kindler as a senior advisor, and that Kindler used to be the chairman and CEO of Pfizer.  both companies hired Jeff Kindler used to be However, rather than having uncovered a web of corruption, those pushing the Young-Pfizer story were engaging in the classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy of finding whatever possible connection they can between two separate entities (in this case, Young and Pfizer) without first testing the logical or chronological basis of that putative link. In other words, "connecting the dots" by whatever means available, rather than uncovering an actual, organic conspiracy.  Let's look at the sequence of events. Kindler left Pfizer in 2010  a full decade before he joined Blackstone, and before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted Pfizer to develop a vaccine along with its German partner BioNTech. left Pfizer in 2010 Blackstone is a publicly traded company, meaning it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, and Kindler, in turn, has a professional obligation to provide sound business and strategic advice to Blackstone. Aside from presenting no concrete evidence whatsoever, those pushing the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory appear to be asking readers to believe, despite these circumstances, one of two explanations: publicly traded company As outlandish as these scenarios are, they are premised on even shakier assumptions: for example, that Kindler was even consulted on the Blackstone-Hipgnosis deal; or that if he was, he was in favor of it; and that Young has any remaining financial or commercial obligations to Hipgnosis and/or Blackstone after the sale of half his music  after all, if that deal is already done, what is the supposed basis of Hipgnosis or Blackstone's putative leverage over Young? It's not necessary to list, in excruciating detail, each of the known factual and logical flaws associated with the Young-Pfizer conspiracy theory. The claim that the pharmaceutical company "owned Young's music catalog" was patently false, and the theory of a fantastical web of corruption, with Kindler at its centre, was presented without any concrete evidence and, perhaps more importantly, made no sense whatsoever. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In mid-March 2020, social media users posted a message cautioning that scammers were victimizing elderly people amid the COVID-19 pandemic by impersonating Red Cross volunteers:  A variation of this meme contained a similar warning, along with an image of people clad in white biohazard suits. (We cropped the image out for the sake of privacy.)   This is indeed a scam. Red Cross chapters have warned of criminals exploiting the coronavirus disease in various ways, which has sickened and killed thousands globally and isolated people in their homes worldwide. In a statement emailed to Snopes, a Red Cross spokesperson said: The American Red Cross has seen widespread reports of this scam across the United States, along with other countries, on social media platforms. We would like to emphasize that this rumor is not true. The Red Cross is not going to people's homes to offer coronavirus tests. If someone comes to your house claiming that they work for the Red Cross and that they're authorized to do coronavirus testing, do not allow them in your home. Our most important guidance is for people to please be safe. Should such an incident occur, we ask that you call the police as soon as possible. The Oklahoma chapter, for example, advised the public to be wary of scammers impersonating Red Cross volunteers offering coronavirus testing door-to-door: advised A similar warning was issued by the British Red Cross Northwest Branch. "We would like to make it clear that the Red Cross is not conducting coronavirus tests in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK," the statement said.  warning Likewise, the Canadian Red Cross issued an alert that scammers impersonating the organization were exploiting the pandemic by sending out text messages offering to sell or give away protective masks.Unfortunately, scams like these are not new. In a rather cruel variation of this scam during the coronavirus pandemic, a message posted to social media falsely claimed that if you lacked health insurance to pay for a coronavirus diagnostic test, you could donate blood as an alternative because donors must have a blood test. alert  like these variation The U.S. government has since taken steps to roll out widespread testing for the coronavirus disease at no cost to patients. steps Updated with statement from Red Cross and variation of the meme. In February 2013, the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) announced they would be staging an event called the "Million Muslim March," which they hoped would gather one million people in Washington, D.C., on 11 September 2013, the twelfth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to press the U.S. government into revealing "the truth" about those attacks: AMPAC The American Muslim Political Action Committee is hosting what it hopes will be a gathering of one million people in Washington, D.C., on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 to urge the government to reveal "the truth" about the attacks."We want to hold President Obama accountable for his empty promises of creating a transparent government," march organizer Isa Hodge said. "What exactly have we spent all our money, lost lives and