Obama Eliminates Combat Pay
Claim:  A new White House policy eliminates combat pay for U.S. military personnel "unless they are being shot at."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] Obama pulls combat pay from service personnel.  President Obama's latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I'm constantly in a combat zone  it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense ... come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here  Florida Marine Corp Soldier  Origins:  This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization.  It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress: National Defense Authorization Act The first major overhaul in hostile fire pay since World War II has been ordered by a Senate committee in a plan that would pay troops based on their actual number of days in a hostile area rather than a flat monthly rate. Approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the 2012 defense authorization bill, S 1254, the provision would convert the current $225 for hostile fire and imminent danger pay, paid for any month in which a person spends any time in a designated zone, to a new prorated payment of $7.50 for each day spent in a designated danger zone. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel panel, called the change a "basic accounting measure to ensure that individuals receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in qualifying areas." Webb said ground combat troops will see "minimal impact" from the change "as they are stationed full time in the qualifying areas." In effect, all members of the U.S. military continue to receive imminent danger pay (IDP) for serving in areas "where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions," whether or not they are actually "shot at."  The change that came about in February 2012 was that previously service members received a flat monthly payment ($225) for each month in which they spent any time at all in an imminent danger pay area; instead, they are now paid a per diem rate of $7.50 for each day they actually spend in such areas.  Service members who come under fire still receive the full monthly hostile fire pay amount regardless of where they are serving. As described by the Air Force Times, the reasoning behind the change in policy was as follows: Beginning with Feb. 15 [2012] paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450  two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called "sightseer pay." The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. Exceptions will be made for troops who are "exposed to a hostile fire incident." Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy:  release Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said. The change, which took effect [1 February 2012], was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31. "Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. "This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said. Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should  keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said. The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command. Last updated:  31 December 2013    Tighman, Andrew.  "New Danger Pay Rules Begin."   Air Force Times.  7 February 2012.
Claim:  Some children's vinyl lunch boxes contain unsafe levels of lead.   Multiple: Tests have found some children's soft vinyl lunch boxes contain lead: .  Children's lunch boxes contain levels of lead unsafe with ordinary exposure:  Undetermined.Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] A Back to School Warning: Children's Vinyl Lunch Boxes Can Contain Dangerous Levels of Lead Oakland, CA - The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) announced it is filing lawsuits today against makers and retailers of soft vinyl lunch boxes that can expose children to harmful levels of lead. The Center has also notified several other companies of violations under California's toxics law Proposition 65 (Prop 65) for lunch boxes with high lead levels. The lawsuits and violation notices against companies including Toys "R" Us, Warner Brothers, DC Comics, Time Warner, Walgreens, and others involve many lunch boxes featuring beloved  children's characters including Superman, Tweety Bird, Powerpuff Girls, and Hamtaro. The level of lead in one lunch box, an Angela Anaconda box made by Targus International, tested at 56,400 parts per million (ppm) of lead, more than 90 times the 600 ppm legal limit for lead in paint in children's products. "Lead exposure should not be on the lunch menu when kids' go back to school this fall," said Michael Green, CEH Executive Director. "There is no reason to expose children to any lead from lunch boxes. We are calling on these companies to recall these products and take action to eliminate lead from their products in the future." Initial independent laboratory testing commissioned by CEH has already found seventeen lunch boxes with high lead levels, and the group's investigation is ongoing. In addition to the testing on the Angela Anaconda lunch box, tests on other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food. Lead is known to be harmful to children even in minute amounts, as it can impair brain development and cause other behavioral anddevelopmental problems. Children may be exposed to lead from lunch boxes when they eat food that has been stored in them. Handling the lunchboxes just before eating could also be an exposure risk. It is not possible to tell by appearance whether a vinyl lunch box may contain lead, so CEH is advising parents to avoid vinyl lunch boxes altogether. "Parents may need to seek out alternatives, since many mass produced lunch boxes are vinyl or vinyl-lined," said Green. "A reusable cloth bag would be a good alternative." Parents can find information on how to test for lead in their children's lunch boxes at home at www.cehca.org/lunchboxes. The CEH lawsuits were filed today against lunch box producers Igloo and InGear, and against retailers Toys "R" Us, Walgreens, Big Lots, and Ross Stores. Earlier this year, CEH sent notices of Prop 65 violations to Targus International, DC Comics, Time Warner, Warner Brothers, Binney & Smith (a division of Hallmark and the makers of Crayola-brand lunch boxes), Fast Forward LLC, and Holiday Fair Incorporated. Under Prop 65, companies have sixty days to respond to violation notices, after which lawsuits can be filed. CEH expects to file more notifications of lunch boxes that violate Prop 65 in the near future. Photos of the lunch boxes can be found at www.cehca.org/lunchboxes.htm.   