The state's transportation department is already burdened with a significant amount of debt, and it has made over $700 million in debt payments within the past two years.
Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.
Appealing unsuccessfully to spend more money from the states so-called Rainy Day Fund, state Sen. Rodney Ellis hearkened to legislative history, saying in floor debate May 16: Members, this legislature has voted to use virtually all of the Rainy Day Fund four times since its creation in the late 1980s. The sad truth is that Texans and the (fund) are being held hostage to politics.Back story: GOP Gov. Rick Perry has said hes agreeable with taking about $3.1 billion from the fund, formally called the Economic Stabilization Fund, to help cover the state budget that runs through August. But Perry and many Republicans oppose tapping the fund, which is fed by state oil and gas oil production taxes, for the 2012-13 budget. Perry contends it needs to be protected in case of natural disasters.Democrats, noting the projected multi-billion-dollar shortfall in state revenue needed to maintain current programs, say the current dire circumstances justify taking more from the fund.And is Ellis correct about past legislatures voting four times to virtually empty the fund?Jeremy Warren, Elliss spokesman, said the senator relied on a report by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank that advocates for programs serving the poor. To help balance the 2012-13 budget, the center has urged lawmakers to use the fund, which is projected by State Comptroller Susan Combs to have a balance of $9.7 billion by the end of August 2013, or about $6.6 billion if lawmakers stick with applying $3.1 billion from the fund to this years deficit .The centers Feb. 21reportsays: In 1991, the Legislature spent the funds entire balance ($28.8million) on public schools, and in 1993, spent the entire balance ($197 million) for criminal justice.In 2003, to deal with the last economic downturn, the Legislature appropriated $1.3 billion from the Rainy Day Fundalmost every penny of the balance the (state) comptroller forecast through 2005, the report says. Again in 2005, the Legislature appropriated $1.9 billion in Rainy Day funds, using roughly half for 2005 shortfalls, and the other half for 2006-07, spending almost all the $2 billion that was forecast to be available.Next, we confirmed the amounts of rainy-day money that lawmakers could have spent in each of these instances by reviewing biennial revenue forecasts made by respective state comptrollers. Finally, the Legislative Reference Library guided us to a Feb. 3reportby the House Research Organization, a non-partisan arm of the Texas House, specifying how much money the 1991, 1993, 2003 and 2005 Legislatures appropriated from the fund.Punch line: The centers recap is accurate.We rate Elliss statement True. In May and June 2019, a misleading but widely seen meme about immigrants and Medicare benefits continued to circulate on Facebook:   Although the trope that undocumented immigrants are cashing in on U.S. government-funded public benefits for free is a common one, it's generally misleading. common one generally misleading Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research."In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it."The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue.A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons."Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money.  Contrary to what the meme asserts, undocumented persons do not qualify to receive Medicare. Additionally, because many undocumented persons acquire fake Social Security numbers so that they can work, they pay billions of dollars into the system but never reap those benefits, said Steven Wallace, professor of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and associate director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. undocumented persons "In reality, undocumented immigrants paying into these programs actually are helping to subsidize them," Wallace told us by phone. "So its the other way around -- its not that they're draining the system. They're actually subsidizing it." The impacts of immigration on the economy and public benefits are political flashpoints in a larger national debate. For example, in September 2017 the Trump administration was criticized for rejecting a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that concluded refugees have an overall positive effect on government revenue. rejecting A 2017 study conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reported that immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S. In the short term and on the local and state government levels, new immigrants do have a negative revenue impact largely due to costs associated with educating children, health care and law enforcement. But in the long term, they are a net positive on revenue due to higher incomes of their descendants who are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. 2017 study PBS News Hour reported that "In general, more people working means more taxes  and thats true overall with undocumented immigrants as well. Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. Immigrants are also less likely to take public benefits than the native-born population for two reasons." Those two reasons, according to PBS, are that undocumented persons aren't eligible to receive federal public benefits, and many of the ones who are authorized to be here aren't eligible because they earn too much money. Frazee, Gretchen.  "4 Myths About How Immigrants Affect the U.S. Economy."