taken lives for? The entire record of the 9/11 Commission has never been released." Protesters will also denounce "FBI traps," "illegal tapping and surveilling of Muslim Americans" and "media propaganda making the word terrorist synonymous with Muslim," he said. After negative public reaction, AMPAC changed the name of their event to the "Million American March Against Fear" (MAMAF), which they describe as offering the following events: We invite you to stand with and join us to Rally Against Fear at 12 noon on The National Mall, then the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House, to hold truth to power at the three major branches of American government.We ask all individuals and organizations working for peace to attend this collective action to tell our Government leaders we want transparency and policies of peace. In the past 12 years since 9/11 the United States government as failed to protect and promote Constitutional liberties and human life, here and abroad. We feel that accountability in government has been ignored and the time has arrived to collectively speak truth to power. Speaking will be experts and individuals on the lack of transparency and questions plaguing 9/11, steady erosion of domestic civil liberties, drone policy and the very dire effect of these on of plight of American Muslims here at home, and Muslim communities globally in the scope of U.S. imperialism, and the modern face of resistance to unmanned aerial surveillance and warfare. In August 2013, motorcyclists began organizing a "2 Million Bikers to DC counter-event, which they hoped would bring even larger numbers of bikers on a Washington ride-through to "pay tribute and offer respect to those that lost their lives on that day 12 years ago, and to salute our troops engaged in the War on Terror": 2 Million Bikers to DC Example:  [Collected via Facebook, September 2013] I keep seeing posts on Face Book saying that President Obama denied bikers a permit to ride in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 but did allowMuslims the same privilege. True or false? However, the National Park Service (NPS) has jurisdiction over the issue, and the NPS has declined to issue the group a "no stop" permit that would facilitate their ride through Washington by granting them a police escort and a waiver for red lights, stop signs and other traffic signals. The NPS cited traffic issues and manpower requirements in denying the request: The National Park Services confirms that it has denied the permit for the ride-only, non-stop event after looking at it in terms of disruption and resource management.NPS spokeswoman Carol Johnson said the group's permit application was examined like all others, using the Code of Federal Regulations. Johnson said the group had asked to ride through what's called Memorial Core, near the Memorial Bridge, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. with 2,000 motorcyclists. NPS decided that the large ride would require closures of important roadways, block access to Rock Creek and George Washington Parkways and would cause a severe disruption to traffic. A police escort would also be needed. "It's just a case of what they asked for in the permit applications," Johnson said. The Metropolitan Police Department [said] the group was asked to move its ride to a weekend, when it would be less disruptive to traffic. "Solely to facilitate the speed and timeliness of the participants in itself does not fall within the definition of a First Amendment assembly, said police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump. The permits in question were under the purview of the NPS and the Metropolitan Police Department, not President Obama himself. The lack of a permit did not prevent bikers from riding through Washington on the 9/11 anniversary; the riders just weren't exempt from traffic laws and therefore couldn't navigate through the city nearly as quickly as they could have if they had been issued a "no-stop" permit. The two cases were dissimilar in that AMPAC requested a permit for a smaller gathering in a fixed location and submitted their request several months in advance; the 2 Million Bikers group requested a no-stop permit for a much larger group involving miles of roadways, street closures, and police escorts, and they didn't submit their request for a no-stop permit until a few weeks before the event, as documented by this 30 August 2013 Facebook post: Neither group came anywhere close to the "millions" of participants referenced in their event names: the Million American March Against Fear was said to have drawn between a few dozen and a few hundred people, while news accounts cited estimates for the 2 Million Bikers to DC event at somewhere between 10,000 and 75,000 participants. 10,000 75,000 Many Internet postings later claimed that Washington police had estimated the 2 Million Bikers event turnout at between 800,000 and 1.2 million participants, but we have found no documentation (other than repetition of rumor) confirming that local police made any such estimate, and when we queried the Washington Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) about the issue, the Director of the MPD's Office of Communications confirmed that "the Metropolitan Police Department does not provide crowd estimates."   Brenzing, Bob.  "10,000 Bikers Circle Washington for 9/11."
  WUSA-TV [Washington].  12 September 2013.   Davidson, Jacob.  "2 Million Bikers to DC: Motorcycle Riders Roll into Washington."