Test Your Child's Lunch Box Because it is not possible to tell by appearance whether a vinyl lunch box may contain lead, CEH is advising parents to avoid buying vinyl lunch boxes altogether as we cannot guarantee they are lead free. You can test vinyl lunch boxes you already own using a hand-held lead testing kit, often available at hardware stores. Two reliable and easy-to-use brands are PACE's Lead Alert and LeadCheck (also available online at www.leadcheck.com) If your child's lunch box tests positive, or you need assistance obtaining a testing kit please call CEH at (510) 594-9864. We can help you interpret  the results and can use your product as evidence in our ongoing work get the lead out of our children's lunch boxes. Commonly Asked QuestionsWhat products did CEH test?CEH has only tested soft plastic lunch boxes. We don't know whether lead may be present in hard plastic or metal boxes at this time. In most cases the lead is in the plastic lining of the box, although some also have lead in the exterior plastic. At this time we have not found any lunch boxes by Disney, Thermos, LL Bean, Hello Kitty or California Innovations that have lead - however, we have by no means tested all lunch boxes by any of these makers. How dangerous are the lunch boxes with lead?The levels CEH found in the lunch boxes are not high enough to cause acute lead poisoning during normal use. However, if your child is exposed to lead from other sources, a leaded lunch box would add to their health risk. Because lead has been shown to cause developmental problem in young children at very low levels, CEH believes it is important to eliminate all controllable sources of lead exposure, including lunch boxes. Does my lunch box have lead?The majority of lunch boxes that CEH tested do not contain lead, so there is a good chance that your lunch box may be safe. However, because it is impossible to tell by looking, at this point the only way to know for sure is to test the lunch box yourself. How do I test my lunch box?You can test vinyl lunch boxes using a hand-held lead testing kit, available at most hardware stores. Two reliable and easy-to-use brands are PACE's Lead Alert and LeadCheck (also available online at www.leadcheck.com). They cost less than $5 a piece, and come with instructions. Both of these brands will turn a bright pink color when they are rubbed on a surface containing lead. A clear or orange swab means there is not lead. What do I do if my lunch box has lead?If your child's lunch box tests positive, we recommend that you do not use it any longer. Please send CEH your positive lunch box so that we can add it to our investigation and notify other parents. What alternatives are there to vinyl lunch boxes?CEH does not have enough information at this time to recommend any brand of soft plastic lunch boxes. Because it is not possible to tell by appearance whether a box may contain lead, CEH is advising parents to avoid buying vinyl lunch boxes altogether, and to test their lunch box if they are concerned it may contain lead. A reusable cloth bag or paper bag is a good alternative. Where is the lead from?CEH believes that the lead is intentionally added to the vinyl (PVC) plastic as either a stabilizing agent or pigment.  Should my child be tested?Normal use of positive lunchboxes CEH has tested would not cause acute lead poisoning. However, if your child is also exposed to other environmental exposures to lead such as lead paint, the cumulative effect could be toxic. A blood test is the only definitive way to test for lead poisoning. A child with lead poisoning may not look sick, but may experience stomachache, poor appetite, hyperactivity and headaches. Low level chronic exposure to lead can cause hearing problems, brain and nerve damage, stunted growth, digestive problems and reproductive problems (in adults). Origins:  On 31 August 2005, the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental group that specializes in identifying hazardous  Center for Environmental Health  sources of lead in the environment, announced that testing it had performed revealed the presence of that element in a variety of soft vinyl lunchboxes marketed to children. Subsequent to that discovery, this private non-profit group filed lawsuits against some of the producers and retailersinvolved. announced The CEHCA says the 27 lunchboxes that produced lead-positive results when examined with at-home lead detection kits contained anywhere from double to 90 times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. It packed off those 27 containers to an independent laboratory for more rigorous testing; that study found 17 of the lunchboxes contained lead in excess of federal safety standards.  Lara Cushing, research director for the CEHCA, said the study revealed the lead was not contained within the vinyl material itself but rather was present on the surface of the lunchboxes. "It's not bound up in the plastic," she said. "It's sloughing off. It can come off on your hand. It can rub off on your food." A reporter in Sacramento ran her own test on eight vinyl lunchboxes she collected; her examination with at-home lead testing kits showed two of the lunchboxes contained lead. How much lead was not noted. Officials for the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was investigating the CEHCA's findings on lead in lunchboxes. In October 2005, it published a statement on the likelihood of lead found in such containers presenting a danger to children: published Q: Recent news reports have indicated that there are dangerous levels of lead in kids lunch boxes, is this correct? A: CPSC staff has tested samples of children's lunch boxes for accessible lead and found no instances of hazardous levels. The staff tested the inside and outside of each lunch box and the preliminary results were consistently below one microgram (one millionth of a gram) of lead. This is an extremely low level of lead and would not present a health hazard to children.  Q: How can you be sure that children are not being exposed to hazardous levels of lead in their lunch boxes? A: One way that children can be exposed to lead is from handling objects with accessible lead and then placing their hands in their mouths. Based on the low levels of lead found in our tests, in most cases, children would have to rub their lunch box and then lick their hands upwards of 100 times a day, for about 15-30 days, in order for the lunch box to present a health hazard.  