  PBS News Hour.  2 November 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie, and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments."
  December 2007. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine.  "The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration."
  2017. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. What happens when the sitting President of the United States can no longer carry out his duties due to death, resignation, removal from office, or incapacitation?  That was one of the issues addressed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution back in the 18th century, but unfortunately not thoroughly so  ambiguities of wording and unanticipated circumstances have required that the Constitution be amended several times to cover situations not originally foreseen. Even today, some questions about presidential succession and eligibility remain, giving rise to various thought exercises such as the following: thought exercises  Although the particular scenario outlined in the above meme is a hypothetical, we can say that its  description of how to restore to office a President who has been impeached and removed from office would almost certainly fail in real life for practical and/or legal reasons. For openers, let's summarize the process of removing a President from office.   The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings to discuss the charges against the President (similar to a grand jury pondering an indictment), prepares articles of impeachment outlining those charges, and (if a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles), sends them to the full House for debate and vote.  If a majority of the full House votes for impeachment based on one or more of those articles, then the President must stand trial in the Senate.  If two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict at the culmination of that trial, the President is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be barred from holding any high governmental position again. But could the removed President's successor make use of constitutional powers to pardon him and engage a scheme to reinstall him to the presidency by appointing him Vice President?    Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states that "Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."  So if the Senate voted to convict a sitting President and thereby remove him from office, they could also vote to permanently disqualify him from holding federal office again.   However, none of that judgment could be undone by a presidential pardon, because Article II, Section 2 (which establishes the presidential pardon privilege) states that "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  (If this were not the case, then a sitting President facing impeachment could simply pardon himself and thus avoid any punishment.) What if the Senate voted to remove a President from office but did not also vote to bar him from holding office again?  That's where the practicality part of this exercise kicks in. Let's imagine a President is impeached and removed from office, and the Vice President thereby assumes the presidency.  Now the office of Vice President is vacant and needs to be filled.  Could the just-removed President step into that role? Amendment XXV of the U.S. Constitution specifies that "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."  Theoretically, anyone who was  constitutionally eligible to hold office could be nominated for the VP slot.  But how likely is it that the same Congress that just voted overwhelmingly to oust a politician from the highest office in the land would then turn right around and approve appointing that same person to the second-highest office?  We'll go with "not very likely." About the only way this scenario could conceivably play out in real life would be if the following sequence of events took place: 1) A President were impeached and removed from office but not permanently barred from holding office.2) An election that altered the makeup of Congress intervened before a new Vice President could be nominated and approved.3) The results of that election tilted Congress in favor of the recently deposed President.4) The newly seated Congress opted to make one of their first acts of business the audacious re-installation to power of a President who had just been drummed out of office. All of the maneuvering described above would only get the former President as far the vice presidency.  Elevating him back into the position of chief executive would require that the current President be so pliant as to willingly step aside to make room for someone who had just been kicked out of office  an act that would have no obvious upside to it for the recently installed President (given that   achieving the presidency is generally considered the pinnacle of any politician's career).   