  Time.  11 September 2013.   Lee, Caroline.  "'Million Muslim March' 2013 Has Low Turnout, Lost in Sea of Motorcyclists."
  UPI.  11 September 2013.   Somers, Meredith.  "Bikers, Muslims Pledge Return to D.C. Next 9/11."
  The Washington Times.  11 September 2013. Claim:  The Boy Scouts of America has lost some funding over its refusal to accept homosexuals within its ranks. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Good Morning,As near as I can tell the following is a real concern and not a hoax.  The Boy Scouts need all the support they can get.  The request is to sign a petition in their support in response to the many funding sources that have withdrawn support due to the issue that was ruled on by the Supreme Court. Also many Federal Parks that now will not permit them to use that facility. You can access this issue at the following address. https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 https://www.grassfire.net/index1.asp?CID=2&PID=70471 They also provide a series of statements of what has happened concerning the removal of support. Thanks for your interest Origins:  The petition quoted above began circulating on the Internet in October 2000.  It calls upon folks to electronically sign a petition in support of the Boy Scouts. (The Boy Scouts of America are not sponsoring this petition; an unrelated entity is housing and administering it.)  The petition (found at the Grassfire site) reads as follows: PETITION TO SUPPORT THE BOY SCOUTS!!As a concerned citizen, I am deeply troubled by the recent attacks which have come against the Boy Scouts simply because the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values. As a private organization, the Boy Scouts has every right to set standards for leadership and morality. The U.S. Supreme Court made this clear! I urge you to cease these hostile attacks against one of America's great institutions. Should you sign it? The answer to that depends on two things: What your views on the underlying issues are,  as well as what you think of the validity of online petitions.  We think it's not at all likely any Internet petition (no matter what issue it addresses) will have an appreciable impact on anyone in a position to affect policy. It's too easy to cook up lists of fake names and phony e-mail addresses and festoon a petition with them for anyone charged with gauging public reaction to be tempted to give such documents much weight when it comes time to make a decision. Petitions signed in ink in a variety of different handwritings aren't given all that much consideration in this world; how valid will a computer printout appear? A decision to support this petition should probably be based on what one thinks of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. The Grassfire petition glosses the question of why support is being sought by saying nothing other than "the Scouts have taken a stand for faith and moral values." This wording leaves those who weren't aware of the core issue in the dark as to what prompted folks to withdraw support from the BSA. We don't find that a fair way to write a petition. In a 5-to-4 opinion handed down on 28 June 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the Boy Scouts of America held the right as a private group to expel scoutmaster James Dale on the basis of his sexual orientation. The court ruled: Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law [the statute contended in a New Jersey suit involving Dale] to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts' freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does. Grassfire expresses its view of the issues at stake as: This summer, the Scouts won a hard-fought case before the U.S. Supreme Court called Dale v. Scouts. The Supreme Court affirmed the Scouts right to set standards for leadership within their organization. This apparently infuriated the politically correct cultural elites. Almost immediately, the anti-Scout campaign was launched, with the Scouts being branded as intolerant. The standard affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dale vs. Scouts, which recognized the BSA's right to determine how to run its organization, also applies to the groups who would now withhold funding from the Scouts: they too possess the right of association. Some local chapters of the United Way are guided by policies that expressly forbid them from financially supporting groups that practice discrimination. They have discontinued funding of the Boy Scouts of America because their entrenched principles  rule out this association in much the same way the BSA's principles rule out an association with homosexuals. It's the same issue, just the other side of the coin. At this point, only a few chapters of the United Way have withdrawn financial support from the Boy Scouts of America. Some municipalities are also now refusing to allow Scout troops to use municipal sites for camping and rallies. United Way funding to the BSA has not yet been substantially affected, however. A rough estimate of loss of beneficence over this issue places the figure at $500,000 a year out of budget hundreds of times that. (In 1996, for example, United Way funding of the BSA amounted to $83,743,000.)  