Q: What is CPSC doing to prevent issues like this from coming up in the future? A: CPSC staff encourages companies to use alternatives to lead in products intended for children. CPSC staff also recommends that manufacturers and importers of vinyl lunch boxes test their products for accessible lead using the CPSC staff's laboratory test procedure. Finding and preventing lead hazards in children's products is an important part of our mission and CPSC has a proven record of working with companies to recall products that pose a lead hazard to children. While exposure to lead presents a hazard to all and poses an especial danger to children, the amounts of the element being uncovered in vinyl lunchboxes are not sufficient to cause acute lead poisoning. However, because long-term low-level lead exposure can result in serious harm to those subjected to it, lead is to be avoided whenever and wherever possible.  Lead poisoning can reportedly lower intelligence, cause mental retardation, memory problems, depression, fatigue, hyperactivity, aggression, hearing loss, liver or kidney damage, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and anemia. Very high levels can damage the nervous system, kidneys and major organs and even result in seizures or death. It can also lead to infertility in men and cause spontaneous abortion in women. In the final stages of lead poisoning, the victim experiences convulsions, paralysis, blindness, delusions, and then coma. People can and have died of lead  poisoning. In times long past, lead was to be found in numerous everyday items, including cisterns and aquaducts, pottery, pans, hair dyes, cosmetics, and medical nostrums. Toy soldiers were cast in it. Port wine was protected by it. Church roofs were covered with it. The presence of lead in everyday life has since been considerably reduced and our bodies are far less riddled with this deadly substance than were those of our ancestors, but this element will likely always be part of our surroundings and of us. The two major sources of lead poisoning in the United States have been lead-based paint, which was restricted in 1978, and leaded gasoline, which was phased out in the early 1990s. However, lead is still found in paint manufactured before 1978, in soil and dust (particularly next to busy roads or factories), in some imported or handmade pottery and tableware, and in imported home remedies and cosmetics. Yet most of the lead we take in comes from our diet. "The average daily diet probably contains more than 200 micrograms of lead, of which about 10 micrograms gets into the blood, where it is joined by about 5 micrograms of lead from our lungs (depending upon where we live), so that our daily intake probably comes to about 15 micrograms and the body can easily rid itself of such an amount," says John Emsley. Lead finds its way into the food chain because all plants contain some lead, although not very much. Because lead is a naturally-occurring element found in the soil, it does manage to get into things. Care therefore has to be taken by manufacturers to detect its presence in goods destined for consumer use. Various lead-laden gewgaws and foodstuffs do arrive on the market, however, especially among goods produced in other parts of the world and imported to the U.S. In 2004, California's attorney general sued dozens of companies that make or sell imported candies containing lead, and in 2005 the California Department of Health Services urged consumers to stay away from candy produced in Mexico that contained tamarind or chili powder after tests found possible lead contamination in those edibles. In 1994 an outbreak of lead poisoning in Hungary was traced to the use of that element by an unscrupulous or unknowing manufacturer as a colorant in paprika.  Barbara "get the lead out" Mikkelson Update:  In September 2007, families were advised by the California Department of Public Health to rid themselves of CDPH lunchboxes because three of the ones it tested produced positive results for lead. The canvas lunch boxes that showed elevated levels of the element were green with a logo reading "Eat fruits & vegetables and be active." Approximately 56,000 of these lunch boxes have been distributed throughout California at health fairs and other events.    CDPH lunchboxes Additional information:         Lead   (Centers for Disease Control)         Make Your Home a Lead-Safe Zone   (Virginia Commonwealth University)         Lead Poisoning  (Dr. Joseph F. Smith Medical Library)  Last updated:  22 September 2007    Sources:   Emsley, John.  The Elements of Murder.   New York; Oxford University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-19-280599-1  (pp. 261-283). The Elements of Murder    Griffith, Dorsey.  "State Warns of Lead in Candy."    Sacramento Bee.  7 July 2005  (p. A5).    Lundstrom, Marjie.  "Toxic Metal Found in Lunchboxes."    Sacramento Bee.  17 September 2005  (p. A3).    Roan, Shari.  "An Unsavory Addition to Kids' Lunchboxes: Lead."    Los Angeles Times.  12 September 2005  (p. F3).    KABC-TV [Los Angeles].  "People Urged to Dispose of CDPH Lunch Boxes."    20 September 2007.    The [Raleigh] News & Observer.  "Toxic Lead Finds a New Avenue."    15 September 2005  (p. B2).    United Press International.  "Lead Reportedly Found in Lunchboxes."    20 September 2005. Scam:  Callers pretend to be fraud investigation agents for Visa and MasterCard in order to obtain credit card security codes. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] We all receive emails all the time regarding one scam or another; but last week I REALLY DID get scammed! Both VISA and MasterCard told me that this scam is currently being worked throughout the Midwest, with some variance as to the product or amount, and if you are called, just hang up. My husband was called on Wednesday from "VISA" and I was called in Thursday from "MasterCard". It worked like this: Person calling says, "This is Carl Patterson (any name) and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud department at VISA. My Badge number is 12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card issued by 5/3 bank. Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No". The caller continues with, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?" You say, "Yes". The caller continues ... "I will be starting a fraud investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 800 number listed on your card 1-800-VISA and ask for Security. you will need to refer to this Control #". Then gives you a 6 digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?" Caller then says he "needs to verify you are in possession of your card. Turn the card over. There are 7 numbers; first 4 are 1234 (whatever) the next 3 are the security numbers that verify you are in possession of the card. These are the numbers you use to make internet purchases to prove you have the card. Read me the 3 numbers." Then he says "That is correct. I just needed toverify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions? Don't hesitate to call back if you do." You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security dept. told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497.99 WAS put on our card. Long story made short ... we made a real fraud report and closed the VISA card and they are reissuing as a new number. What the scam wants is the 3 digit number and that once the charge goes through, they keep charging every few days. By the time you get your statement, you think the credit is coming, and then its harder to actually file a fraud report. The real VISA reinforced that they will never ask for anything on the card (they already know). What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from "Jason Richardson of MasterCard" with a word for word repeat of the VISA Scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up. We filed a police report (as instructed by VISA), and they said they are taking several of these reports daily and to tell friends, relatives and coworkers.  Origins:  There are five points we generally try to apply in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities: 1)  Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described? 2)   Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible?  (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.) 3)  Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning? 4)  Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread? 5)  Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to? The scheme outlined in the message quoted above might be categorized as a "social engineering" scam  a technique which preys upon people's unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate   in order to extract from them sensitive information (such as computer passwords or credit card numbers). In this case the scammers' target data are the three-digit security codes found on the back of MasterCard and Visa cards.  Just as the Internet and other technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for making credit card purchases without the need to physically present a card to the seller, so have they created additional opportunities for identity thieves to make profitable use of purloined credit card numbers. After getting their hands on credit card numbers (often through such simple expedients as rummaging through trash to find discarded receipts or statements), crooks can then employ a variety of means (e.g., mail order, phone order, Internet purchases, posing as merchants) in order to obtain money and merchandise by charging against the cardholder's account  even though the credit card itself remains snugly inside the cardholder's wallet.  The victim may not even know anything is amiss until he receives his next statement in the mail several weeks later.   Although safeguards have been enacted to catch most of these types of fraud, they're often defeated by a combination of lax security and clever crooks who know how to work around them.    One of the those safeguards is the addition of three-digit security codes (known as CVC2 or CVV2 codes) to every MasterCard and Visa card, codes which are indent-printed in the signature panels on the backs of the cards  but are not encoded in the magnetic stripes and do not print on sales receipts.  Many vendors cannot process credit card transactions without obtaining these security codes from their customers, thereby ensuring that persons placing orders have physical possession of the cards being used (and haven't simply scammed the sixteen-digit account numbers imprinted on the front of cards somehow).  Thus the scheme described above might be used by identity thieves who have managed to collect credit card numbers but need to obtain the associated security codes in order to process charges against the accounts. So, back to our five points: 1) Is this possible?  Yes, it's possible that scammers might  get hold of credit card numbers and then use the technique described above to obtain security codes and process phony transactions against the accounts. 2) Is this plausible?  The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to pull off; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions.  It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of his victims, but that information might be obtained in a variety of ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant web sites).  Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of phony charges before complaints caused his merchant account to be shut down is problematic, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to anywhere other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP scams). CNP 3) Are there known instances of this occurring?  We talked with a representative of MasterCard, who told us that although she couldn't verify the specific details of the message reproduced above, this type of scam does occur and isn't new; it's been going on ever since MasterCard started putting CVC2 security codes on all its cards back in 1997.  (Visa did not add CVV2 codes on all their credit cards until 2001.)  She also reiterated that MasterCard would not ask a cardholder to disclose security codes or provide any information verifying physical possession of a card; any such inquiries regarding security matters would come from the financial institution that issued the credit card, not from MasterCard itself. 4) Is this a widespread phenomenon?  Unfortunately, neither MasterCard nor VISA would provide us with any statistics regarding the specific scam described here or confirm any actual instances of its occurrence (other than to note that using the telephone to trick cardholders into divulging their security codes is a type of fraud that has been occurring for several years and is ongoing).  However, numerous readers have informed us they've received calls from persons identifying themselves as fraud investigation agents and asking for sensitive personal data, so (even allowing for the possibility that some of those calls were actually legitimate) we'd have to say anecdotal evidence indicates this scam is still being perpetrated, if only infrequently. 