Pet Blamed for Mishap
Claim:  Destructive act is conveniently blamed on household pet. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1993] Their mother had baked a Dutch apple pie for a special event. She left it on the kitchen table to cool while she ran an errand, warning the boys not to touch it. But the pie smelled wonderful, and the boys couldn't resist a tiny bite. One bite became several, until a major chunk of the pie had been eaten. They then heard their mother's car pull into the garage, and they knew they were trapped unless they could quickly cover up their crime. The future lawyer got a brilliant idea. He grabbed the family cat and shoved its face into the pie, smearing its whiskers with gooey filling and crumbs. His mother walked in, looked at the cat, and saw what she interpreted as guilt written all over its face. She immediately grabbed the cat and threw it out the back door into a stream that ran behind the house.  [Brunvand, 1989] I recently heard about a friend of a friend  what you call a  FOAF  who is an interior decorator with a thriving business on Chicago's wealthy North Shore.  He had just finished painting an elegant home in Wilmette, and was going around with a can of touch-up paint, making sure everything was perfect. He finished the last brush stroke, stepped back to admire his work, and kicked the paint can over onto the priceless Oriental rug.  What to do? At that moment, the client's yappy, snappy, obnoxious toy poodle, Fifi, trotted into the room.  Thinking quickly, the decorator scooped her up and dropped her into the puddle of paint, at the same time exclaiming loudly, "Fifi! Bad Dog! What have you done?"  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] A husband breaks a purple vase that belongs to his wife. she thinks the dog did it and she hates the dog. In her husband's absence she kills the dog and buries it in the back yard. the story ends with the husband confessing that in fact he and not the dog broke the vase, and the wife, who is contemplating the mound behind the rose bushes in the garden doesn't know what to say. Origins:  Shoving    a hapless pet into the incriminating mess is a traditional way of shifting blame. One of Brunvand's readers recalls hearing the spilled paint story in 1929, so this one has been with us for a while. Although pets can (and have!) spilled cans of paint, it's not reasonable to assume any self-respecting cat would have an interest in Dutch apple pie. A more believable way of presenting the story would be to change the food item into a tortire, a renowned French-Canadian meat pie. (Though tortire is good eating any time, it's a traditional Christmas Eve food in Quebecois households, often served at "Le Reveillion," the meal following Midnight Mass.) Another legend, one about kinky teen sex, employs the scapegoated pet theme. In "Stain Feign," teenagers who've decided to engage in anal sex on the family's brand new white sofa afterwards rush out to buy a puppy to have something to blame the mess on. Stain Feign Barbara "canine one one" Mikkelson Sightings:  Our "blamed pet" legend shows up in a 1972 Toni Morrison novel, Bluest Eye, in a scene involving two children, a cat, and a berry cobbler. Last updated:  1 August 2011 The Baby Train    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!   New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.   ISBN 0-393-30711-5   (pp. 132-134). Curses! Broiled Again!    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good to Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 61-63). Too Good to Be  The Big Book of Urban Legends
Brendan Doherty, like a lot of candidates, says if hes elected to Congress in November hell put a stop to rampant fraud and waste in government spending.On his campaign website, the Republican candidate for the First District seat and former head of the Rhode Island State Police, says hell use his years in law enforcement  to shine a light on the unconscionable abuse of hard-earned taxpayer funds.Among examples of abuse he lists are the purported millions of dollars in pension benefits the federal government distributes each year to federal retirees who are, well, dead:Over the past five years the federal government has paid out $601 million in retirement and disability benefits to deceased former federal employees.Weve heard stories of dead people voting before, but are they also getting hundreds of millions in pension payments? We called Dohertys campaign to find out where the candidate got his information.Spokesman Robert Coupe told us he thought the $601 million figure was pretty large when he first heard it from campaign staffers. He said it came from Wastebook 2011, the latest edition of an annual compilation of questionable government spending put out by Sen. Tom A. Coburn, R-Oklahoma.We checked Wastebook 2011, which indeed mentions over $601 million paid out to deceased federal workers in the last five years, with footnotes citing the source: a report issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Managements Office of the Inspector General, titled, appropriately enough, Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased Annuitants.According to the Office of Personnel Managements report, the amount of post-death improper payments is consistently $100-$150 million annually.Some of what the federal government calls improper payments is outright fraud -- people with electronic access to the deceaseds bank accounts taking the money. And some of it is because the money was electronically transferred into what are now inactive bank