As to what to make of the core issue behind the petition, it comes down to this: The Boy Scouts uphold their deeply-held beliefs by barring homosexuals from becoming scouts or scoutmasters. That stand, however, impels organizations who have sworn to refuse aid to those who practice discrimination to now recognize the Boy Scouts of America as one of the groups they must turn away. Barbara "one good turn deserves another" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2007    Sources:   Parker, Laura and Guillermo Garcia.  "Boy Scout Troops Lose Funds, Meeting Places."   USA Today.  10 October 2000  (p. A1).     Zernike, Kate.  "Scouts' Successful Ban on Gays is Followed by Loss in Support."   The New York Times.  29 August 2000  (p. A1). In his annual State of the State address, Gov. Charlie Crist said Floridians are paying far less in property taxes than they used to.Property owners were seeing double-digit percentage increases in taxes levied prior to the beginning of my administration, Crist said on March 2, 2010. Now, they have seen significant decreases over the past three years. Due to ... tax cuts and lower (property) values, 2009 property taxes were almost $3 billion below 2007 property taxes.Previously, we rated Crist's claim that hepassed the largest tax cutin Florida history. In this item, we'll focus on whether the amount of property tax relief matches Crist's description.The relevant information to back up Crist's claim comes from a Senate committee hearing last month. In the meeting, James McAdams, the Department of Revenue's property tax oversight program director, gave an update on property tax collections across Florida.According to McAdams, Florida property taxes collected between 2007 and 2009 dropped by $2.28 billion, or 7.5 percent, the Associated Press reported.McAdams was unable to delineate how much of the drop was attributed to tax reforms implemented by the Legislature, and how much was a result of falling property values.I would classify that as dropping like a rock, said Senate Finance and Taxation Committee Chairman Thad Altman, R-Viera.Altman's comment prompted a response from Crist during his televised remarks in front of a joint session of the Legislature.Sen. Altman, we agree that does, indeed, qualify as 'dropping like a rock,'  Crist said.The Department of Revenue's 2009annual report, meanwhile, included an even bigger reduction. The annual report said property tax collections fell from $31.04 billion in 2007, to $28.14 billion in 2009. That's a $2.9 billion decrease in three years. (See page 32 of the report).In his State of the State address, Crist said 2009 property taxes were almost $3 billion below 2007 property taxes. A report prepared for a Senate committee pegs the number at about $2.28 billion and the Department of Revenue's annual report pegs the number at $2.9 billion. With the qualifier almost, that's close enough not to distort the broader point. We rate Crist's claim True. Houston businessman Farouk Shami, running for governor, turned to his leading Democratic foe on Monday night and leveled a foul charge.In a televised debate, Shami told Bill White, the former Houston mayor: Our city is the third-most toxic city in the United States of America.White didnt take issue with Shamis description, but it was news to us. We decided to check into the Bayou Citys ick ranking.Shamis campaign said the candidate based his statement on a 2009 article in Forbes magazine putting Houston behind only Atlanta and Detroit for toxicity among major U.S. cities.The magazine said it based its rankings of the nations 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the magazine said, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city.Its article states Houston's residents live with with air that's far filthier than it should be.Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, the magazine says, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands-based nonprofit group that studies and promotes sustainable development, is quoted saying Houston has become one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science. He saw that as a boon: The more people understand about it (air quality), the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction.When we reached Lester, he revisited pollution levels reported by industries and posted online by the EPA. In 2007, Harris County industries reported either releasing or disposing of 36.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals, while industries around Detroit in Wayne County nearly matched that dubious achievement, reporting the disposal or release of nearly 30 million pounds of toxic pollutants.Shami correctly referred to a recent national comparison. We rate his statement as True. The West Virginia Republican Party recentlytweetedpraise for President Donald Trumps handling of the economy, particularly as it relates to women. On Aug. 27, the state party tweeted, Womens unemployment has been lower under President Trump than its been in nearly 70 years. #WVGOP #WomenforTrump #WV4Trump. Women's unemployment has been lower under President Trump than it's been in nearly 70 years.