Hasta La Gadget!

It happens so quickly. You’re playing a game of “Dungeons & Dragons” with your friends. The dungeon master has directed you toward a small shop in town, where you might resupply. You walk in and — oh $#%@ it’s your ex. Don’t look! Let’s just grab our stuff and — oh $#%@ they’re coming over.

As comedy group Good Cop Great Cop shows in this sketch entitled “Heroes,” awkward interactions with your exes aren’t even avoidable in the safety of a fully imagined fantasy game of “D&D.”

The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.

Sen. Rand Paul falsely claimed that a tax credit program for low-income workers has a “fraud rate” of 25 percent and costs taxpayers “$20 billion to $30 billion.” Paul cited a report by the Government Accountability Office, but that’s not what the report said.

The earned income tax credit program had an “improper payment error rate” of 24 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to the latest GAO report. The error rate includes fraud, but also represents mistakes made by taxpayers when filing tax forms and the IRS when processing payments. The GAO blamed the mistakes on the “complexity of the tax law.” The errors cost taxpayers $14.5 billion — which is less than half of the high-end estimate provided by Paul.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican who is considering running for president, joined two other potential GOP presidential candidates at a Jan. 25 forum sponsored by the conservative Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas also attended.

The moderator, Jon Karl of ABC News, asked the senators if they agreed with Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to expand the earned income tax credit and pay for the expansion by eliminating other tax breaks. The EITC is a refundable tax credit, which means that low-income taxpayers who have no tax liability can receive a refund. Otherwise, the tax credit is used to reduce a taxpayer’s liability.

Paul said he opposes Ryan’s plan and criticized the EITC program for being rife with fraud.

Paul, Jan. 25: When you look at the earned income tax credit, it has about a 25 percent fraud rate. We’re looking at $20 billion to $30 billion. And this is from estimates from the GAO [Government Accountability Office], from the government themselves.

That’s not what the GAO said.

The GAO issued a report Dec. 9, 2014, on improper payments made by various government agencies, including the IRS. The GAO said the EITC program had what it labeled an “improper payment error rate” of 24 percent at a cost of $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2013.

The GAO figures represent the midpoint between the estimates provided by the IRS itself, as required under a 2002 law, and contained in a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that was released March 31, 2014. The TIGTA report says the “improper payment rate” was between 22 percent and 26 percent in fiscal year 2013, costing taxpayers between $11.6 billion and $13.6 billion — roughly half of what Paul claimed when he placed the range between $20 billion and $30 billion.

The GAO and TIGTA do not mention fraud in their reports or use the term “fraud rate.” TIGTA defines an improper payment as “a payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount or to an ineligible recipient.” GAO says that includes “duplicate or erroneous payments, payments to ineligible recipients, or payments for ineligible services.”

Improper payments include fraud, but the GAO and TIGTA reports do not say how much of the improper payments may be the result of fraud.

Why is there such a high error rate for the EITC program? GAO says that “the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) OIG reported that the complexity of the tax law was a barrier to reducing the improper payment error rate for the Internal Revenue Service’s Earned Income Tax Credit program.”

A second inspector general’s report, which was released in April, said the IRS is looking at ways to simplify the tax law. “Management noted that IRS is exploring new approaches such as the simplification of EITC eligibility criteria and the identification of more efficient means to distinguish valid claims from over claims,” the report said.

Improper payment rates have been a problem for years in many government programs. The GAO report listed the five federal programs that reported the largest improper payments in fiscal 2013: Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service program ($36 billion), EITC ($14.5 billion), Medicaid ($14.4 billion), Medicare Advantage ($11.8 billion), unemployment insurance ($6.2 billion). Those five programs accounted for 78 percent of the total improper payments made by the federal government in fiscal 2013, GAO says.

In an attempt to reduce improper payments, Congress passed the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, which requires agencies to annually estimate the cost of improper payments and publish a corrective plan to reduce them.

