The Republican tax bill is not being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as it is traditionally.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., offered several arguments against Republican efforts to pass a tax bill during an interview on CNNsState of the Union, including the impact of the deduction for state and local taxes and its effects on the balance of federal revenues and spending. But one criticism was procedural, echoing earlier Democratic complaints that Republican bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act had been crafted behind closed doors and without normal steps such as committee hearings. And let me tell you, there is a reason why this plan has been prepared in secret, why it's not being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as it is traditionally,Durbin told host Jake Tapper. It's because it doesn't add up. Does Durbin have a point that the CBO has been unusually absent in this process? Not by the way ordinary viewers would hear it. The Senate Democratic whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, appeared on CNN's State of the Union on Nov. 12, 2017. The CBO is Congress nonpartisan number-crunching office, best known for its detailed analyses of pending legislation. However, theres one exception to CBOs role in vetting proposed legislation: tax bills. That duty falls instead to a similar, nonpartisan congressional office known as the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Joint Committee (on Taxation) to provide revenue estimates for all tax legislation considered by either the House or the Senate, the committees websiteexplains. Such estimates are the official congressional estimates for reported tax legislation. And by the time Durbin had made his comment to Tapper, the joint committee had already published analyses of the House version of the tax bill. On Nov. 9, the committee published an analysis of the billsrevenue impact. Two days later, the committee publishedtwootheranalyses, including one on how the bill would affect various segments of the income spectrum. The joint committee has scored versions of both the House and Senate bills, said Eric Toder, a co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. And they are the official scorekeepers for tax legislation. As it happens, CBO has also publishedone analysisof the bill, addressing estimated deficits and debt. But even this is based heavily on the Joint Committee on Taxations work, said Douglas Elmendorf, a former Democratic-appointed CBO director who now serves as dean of Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government. The joint committee provides the official estimates to Congress of the effects of proposed changes in the Internal Revenue Code, Elmendorf said. When a tax bill is voted out of committee, CBO releases an official cost estimate because CBOs statutory responsibility is to provide estimates for all bills voted out of committee  but that estimate is simply JCTs numbers with a CBO letterhead, and with due credit given to JCT in the text of the estimate. In other words, Elmendorf said, the Republicans are doing their duty. When we contacted Durbins office, spokesman Ben Marter pointed to a narrower interpretation of Durbins words. He said that in the Senate, Republicans have a potential problem with the Byrd rule, which determines whether a bill can be taken up under reconciliation, a process that effectively requires only 51 votes rather than 60 votes for passage. That violation would have to be fixed before their bill can move in the Senate, but the fix to address future revenue projections is being written in secret, and we likely wont see that until the bill is on the floor in the form of a substitute amendment, as they did with their health care bill, Marter said. Such a substitute amendment would become the bill, Marter said, and under the budget resolution, Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., could waive the requirement for a full score analysis before its voted on. An important point to remember about the Durbin teams analysis: Its based on speculation about future events. Durbins literal words gave viewers a different story -- that the Republicans are already blocking CBO from scoring the bill -- and that is incorrect on at least two levels. Durbin said the Republican tax bill is not being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as it is traditionally. Under the most obvious interpretation of that statement, Durbin is incorrect. The nonpartisan analysis for tax bills is actually a task handled by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the committee has been actively analyzing the Republican tax bills. We rate the statement False.