#WVGOP#WomenforTrump#WV4Trumphttps://t.co/88rzHcS16h  Is that correct? We took a closer look. (The West Virginia Republican Party did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) According to theFederal Reserve Economic Datawebsite, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate for women was 3.7% in July 2019, the latest data that was known at the time of the partys tweet. In August 2019, the rate ticked down slightly, to 3.6%; the best showing came in April, with a rate of 3.4%. Heres a chart showing the full run of data for womens unemployment. The data shows one period with a lower unemployment rate for women: a 12-month period in 1952 and 1953. Thats about 66 years ago, which qualifies as nearly 70 years ago. Brian Lego, an economist at West Virginia University, told PolitiFact that the Korean War in the early 1950s created some labor market distortions. Because the military draft pulled men out of the labor market, temporary jobs opened up for women. Its important to note that presidents dont deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. In fact, the unemployment rate for women has been falling since 2010, when President Barack Obama was president. The unemployment rate for women fell from 8.7% in October 2010 to 4.7% when Obama left office in January 2017 -- a decline of four percentage points, or almost half. Since Trump entered the White House, womens unemployment has fallen by one point, or almost one-fifth. The West Virginia Republican Party said, Womens unemployment has been lower under President Trump than its been in nearly 70 years. The actual number is 66 years, which qualifies as nearly 70. However, its important to note that presidents dont deserve full credit or blame for such statistical changes on their watch. The statement is accurate but needs additional context, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  "Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.  Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] MAKE THE PIE HIGHERby George W. Bush  I think we all agree, the past is over.This is still a dangerous world.It's a world of madmen and uncertaintyand potential mental losses.  Rarely is the question askedIs our children learning?Will the highways of the Internet become more few?How many hands have I shaked?  They misunderestimate me.I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.  Put food on your family!Knock down the tollbooth!Vulcanize society!Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! Origins:  We certainly didn't need to write a piece to inform the world that, like his father, President George W. Bush is not a strong public speaker.  Particularly when speaking   extemporaneously, he often uses words similar in sound but different in meaning to what he intends tosay (e.g., "vulcanize" for "Balkanize") or uses incorrect forms of words (e.g., "resignate" for "resonate"), garbles familiar phrases by transposing words (e.g., "where wings take dream"), and makes a variety of grammatical mistakes (e.g., "how many hands have I shaked").  The point here was not to rehash the numerous lists of "Bushisms" to be found in a variety of media, but to perform a sort of investigative experiment into the accuracy of information transmission in the Internet age. A common phenomenon in the world of the printed word is that once a public figure  whether he be an athlete such a Yogi Berra, an entertainment figure such as Samuel Goldwyn, or a politician such as Dan Quayle  acquires a reputation for spouting malapropisms, people quickly begin to put words into his mouth. All sorts of humorous misuses of words and phrases that sound like something that person might have said are soon attributed to him as something he "really said"; newspapers run the erroneous quotes without verification and are later cited as documented proof of their veracity, thereby enshrining apocrypha as  fact. Only when someone undertakes the chore of trying to track the quotes back to their sources are the misattributions discovered, usually far too late to dislodge them from the public consciousness. So, we thought we'd tackle a project to see whether the increased availability of information in the Internet age has had any effect on this phenomenon; whether quotes are less likely to be misattributed when nearly every utterance of a public figure as prominent as a presidential candidate is recorded and stored in one form or another.  As a test example, we chose the "Make the Pie Higher!" piece reproduced above (generally credited to "Washington Post writer Richard Thompson," a satirist and illustrator who produces the "Richard's Poor Almanac" feature appearing in the Post's Sunday edition) and attempted to trace every statement listed therein to its source to determine how many of them were actually uttered by George W. Bush.  Our standard was that in order to consider a statement to be a genuine "Bushism" we had to find at least one major newspaper article that quoted the actual words spoken (rather than paraphrasing them), included specific information about when and where the statement was made, and was printed within a few days of the event at which the statement was offered. In this statistically insignificant non-random sample of one, we found that yes, the accuracy of quote transmission was remarkably high: All but a couple of the items in this piece could be reliably traced back to the mouth of George W. Bush. Here are the results:  "I think we all agree, the past is over." In March 2000, Texas governor George W. Bush locked up the Republican presidential nomination, beating out his chief rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in a rancorous primary campaign marked by personal attacks and charges of dirty tactics on the part of both sides.  