Despite the law, the IRS continues to report high rates of improper payments in the tax credit program. In the first year of reporting improper payments, the IRS said the rate was between 25 percent and 30 percent in fiscal 2003. It dropped the next year to 22 percent to 27 percent. But it hasn’t changed much since then. (See Figure 2 in TIGTA’s latest annual report.)

We’re not minimizing the problem of improper payments in the earned income tax credit program. But Paul is wrong to claim that all recipients of EITC’s improper payments — whether overpayments or ineligible payments — obtained the money by committing fraud. He is also far off on how much the errors cost taxpayers.

Without fail, twice a year, I have a fond thought for a man I never had the pleasure of meeting. Those times: National Football League opening day and during the frenzy leading up to an American holiday called the Super Bowl. The man: An old pen pal of mine, the one who personally saw to it that I got New York Giants season tickets, Wellington Mara.

Back in the fall of 1981, I was finishing up my MBA (St. John’s University), as well as a year plus of determined physical therapy (I’d lost a man/car collision). Living in my parent’s home, student loans up to my eyeballs and in hock for my wheels (a Toyota Tercel — stick shift). BUT I’d just landed my first real job, an analyst in the international finance division of Texaco Inc.’s treasury department (since merged into Chevron), at global HQ, in Westchester, N.Y.

With things looking up, the first priority was one any ex-college football player would understand (Siena College — recently a game I played in, vs. MIT, was a Wall Street Journal story). I wrote to the New York Football Giants to be placed on their season ticket waiting list.

In a series of correspondence (1982-1986), with then Giant box office treasurer, Jim Gleason, I was advised my request was “some 9,000 names away from being acted on” with “approximately 4,000” of those from “the list initiated in July 1976” (the year the Giants moved to Giants Stadium). Hardly encouraging!

Put another way — being told less than 1 percent of the waiting list was fulfilled each year, assuming each of the 9,000 ahead of me wanted at least two seats and knowing Giant Stadium capacity was roughly 80,000 — I’d become a regular attendee somewhere around the 12th of never. I definitely needed a different approach. Time to go to the top.

So, in June 1986, I wrote directly to Giants’ Co-Owner and President, Wellington Mara — had it hand-delivered, too — expecting nothing, but figured “what the hell.” Told him about my lifelong passion for the game, love of the Giants, etc.

To my shock, the grand man of honor replied. From his letter dated July 7, 1986: “Dear Mr. Treacy… regretfully… I will not be able to satisfy… Please believe that I will keep your request in my personal file… Sincerely, Wellington T Mara.” I was more grateful than pleased and now knew, firsthand, why he was revered as an old-school Irish gentleman.

I dashed-off a note of thanks (July 21, 1986) and included David Ogilvy’s brilliant tome, Ogilvy on Advertising. At the time I was working at The Ogilvy Group and Mr. Mara was spending a lot of days in court environments — the NFL was defending itself from an antitrust suit filed by the defunct United States Football League. I thought he might enjoy the read by an old-school English gentleman.

He did! He wrote back (July 29, 1986) and this time I was “Dear Jim.” He thanked me for “my kind letter and… gift of the book.” Closing with, “It will be a welcome diversion after too many weeks of transcripts, testimony and evidence! We’ll do our best for the future. Sincerely, Wellington T Mara.” Now I was pleased.

On January 7, 1987, the New York Post ran an article entitled, “Who Wants Tickets? 18,000 Giant Fans – Stadium Waiting List Spans Generations.” The article confirmed my 12th of never expectation but, interestingly, it also contained a story of a lifelong Giants fan writing directly to Wellington Mara (in 1976) “to explain why he… should be granted the privileged of buying season tickets.” The fan: “He [Wellington Mara] wrote back and sent me two tickets.” Bingo — I’m on the right track.

Come April, I wrote, “Dear Wellington,” congratulating him on the Giants’ first Super Bowl victory and included a copy of the New York Post article acknowledging that my season tickets “chances are slim” but “would appreciate anything you can do.”