On 25 February 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted to complain that the news media were not reporting his success in reducing the national debt during his first month in office: tweeted The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo.  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017 February 25, 2017  As noted by news media from the Los Angeles Times to the Washington Post, the tweet appeared closely after a "Fox & Friends" segment in which guest (and former presidential candidate) Herman Cain reported the same numbers. That story appeared to have its origins in a post on the conservative blog Gateway Pundit ("Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month") which took credit for the Trump tweet in an update to their story. Los Angeles Times Washington Post took credit There are two claims implicit in the tweet. The first claim is simply the factual nature of the figures reported. The second is that the numbers represent an item worthy of coverage. The numbers are factual in a literal sense, according to the online debt history search application offered by the US Treasury Department: application   Though the numbers regarding the debt at the end of Trumps and President Obamas first month are factual, their significance as a reportable bit of information or as an indicator of the impact or success of Trumps policies is questionable. Speaking to CBS News, Maya MacGuineas, director of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, said: said It is true the debt outstanding declined by $12 billion in the first month of Donald Trumps presidency. We applaud the president for focusing on the debt as an important metric of success and economic health, but would point out that the improvement this early in his term has to do with normal fluctuations in spending and revenues rather than new policies he has implemented. Indeed, in terms of newsworthiness (or lack thereof), sporadic reductions of the debt are not uncommon (in red, below) on a month-to-month basis, according to The "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" reports released during the course of President Obama's second term in office: reports     In fact, the Washington Posts Wonkblog reports that, even on a day-to-day basis, fluctuations even greater than the one Trump referenced are not unheard of: reports The Gateway Pundit article says that the change in debt under Trump translates to a 0.1 percent reduction in the U.S. debt burden. Actually, it's .06 percent between Jan. 20 and Feb. 21  a very small change. (The national debt has gone up or down by as much .19 percent on single days this year.) Secondly, there are few mechanisms by which any actions Trump has taken as president would affect the national debt thus far, as he has not signed into law any financial measures related to federal borrowing. While there are arguments to be made that other factors related to Trumps presidency could affect the debt, the Post has said it is unlikely, and also impossible to quantify: Its impossible to know whether Trumps election has really had time to filter through to concretely affect the economy. Congress has not passed any of his policies yet. The stock market has certainly continued to boom, but it was already rising before the election. While it's possible anticipation of tax cuts or regulatory relief is heating up the economy and leading to increased government receipts, investors might also be choosing not to sell assets to avoid current capital gains tax rates and waiting to see whether the Republican-dominated Congress successfully slashes rates. Keith Hennessey, a former director of the U.S. National Economic Council appointed by George W. Bush, wrote a hypothetical memo to Congress analyzing the 45th Presidents tweet. In this document, he stated that neither Obama nor Trump had any effect on the national debt in their first month in office: hypothetical memo document Government borrowing in January and February is the byproduct of spending and tax policies set by Congress the year before. President Obama signed the fiscal stimulus law on February 17, 2009, but it took months before that began to change government cash flows and borrowing requirements. President Trump has so far not measurably affected fiscal policy in general or government borrowing in specific. Its unfair to assign any responsibility for borrowing in the first month to either president. Hennessey added that it is equally unfair to compare the 2009 economic situation with the 2017 one: GDP was plummeting when President Obama took office. Tax revenues were down, automatic stabilizer payments (e.g., unemployment insurance and safety net spending) were up, and funds were being spent from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In early 2009 government was borrowing a lot because the economy was weak, not because of President Obamas policies. In contrast, the U.S. economy is now growing. The smaller borrowing requirement for this month is mostly a result of this economic difference, and may also in part be simply an artifact of choosing such a short timeframe for comparison. More to the point, however, the fact that the day-to-day and month-to-month fluctuations of the national debt are so volatile, he argued, is why analysts dont typically look at the data for these time periods, accordingo to Hennessey: Had the president / Mr. Cain ended his timeframe one day earlier this tweet would have been invalid and debt would have increased (by just $1 B) in the first month. This is why analysts look at debt on an annual basis rather than daily/weekly/monthly. It should also be noted that, as the Fox and Friends segment aired on one of the nations most popular national cable news networks, "the media" did indeed report on this story. The reason it didnt pick up much steam is that the numbers were not newsworthy because they were taken out of context and are likely irrelevant to President Trump's actions in office. UPDATE: 28 February 2017 -- Modified the status of this article to "" to better explicate the difference between the accuracy of the debt figures and their newsworthiness. Hennessey, Keith.  "Memorandum for a Member of Congress: The Presidents Debt Tweet."
  keithhennessey.com.  25 February 2017. Swanson, Ava.  "Trump Is Upset the Media Is Not Reporting a Meaningless Statistic About the National Debt."
  The Washington Post.  25 February 2017. Hoft, Jim.  "Amazing! Trump Cuts US Debt by $12 Billion In His First Month  UPDATE: Trump Tweets Our Numbers"
  thegatewaypundit.com.  23 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It." Shabad, Rebecca.  "Fact-Checking Trump's Claim About Debt Dropping by $12b in Last Month."
  thegatewaypundit.com.  25 February 2017. treasurydirect.gov.  "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD) and Downloadable Files." Morin, Rebecca.  "Former Economic Council Director Derides Trump's Debt Tweet."
  Poltico.  25 February 2017. Wilber, Del Quentin.  "Trump Brags About the National Debt, But His Comparison Is Misleading."