All in all, it's possible that under an extremely contrived and convoluted sequence of events, a President who had been impeached and removed from office could regain the White House without standing for election again ... but the likelihood of circumstances lining up just right to make that happen are practically zero.   And the presidential power to pardon would be irrelevant to that process. Two days into the 2020 new year, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, setting off an escalating series of events that included Iran pulling out of its 2015 nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers, threats of retaliation traded in both directions, and the Iraqi parliament voting to end the presence of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. escalating series Critics of the president's decision voiced fears that it brought the U.S. to the brink of yet another long, bloody war in the Middle East. But some of Trump's supporters pointed out that former President Barack Obama also engaged in drone warfare.  For instance, social media users widely shared a statistic that Obama ordered 542 drone strikes while president, resulting in the deaths of 3,797 people, including 542 civilians. Snopes.com readers asked us to verify the figures. Here is an example of the information and how it was being used on social media. We have cropped this Twitter user's name out for privacy reasons.Other than an apparent typo in the civilian death-toll count above, the figures being shared are based on the reporting of political scientist Micah Zenko, who in 2017 reported for the non-profit research organization Council on Foreign Relations that "The 542 drone strikes that Obama authorized killed an estimated 3,797 people, including 324 civilians." Zenko's figures are based on U.S. military press releases and news reports.  reported As Zenko noted, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released two reports tallying drone strikes under the Obama administration. The first reported that there were 473 strikes between January 20, 2009, and December 31, 2015, in "areas of active hostilities" that included Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The second reported that there were another 53 strikes in the same region for 2016, bringing the total to 526, a figure that doesn't include Obama's final 20 days in office in January 2017.  first second The reports provide ranges for fatalities, with 2,372 to 2,581 "combatants" killed from 2009 to 2015, and 64 to 116 civilians killed in that time frame. In 2016, one civilian was killed while the report states anywhere from 431 to 441 combatants were killed. Exact figures on total number of strikes and resulting casualties depend on the source. Independent organizations that have tracked air strikes made in the U.S.-led global war on terror generally produce figures that are higher than those produced by the U.S. government. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for example, reported there were a total of 563 air strikes authorized by Obama, "largely by drones," which hit targets in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Meanwhile, New America, a public policy think tank, estimates there were 571 drone strikes under the Obama administration in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. depend on reported estimates The drone program under Obama and the strike that killed Soleimani are not apt comparisons. The U.S. has been carrying out drone warfare in the region since the administration of George W. Bush, Obama's predecessor. Although such warfare has always been controversial, the fallout over the killing of Soleimani is the result of his status in the Iranian government. As Reuters reported, "Major General Qassem Soleimani was the second most powerful man in Iran. He answered only to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." His killing, per Reuters, "struck at the heart" of leadership in Tehran. reported In March 2018, Trump revoked an Obama executive order requiring an annual disclosure of civilian deaths resulting from drone strikes. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also reported that the number of drone strikes ratcheted up during Trump's first year in office, doubling in Somalia and tripling in Yemen. revoked Zenko, Micah."Obamas Final Drone Strike Data."
Council on Foreign Relations.20 January 2017. Zenko, Micah."The (Not-So) Peaceful Transition of Power: Trumps Drone Strikes Outpace Obama."
Council on Foreign Relations.2 March 2017. Purkiss, Jessica and Jack Serle."Obamas Covert Drone War in Numbers: Ten Times More strikes than Bush."
Bureau of Investigative Journalism.17 January 2017. Reuters."Slain Soleimani was Iran's Second-in-Command."