accounts. The money can sit there piling up for years before anyone notices.Special efforts have been under way since at least 2005 to reduce payments going to dead retirees and their survivors, the report says. Those efforts have included matching the rolls of eligible recipients with the Social Security Administrations death records on a weekly and annual basis, doing similar checks with the IRS to see whos still filing returns, and random phone calls to retirees over 90 years old just to make sure theyre still around.Those steps have helped identify the scope of the problem, Susan L. Ruge, a spokeswoman in the Office of Personnel Managements inspector generals office, said in an e-mail. In fiscal year 2010, for instance, the office identified $116.8 million in improper payments going to dead retirees or survivors.But solving the problem is another matter.According to the Personnel Managements report: There remains a high probability that egregious loss of monies from the [civil service] fund will continue and require strategic corrective actions. It notes one case of a man illegally pocketing more than $515,000 by cashing in his dead fathers monthly retirement checks -- for 37 years.Ruge said 94 percent of annuity payments are transferred electronically into bank accounts as opposed to the older method of mailing checks. The office of inspector general, she said, has no breakdown as to payments stolen by others with access to those accounts and money lost by languishing into those unattended accounts.In overpayment cases where no theft has occurred, there is greater potential for EFT (electronic fund transfer) overpayments to continue undetected, simply because no one is monitoring the deceased annuitants bank account, said Ruge.If there is good news in any of this it is this: while $601 million going to dead people in the last five years sounds like a lot of money, it represents less than 2.5 percent of all civil service retirement disbursements, the report claims.Our RulingDohertys website says Over the past five years the federal government has paid out $601 million in retirement and disability benefits to deceased former federal employees.The campaign accurately quoted a figure whose source is a report issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Managements Office of the Inspector General.We rate his statement True.Rhode Islands former top cop is setting his bar of expectation pretty high if hes promising to curb this kind of  rampant fraud and waste. Well be watching.Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage. Claim:  E-mail claims a Mexican woman attempted to abduct a tot from a store in Tupelo, Mississippi. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Ok this is freaky but it really happened at the mall in Tupelo. Everyone please beware this Holiday Season. A couple of weeks ago a lady with two kids was shopping at JCPennys in the mall here at Tupelo.  One of her sons was pretty small and he was in a stroller buckled in and the other one was older and he was walking beside her. A mexican woman came by and told the lady how cute her little baby was...well the lady told her "Thank You" and went on her way. A couple of minutes later the mexican woman approched the lady again telling her how cute her little baby boy was. The lady again replied with thank you. As the lady turned her back to look at a piece of clothing the oldest son started screaming. The lady turned around to find that the mexican lady had unbuckled the baby and grabbed him out of the stroller and took off with him.  The lady ran after them and caught the mexican woman as the was getting out the door with her son. The only way that she caught her was the mexican woman had long hair and she pulled it and knocked her down. The lady held her in her custody until the authorities arrived. The lady  was shocked when the authorities asked her if she wanted to press charges. The lady replied back with heck yeah this is my son your talking about. Come to find out the mexican lady was here illegally. They are coming here to steal our kids and carry them across the border to sell to the black market... scary I know....but I had to pass on. Now you do the same.. Thanks and have a Great Day  This really happened to a relative of a girl that goes to church with me. They have the lady in custody that tried to take the baby. She was hispanic and finally admitted that she was taking the baby across the border to sell it. This was last Wednesday night, Nov. 15 at the JC Penneys at Barnes Crossing. They did not catch anyone that was accompanying the lady andwe don't know if she gave up any names. So there could still be predators out there. Warn everyone you know with small children. Very scary... Last night as our family was out eating out at a local resturant , one of my aunts shared with us a very disturbing event that happened this past Wednesday night at JC Penny. A lady was shopping with her 2 small children  one a baby in a stroller and the other a toddler that was just old enough to talk. The lady had her children both right next to her as she was looking at clothes and the toddler said "Mama that lady just got my sister". This mother started chasing this Hispanic lady and finally caught her by reaching out and grabbing her hair from behind. She then started screaming this woman has my baby. Security came and took care of the horrible situation and told the Mom - we can almost bet you the lady had a car waiting outside with a driver and ready to take off and sell your baby on the black market in Mexico. This mother's