April 8, 1987, “Dear Jim… I have to say that the Post clipping which you sent me is very accurate… I will do my best… and will be in touch with you… Very truly yours, Well.” Wow, “Jim” and “Well,” nice.

Sure enough, later came. July 7, 1987: “Dear Jim…I have not been able to help…All that I can do is to keep your letter in my file and your request in my mind, both of which I promise to do. Sincerely, Well.” No tickets but he had my respect, 100%.

Another year, another season — June 2, 1988: “Dear Wellington, Once again that time of year…to reaffirm my season ticket request…Thank you for your patience and any assistance you can lend…”

June 5, 1988: “Dear Jim, This will acknowledge receipt of what has indeed become your annual ticket request…I will do my best…and will be in touch with you. Very truly yours, Well.” No doubt.

At the tail-end of July 1988, arriving home from work, I found this letter stuffed in my mailbox:

“Dear Jim,

I have been partially successful and have been able to come up with two tickets – Section 324 Row 27 Seats 15/16 – for the coming season. My secretary will send you a bill. Please let her know whether or not you want these tickets prior to the deadline of August 4, 1988.

Best regards, Well”

I let out a “whoop” of glee! And I was awed by his humility — as if I’d refuse them, or cared they were upper deck, middle of the row, end zone seats — less than ten rows from the top of the stadium — and were only two (I was on the list for four). He, first-class and me, ecstatic!

I wrote back (July 28th) profusely thanking him and offering, “If there is ever anything I can do for you please let me know.” Of course, to my disappointment, there never was.

There’ve been many ups & downs since then but I’m still going to Giants games, courtesy of Wellington T. Mara — one of a small group of visionaries that flawlessly guided the NFL from not much to a 100 million plus TV viewers for the Super Bowl.

Over the years I’ve been able to move up, now residing in MetLife Stadium’s (the Giants new home stadium) Lexus Club, two seats, third row, on the 40-yard line. More comfortable than where I started but the enjoyment does not exceed. Thanks, Well!

Follow Jim Treacy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimtreacy
Jim Treacy Website: www.jimtreacy.com

If you’ve ever taken a photo of your baby in a flowerpot, in a basket or dressed as a fairy, you owe a little something to Anne Geddes.

Over the course of her career, which spans more than three decades, Geddes has cemented herself as a standard-bearer in children’s photography. When she spoke with HuffPost Live’s Caitlyn Becker on Tuesday about her new series “Protecting Our Tomorrows,” which depicts victims of meningococcal meningitis, Geddes also offered what she called her “biggest advice” for parents photographing their kids.

“You can’t take away the essence of the reason why you’re photographing your children, and you need to include yourself in the photograph with your child as often as you can,” Geddes said. “All going well, you’re going to know your child for longer as an adult than you will as a child, and they will want to mock you for your hairstyle and all of the clothes that you wore at the time.”

The mockery is something Geddes knows first hand, she added, thanks to being a mom who wasn’t afraid to embrace ’80s fashion. But your children’s interest in your looks of the past isn’t just about mockery. They also want a window into who their parents were, Geddes said.

“They’ll be really interested also in what you looked like when they were small, because trust me, your kids when they get older are never going to think you were ever young,” she said.

Check out the video above for Anne Geddes’ photography tips, and click here for her full HuffPost Live conversation.

Sign up here for Live Today, HuffPost Live’s morning email that will let you know the newsmakers, celebrities and politicians joining us that day and give you the best clips from the day before!

You may have noticed it: Boy, do those luggage fees add up.

So long as airlines continue to jack up the prices on anything not nailed down, consumers are going to do whatever they can to keep expenditures to a minimum. One of the tricks is to cram as much as one can get into a carry-on and still be below the weight limit.