5) Is this something that might affect the average person?  Yes, anyone who holds a credit card is a potential victim of this type of fraud. The best protection against these types of telephone schemes for obtaining sensitive credit card information is to always verify the identities of the people with whom you speak.  If you have security questions or concerns about your credit card, call the financial institution who issued your card directly.  If someone contacts you by phone about your credit card, ask the caller to provide his name, department, and extension, then hang up and call him back through the phone number listed on your credit card or billing statement.    Additional information:        Recognizing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  1 April 2015 As U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman recently told workers at a small business in Bergen County, the middle-class must pick up the tab for wealthy Americans paying their lowest income tax rate in 80 years.The congressman pointed to that reduced tax rate during a campaign video posted Feb. 13 on YouTube, where he is seen talking to employees of Lanzo Plumbing in Hackensack.If these guys and gals making over a million dollars a year...wont pay their fair share because the Republicans are protecting them, that means working people and the middle-class and seniors have to pick up the tab for them. Its crazy, Rothman (D-9th Dist.) said. They're paying a less rate of tax -- these richest people in America -- than they have in the last 80 years.As PolitiFact New Jersey found, Rothmans claim is off, but not by much.The federal income tax rate for the top income bracket stood at 35 percent in 2011, marking a lower statutory rate than during most of the last eight decades. But for five tax years -- 1988 to 1992 -- the top rates were lower than they are today, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service.Now, lets trace the evolution of the top income tax rate.In 1931, the top rate was 25 percent on taxable income greater than $100,000. The following year, the top rate increased to 63 percent on income above $1 million, and then grew in 1936 to 79 percent on income greater than $5 million.The top rate remained at 70 percent or greater through 1980 -- and exceeded 90 percent during World War II and from the early 1950s to the early 1960s.By 1988, the top rate fell to 28 percent and stayed there through 1990. For 1991 and 1992, the top rate rose to 31 percent, and then increased to 39.6 percent for tax years 1993 to 2000. In 2003, the top rate reached its current level of 35 percent.So, for most of the last 80 years, the top statutory rate has been higher than it is today, with the exception of tax years 1988 to 1992.Since various tax deductions can reduce an overall tax bill, we also looked at actual taxes paid as a percentage of ones income.According to a June 2010 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent of households, on average, paid 19 percent of their income in federal income taxes in 2007. That figure was lower than amounts paid in 25 of the 28 years between 1979 and 2006, according to the budget office.Its worth noting that as a group, the top 1 percent were covering a larger share of federal income taxes in 2007 than they did in 1979.Still, based on taxes paid as a percentage of income, Rothmans claim is mostly on target.Paul Swibinski, a consultant to Rothmans campaign, told us the congressmans statement was close enough. But he argued that Rothman was speaking off the cuff and said scoring him as partially truthful would send the wrong message.Steve was being completely genuine and completely honest, Swibinski said in an e-mail. Do we want our politicians to parse every single word they say -- just go around repeating the same words over and over because it's safe ? ?? That would seem to me to contradict the purpose of Politifact.Our rulingIn a YouTube video, Rothman claimed the wealthiest Americans are paying a lower tax rate than they have in the last 80 years.We looked at two measures -- the top statutory income tax rates and taxes paid as a percentage of ones income. In both cases, Rothmans statement is slightly off, but his overall point about current income tax rates is solid.The top statutory rate is lower now than during most of the last eight decades, and the top 1 percent of households were paying a smaller percentage of their income in federal income taxes as of 2007 than in nearly all of the previous 28 years.We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. After Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick saluted legislation potentially giving voters more sway over local property taxes, we wondered afresh about how Texas ranks nationally in terms of property tax burden. Patrick, talking upa proposalhatched by fellow Republicans led by Houston state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, said in a Nov. 29, 2016,press release: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation, and Texans have told us loud and clear that common-sense property tax reform legislation is long overdue. In January 2016,we found Mostly Truethe same claim by a Bexar County legislative aspirant. The business-orientedTax Foundation, a national group, drew on 2013 Census Bureau datato mapthe average amount of residential property tax paid as a percentage of home value state by state. By that metric, the Texas rate of 1.9 percent proved higher than the rates in 44 states; it was topped by the rates for Wisconsin, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Illinois and No. 1 New Jersey at 2.38 percent. Still, we noted, property taxes in Texas are levied locally in Texas, resulting in ample differences in the burden depending on where taxpayers live. Rankings yet to be updated Not a lot has changed since we reached that conclusion. For starters, the rankings  showing Texas with the sixth highest mean effective property tax rate on owner-occupied housing  havent been updated, the foundations Jared Walczak said to our inquiry. Yet, Walczak also told us by email, this does not make Texas a high-tax state. Texas has chosen to rely more heavily on property taxes, and less heavily on other taxes, than many peer states, foregoing some altogether. The state's tax structure is an important part of its economic success, and it is inevitable that, when a state foregoes an individual