  Los Angeles Times.  25 February 2027. Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts:  Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain:   The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions Does the stock market boom under Democratic presidents? Hillary Clinton said so during a town hall in Nashua, N.H., on July 28, 2015. You know the evidence is pretty clear that under Democratic presidents, going a ways back, people do better, Clinton said,at around 5:30 in this video. And not only working people, middle class people. Even the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. We wondered: Is it true that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House? We took a closer look. Scrutinizing the stock ticker There have been a couple studies addressing this question, and they all agree: For whatever reason, going back more than a century, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. A2012 report by CMC Markets, an international financial firm, found that since 1900, the United States stock markets have posted an average annual return of 15.31 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to just 5.43 percent under Republicans. Anotherstudyfrom 2012 by Adviser Perspectives newsletter, using somewhat different methodology, found that since 1900, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 8.7 percent annually under a Democratic president, compared to 5.7 percent under Republicans. AndcalculationsbyThe Economistfound that the Barclays U.S. equity index gained a cumulative 300 percent under Democratic presidents between 1929 and 2011, compared to about zero under Republican presidents. To bring the data up to date, we checked in with Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York. He hadpreviously founda big Democratic advantage in stock market gains through 2012. From 1901 through July 31, 2015, Stovall found, the stock market gained 8.7 percent under Democratic presidents, compared to 5.3 percent under Republican presidents. The same pattern held in Stovalls data since the end of World War II  in fact, it was even more pronounced. Since 1945, the markets gained 11.2 percent under Democratic presidents and 6.3 percent under Republican presidents. And it wasnt just the stock market that chalked up better performance under Democratic presidents, according toa July 2014 paperby Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. They found a performance gap between the parties that was startlingly large over a wide variety of economic metrics. The U.S. economy not only grows faster, according to real GDP and other measures, during Democratic versus Republican presidencies, it also produces more jobs, lowers the unemployment rate, generates higher corporate profits and investment, and turns in higher stock market returns,Blinder and Watson wrote. Indeed, it outperforms under almost all standard macroeconomic metrics. What does this mean? So, multiple studies show that Clintons claim is numerically correct. But what, if anything, can we conclude from it? Experts said its best not to go overboard in drawing conclusions about White House control and stock market performance. Here are some of the reasons why. A lot of this stems from luck and timing.Republicans are cursed by having Herbert Hoover on their presidential roster. The stock-market decline was so quick and deep under Hoover that it continues to hobble the partys stock-market performance all these decades later. Meanwhile, starting at such a low point was a huge help to his Democratic successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In fact, if you remove Hoover from the GOP column, the average monthly return for Republicans improves significantly, from a 0.38 percent average monthly return to a 0.61 percent monthly return. The Hoover-free GOP number is within striking distance of the Democratic mark of 0.73 percent, said Lawrence J. White, a professor at New York Universitys Stern School of Business. White doesnt argue that its fairest to remove Hoover from the GOPs calculation. Rather, he said, its a reminder that relatively small changes due at least in part to unlucky timing can have big effects on the end result. Partisan labels are only somewhat helpful.What matters is the relationship of policy to the stock market, not partisan labels, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Economic policy under Bill Clinton was far more market-oriented than it was under either Bush or Nixon. A good stock market is harder to define than one might think.For instance, a healthy year-over-year increase in the stock market may sound good, but if it comes with high volatility throughout the year, that can be a lot less pleasant for investors, said Tom Arnold, a professor of finance at the University of Richmond Robins School of Business. Meanwhile, down markets are buying opportunities and up markets are selling opportunities for the purpose of cashing in on profits, possibly from securities purchased in a down market, Arnold said. Better in one market is usually at the cost of another market. Market results dont align neatly with presidential terms.The stock market makes an anticipatory assessment of a president and his policies shortly after his election  or even before the election, White said. So the market's anticipation of what an incoming president will do occurs during the last few months of the incumbents presidency. He noted that this factor was even stronger prior to 1936, when the new president was inaugurated on March 4, leaving four months of stock market anticipation in the previous presidents column. A president is only one factor in determining stock market performance.Perhaps most important, experts urge caution in ascribing too much credit to a president for how the stock market performs on his watch. Often  including now, during a period of strong stock-market gains  Congress is held by the opposing party. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, which plays a crucial role in the economy by directing the nations monetary policy, operates independently once appointments are made by the president and confirmed by Congress. And a host of other factors that a president cant control, including technological advances and international economic trends, play a role as well. In their paper, Blinder and Watson focus on two factors as most important in determining economic performance. One is the presence or absence of an energy price shock -- something that, unfortunately for the GOP, hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The other factor they pointed to is what economists call total factor productivity,defined asthe portion of economic output not explained by the amount of inputs used in production. Think of it as the economys special sauce, or its extra bang for the buck. Although its unclear why, Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, most clearly during the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. Hillary Clintons campaign emphasized to PolitiFact that she didnt say that the president is the only factor that went into stock market results. Still, our experts agreed that while the numbers to back up her claim are clear, the meaning and significance of those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. I wouldn't place much weight on it, one way or the other, White said. Our ruling Clinton said that the stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House. The numbers back her up, but its worth noting that luck, timing and several other factors in the broader economy also play a role in determining stock market performance. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. Claim:  Your personal information may be viewable through the Spokeo web site. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] This is so scary to me.  My address along with a picture of my home is showing on this site.. GO to this website:  https://www.spokeo.com/ and type in your name. If you find ANYTHING with your info on it, go to "Privacy" at the bottom of the page and follow the instructions to remove your information. Some of the information they have listed may not be correct, but if your address, phone number and a picture of your home comes up, that's cause for concern!  Holy Cow Family and Friends! I just received a link for a crazy website. A friend emailed it to me saying that the website has all the personal info on her family and that maybe I should check it out to make sure I am not on the site. Well, I checked it out and although it didn't show mine, it listed many names addresses, birthdays, even showing a picture of the houses my friends lived in. It also mentions if you were married, with kids and much more. Then they have a service were people can sign up and pay 3.00 and have access to even more of my info like credit score, income, etc. I have typed in several other of my family members names and ALL were in the database. Who wants all this personal info out there on the web??????? you can scroll down to the bottom and find the privacy link and remove yourself from the website! good luck! and pass this email along to help your family and friends will possible identity theft. here is the website..... www.spokeo.com   Origins:  Spokeo is one of many sites now operating on the Internet that aggregate and display personal information collected from a variety of public sources (such as social networking accounts, blog posts, phone book listings, customer-submitted reviews, real estate listings, etc., as well as from the databases of other information aggregators) and sell detailed reports on individuals to anyone who pays for them.  Spokeo advertises itself as a "search engine specialized in organizing people-related information": advertises Spokeo is a search engine specialized in organizing people-related information from phone books, social networks, marketing lists, business sites, and other public sources. Most of this data is publicly available on the Web.  For example, you can find peoples name, phone, and address on Whitepages.com, and you can get home values from Zillow.com.  That said, only Spokeo's algorithm can piece together the scattered data into coherent people profiles, giving you the most comprehensive intelligence about anyone you want to find. Spokeo displays listings that sometimes contain more personal information than many people are comfortable having made publicly accessible through a single, easy-to-use search site, and in March 2010 warning messages alerting recipients that their personal information was viewable through Spokeo began circulating, just as warnings about a similar (pay-for-use) site, ZabaSearch, had been circulated several years earlier.   ZabaSearch Our advice here is similar to what we wrote in response to concerns about ZabaSearch several years ago:  Spokeo does have a privacy policy that allows you to request that Spokeo remove your listing from public searches, but it's important to understand that even if you block your Spokeo listing, your personal information will still be available through the underlying sources used by Spokeo.  