grateful thought was Thank Goodness my toddler could talk and tell me - because she never thought this could happen since her children were right next to her within arms reach. I am sure with the Holiday Season approaching us all, the distractions as we shop will be more - but I hope this will help us all to stay a little more alert while out and about doing our shopping. And better Yet lets all each day Ask for the Lord to Guide and protect us and our families! Origins:  In November 2006, these accounts describing a foiled child abduction at a store in Tupelo, Mississippi, began arriving in our e-mail. Akin to other Internet-circulated tales about attempted childnappings at large stores (such as the venerable canard about kids being pulled in store washrooms to be drugged and have their hair dyed by those attempting to make off with them, or the 2006 hoax about a failed child grab at a Blockbuster in North Texas), this one also proved to be a fiction. dyed Blockbuster According  to Lee County Sheriff Jim Johnson and Tupelo Police Chief Harold Chaffin, the story about a Mexican woman who initially admired a shopper's baby, then grabbed it from the stroller and ran off with it was pure invention. There hadn't been any such incident  no brave mom who seized the would-be abductor by her long hair and held her until police arrived, no baby-stealing illegal immigrant now behind bars awaiting trial, no ring of kidnappers frequenting Tupelo-area stores in search of product for a Mexican black market in American infants. The Mall at Barnes Crossing, a venue where the alleged foiled abduction was said to have taken place, did succeed in tracing the e-mails to their source. Mall manager Jeff Snyder indicated no legal action was contemplated against the rumor's originator, but he noted that this could well be the last time the Mall would be inclined to be so lenient regarding damage done to its reputation. The false story spread from inbox to inbox because it invoked not just the specter of the child-abducting stranger (a frightening enough figure all on its own) but melded into it a bogeyman of the moment, the illegal immigrant from south of the border. While illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico has long been a problem, prior to 2006 it was less of a concern to those not living in border states. In 2006, however, the illegal immigration issue was pushed to the center of the political arena, with some of that pushing taking the form of unsubstantiated rumors positioning all those who come into the U.S. on the sly as violent criminals. The fictive Mexican woman of this tale is presented as a kidnapper of small children, and not even one propelled by misguided maternal desire into taking youngsters so she could become their mother, but one motivated purely by avarice, in it for the cash that selling the purloined tots would bring. She is wholly and irredeemably evil and therefore held up as an example of the sort of person a "look the other way" attitude towards illegal immigration has allowed into the country. Her theft is not merely that of social services, it is of defenseless children; the cost of having her here is not merely a small increase in taxes paid by the typical family, but the risk that the next tot she or her compatriots snatch will be yours. Barbara "bogeyman the barricades" Mikkelson Last updated:  15 December 2006    Sources:  Gray, Lloyd.  "Today's Falsehoods Spread Faster, Wider."  Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal.  10 December 2006  (p. B4). Claim:  President Obama plans to implement a pay freeze for active duty military personnel in 2011.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2010] On Facebook, there is the following message "reposted" by a friend, and who knows how far gone it has been around: "Dear Mr. President, I hear you would like to freeze pay rates for active duty starting next year. Would you also consider cutting your own pay to save more money for our country? While you're at it, lets cut congressman's pay too. If the people who risk their lives don't get an increase in pay, why would we continue raising pay for those who take no risks and reap the benefits? Repost if you agree!"    Origins:  As of the time this item was circulating via Facebook postings in November 2010, it was not true that President Obama had announced an intention to freeze the pay of active duty military personnel starting in 2011.  (In fact, President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal, submitted in February 2010, called for a 1.4% military pay bump for the following year.) budget proposal The November 2010 circulation of this item was prompted by a draft report prepared by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR), a bipartisan body created by President Obama "to address our nation's fiscal challenges."  Among the 58 recommendations included in that draft report, released in November 2010, was a recommendation for a three-year freeze on basic non-combat military pay and allowances: draft report NCFRR Freeze non-combat military pay at 2011 levels for 3 years Regular Military Compensation (excluding combat pay) for military personnel, which includes basic pay, basic allowances for housing and subsistence, and federal income tax advantages that go along with the allowances, is expected to grow by $9.2 billion from 2011 to 2015. A three-year freeze at 2011 levels for these compensation categories would save the federal government $7.6 billion in compensation and tax expenditures, as well as another $1.6 billion in less retirement accrual, or $9.2 billion total discretionary savings in 2015. However, as noted above, the NCFRR's report was merely a draft, and a military pay freeze was but one of several dozen potential items offered to achieve the goal of saving $200 billion in federal expenditures through 2015. Any such proposal, even if considered, would still have to overcome several hurdles before being enacted, including approval by 14 of the 18 commissioners who comprise the NCFRR and then subsequent approval by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.    