2 Januar 2020. Purkiss, Jessica, et al."US Counter Terror Air Strikes Double in Trump's First Year."
Bureau of Investigative Journalism. 19 December 2017. Claim:  Vending machines in Japan offer for sale panties purportedly worn by schoolgirls.   . Origins:  Used underwear that has supposedly been previously worn by schoolgirls is being offered for sale in vending machines in Japan. Though we don't know the current price for such items, in 1993 they sold for the equivalent of US $50 apiece. We'd read that this practice ended in 1993 and reported as much in the original of this article (which was penned in 2001), but since that time numerous readers living in Japan have written to say that not only haven't the machines gone away, but that they've themselves seen them. Japan is home to a thriving bura-sera industry    of which traffic in the soiled panties of schoolgirls represents only one part  with "bura-sera" or "buru-sera" the term for a specific male fascination relating to that country's schoolgirls. "Buru" is anglicized Japanese (Japlish) for "bloomers" and "sera" for "sailor"; the term refers to the sailor suit, the predominant style of girls' junior and high school uniforms. Dozens, if not hundreds, of magazines are exclusively devoted to bura-sera photographs, pictures that feature girls clad in school garb, holding up their skirts to display their panties. Usually in such photos the girls' faces are hidden, but that is not always the case. Girlish youth and innocence are considered sexy in Japan, a culture with a long history of regarding women more as sex toys than as people. This obsession with untouched adolescence results in the sad sight of women in their thirties emitting girlish giggles and clutching teddy bears in an effort to maintain their appeal to the opposite sex. Although it can fairly be said Western society also prizes youth in a woman, there the fascination has to do more with the looks of a girl than it does with her immaturity and presumed sexual innocence. A pretty 26-year-old who would be considered lovely in the West would in Japan be viewed by many as hopelessly long in the tooth. Western society looks for firm, youthful bodies housing the attitudes of grown women  we like them young, but we don't like them to act young. In the West, a teen's sex appeal is dependent upon her ability to look and act much older, thus the fascination with makeup and plunging necklines, accoutrements that make her appear less of a child and more of a woman. In Japan, this ideal is reversed  sexy in the Land of the Rising Sun adds up to childlike behavior and modes of dress that express this ideal. Sometimes this amounts to the adoption of clothing styles highly reminiscent of high school uniforms, but even when a girl dons an evening gown, she will strive to look like a kinderling caught parading in Mom's finery. Likewise, childish outbursts, pouting, and tantrums are viewed as charmingly erotic because such actions work to further the violated schoolgirl image.  In a sexual culture so dominated by roricon (Japlish for "Lolita complex"), buru-sera fetishism finds its footing. Those whose way of life has taught them to lust for young girls find outlet for their interest through viewing suggestive photos of teen girls and handling items previously worn by them.  For a price, girls supplying buru-sera items for resale will don a new pair of panties at a porn shop in the morning on their way to school, then change back into their own underwear at the end of the day at the same shop, leaving its proprietor with a saleable item. Girls can also turn a profit on their own used undies by offloading them to the same people.  Generally,  the more worn the item, the higher the price it will fetch.  Porn shops featuring buru-sera items also vend girls' used school uniforms.   There is no guarantee that all the panties marketed as having been worn by schoolgirls actually have been. Such details are not  scrupulously vetted; no regulatory body checks to ensure the veracity of claims made about these items.  However, it is clear that at least some of the used undies do come from teen girls, thus this "underwear of a Japanese schoolgirl" story is no myth. Japan has a tradition of vending through machines what Western society would view as unusual consumables. In addition to the many items one would typically expect to find offered for sale in this manner, porn magazines, disposable cameras, new pantyhose, horoscopes, and many other goods are routinely mechanically vended. Part of the appeal of such machines is attributable to a matter of convenience, but concern for privacy also fuels the mania. There is less chance of embarrassment in buying condoms from a machine than from a store where the sale must be rung up and bagged by a clerk. Likewise, purchases of "pink" videos (what in the West are termed "blue movies") are less likely to be blush-producing experiences when these transactions can be effected without anyone else's looking on. There was thus a waiting market for "schoolgirl panties" machines, in that those looking to obtain such items would not have to brave a bura-sera shop to fulfill their desires. These mechanical points of sale appeared in 1993 in Chiba City (Chiba Prefecture), in an area known for its porn magazine and adult video vending machines. Almost immediately, an outcry was raised against them, but there was a problem in getting them removed: Whereas sellers required licenses to distribute other types of goods, no such requirement was on the books for soiled underwear, because no one had foreseen the possibility of trade in such an item. These machines existed outside the law in the sense that no specific statute existed that could be invoked to combat them.  The solution was as creative as it is odd-sounding  the machines were countered by invoking the Antique Dealings Law, a statute which stipulates that an antique dealer or a dealer in second-hand items must obtain permission from local authorities. Lacking those permissions, the items could not be vended. In September 1993, three businessmen were charged with selling used panties without a permit under the provenance of this law.  