income tax, some other tax will be somewhat higher than it might otherwise have been. In fact, the foundation has previously reported that in 2012Texas ranked 46thin state-local taxes per resident. Why property taxes can be high Property taxes might be higher here becauseunlike most states, Texas levies no state income tax. Notably too, unlike in some states, Texas property tax rates are set locally, not by the state,according to the Texas state comptroller, with government units spending the revenue to provide local services including schools, streets and roads, police and fire protection and many others. Moreover, the state lacks the constitutional authority to levy a property tax, as the Texas Legislative Council noted in a2002 overviewof local taxes statewide. Generally under the current system, a county appraisal district does an annual property valuation, then each area city, county, school and special district (like hospital and road districts) sets the respective tax rate necessary to raise the money needed to fund the related adopted budget. And according to Census data, property taxes in 2013, the latest year of available data, were the source of 81.6 percent of local tax revenue in Texas (the national average for this figure was 46.7 percent). Updated information is to be posted Dec. 9, 2016, bureau spokesman Sean Patrick told us by email. Regional differences When we looked into this topic before, advocates including Dick Lavine of the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities and Dale Craymer of the business-backed Texas Taxpayers and Research Association suggested we consider acomparison studyby the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy showing that property owners in the biggest cities of Texas, especially Houston and San Antonio, had some of the highest property taxes in 2014 compared with large cities in other states. That remained so the next year, according to aJune 2016 institute studyindicating, for instance, that El Paso homeowners in 2015 ranked No. 3 among the countrys 50 most populous cities in homestead property taxes on a $150,000 property or $300,000 property. Among the 50 cities, homestead taxes in large Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and San Antonio ranked No. 5 (Fort Worth) to No. 13 (Houston), according to the report. The disparity between property taxes by county comes through in real-dollar terms, although measures of taxes in terms of dollars paid can be distorted by the difference in home prices from county to county. A Tax Foundationmapshows in real dollars just how much property taxes vary from county to county based on IRS data reflecting the amount of real estate taxes deducted from federal taxes. In 2013, Texas counties with residents paying the most were Travis ($7,553), Kendall ($6,916) and Fort Bend ($6,813), while those paying the least are Dickens ($1,325), Stonewall ($1,425) and Hudspeth ($1,450). Another factor to think about when considering the property tax burden for the average Texan is the rate of home ownership. The Tax Foundation map showing Texas tied for sixth-highest in property taxes considered the percentage of home value thats paid in property taxes on owner-occupied housing. In 2015, 61.1 percent of Texas housing was owner-occupied, tying the state with Oregon for the nations sixth-lowest rate,according tothe Census Bureau. Our ruling Patrick said: Texans pay the sixth-highest property tax in the nation. While it may be true that on average, Texas property taxes are the sixth-highest in the nation, the actual taxpayer burden on residents can vary greatly by locality, making the average less representative. We rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check Admit it: When the federal government decided last fall to spend hundreds of billions to stabilize banks through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, you thought the money was as good as gone. Not so, President Barack Obama said at the White House on June 9, 2009. Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers, he said. And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it's worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit. A quick summary of how we got to this point: As part of the TARP, the government invested about $200 billion in 600 banks across the country, essentially buying up preferred stock. A lot of banks now want out. The government money came with strings, including restrictions on executive compensation. Plus, there was a stigma attached to participating in the government program. On June 9, the Treasury Department announced that 10 of the largest financial institutions that participated in the Capital Purchase Program (through TARP) have been approved to repay $68 billion. Yes, they had to be approved to repay the money. The companies had to prove they no longer needed the money, because the government doesn't want them begging for more down the road. To date, those 10 companies have paid dividends on their preferred stock to the Treasury totaling about $1.8 billion, the Treasury announced. Overall, dividend payments from all of the 600 bank participants has come to about $4.5 billion so far. That's commensurate with the 5 percent (annualized) dividend return that was part of the terms of the program. Now, the government borrowed the money it invested in the banks, and so dividends from the preferred stock are offset by interest the government has had to pay on its loans. But that interest rate has been lower than the 5 percent dividend rate. So when the companies repay the loans, it will result in some profit to the government, banking analysts told us. There's another potential profit center. As part of the deal with banks, the federal government received warrants to buy stock at a future date (with the hope that as the economy improved and bank stock value rose, the government could share in the bounty). According to the Treasury announcement on June 9, firms that repay their preferred stock have the right to repurchase those warrants at fair market value. Experts believe that could fetch the government several billion dollars. That's in addition to the dividends. David John, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while it's accurate to say the government is turning a profit on these specific transactions, it was so costly to create the TARP that you can't say the overall program is a moneymaker. And, John said, the 10 financial institutions that will be repaying the Treasury are among the strongest. It