Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:
Audition Fight Reel of the Day:
Tim Drake (the voice of Hiro in Big Hero 6) made a concept fight demo to show that he should play Robin in the DC Extended Universe (via /Film):
[embedded content]
Weird Video of the Day:
Speaking of the DCEU, “Weird Trailer” maker Aldo Jones took his dancing Bruce Wayne from his version of the Justice League spot and put him in a lot of other movies:
[embedded content]
Franchise Analysis of the Day:
Every Frame a Painting looks into why the Marvel Cinematic Universe has such bland music scores in this deep analysis video essay:
[embedded content]
Raw Footage Reel of the Day:
The below video contains four minutes of awesome, fiery footage from the making of Mad Max: Fury Road before digital effects added and subtracted things (via The Playlist):
[embedded content]
Vintage Image of the Day:
Ian Holm, who turns 85 today, gets applied with condensed milk by director Ridley Scott as Sigourney Weaver stands by on the set of Alien in 1978:
Hollywood Craftsman of the Day:
The latest Academy Originals video spotlights casting director Bernie Telsley, who talks about finding the ensemble for Across the Universe:
[embedded content]
Mashup of the Day:
Star Wars meets Ghostbusters in this clever piece of fan art from Messy Pandas:
Redone Movie of the Day:
Watch Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows retold in 8-bit video game style:
[embedded content]
Movie Comparison of the Day:
Couch Tomato shows us 24 reasons why the new live-action Jungle Book is also basically a remake of The Lion King:
[embedded content]
Classic Trailer of the Day:
Today is the 60th anniversary of the release of The Bad Seed. Watch the original trailer for the classic thriller below.
An official, photographers, cheerleaders and others wait for play to resume during an NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament second-round game between the Butler Bulldogs and the Virginia Cavaliers in March in Raleigh, N.C. This coming spring the Road to the Final Four won’t go through North Carolina, as the NCAA has decided to move three games out of Greensboro. Grant Halverson/Getty Imageshide caption
toggle captionGrant Halverson/Getty Images
The NCAA announced Monday evening that it would relocate seven championship sporting events out of North Carolina during this school year, citing the state’s HB2 law limiting civil rights protections for LGBT individuals, WUNC’s Dave DeWitt reports.
The events moving out of state include first and second rounds of the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship — part of the Road to the Final Four — originally slated to be in Greensboro, DeWitt reports.
In a press release, the Board emphasized that “NCAA championships and events must promote an inclusive atmosphere for all college athletes, coaches, administrators and fans. Current North Carolina state laws make it challenging to guarantee that host communities can help deliver on that commitment if NCAA events remained in the state.”
The state Republican party countered late Monday with a scathing press release written by spokeswoman Kami Mueller.
“This is so absurd it’s almost comical. I genuinely look forward to the NCAA merging all men’s and women’s teams together as singular unisex teams. Under the NCAA’s logic, colleges should make cheerleaders and football players share bathrooms, showers and hotel rooms. This decision is an assault to female athletes across the nation.”
HB2 earlier cost the state the 2017 NBA All-Star game, DeWitt notes. The law limits anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals and requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificates, rather than the gender with which they identify.
Equality NC executive director Chris Sgro writes in a press release that “it has become clear that the shadow HB2 has cast on North Carolina is hurting our economy, our reputation and our people every day.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Florida on Friday. Mark Wallheiser/Getty Imageshide caption
toggle captionMark Wallheiser/Getty Images
The tables turned for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton over the weekend. For much of the campaign, Clinton has been sitting back, staying quiet and allowing Trump’s gaffes, offensive statements and flip-flops to take up the news cycle.
But then Clinton had a terrible few days. First, she declared that half of all Trump supporters belong to a “basket of deplorables” that includes racists, sexists, homophobic people and other broadly biased groups — a soundbite that Trump quickly made into an attack ad. Then she appeared weak and wobbly as she left early during a memorial ceremony commemorating the Sept. 11 attacks, emboldening Trump supporters who had been questioning her health for weeks.
While Clinton’s “deplorables” comment and pneumonia made the headlines and cable chyrons on Monday morning, Trump didn’t stay entirely quiet, as he made a bit of under-the-radar news himself. Here’s a roundup of what you might have missed:
Trump claims Janet Yellen should be “ashamed”
On Monday morning, Trump told CNBC that he thinks Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen is playing politics with monetary policy, trying to goose economic growth with low interest rates to help President Obama’s legacy.