Two months later Senator McCain somewhat reluctantly endorsed Governor Bush for president during a joint appearance at the Westin William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh, where both men tried their best (somewhat unconvincingly) to assure the press that they had put their differences behind them: Both sides swapped charges of dirty campaign tactics. McCain aides accused Bush supporters of personal attacks, and Mr. Bush denounced McCain forces for suggesting that the governor was guilty of anti-Catholic bigotry. On Tuesday, the pair told some 200 journalists that they had discussed policy, not personal history. "There's no point," Mr. McCain said. "I hold no rancor. Others will be the judge of this campaign, not me."  Mr. Bush said the McCain challenge toughened him for the fall campaign against Mr. Gore.  "We had a tough primary," Mr. Bush said. "I told him point blank: 'You made me a better candidate.'"  Later, on his campaign plane, the governor described the discussion as "very cordial, very frank, very open." He added: "I think we agree, the past is over."1 "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." On the campaign trail in South Carolina while pursuing the Republican nomination in January 2000, Governor Bush spoke before 2,000 loyal Republicans at a well-attended oyster roast held on a plantation outside Charleston and mystified his audience when, during his discourse on the need for a strengthened U.S. military, he made reference not to "mental" losses (which itself would have sounded odd in the given context), but to "mential" (pronounced "men-shul") losses: During his visit to South Carolina this week, the first Bushism exploded as the governor painted a passionate picture of the military dangers facing the US, and the pressing need for protection against rogue missile launches. "This is still a dangerous world," he told more than 2,000 supporters at an oyster roast. "It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mential losses." Bush's spokespeople could not immediately explain what a mential loss was, but it seemed only distantly related to missile launches.2 "Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning?'" During that same South Carolina campaign swing in January 2000, Governor Bush committed another grammatical mix-up while wrangling a sentence containing both singular and plural subjects, this example occurring (with a modicum of irony) during the portion of his stump speech dealing with education: That's not to say Bush hasn't had his share of flubs. Part of his stump speech focuses on education. On Tuesday, talking to a crowd of several hundred at a cavernous civic center in Florence, S.C., Bush decried those who ignore educational programs that produce no results  inadvertently revealing a temporary shortcoming in his own grammar skills.  "What's not fine is rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?" Bush said.3 "Will the highways of the Internet become more few?" During his January 2000 push to win the first primary election of the campaign, held in New Hampshire, Governor Bush was asked to comment on the recently announced merger of media giants Time Warner and AOL, and he addressed concerns over its potential monopolistic effects with some unusual phrasing: When asked about the Time Warner/America Online merger, the candidate took an unexpected detour on the information superhighway. The key question in considering the merger, Bush said, is "will the highways to the Internet become more few?"4 "How many hands have I shaked?" By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted.   When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances: Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."5 "They misunderestimate me." The misuse of 'misunderestimate' for 'underestimate' seems to be one of  George W. Bush's more common elocutionary mistakes.  We can't pin down exactly when he used 'misunderestimate' for the first time in a public statement as a presidential candidate; the earliest print reference we could find appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times on 13 November 2000, but it didn't detail where and when he said it.  Nonetheless,  Bush was still using the word (and catching himself at it) after his inauguration as President, as demonstrated by this excerpt from a 29 March 2001 news conference: Look, it is in our nation's best interests to have long-term tax relief, and that has been my focus all along. I'm confident we can have it, get it done. I believe not only can we get long-term tax relief in place. Since our country is running some surpluses in spite of the dire predictions about cash flow, I believe we have an opportunity to fashion an immediate stimulus package, as well. The two ought to go hand in hand. Those who think that they can say, "We're only going to have a stimulus package, but let's forget tax relief," misunderestimate ...  