Those third-party records will still exist and will still be publicly accessible, so the same information provided by Spokeo will still be available to others, either working on their own or using information aggregators similar to Spokeo: privacy You can remove your Spokeo listing from public searches for free. Please note that removing your Spokeo listing from public searches does not remove your information from the third-party data sources. Your information will still be shown on other people search sites, and you will need to contact those third-party sites one-by-one, In short, removing your personal information from display by Internet aggregators isn't a one-time deal, but rather more like a never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole: You might swat down an aggregator site or two, but more of them will inevitably pop up.  Last updated:  12 January 2011     Smith, Alicia.  "Search Site Raises Privacy Concerns."   WXYZ-TV [Detroit].  8 April 2010. Americans are facing conflicting signals on the economy. The economy is growing rapidly, unemployment is low, and wages are rising. But inflation  a broad pattern of rising consumer prices  is at a four-decade high, and for many voters, that fact seems to be crowding out any other economic news. During a Feb. 13 roundtable discussion on ABCs This Week, panelists addressed Americans concerns about inflation. Patrick Gaspard  who served in President Barack Obamas administration and is now president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank  blamed the coronavirus pandemic for inflation. We all know that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once, Gaspard said. And the fact of the matter is  that the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. That is an absolute fact. (The OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of38 advanced, industrialized nations.) A look at cross-national data shows that economic growth in the United States has indeed outpaced that of the other large, comparable economies, and experts agree that this rapid growth has been a factor in the United States currently high inflation rate. But rapid economic growth is not the only reason why the U.S. is experiencing high inflation. As evidence for his claim, Gaspards office pointed to areportdated Feb. 7 by the OECD. The report found that the United States was the only member of the Group of Seven industrial economies that had seen its inflation-adjusted gross domestic product rise above its pre-pandemic level. The other six nations in the G-7  Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom  all had yet to reach the GDP levels they had in the fourth quarter of 2019. (Gross domestic product is the sum of all economic activity in a country and is often used as the primary metric for economic growth.) This supports Gaspards comment on This Week. Other calculations further back up his assertion about robust U.S. growth. If you strip the inflation adjustment from GDP growth, to enable a cleaner comparison of GDP to inflation, the United States GDP growthranked fifthamong the nations that belong to the Group of 20 (a wider group of large economies than the G-7). In this measurement, the U.S. trailed only Turkey, India, China and South Korea. Notably, the United States growth rate exceeded that of each of its fellow G-7 members, whose economies are most similar to that of the U.S. Meanwhile, in arecent paper, Brookings Institution senior fellow Gian Maria Milesi Ferretti found much the same pattern. He compared how countries current GDP levels compared with projections made before the pandemic. The United States finished at the top of the heap in his analysis as well. There is also something to Gaspards contention that rapid economic growth and inflation are connected. When we looked at the latest annual inflation rates for the G-7 nations, we found that the U.S. had the highest inflation. However, the correlation between rapid growth and high inflation isnt perfect. Germany and Canada had the second- and third-highest inflation rates, respectively, but their economic growth barely edged into positive territory when factoring in the pandemic. And the United Kingdom and France nearly matched the U.S.s GDP growth rates but have experienced more modest inflation. Overall, Gaspards focus on rapid GDP growth as a driver of inflation is reasonable, experts said  but they added that the causes of inflation are more complicated. The current inflation is not monocausal or easily understood, said James Feyrer, a Dartmouth College economist. Ferretti said that some global factors affecting inflation are clearly at play, including higher energy prices and disruption of supply chains. Lower rates of labor force participation in the U.S., stemming heavily from pandemic factors such as a shortage of child care options, also played a role. In fact, one of the factors driving rapid growth in the U.S.  generous fiscal support from the federal government  is something that Biden did have control over. Stimulus payments and other financial support from the federal government put more money into Americans hands, driving up demand for goods amid international supply-chain challenges driven by the pandemic. Many countries adopted expansionary policies, but on the fiscal side, the U.S. really stands out, Ferretti said. With very large support to private incomes, U.S. consumption has been very strong, particularly for goods. This has clearly helped the speed of the recovery. But a combination