Rolling, folding, or flat, people all have little tricks to break the laws of carry-on physics. But you should find out first what those physics are, because different airlines have different standards. The average limit for a carry-on is 14 x 12 x 22 inches (although you should check your airline; you may manage to wrestle a few more inches, depending), but the average weight is anything but: TAM restricts you to just 11 pounds, while AeroMexico allows up to 22 pounds; Delta allows you 40 pounds to play with, and United has no restriction. Even more confusing: You are allowed more or less weight depending on what class you fly. Do your research.

Personally, I play it safe and am a less-is-more traveler. The ironic thing about traveling is that the actual traveling is actually fairly stress-free, but the departure and arrival process can be murder. I take only as much as I need, but also know full well I have to lug my luggage through an airport, and X-ray machine, and taxi bay. Less means lighter.

The saying goes that you should lay out the money you plan to take along with the clothing you plan to bring, then half the clothes and double the cash. That’s actually not a bad idea, but let’s start with the basics, and by that, I mean making a list of what you unequivocally must have. We can all thank our lucky stars that the three-outfits-a-day era of “Downton Abbey” is long gone, so why pack such in 2015? Judicious use of some of your standbys means an endless recycling of looks.

Depending on who you are and what state of health you are in, there are some things that non-negotiable. These can be anything from meds for high blood pressure to insulin. Also musts are things like passports, money, and keys — I advocate those as things you should wear on your person, but some people swear by packing them.

I also consulted David Perry, a fellow traveler writer and friend of mine who has even less space to work with. Since his laptop goes with him as the personal item, he has to pack his camera — case, lenses, and all — into his carry-on, leaving him with a nook just 14 inches wide, nine long, seven deep. This guy gets creative.

If it is bulky and/or heavy, like a sweater, he wears it. If he needs a suit, it serves as his travel outfit, making him possibly the only man on the plane outside the flight crew wearing a tie (and like a LBD, a good suit jacket can be used repeatedly for different looks). His shoes blur formal and casual. Instead of briefs, he wears his bathing suit. But those are all fairly well known tricks.

Packing a carry-on is all about nooks and crannies, he says. You know those grooves running down the back of the luggage formed by the holster for the extendable handle? Dave unfurls his socks and lays them flat in two, and tank tops or other “small clothes” in another. He can stuff about a week’s worth of socks in the groves alone.

Then go a single pair jeans or denim shorts, which will be worn over and over again.
“Denim is the one thing I don’t roll up,” Dave says, who simply folds it over and lays it flat. “I find it swallows up space.”

As most hotels have a cornucopia of bathroom products, his toiletries consist of a toothbrush and a travel-size tube of toothpaste, and, he says, “I’m almost never going to a distant corner of the Earth. If I forget something, a drug store is never far away.”

He rounds things out with a few t-shirts (“black, white, or gray. They’ll go with anything”), a button-down just in case, and viola! A week’s worth of outfits in a minimum amount of space. There have been times, he says, where he ends up with room left over.

“I’m not a fashion plate,” he says of his admittedly rough-n-ready travel wardrobe. “On a trip, I am usually moving from one place to another so quickly I don’t worry too much about repeat ‘looks.'”

For a lot of people, it is not what you pack, but how. Rolling seems to be a favorite (unless it’s something denim, it seems), either around a cylinder, or stuffing things in actual paper towel and toilet paper tubes. The U.S. military has rolling or bundling clothing into bite-sized pieces down to a science bordering on origami. Rolling, for the most part, also tends to be the packing style that results in the least amount of wrinkles.

Another trick are those storage bags you use your vacuum to suck all the extra air out. It allows a lot more clothing and a certain level of organization usually foreign to carry-ons, but if you go this route, be prepared to use your hotel’s iron to steam out all the wrinkles that are sure to form, especially if you are on a long-haul fight. Also, with all that space saved, resist the temptation to pack more to the point you are over your carrier’s weight limit.

And then there are those people who just throw up their hands at the whole thing and send through the mail everything they would otherwise pack. Personally, I call this cheating, but in this day and age, however you do it is how you do it…