or, excuse me,  underestimate  just making sure you were paying attention  underestimate our administration's resolve to get this done ...6 "I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity." This line is a retrospective statement Bush uttered during an interview about his involvement in a partnershipthat bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989: George W. Bush has frequently claimed to have cobbled together the deal to buy the Rangers in 1989. "I was like a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity," Mr. Bush said in a long interview about his past. "And I just grabbed on to it. I was going to put the deal together. And I did." The initiative, Mr. Bush acknowledges, came from Bill DeWitt, a businessman and friend of the family. Mr. DeWitt had heard that the Rangers were on the market and wanted to recruit Mr. Bush as a partner to buy the team.15 "I know that the human being and the fish can coexist." On Friday, 29 September 2000, Governor Bush was on the stump in Saginaw, Michigan, and deviated from his prepared speech to reassure the business community that he would not support the tearing down of energy-producing dams merely to protect threatened fish species, an issue he had recently covered while campaigning in the Pacific Northwest:    Friday, feeling the need to explain his statement during a speech on energy policy that he intended to maintain dams in the Pacific Northwest, he departed from his text and added, "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." He did not elaborate.7 Mark Crispin Miller noted in The Bush Dyslexicon that: This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy.  A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predtente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream." Swinging through Wisconsin in mid-October 2000 en route to a debate with Democratic presidential challenger Al Gore, Governor Bush was discussing the importance of tax cuts to American families when he transposed a couple of words in a well-worn phrase: The Texas governor and GOP presidential nominee tangles up words often enough that he sometimes jokes about it, and the phenomenon has acquired a name  Bushism. On the campaign trail Wednesday, he let one fly: "Families is where our nation finds hope," he said, "where wings take dream."8 "Put food on your family!" On 27 January 2000, speaking in Nashua just a few days before the New Hampshire primary, Governor Bush was trying to illustrate the economic plight of single working mothers and again transposed (and omitted) a few words in the familiar reference to putting food on the table for one's family: At a breakfast meeting with the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Bush illustrated his brand of compassionate conservatism by urging his listeners to put themselves in the role of a single mother "working hard to put food on your family."4 Since these words are difficult to quote in the context in which they were offered, they were soon being rendered as the pithier "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." "Knock down the tollbooth!" Governor Bush's misuse of 'tollbooth' for 'roadblock,' in reference to eliminating tax obstacles that prevent the working poor from joining the middle class, comes from his New Hampshire campaign appearances in January 2000, but contemporary reports don't seem to agree on the exact words he used  perhaps there was more than one such incident: Things must be good here, because the mere mention of tax cuts is not enough to get the crowd cheering. What they like is when Bush worries about the working poor; they applaud vigorously when he complains that a single mother making $22,000 is being penalized by the tax system. "It's not fair!" Bush exclaims. "It's a tollbooth on the road to the middle class, and I intend not only to reduce the fees but to knock the tollbooth down."9  "The hardest job in America is to be a single mom, making $20,000 a year," Bush declared at a recent Rotary Club lunch where he promised that as president, he would reduce the struggling woman's marginal income-tax rate and "knock down her tollbooth to the middle class."10   Last weekend, fire marshals were actually turning people away from political rallies. At a high school near Nashua, you could see folks forlornly peeking in the windows, yearning to be let inside to hear George W. Bush call for "a law that provides liability to teachers who enforce discipline in the schools." All the candidates are tired, but Mr. Bush's speeches are getting particularly unintelligible  at the same high school, he announced, "I think we need not only to eliminate the tollbooth to the middle class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth." 11 "Vulcanize society! " At the very beginning of the 2000 presidential campaign, Ken Herman reported in a front-page story appearing in the 23 March 1999 edition of the Austin American-Statesman that Governor Bush had expressed his disdain for racial quotas as programs that "vulcanize" society: Sometimes this smooth operator is anything but. This was evident in a March 23 piece by Ken Herman, the Austin American-Statesman's chief Bush watcher, who wrote about the governor's "2-step around hot topics." Mr. Bush says he's against "hard quotas, quotas that basically delineate based on whatever. However, they delineate, quotas, I think, vulcanize society."12 In this instance Governor Bush of course meant to say 'Balkanize' (to divide a group into small, often hostile units) rather than 'vulcanize' (to improve the strength of rubber by combining it with sulfur in the presence of heat and pressure).  However, the issue was muddied a few days later when the American-Statesman reversed itself and issued a correction:  A front-page story Tuesday inaccurately quoted Gov. George W. Bush's position on quotas in college admissions and the awarding of state contracts. The story said Bush believes quotas "vulcanize society." Bush actually said he believes quotas "Balkanize society."13 Whether the reporter misquoted Governor Bush or whether Governor Bush really did say 'vulcanize' and the American-Statesman later printed an amended quote at the behest of his office is something we can't determine. "Make the pie higher!" This final item (a misstatement of the concept of putting more money into the hands of Americans by reducing taxes to grow the economy and enlarge the economic "pie" that everyone shares  i.e., making the pie "bigger" rather than "higher") is the phrase perhaps most often cited as an example of "Bushisms," so much so that it was used for the title of the poem quoted at the head of this page.  