[embedded content]
“Well it’s staying at zero because she’s obviously political, and she’s doing what Obama wants her to do,” he said.
(Trump hasn’t always been so opposed to Yellen; in an April interview, he said she was doing a “serviceable” job as Fed chair.)
While it’s true that presidents can nominate Fed chairs who share their economic views, the president doesn’t control Fed policy.
One safeguard against this is that members of the Board of Governors are appointed for 14-year terms, meaning they will necessarily serve during multiple presidents’ administrations. In addition, the chair’s terms don’t match up to the president’s terms. When Obama took office, the George W. Bush-appointed Ben Bernanke was Fed chair, and Obama later reappointed him. If elected, Trump couldn’t replace Janet Yellen as chair until early 2018.
Furthermore, Trump seemed to imply that the president can change interest rates. He said he believes that the Fed’s current policy is that “the new person that becomes president, let him raise interest rates or her raise interest rates, and watch what happens to the stock market when that happens.”
To be clear: The president does not and cannot set interest rates, which are determined by meetings of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Markets Committee (of which the Fed chair is a member). The next meeting of that committee is next week.
“Washington Post” Reports On Trump Foundation
Trump’s charitable foundation has already been facing scrutiny for a $25,000 donation that violated IRS rules and that some say was politically motivated. Now, the Washington Post has also found what it calls five “phantom donations.”
The Post further reported:
Five times, the Trump Foundation’s tax filings described giving a specific amount of money to a specific charity — in some cases, even including the recipient’s address. But when The Post called, the charities listed said the tax filings appeared wrong. They’d never received anything from Trump or his foundation.
The Post asked Trump’s staff to explain all five of these apparent errors.
The nickname refers to Warren’s claims that she is of Native American heritage. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker reported that they couldn’t find reliable documentation to confirm that fact.
Meanwhile, many have slammed Trump for his repeated use of the nickname.
“Make no mistake — these jabs were racist,” Simon Moya-Smith, culture editor at Indian Country Today, wrote in May.
Trump says his physical results are coming
Over the weekend, Trump had already said that he would go on The Dr. Oz Show to discuss his “personal health regimen.” But then on Fox News Monday morning, he said he would release yet more health details from a physical he underwent last week.
“This last week I took a physical, and I’ll be releasing when the numbers come in, hopefully they’re going to be good. I think they’re going to be good. I feel great,” he said.
Clinton likewise revealed that she would be releasing more detailed health records this week.
A new “deplorables” ad
[embedded content]
YouTube
The Trump campaign made quick use of the “deplorables” comment, turning around a campaign advertisement that claims Clinton is “viciously demonizing” American voters.
In that remark, Clinton had taken aim at Trump’s supporters, and not Trump himself. In doing so, she gave him a soundbite that he will be able to use for the entire election.
Drug users in recovery listen to a counselor at a treatment center in Westborough, Mass., in March. John Moore/Getty Imageshide caption
toggle captionJohn Moore/Getty Images
The nation’s opioid problem comes with staggering physical and emotional costs to patients and families. But the financial burden on the health system has been harder to peg.
A report set to be released Tuesday shows a more than thirteenfold increase in spending by health insurers in a four-year period on patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence or abuse.
From 2011 to 2015, insurers’ payments to hospitals, laboratories, treatment centers and other medical providers for these patients grew from $32 million to $446 million.
While the latest figure represents a small portion of the overall spending on medical care in the United States, the rapid rise is cause for concern, says Robin Gelburd, president of Fair Health, a nonprofit databank that provides cost information to the health industry and consumers.
“That really shows the stress on the health system and the impact on the individuals,” said Gelburd.
The Fair Health study found a sharp difference in how much insurers spend on individual patients with such a diagnosis.
On average, insurers spend $3,435 a year on an individual patient, but for those with an opioid dependence or abuse diagnosis, that amount jumps to $19,333. Those numbers reflect what insurers actually paid. The report also includes data on what providers charged, amounts that are lowered by their contracts with insurers.