This supposedly ended the presence of such salespoints in that country, but like we said at the top of this piece, countless readers have since written to tell us that the machines can still be found. Barbara "vend me your rears" Mikkelson Additional Information:    Teenage Sex and Buru-Sera Shops  Last updated:  8 July 2007    Sources:   Annells, Jonathan.  "Hot Pants, Hot Customers and Hot Prices."   South China Morning Post.  12 September 1993  (p. 4).    The Daily Yomiuri.  "Dealers of Used Female Underwear Charged."   21 September 1993  (p. 2).    Mainichi Daily News.  "'Bura-Sera' Vending Machines Stir Local Concern."   12 September 1993.    Tokyo Business Today.  "The Next Fad: Vending Machines for Panty Perverts."   November 1993  (p. 64). Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. 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 scammer's 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): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. On 29 November 2016, President-elect Donald Trump issued a controversial tweet about imposing strict consequences for flag burning: flag burning Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 November 29, 2016  Shortly thereafter, people began to circulate a tweet purportedly sent by Trump five years earlier that expressed the opposite view and condoned that form of protest:  Determining that the 2011 tweet had been faked was simple enough using Twitter's advanced search tool, which pulled up the entirety of Trump's February 2011 remarks on Twitter and turned up no such post. February 2011 Also, Donald Trump's tweets garnered far less engagement back in 2011 than they would several years later, after he began his run for the presidency.  Rather than the tens of thousands of likes and retweets displayed in the purported February 2011 Trump pro-flag burning tweet seen above, his Twitter posts from that period typically prompted less than a hundred of each:   Check out today's video blog https://bit.ly/g75JiuI want to answer more of your questions, tweet me.....  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  ALso coming up: The Celebrity Apprentice returns. Sunday night March 6 at 9 pm EST https://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2011 February 28, 2011  Although it is possible to delete tweets, most of Trump's deleted tweets have been archived by third-party services. On 21 August 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president. guilty Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges. convicted Both the Manafort and Cohen cases came about due to investigative work undertaken as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election  and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Understandably, much of the news media in the United States gave these major developments extensive coverage that day, in print, online, and on the major television news networks. Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories, or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser import. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them. differences However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screen shot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS." War on Christmas (Festivus is an unofficial holiday which acts as an alternative to Christmas, and originated in an episode of the sitcom "Seinfeld.")  CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn  Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018   That tweet was then reposted on Facebook by the left-wing page "The Other 98%": The image is fake, and is an old meme which first appeared in December 2017. appeared Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj @BarackObama pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj  jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  Lahren herself publicly dismissed the meme: Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy. https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2  Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017 December 24, 2017  The meme does indeed consist of a screenshot of a real Fox News appearance which Lahren made in August 2017, but with the original chyron digitally edited and replaced with something different and non-relevant: .@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD @TomiLahren pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD  Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017 August 31, 2017  It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal travails in August 2018 intended to engage in satire, or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was re-posted by "The Other 98%", is a comedy writer. writer As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on 21 August, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Mashable CNN - Cohen plea dealMSNBC - Cohen plea dealFox News - Are cats becoming too tall?  Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  CNN: Manafort guilty on 8 countsNYT: Manafort guilty of fraudAP: Cohen pleads guiltyFox News: Were the lobsters on the Titanic happy that it sank?  #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Another widely-shared screenshot purported to show Fox News reframing the conviction of Manafort by only mentioning, in a mobile news alert, the fact that a mistrial was declared on ten of the charges against him, while other news organizations reported his being found guilty on eight charges:   The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert which read "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial" before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges: page Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS  Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018 August 21, 2018  Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays.  "Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump in Hush-Money Scheme."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Barakat, Matthew et al.  "Ex-Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Guilty of 8 Charges."
  Associated Press.  22 August 2018. Stanley-Becker, Isaac.  "In Trump's Right-Wing Media Universe, It Was a Day Like Any Other."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Sung, Morgan.  "What Was Fox News Covering While Manafort and Cohen Were in Court? This Hilarious Meme Has Some Answers."
  Mashable.  21 August 2018.