And it is a real quote, something Bush said during the course of a 15 February 2000 Republican debate (moderated by CNN host Larry King) in Columbia, South Carolina, between Texas Governor George W. Bush, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and former Reagan administration official Ambassador Alan Keyes: The difference between our plans is, I know whose money it is we're dealing with. We're dealing with the government  we're dealing with the people's money, not the government's money. And I want to give people their money back.  And if you're going to have a tax cut, everybody ought to have a tax cut. This kind of Washington, D.C., view about targeted tax cuts is tax cuts driven by polls and focus groups. If you pay taxes in America, you ought to get a tax cut.  Under my plan, if you're a family of four in South Carolina, making $50,000, you get 50-percent tax cut. I've reduced the lower rate from 15 percent to 10 percent, which does this  and this is important. There are people on the outskirts of poverty, like single moms who are working the toughest job in America. If she has two kids, and making $22,000, for every additional dollar she earns, she pays a higher marginal rate on her taxes than someone making $200,000.  You bet I cut the taxes at the top. That encourages entrepreneurship. What we Republicans should stand for is growth in the economy. We ought to make the pie higher. This one initially posed something of a mystery to us, because transcripts of the debate prepared by the Federal Document Clearing House and CNN attribute the block of text quoted above to Senator John McCain, not Governor Bush.  However, the immediately preceding question had clearly been posed to Governor Bush, and newspaper accounts the following morning noted the "make the pie higher" comment as something uttered by Governor Bush: Bush, shedding his sometimes goofy demeanor, was as animated and forceful as he has been in any debate, punching the air with his fist to underscore his words. He scored points among the party faithful in calling for an end to the Clinton era in Washington  one of the money lines of the night. On taxes and bringing prosperity to struggling working mothers, however, Bush mangled one metaphor: "We ought to make the pie higher."14 Moreover, at a Radio/TV correspondents' dinner in Washington, D.C., a few weeks later, Governor Bush made humorous use of the item with no indication that the words weren't his own: Now most people would say in speaking of the economy, "We ought to make the pie bigger." I, however, am on record saying, "We ought to make the pie higher." As frivolous as this experiment may have been, let's hope it's a harbinger of more accurate information to come. Last updated:  21 July 2008    Sources:    7.  Allen, Mike.  "Bush's Gaffes Are Back As Debates Near."   The Washington Post.  1 October 2000  (p. A8).    11.  Collins, Gail.  "Savor the Moment."   The New York Times.  1 February 2000  (p. A21).     5.  Henneberger, Melinda.  "New Hampshire Warns Bush, 'Don't Be a Stranger Hee-ahh'"   The New York Times.  23 October 1999  (p. A12).    12.  Hunt, Albert R.  "George W. Can Run But He Can't Hide."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 April 1999  (p. A23).     4.  Hutcheson, Ron.  "Candidate George W. Bush Sometimes Mangles Words."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  29 January 2000  (p. A8).        Ivins, Molly.  Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush.   New York: Random House, 2000.  ISBN 0-375-50399-4  (p. 19). Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush     1.  Jackson, David and Wayne Slater.  "Subdued McCain Endorses Bush."   The Dallas Morning News.  10 May 2000.    16.  Kristof, Nicholas D.  "The 2000 Campaign: Breaking Into Baseball."   The New York Times.  24 September 2000.    10.  Leonard, Mary.  "Fight Intensifies for Votes of Women."   The Boston Globe.  22 January 2000  (p. A1).     8.  Mason, Julie.  "Campaign Notebook."   The Houston Chronicle.  19 October 2000  (p. A38).    14.  Miga, Andrew.  "Tight S. Carolina Race Fuels Contentious Debate."   The Boston Globe.  16 February 2000  (p. 27).        Miller, Mark Crispin.  The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder.   New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.  ISBN 0-393-04183-2. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder     3.  Miller, T. Christian.  "With a Grin, Bush Answers Early Charges of Aloofness."   Los Angeles Times.  14 January 2000  (p. 20).        Smith, Zay N.  "A Small Comfort Amid Election Snafus, Quarrels."   Chicago Sun-Times.  13 November 2000  (p. 26).     9.  Von Drehle, David.  "12 Hours, 4 Contenders, Many Parallels."   The Washington Post.  15 January 2000  (p. A1).    13.  Austin American-Statesman.  "Corrections."   25 March 1999  (p. A2).     2.  The Financial Times.  "Bushed Again."   14 January 2000.     6.  The New York Times.  "In Bush's Words: 'Both Sides Must Take Important Steps' in the Mideast."   30 March 2001  (p. A12).