of strong demand and labor shortages, he said, has resulted in higher inflationary pressures than in other advanced economies. In other words, where inflation is concerned, Biden isnt entirely a victim of global forces. His policies were a factor as well. Gaspard said that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once. And  the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. The U.S. has experienced faster economic growth than most of its most direct global competitors, and experts agree that this has contributed to inflationary pressures. While many of these inflationary pressures are traceable to global factors related to the pandemic, some have flowed from the fiscal choices made by the Biden administration. We rate the statement Mostly True. It is wisely said there are three activities a married couple should never attempt to undertake together: play bridge, hang wallpaper, or learn how to drive. The disagreements so provoked can all too often prove to be murder. Literally, as in the case of the infamous Bennett Bridge Murder. play bridge On the evening of 29 September 1929, John and Myrtle Bennett of Kansas City were hosts to their friends Charles and Myrna Hofman for a friendly game of rubber bridge. (A mere 1/10th of a cent a point was at stake.) The Bennetts were well-to-do and lived in a large apartment with Mrs. Bennett's mother. The Hofmans lived in the same apartment building. rubber bridge Like so many married couples who are fool enough to play as bridge partners, the Bennetts formed a far from ideal partnership. They were a far from ideal married couple as well, John Bennett being in the habit of slapping his wife during moments of frustration. That night, these factors would combine to bring about Bennett's undoing. For the first hour or two, the Bennetts were trouncing the Hofmans. As the evening wore on, however, the Hofmans managed to catch up, and at the time of the fatal hand were leading by a small margin. The tables had been turned; the commanding lead of earlier in the evening had evaporated like dew before the morning sun, leaving the two couples locked in a sprint for the wire. Although the precise composition of the fatal hand was not remembered, the bidding was recalled in a consistent manner by all the surviving parties: John Bennett opened one spade, Charles Hofman overcalled two diamonds, and Myrtle Bennett ended the auction with a jump to game in spades. After Mr. Hofman made the opening lead, Mrs. Bennett spread as dummy a collection of cards Myrna Hofman later would term "a rather good hand."   Though Myrtle Bennett clearly believed the dummy she'd laid out, added to the values her husband had to have had for his opening bid, should easily have produced game, Mr. Bennett managed to fail in his contract by two tricks. During the finger-pointing that followed, Mr. Bennett was revealed to have opened on less than full values.  Non-bridge players may fail to appreciate this point, but in the pasteboard jungle it is well understood that if one is in the habit of opening light, one had better be able to play the spots off the cards. To both open light and fail to make the resulting contract adds up to a bridge crime just a cut below trumping partner's ace or raising one's own pre-empt. After Bennett played the hand to its inglorious conclusion, his wife gave voice to her opinion of his play by calling him "a bum bridge player." Then, according to the testimony of Myra Hofman: He came right back at her. I don't remember the exact words. This kept up for several minutes. We tried to stop the argument by demanding the cards, but by this time the row had become so pronounced that Bennett, reaching across the table, grabbed Myrtle's arm and slapped her several times. We tried to intervene, but it was futile. While Mrs. Bennett repeated over and over in a strained sing-song tone "Nobody but a bum would hit a woman," her husband jumped up and shouted, "I'm going to spend the night at a hotel. And tomorrow I'm leaving town." His wife said to us: "I think you folks had better go." Of course, we started to go. John Bennett went off to the bedroom and began to pack his suitcase. Myrtle dashed to her mother's room to fetch her mother's loaded gun.  Charles Hofman had turned back to have a word with John Bennett before departing and thus was standing near him when an armed Mrs. Bennett came upon them. Upon seeing the gun, Bennett immediately hurried into the bathroom, bolting the door behind him. Mrs. Bennett was not to be deterred by a closed door: she shot through it twice, each time missing her husband. Bennett hastily exited the bathroom through another door which opened onto a small hallway. He fled down the hallway, out into the living room, and was trying to open the front door of the apartment when his wife felled him with two more shots. The police were summoned, and Myrtle Bennett was charged with first degree murder for the shooting death of her husband in what became known as the Bennett Bridge Murder. The trial of Myrtle Bennett did not go down in the annals of jurisprudence as one of the more fair and even-handed examples of justice in action. Mrs. Bennett wept copiously throughout the proceedings, at one point avowing that she'd "rather have been dead" than to have caused the death of her husband. (This line of defense was much facilitated when the judge declined to admit into evidence Mrs. Bennett's original statement to the police, in which she had told a rather different story.) At the trial, a new spin was placed on the events of that night. Bennett's "... and tomorrow I'm leaving town" was transformed from an "I'm leaving you forever" statement into an announcement that he had business the next day in St. Joseph, Missouri. According to Mrs. Bennett's testimony (supported by her mother's testimony about what Mrs. Bennett had said when she came to fetch the gun), Mr. Bennett had instructed his wife to bring him the pistol.  