remains to be seen how the others will fare, he said. It's way too soon to judge the entire program, John said. I'd be surprised if it ends up anything better than break-even. Still, the public too often tagged TARP as a bailout, said John Hall, a spokesman for the American Bankers Association. It's as if people thought money was handed out to banks, Hall said. It wasn't. And it drove us nuts. The government has turned a profit. It made money plus some. Bank analyst Bert Ely said while the government may end up losing money on investments in some financial firms, it's likely the entirety of the bank portion of the TARP will ultimately turn a profit. The 5 percent paid in dividends on preferred stock purchased by the Treasury will certainly outpace the interest rate on money borrowed to finance the program, he said. And the warrants could also prove profitable. People think the government gave banks money, Ely said. They made investments in banks. As for Obama's claim, he is careful to note that the overall program could still cost taxpayers money, but he is correct to say the government turned a profit on the first round of repayments. We rate his statement True. As U.S. Senate candidates in Florida gear up their 2012 campaigns, job creation is a hot topic. Republican and former state legislator Adam Hasner criticizes the Democratic incumbent -- Sen. Bill Nelson -- and President Barack Obama for sluggish job creation.Obama-Nelson economic record. Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression, Hasner tweeted on May 23, 2011.Many politicians and experts have talked about the jobless recovery -- when the economy rebounds but with lackluster job creation. But we wanted to check whether job creation after the most recent recession has lagged behind job creation after every other recession since the Great Depression?On May 26, Hasner adviser Rick Wilson e-mailed us a May 20USA Todayarticle linked to in the tweet, which stated Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since theGreat Depression. The nation has 5% fewer jobs today  a loss of 7 million  than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s. In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.We wanted to do our own checking on job recovery.First, we obtained the dates of recessions back to the Great Depression from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan research organization based in Cambridge, Mass.NBER's websitehas a chart listing the dates of the recessions (written as peak and trough). The contraction line is the length of each recession. According to NBER, there have been 13 recessions since the one that started August 1929 and lasted for 43 months, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has month-by-month jobs data for 12 of them. The most recent recession was from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. It's worth noting that although voters may judge Obama on job creation, that recession was well under way before he was elected president in November 2008.We contacted economic experts to ask them about Hasner's claim. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal, labor-backed think tank in Washington, D.C., disagreed with Hasner's claim about job growth: Its not as fast as it could be, but hes wrong, job growth after the early-2000s recession was slower, the slowest on record, she wrote in an e-mail.Shierholz sent us achartshe created based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which on the left side shows percentage job growth over 22 months (because we are now 22 months from the end of the 2007 recession) following a recession for the last four recessions: 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The chart shows the most sluggish job creation was following the 2001 recession, when the number of employees on non-farm payroll dropped by 976,000. Economists referred to the period as a job-loss recovery, she said.You are not going to find anything that is slower than early 2000 recession, Shierholz said in an interview.But in the 22 months following the 2007 recession, the number of employees increased by 535,000.And Shierholz sent more in an e-mail: The sluggish jobs recoveries following the last three recessions were due (to) slow output growth caused in large part by the fact that they were, to varying degrees, balance sheet recessions. (Balance sheet recessions are caused by real estate or financial asset bubbles bursting - meaning that people and/or firms have assets that are worth less than their liabilities, so they will opt to pay down their debts rather than invest and consume, which slows growth. )We asked Shierholz about the claim in theUSA Todayarticle on which Hasner based his tweet.TheUSA Todayarticle cited job losses since thestartof the recession -- that's not the same as the post-recession rate that Hasner referred to,afterthe recession was over. It's simply two different ways to look at job losses or growth.The recovery has not been the slowest, Shierholz said of the most recent recession. But she agreed that starting from the beginning of the recession, we are down more jobs ... than any other recession since the Great Depression; that is true.We sent Shierholz's chart to James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He suggested measuring from the start of the recession rather than the end otherwise you ignore the severity of a recession. He created his own chart starting from thebeginning of the recession, which shows that the job picture is worse for the most recent recession than the previous three.We e-mailed Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin to ask for a response. He didn't address the accuracy of Hasner's claim comparing job creation after recessions, but argued that Nelson has tried to create jobs by, for example, advocating for high-speed rail in Florida.We sent Shierholz's chart to Wilson and he responded by e-mail: I'm not going to cherry pick obscure economic data: we quoted a sourcedUSA Todaypiece for the matter at hand.Hasner said that job creation has been at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression. Words matter to us, and we think most readers understand post-recession to mean after the recession is over. When counting after the recession, the 2001 recession had a slower job recovery. And Hasner isn't providing a complete picture when he labels this the Obama-Nelson economic record -- the recession started before Obama was elected president and an individual senator can't be blamed for sluggish job recovery any more than Hasner, a former state legislator, can be blamed for unemployment in Florida. Still, Hasner's off by only one recession out of 12. We rate this claim Mostly True. Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the "mainstream media" intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed:  It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that "government agencies" participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: claiming At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story  that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene  as "bullshit." Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: investigation It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that "governmental agencies" were party to the conspiracy: verdict THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: report John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, "I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?" And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, "Killing the Dream" made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, "It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it." The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the "U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination." (In the event, the verdict referred only to "governmental agencies" rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: statement There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the "allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible": After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination. Yellin, Emily.  "Memphis Jury Sees Conspiracy in Martin Luther King's Killing"
  The New York Times.  9 December 1999. Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005. When LeBron James returns to Cleveland as a member of the Miami Heat during the upcoming NBA season, a small slice of his game-day check will be carved out and handed over to the city of Cleveland.Taxing the income of visiting professional athletes  the jock tax, as some derisively call it  is a common practice around the country that was incorporated into Ohio law in 2000.Ohios cities with major professional sports franchises have been collecting the tax for years, but recently the jock tax has become an issue in the state auditors race, a closely watched election because the winner will sit on the five-member Apportionment Board that will redraw Ohios legislative districts next year.Republican Dave Yost, in his quest to paint Democratic opponent David Pepper as a serial taxer, has blamed Pepper for instituting a jock tax when he was a Cincinnati city councilman. (To be clear, the state auditor cannot levy taxes. )Pepper also kicked off a jock tax, imposing a levy on the sports and entertainment industry, according to a video Yosts campaign produced in August.PolitiFact Ohio asked Yosts campaign to back up the claim. It pointed to legislation Pepper sponsored as a city councilman in 2002 that called on Cincinnati to begin collecting income taxes from visiting professional athletes and entertainers. The motion passed and Cincinnati began collecting the tax.Pepper, now a county commissioner in Cincinnatis Hamilton County, denies responsibility for imposing the tax. Pepper instead blamed state lawmakers who included the jock tax in a comprehensive municipal tax bill passed in 2000. Pepper said that bill, HB 483, forced cities to tax those athletes earnings.We took a closer look at HB 483 and found a provision that prohibits cities from taxing the income of anyone who works in a city for 12 or fewer days in a calendar year. An exception to that rule, however, is a professional entertainer or professional athlete  as may be reasonably defined by the municipal corporation, the bill reads. That means an Ohio city can tax a professional athletes pay, no matter how many days he works there. (The provision originally was part of another bill that passed in 2000, HB 477, but was thrown into HB 483 for technical reasons. )While Pepper argued state law requires Cincinnati to collect the jock tax, experts we talked to said the 2000 state law placed Cincinnati under no obligation to do so.Its up the city, said John Mahoney, deputy director of the nonpartisan Ohio Municipal League, which represents the collective interests of the states municipalities.Cities, under home rule powers, generally have the final say when deciding whose income to tax. State lawmakers can only limit this authority, Mahoney said. The Ohio Municipal League, he noted, worked with lawmakers on the issue during the legislative process.Don Mottley, a former Republican state representative who sponsored both HB 483 and HB 477 and chaired the House Ways and Means committee hearings on each bill, agreed with Mahoney.Theres nothing in there that requires them to tax athletes and entertainers, Mottley said. It just permits them to.Mottley left the General Assembly at the end of 2000 and began practicing law. He also is a former chairman of the Ohio State Bar Associations taxation committee.He represented the Cincinnati Bengals before the Cincinnati City Council in 2002 in opposition of Peppers legislation. The Bengals feared Cincinnatis tax on opposing players would prompt more NFL cities to pass similar laws, Mottley said.But Cincinnati was far from the first city to collect a jock tax. Cleveland has been collecting the tax for more than three decades, and Columbus, home to an NHL team and a Major League Soccer team, has been doing so since the mid-1990s.In his defense, Pepper said the video makes it seem as if he created a never-before-seen tax. Pepper said he wanted Cincinnati to be in step with state law that allowed it to tax visiting athletes income. He said city law mandates taxing all qualifying wage earners.It is true that Pepper did not create the jock tax: It was collected in other cities before he pushed for it in Cincinnati. And a claim in the video that  CNN called it one of the strangest taxes in America is an overstatement. The jock tax was included in a 2005 CNNmoney.com article that described, in general terms, how athletes income is taxed in different states. The story did not mention Pepper or the city of Cincinnati.However, Peppers legislation, while beneficial to the city budget, did institute the tax collection in Cincinnati. And the experts we talked to said collecting the tax was the citys prerogative. Pepper cant duck responsibility for starting the tax in Cincinnati.We find the statement True.