In December 2010, Congress approved President Obama's recommended 1.4% pay increase for military personnel, while President Obama announced that he would freeze for two years the salaries of all other federal government workers. As for presidential compensation (which is currently set at $400,000 per year, with a $50,000 expense allowance), the salary of the President of the United States is established by Congress, so a president cannot technically "cut his own pay" (although he might opt to decline some or all of his salary, or donate it to charity).  Members of Congress could vote to decrease their salaries (which are currently set at $174,000 per year), although they have already voted to decline their cost-of-living pay increases in 2009 and again in 2010. decline Last updated:  13 January 2011    Pincus, Walter.  "House Approves Defense Bill with Lower Pay Raise for Military."   The Washington Post.  18 December 2010.    Vinch, Chuck.  "Panel Calls for 3-Year Freeze on Military Pay."   Army Times.  11 November 2010. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's 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." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. Before Gov. John Kitzhaber released his budget proposal for the next two-year cycle, he gave a few hints at how hed budget some of the biggest pieces of state government. In an e-mail sent out before the Feb. 1, 2011, budget announcement, he says hell allocate some $5.56 billion for the states K-12 public school system.But thats not all. He gets even more specific. Kitzhaber plans to make 52 percent of the total (about $2.89 billion) available in the first year of the cycle.This, he says, is the equivalent to a $5.78 billion budget for school funding. The effect is to provide an increase in state funding for the 2011-12 school year.That, naturally, piqued our curiosity given that most of what you hear down in Salem is worrying comments about how education will have to take a cut going forward. And yet, heres Kitzhaber talking about increased spending.Could he really be offering the schools more money next year? We decided to find out.To start off, its helpful to have a clear understanding of where funding is currently. The thing is, the budget for public education has fluctuated several times over the past couple of years. The state revenue forecast is consistently down, which has led to reductions in the budget. Meanwhile, theres been movement on the federal level to kick funds to states, which have helped balance, in part, some of those earlier cuts. But not all of them.To get the most recent number, we called Oregon's Legislative Fiscal Office. According to the offices most recent calculations, K-12 education is operating on a budget of $5.756 billion. Thatincludes the promise of $35.5 million from a state education stability fund, which may or may not come through. But, for the purpose of this article, well keep it in the total.Of that $5.75 billion, $342 million has come from the federal government in various forms and $5.41 billion has come from the state. To parse it even more (who doesnt love lots of numbers? ), $2.94 billion went to schools during the 2009-10 school year, while the remaining $2.82 billion went to schools for the current year.So, lets compare these numbers to what Kitzhaber is proposing. According to the e-mail statement, Kitzhaber is suggesting a K-12 budget of $5.56 billion for the next two-year period. But for next year in particular, he is suggesting $2.89 billion go to schools. Thats a clear increase in funding (not just state funding, but overall funding) this year over next, by about $70 million.Still, its important to note here, that funding, overall, will take a hit. Sure, the state is throwing in more cash for the upcoming biennium than it did the current -- about an extra $150 million. And yes, the school system will have more cash to work with next year than it did this year. But overall the bienniums budget is down, $5.756 billion to $5.56 billion. Thats because the states increase in funding still doesn't offset lost federal dollars.Whats more, under Kitzhabers proposal, that reduction will be felt strongest come the 2012-13 school year. Whereas there will be a $70 million more to work with next year, as compared to the current school year, there will be a $150 million decrease the following year, if you use the current year as the baseline.By front-loading 2012, you necessarily leave 2013 with a smaller slice of the funds.Kitzhaber explains his logic in the e-mail: Front-loading the funding also provides a year to find cost savings through consolidation and other efficiencies to maintain this level of classroom support during the 2012-13 school year.Whether those cost savings will be realized, nobody can say, so well stick the initial statement, which is that this proposed budget represents an increase in state funding for the upcoming 2011-12 school year. Kitzhaber is right, it does. That said, its important to recognize that even with the increase in state funds, the school system will have to make do with less sooner or later. Kitzhaber seems to have chosen later.Since we think that bit of context is important, we rate this claim Mostly True. Comment on this item. Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005. Gov. Rick Perry casts his leading Republican challenger, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, as a fiscally irresponsible lawmaker whod bring a free-spending approach to state government.Amplifying that theme, Perrys campaign said Nov. 30: Hutchison has voted nine separate times to raise the national debt ceiling.We wondered if that was so.Perrys camp compiled votes  undisputed by Hutchison  showing that since joining the Senate in 1993, Hutchison has voted nine times to raise the ceiling. But shes also voted five times against raising the ceiling.Our request for an explanation of Hutchisons votes didnt generate an immediate reply from her. If she does pipe up, well update this item. UPDATE: Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky offered a statement Jan. 28 suggesting that Hutchison's aye votes while George W. Bush was president reflected her support for his across-the-board tax cuts and spending initiatives including commitments to fight terrorism, provide prescription drugs to senior citizens and rebuild after 9/11 and Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ike. Sadosky said: She has voted against efforts to increase the debt ceiling when it is necessitated by wasteful spending like that seen in the stimulus bill and in the annual discretionary appropriations bills proposed by the Democratic-led Congress and presidency.We wondered anyway what any vote on the debt ceiling really means.Josh Gordon of The Concord Coalition, which was founded by the late Sen. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass) to advocate for long-term fiscal responsibility, advised that votes to raise the ceiling might be portrayed as big deals to score political points. In reality, theyre not, he said, though they are necessary.If they didnt do it, the (U.S.) Treasury would no longer be able to borrow money, Gordon said. Everything from savings bonds to Treasury bills to very short-term financial instruments of the Federal Reserve would cease to be worth anything. It would basically destroy the economy.Unlike congressional votes on taxes or spending, Gordon said, lawmakers' votes to increase the debt limit aren't necessarily indicators of members' fiscal philosophies.Gordon said the fact all but two of Hutchisons votes to raise the ceiling occurred with Republicans in charge of the Senate was probably not a coincidence.Typically in Congress, the majority party bears responsibility for attending to essential business, including hikes in the debt ceiling if necessary. When the ceiling issue comes up, members of the minority party can vote no knowing the other side will muster the votes to do it. Hutchisons five no votes occurred when Democrats controlled the Senate. With Democrats holding the Senate majority, she voted for raising the ceiling as part of the Wall Street rescue plan approved in October 2008 and earlier voted for raising the ceiling in June 2002.Perry got all of Hutchisons yes votes right. We rate his claim as True. Claim:  Former New York mayor Ed Koch delivered a radio address on anti-semitism.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.  Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.  Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.  Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.  In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.  Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.  I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPRs reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.  I will no longer lend financial support to New Yorks Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.  I will not watch ABCs World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.  BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.  Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.  Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.  I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish. Origins:  Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989,   mayor  was a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio until his death in 2013.  On 7 December 2002, he delivered a commentary dealing with his perception that western society is experiencing its most"virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin" and offered a list of new year's resolutions regarding people and institutions he would shun for being anti-Israel.  Transcripts of that commentary (reproduced above) have since been posted to a variety of web sites. Bloomberg Radio Just to be sure this information was accurate, we contacted Bloomberg Radio for verification and received an affirmative response: Hello and thank you for your inquiry. Former Mayor Ed Koch is a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio.  On 7 December 2002, Mr. Koch delivered a commentary on our "Bloomberg On the Weekend" broadcast in which he postulated a growing anti-semitism in America and elsewhere in the western world.  He asserted that public broadcasting  had an anti-Israeli attitude and declared he would no longer contribute.  I hope this answers your question, and I invite you to listen to us each weekend for Ed Koch and much more.   