The study, out Monday, builds on a study Fair Health released in early August that found a thirtyfold increase in the volume of insurance claims related to opioid dependence diagnoses between 2007 and 2014.
The latest study by Fair Health — part of a series — looked at amounts associated with claims billed by providers and paid by insurers for the types of medical services used.
Both studies use de-identified claims data from insurers representing more than 150 million insured Americans who either have insurance through work or buy coverage on their own.
There have been other efforts by several researchers to quantify the cost of the opioid problem on the overall economy, estimated in the tens of billions of dollars.
The new report adds to the available data “that it’s not just the human cost associated with the opioid crisis that is enormous, but also that the economic costs are staggering,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny, senior scientist at Brandeis University. He didn’t work on the study.
The surge in spending on patients with opioid diagnoses is likely a combination of factors, the report notes. As media attention focuses on drug dependency, more people may be seeking treatment. At the same time, prescription and illegal use of narcotics may also be increasing.
The study found that emergency room visits and laboratory tests accounted for much of the spending.
Based on claims volume, the fastest-growing set of services in terms of utilization were for alcohol or drug therapy. Lab tests, including checks for barbiturate or opioid use, weren’t far behind.
Researchers didn’t use 2015 data for lab test costs, noting that a change in billing codes was made that increased the number of categories — and, in some cases, appear to generate higher charges by insurers. It is too early to estimate the long-term effects of the change, Gelburd said.
The report gives some examples of the changes, however. For example, one billing code for a test on opiate use commonly brought in a $31 payment from insurers prior to the change. The two billing codes that replaced it now are commonly paid at $78 and $156.
The new billing codes may reflect new technology in testing, said Gelburd. She said some observers speculate that the rapid increase in lab spending might reflect that, with more patients in therapy, the tests are being used to ensure they are taking their proper medications and not abusing narcotics.
But the spending might also reflect a growing use of very expensive urine and blood tests when less expensive ones would be sufficient, said Kolodny.
“I worry about profiteering,” said Kolodny. “We do need tests, but not the expensive ones. A lot of clinics are making extra money off these lab tests.”
The overall increase in spending across all types of medical services “is a societal issue,” said Gelburd, who says policymakers need to ensure that changes are made to address the problem.
“Are medical school curricula adjusting to recognize the growing need for these services? Are insurers increasing the number of providers in their networks to ensure sufficient access? Are consumers being educated? It’s an issue that has to be dealt with in all quadrants.”
Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Julie Applebyis on Twitter:@Julie_appleby.
In 1993, Eddie Antar, founder of the Crazy Eddie electronics store chain, is led in handcuffs after being extradited from Israel. Thousands of commercials starred pitchman Jerry Carroll who touted the chain’s prices as “insane.” Danield Hulshizer /APhide caption
toggle captionDanield Hulshizer /AP
If you ever saw a Crazy Eddie commercial, then you know the electronics retail giant’s prices were “insane!”
At its height, the chain had 43 stores in four states. Eddie Antar started the chain in 1969 with a store in Brooklyn, N.Y. The chain’s growth was helped by the introduction of the VCR.
In 1984, the chain went public. Stockholders, during a revolt in 1987, took over the company, and shortly after that it was discovered that $45 million in merchandise was missing.
At the same time, federal prosecutors had been building a fraud case against Antar, charging that he had defrauded shareholders through stock manipulation, according to The New York Times.
In 1990, Antar fled to Israel after being indicted on securities fraud and insider trading.
Three years later he was extradited back to the U.S. In 1995, his conviction on racketeering and stock fraud charges were overturned on appeal.
He eventually served seven years in prison after pleading guilty in a plea bargain to one charge of racketeering conspiracy.
Antar died on Saturday but a cause of death was not disclosed. He was 68.
While Antar was the man behind Crazy Eddie, he was not the pitchman who appeared in commercials.
For more than 13 years, Jerry Carroll, a radio DJ, was the man who starred in thousands of radio and TV ads.
Carroll’s fast-talking, shout-at-you style made the commercials memorable.
The ads always ended the same, with Crazy Eddie prices being touted as “in-SAAAANE!”