Mrs. Bennett claimed that he routinely carried it with him on out-of-town business trips. Mrs. Bennett further claimed that while bringing the gun to her husband, she stumbled into a chair, causing the pistol to go off accidentally, wounding Mr. Bennett. Bennett then grabbed her arm, either to help her regain her balance or to take the gun away from her, at which time the gun went off again, mortally wounding him. Mrs. Bennett was acquitted. The jury chose to ignore the physical evidence of two bullet holes found in the bathroom door, and of Bennett's body lying by the front door without a suitcase in sight. Despite having chased her husband through the apartment, having shot at him four times, and having hit him twice, Mrs. Bennett was acquitted on the grounds that her shooting of her husband was accidental.  Myrtle Bennett then collected on her husband's $30,000 life insurance policy, a far from insignificant sum in those Depression years. Although some now recall the case being ruled one of justifiable homicide based on John Bennett's bidding and play, in truth his death was deemed to have been brought about by accidental discharge of a firearm. Though Myrtle Bennett had succeeded in getting off scot-free for the murder of her husband, she failed to set the precedent that would have made the shooting of a bridge partner justifiable in the eyes of the law  provided it could be proved the victim's play had provoked a murderous response. In his 1934 collection While Rome Burns, drama critic and essayist Alexander Woollcott had this to say of the fair murderess in her post-acquittal years: Myrtle Bennett has not allowed her bridge to grow rusty, even though she occasionally encounters an explicable difficulty in finding a partner. Recently she took on one unacquainted with her history. Having made an impulsive bid, he put his hand down with some diffidence. "Partner," he said, "I'm afraid you'll want to shoot me for this." Mrs. Bennett, says my informant, had the good taste to faint. The famed Bennett Bridge Murder Hand will forever remain a mystery. None of the three survivors remembered its exact composition, and the cards themselves were sent flying during the altercation between the Bennetts, making it impossible that any of the police called to the scene would have had a chance to view it. As such, the hand widely believed to have been Mr. Bennett's Waterloo is likely as much a fiction as the tale told by his wife on the stand. Nevertheless, a "reconstruction" of the infamous hand began to circulate in periodicals shortly after the crime: The bidding, as you will recall, had gone one spade by Bennett, two diamonds by Hofman, and four spades by Mrs. Bennett. Four spades was a makeable contract on the layout shown above. (Only bridge players are likely to care about this part, but the opening lead against this fictional hand was the ace of diamonds, followed by a shift to the jack of clubs at trick two. According to lore, after winning the king of clubs, Bennett was supposed to have misguessed the location of the trump queen and from there have gone on to establish but cut himself off from dummy's good clubs, ending up down two. It was a badly played hand, but I've seen many a layout butchered much worse by declarers who lived to tell about it.) At the time of the Bennett murder, America was a country gone crazy over bridge. That someone sooner or later was going to get shot over it was a given; it was just a question of when. That the first bridge murder happened in the heartland of America with a wife shooting her husband seemed only right  countless spouses had by that time dreamed of doing the same thing to their loved-one-turned-bridge-partner-monster. Just as Lorena Bobbitt would decades later be seen as having struck a blow for the wives of cheating husbands everywhere, so was Myrtle Bennett placed on a similar pedestal by beleaguered bridge players across the land. Notice had been served that mishandling the dummy might lead to more than one stiff being dropped at the bridge table. Speculation over what the layout of the cards had actually been (and thus how deserving Bennett had been of his fate) quickly gave way to dueling analyses of the hand as touted in the newspapers. Several bridge authorities (most notably Sidney Lenz and Ely Culbertson) were called upon to analyze the bidding and the play. In the final analysis, though Bennett was deemed to have not played the cards as well as he could have, nothing in his line of play was so seriously flawed that his locating the errant queen of trumps wouldn't have overcome it. "My kingdom for a horse," said Richard III. "My life for a queen," was what Bennett should have said. Daniels, David.  The Golden Age of Contract Bridge.
  New York: Stein and Day, 1980.  ISBN 0-8128-2576-4  (pp. 179-184). 
 Chicago Tribune.   "Slaps Wife in Bridge Game; She Kills Him."
  1 October 1929  (p. 1).

 The New York Times.   "Wife Kills Husband in Bridge Game Spat."
  29 September 1929  (p. 5).

 The New York Times.   "Says Bennett Murder Followed Bridge Row."
  27 February 1931  (p. 3).

 The New York Times.  "Wife Is Acquitted in Bridge Slaying."