If you are in the greater New York area you will find us on Bloomberg Radio, WBBR, 1130 on your AM radio dial. Elsewhere we can be heard on the internet at http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio. http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio Sincerely,Wes Richards, Host. Last updated:  6 January 2014 Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom. Thats the mantra of the Georgia Libertarian Party, which, this year, is fielding candidates for a handful of state offices, including governor. In Cherokee County, attorney and Libertarian Jeff Amason is running as a write-in candidate for the District 21 House seat. That seat is currently held by Scot Turner, a one-term Republican from Holly Springs. Amason recently appeared on the Monica Perez Show on WSB radio to discuss his candidacy and priorities, including reining in state spending. The state budget has increased almost $800 million a year in each of the last two years. You can only imagine what it might be in five years, Amason said. We need to be funding essential programs. We dont need to be funding every program out there. With the economy making a slow but steady recovery, we decided to fact check Amasons budget claims. We contacted him, and he sent us budget figures for the state fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as for the current fiscal year, which started July 1. That data showed that the total state budget grew from $18.5 billion in 2012 to $19.3 billion in Fiscal 2013 and to $20.2 billion in 2014. Thats a jump of $800 million between 2012 to 2013 and a $900 million increase between 2013 to 2014. We confirmed the accuracy of Amasons numbers using budget documents available at the Governors Office of Planning and Budget website. (We didnt compare the 2014 and 2015 budgets because the General Assembly will amend the 2015 spending plan in the legislative session that starts in January.) Helping to drive up the recent state budgets were increases in enrollment in public schools, Medicaid and the states health insurance program for children, as well as pension costs, according to state documents. Current spending levels are 26.7 percent above 2005 levels, not adjusted for inflation, an OPB report shows. In summary, Amason said the state budget increased nearly $800 million a year in each of the last two years. He was very close, if not conservative in his assessment.. We rate his statement True. With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, U.S. Rep.Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs.The suburban Milwaukee congressman, who was first elected to the House in 1979, didnt hesitate in replying.Weve got to address the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Sensenbrenner told the editorial board of theMilwaukee Journal Sentinelon Sept. 29, 2011. Its 35 percent.Sensenbrenner argued that if corporate taxes in the U.S. were lower than they are in other parts of the world, more U.S.-based multinational companies would repatriate their profits back to America, creating more jobs here.Its Sensenbrenners opinion that lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate would create jobs. We cant check an opinion.But we can check whether the rate is 35 percent and if it is the highest in the world.Sensenbrenners district director, Loni Hagerup, pointed to a 2011reportfrom theOrganization for Economic Corporation and Development, a Paris-based group of 34 large, industrialized democracies.The widely quoted report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent, tops among the member countries.Next in line were France and Belgium (both 34 percent), and then Australia, Japan, Spain and Mexico (each 30 percent).Seems pretty straightforward. Sensenbrenner is right, right?Lets first look at two points:1. Combined corporate tax rateSome analysts, when comparing countries, use the Paris groups report but cite a different figure -- the combined corporate tax rate, rather than merely the corporate tax rate. The combined rate includes not only federal but also state tax rates for corporations. The combined corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.2 percent, which ranks second behind Japans 39.5 percent.But Sensenbrenner was asked what the federal government could do to create jobs, so the corporate tax rate -- not the combined rate -- is relevant here.2. Limitations of the corporate rateWe consulted experts at two Washington, D.C. research organizations --TaxFoundationpresidentScottHodgeandRoberton Williams, senior fellow at theTax Policy Center. Both said Sensenbrenner is correct in stating that the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and that the rate is the highest in the world, but they added some context to the discussion.Williams said the corporate tax rate is not a good measure of the taxes that corporations actually pay. While some corporations might pay the full 35 percent rate, many pay considerably less, depending on the types of investments they make, depreciation they take and other factors that reduce taxable income, he said.Hodge agreed. He added, however, that the effective federal tax rate (after deductions) that corporations pay is about 26 percent -- and that also is among the highest rates of all industrialized nations.Our conclusionAsked what the federal government could do to create jobs, Sensenbrenner said lower the corporate tax rate, which he said was 35 percent and the highest in the world. A widely quoted annual report says the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent and is highest among 34 large, industrialized countries. Two experts agreed with the rate and the ranking.We rate Sensenbrenners claim True.