Stan Wawrinka, of Switzerland, holds up the championship trophy after beating Novak Djokovic, of Serbia, to win the men’s singles final of the U.S. Open tennis tournament on Sunday in New York. Darron Cummings/APhide caption
toggle captionDarron Cummings/AP
Mere minutes before heading out to face Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final in New York, Stan Wawrinka met in the locker room with his coach and felt as nervous as he ever had. Wawrinka was shaking. Started to cry, even.
Why?
“I don’t want to lose the final in a Grand Slam, that simple. That’s the only reason,” he explained later. “The feeling of: You don’t want to lose. I don’t want to come to the court and lose a final. So close, so far.”
Once he was on the court, and got over some shaky play at the very start, Wawrinka’s game and mindset were strong as can be, as they always seems to be these days when the stakes are highest. Repeatedly pointing his right index finger to his temple, the gesture he uses when showing his mettle, Wawrinka surprisingly wore down No. 1 Djokovic and beat the defending champion 6-7 (1), 6-4, 7-5, 6-3 for his first U.S. Open title and third Grand Slam trophy overall.
“He was the better player. He was tougher mentally,” said Djokovic, offering two of the highest compliments a tennis player can receive from the talented Serb. “He knew what to do.”
The 31-year-old Wawrinka is the oldest U.S. Open men’s champion since Ken Rosewall was 35 in 1970. He entered Sunday having spent almost exactly twice as much time on court during the tournament — about 18 hours vs. about 9 hours — as Djokovic, who benefited from injuries to three opponents that withdrew before or during matches.
“Honestly, after the match, I was completely empty,” the third-seeded Wawrinka said. “I put everything on the court. Not only today, but the past two weeks.”
By breaking in the final game of the second and third sets, and by saving 14 of 17 break points he faced, Wawrinka already had gained the upper hand by the time Djokovic clutched at his left leg and grimaced after missing a forehand while getting broken early in the fourth.
Djokovic was granted the unusual chance to have a medical timeout at a time other than a changeover. He removed both shoes and socks so a trainer could help with bleeding toes. Wawrinka complained about the 6-minute break, and Djokovic looked over and apologized. Later, Djokovic started limping and received more treatment.
“We played almost 4 hours,” said Djokovic, “and I think I can speak in the name of Stan, as well: We both felt it.”
Wawrinka has won only five of 24 career meetings against Djokovic, but has now beaten the 12-time major champion on the way to each of his own Grand Slam titles, including in the 2014 Australian Open quarterfinals and 2015 French Open final.
Before this matchup, Djokovic praised Wawrinka as “a big-match player,” and, boy, is he ever. Wasn’t always, though: Playing in the shadow of his far-more-accomplished Swiss countryman and good pal, Roger Federer, Wawrinka needed until his 35th appearance at a major, at age 28, just to get to the semifinals for the first time.
But look at Wawrinka now.
He has won 11 consecutive tournament finals.
He is 3-0 in Grand Slam finals, beating the No. 1-ranked player each time. Take that trio of highest-stakes matches out of the equation, and Wawrinka is 0-19 in all other matches against the top man.
And he did it Sunday by coming back against Djokovic, whose French Open title in June completed a career Grand Slam and made him only the third man — and first in nearly a half-century — to win four consecutive major tournaments.
Djokovic had been 51-0 in U.S. Open matches when taking the first set. This time, though, the thick-chested Wawrinka eventually began bullying Djokovic from the baseline, not only with his best-in-the-game one-handed backhand, but off both wings.
“He likes to occasionally whack the ball quite hard, and I don’t think that Novak likes that,” said Wawrinka’s coach, Magnus Norman. “Stan is maybe one of the few guys who can really hit through Novak if he has a good day.”
As Wawrinka placed one stinging shot after another right on a line, Djokovic looked up at coach Boris Becker while gesticulating with his hands and muttering. He went from appearing locked-in at the outset to completely drained in every way.
On one point, Wawrinka delivered a shot so hard it knocked the racket from Djokovic’s grasp and against a wall behind the baseline.
After smacking a forehand winner to end a 20-stroke exchange near the end of the second set, Wawrinka pointed to his temple. Did it again after a forehand passing shot drew an errant volley for a break early in the third.
And so on.
Wawrinka nearly was gone before the end of the U.S. Open’s first week, one point from losing in the third round against 64th-ranked Dan Evans. Sunday’s victory made Wawrinka the first man to win the tournament after saving a match point since — yes, that’s right — Djokovic in 2011.