  7 March 1931  (p. 5). In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. In early May 2021, photographs that reportedly showed a man holding what appeared to be a tiger shark along the bank of Floridas Chassahowitzka River sparked criticism on social media and launched an investigation by wildlife officials. The pictures were widely reported by both Florida and national media outlets, as well as shared within several groups on Facebook. sparked criticism social media  Facebook  The Chassahowitzka River is located along the Gulf of Mexico in central Florida. Though some species of shark have been known to swim into brackish waters like estuaries and river mouths, it is uncommon for a saltwater shark to survive in the freshwater of rivers. Marine conservation organization Oceana noted in a blog post that freshwater rivers and lakes are generally out of the question for species such as great white sharks, tiger sharks, and hammerhead sharks. located blog post At the time of writing, it is not yet known where the tiger shark was initially captured or how it wound up in the Chassahowitzka River. Snopes attempted to contact the photographers but did not hear back at the time of publication. In an email to Snopes, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) confirmed that the tiger shark had been caught in state waters in the Gulf of Mexico and was brought to the Chassahowitzka River. The FWC is aware of the incident that took place over the weekend on the Chassahowitzka River involving a tiger shark. The FWC takes this very seriously and is grateful to everyone who reported this incident. Tiger sharks are prohibited from harvest in state waters, wrote FWC Public Information Coordinator Karen Parker. FWC law enforcement officers have investigated this incident and have issued a Notice to Appear to two individuals for taking a prohibited species of shark. The two subjects currently have a Citrus County court date. Both individuals face a charge under 68B-44.004(3)(b), a ruling under the Florida Department of State that prohibits individuals from harvesting or possessing prohibited species from Florida waters. So named for the tiger-liked vertical markings along their sides, tiger sharks are considered as Near Threatened by The World Conservation Union and are protected from commercial and recreational harvest in Florida state waters. 68B-44.004(3)(b) tiger sharks Near Threatened Neither person has been identified by law enforcement officials, but we will update the article as more information becomes available. In July 2020, an advertisement for U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign started appearing on Trump's official Facebook page showing a comparison of two images entitled "Public Safety" and "Chaos and Violence." The "Public Safety" image showed Trump surrounded presumably by various members of law enforcement, while the "Chaos and Violence" image supposedly showed protesters beating up an American police officer: started appearing Shortly after this ad started running, media outlets such as the BBC noticed that the image on the right was not taken in 2020, and that it didn't show an incident from the United States. This image was actually taken in 2014, and shows a clash between police and protesters in Ukraine.   BBC The BBC reported: A post by Donald Trump's official Facebook account purports to show violence in the US but is in fact of an event in another country. The advert shows one image of Mr Trump in a calm setting talking to police officers beside another of a security official being surrounded by protesters, saying: "Public safety vs chaos and violence". However, the image is a photo from a pro-democracy protest in Ukraine in 2014. This photograph was taken by photographer Mstyslav Chernov in February 2014 during a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine. The image is available via Wikipedia under a "Creative Commons" license. The terms for this photograph state that it is free to use  as long as the photographer is given proper credit. But the advertisement on Trump's Facebook page offered no mention of the photographer.  Wikipedia Creative Commons Here's an uncropped version of Chernov's photograph:   Chernov confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump ad did indeed use his photograph from Ukraine in 2014. Chernov went on to say that the only way to combat this sort of deception is through "education and media literacy." Business Insider Chernov said: "Photography has always been used to manipulate public opinion. And with the rise of social media and the rise of populism, this is happening even more," he said. "The only way to combat this is through education and media literacy. When people learn to independently distinguish truth from lies, then the number of manipulations will decrease." Giles, Christopher.  "Facebook: Trump Posts Misleading Ad Using Ukraine Photo."
  BBC.  22 July 2020. Jankowicz, Mia.  "A New Trump Campaign Ad Depicting a Police Officer Being Attacked by Protesters is Actually a 2014 Photo of Pro-Democracy Protests in Ukraine."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2020. Phishing bait:  Software order confirmation from Intuit. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]     Origins:  In October 2012, Internet users were spammed with phony e-mailed confirmation orders from Intuit, a financial and tax preparation software company, bearing subject lines such as "Intuit Order Status," "Intuit GoPayment Order Status update," "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Information," and "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Note." Intuit posted an alert on its web site about the fake e-mail, advising recipients to: alert  Do not click on the link in the email. Send a copy of the email to spoof@intuit.com. Do not forward the email to anyone else. Delete the email. Intuit's alert also advises users that: On the Internet, "phishing" refers to criminal activity that attempts to fraudulently obtain sensitive information. Here's what you can do to protect yourself from a phishing attack:  If you suspect you have received a phishing email from Intuit, please forward it immediately to spoof@intuit.com. We will look into each reported instance. Make sure you subscribe to an anti-virus software and keep it up-to-date. Make sure you have updated your web browser to one that includes anti-phishing security features, such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox version 3 or higher. Make sure that you keep up to date on the latest releases and patches for your operating systems and critical programs. These releases are frequently security related. Do not respond to emails asking for account, password, banking, or credit card information. Do not open up an attachment that claims to be a software update. We will not send any software updates via email. Do not respond to text messages or voicemails that ask you to call a number and enter your account number and pin. Make sure you have passwords on your computer and your payroll files. Last updated:  1 October 2012