“You’re a great champion, a great person. Because of you, I am where I am today,” Wawrinka told Djokovic, a close friend, afterward. “We know each other (for) many, many years, and I had the chance to practice many times with him and to play him on a big stage.”
With that Djokovic, threw his left arm around Wawrinka’s shoulders, knowing which of the two was more up to the task on this day.
Cassie Ray (seen with her husband, Gerry) got a surprise bill from an out-of-network anesthesiologist after an operation. Courtesy of Cassie Rayhide caption
toggle captionCourtesy of Cassie Ray
When it comes to navigating the intricacies of health insurance, Cassie Ray considers herself a pro. She actually reads her policy, including the fine print.
So when the 57-year-old from Fairfield, Calif., needed routine follow-up surgery after a mastectomy, she did her homework. “I looked up on my insurer’s network and made sure the outpatient facility that I was being referred to was in my network,” Ray says.
A month later, she received an unwelcome surprise: a $580 bill for an out-of-network anesthesiologist.
“I called the facility back, and at first, I felt like, this has to be a mistake. They’ll fix it,” Ray says.
Instead, the clinic said her only option was to negotiate the bill directly with the doctor. Ray’s experience illustrates the surprise of balance billing.
The unexpected charged come when patients are treated by an out-of-network provider at an in-network facility.
After several failed attempts in recent years, the California legislature last week passed AB-72, which aims to protect patients’ pocketbooks when they’re hit by these surprise bills. Gov. Jerry Brown has until the end of September to sign or veto the legislation. He is expected to sign it into law.
A 2015 Consumers Union survey suggests the surprise bill phenomenon is fairly common. It found nearly 1 in 4 Californians who’d had hospital visits or surgery in the prior two years reported receiving an unexpected bill from an out-of-network provider.
“They can range in price from a hundred dollars to many thousands,” says Betsy Imholz, special projects director for Consumers Union. “So it’s a big financial burden on consumers.”
In Ray’s case, she says she tried to speak with a manager at the outpatient clinic, but no one returned her repeated calls. Then the bills stopped coming, so she figured all was resolved. Soon after, however, her bill was sent to collections.
“I was so frustrated,” she recalls. “I was just in tears as I was dealing with it.”
Ray says it took about seven months of wrangling before her insurance company finally paid the bill and she was able to clean up her credit rating.
“My immediate response was, there does need to be a law to fix this,” says Ray. “This is so wrong.”
The legislation, by Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) and six colleagues, would limit a patient’s financial obligation to no more than what he would have owed if the provider had been in-network.
While agreeing that “patients should never have surprise bills,” Dr. Karen Sibert, president-elect of the California Society of Anesthesiologists, says her organization and a number of other specialty medical groups oppose AB-72.
At issue, Sibert says, is the bill’s formula for paying doctors who fill the gap left when insurance companies don’t have enough providers in their networks. The legislation would set the payment rate at either the amount the insurer normally pays a doctor on contract for such services or 125 percent of the Medicare rate, whichever is greater.
That’s insufficient, argues Sibert. “It’s a problem because it removes any incentive for insurance companies to reach fair contracts with physicians.”
Without such an incentive, she says, insurance companies will continue to stick consumers with inadequate provider networks.
The powerful California Medical Association agrees with Sibert about the bill’s payment formula, but it has shifted its position on AB-72 from opposed to neutral, says Janus Norman, the Association’s vice president of governmental affairs.
There are a few reasons for the change of heart, he says. First, the bill would create stricter oversight of how in-patient services are delivered, and it would allow for tougher regulations on insurers if the state finds their provider networks to be inadequate.
The provision regarding tougher regulations, “is one improvement that AB-72 included that prior legislation did not,” he says.
In addition, the measure would give out-of-network doctors the chance to appeal payment disputes with insurers through an independent third party, and the decision would be binding, another important change from previous versions of the bill, Norman says.
The California Association of Health Plans and the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies don’t have a formal position on AB-72, according to an analysis by the Assembly Health Committee. Instead, they have expressed “concerns” about the measure, the committee said.
“While they laud the authors’ efforts to protect consumers from balance billing,” the analysis says, the insurer groups worry that the legislation might lead to higher premiums and cost-sharing, and that the bill’s dispute resolution process might spark more lawsuits between providers and health insurance firms.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer health care advocacy coalition, says Gov. Brown took an interest in the legislation.
“The governor’s office did provide input during the negotiation process and we are hopeful that he will sign it,” he says.
Consumers Union’s Imholz says the California Medical Association’s neutral position on the legislation was key in getting AB-72 across the finish line.
She predicts that if Brown signs the measure, a number of other states now considering similar protections against surprise bills will likely follow suit next year.
This story is part of a reporting partnership with NPR, KPCC andKaiser Health News.
Angelique Kerber, of Germany, returns a shot to Karolina Pliskova, of the Czech Republic, during the women’s singles final of the U.S. Open tennis tournament, Saturday, in New York. Darron Cummings/APhide caption
toggle captionDarron Cummings/AP
Early in what would become a tight test of a U.S. Open final, Angelique Kerber sprinted forward to somehow reach a drop shot and scoop a down-the-line winner to a corner.
The Arthur Ashe Stadium crowd roared, and Kerber celebrated by raising her right hand and wagging her index finger in the air, as if to remind opponent Karolina Pliskova — and everyone else — “I’m No. 1!”
Yes, she is. And a two-time Grand Slam champion, too.
Kerber won her first U.S. Open title and the second major trophy of her out-of-nowhere breakthrough season, taking five of the last six games to beat a fading Pliskova 6-3, 4-6, 6-4 on Saturday.
“It means a lot to me. When I was a kid, I was always dreaming to one day be the No. 1 player in the world, to win Grand Slams,” said Kerber, a 28-year-old German who will move up one spot from No. 2 and replace Serena Williams atop the WTA rankings on Monday. “I mean, all the dreams came true this year, and I’m just trying to enjoy every moment on court and also off court.”
Never a Grand Slam finalist before 2016, Kerber beat Williams for the Australian Open title in January, then lost to her in the Wimbledon final in July.
On Saturday, the No. 2-seeded Kerber trailed by a break at 3-1 in the third set before coming back against Pliskova, a 24-year-old Czech who was seeded 10th and hadn’t been past the third round at a major until this tournament.
“For sure,” Kerber told Pliskova during the trophy ceremony, “you have a great future.”
The present could not be brighter for the left-handed Kerber, the first woman from Germany to win the U.S. Open — and to get to No. 1 — since her idol and mentor, Steffi Graf.
It was Pliskova who guaranteed Kerber’s ascension in the rankings by beating Williams in the semifinals, ending her record-tying 186-week stay at the top, which began in February 2013.
Kerber, who collected $3.5 million in prize money Saturday, lost to Pliskova the last time they met, just three weeks ago in the final of a hard-court tournament in Cincinnati.
But at the outset of this final, it was Kerber who was in charge. Her defense is exemplary, scrambling along the baseline to put her racket on seemingly every ball, crouching so low that her knees would come close to scraping the ground.
As she does against most opponents, Kerber would make Pliskova swing two, three, four extra times to try to end a point. And Pliskova was troubled by that in the early going, making 17 unforced errors in the first set alone, 14 more than Kerber. By the conclusion of the 2-hour, 7-minute final, Pliskova totaled 47 unforced errors, 30 more than Kerber.
“I was really trying to (stay) in the moment,” Kerber said, “trying to play my game, being aggressive.”
Kerber won the toss and elected to receive, perhaps for two reasons: Her serve is the biggest question mark in her otherwise solid game, and it made sense to force Pliskova to deal with an early test of nerves. Either way, the decision worked: Pliskova double-faulted on the match’s first point and got broken right from the get-go.
There were plenty of lengthy exchanges in that first set, and Kerber tended to get the better of them, winning 9 of 14 points that lasted at least 10 strokes.
But Pliskova hung in there. And after frittering away her first four break points of the match, she converted her fifth with a lob-volley winner that curled over Kerber and alit right by the baseline. Suddenly up 4-3 in the set, Pliskova turned to her coach up in the stands and yelled, pumping her fists.
Now it was a match, filled with terrific points, tense moments and plenty of emotion. Pliskova served out the second set — the only one dropped by Kerber all tournament — and spiked a ball. Kerber got broken early in the third and bounced her racket off the court. Moments later, she trailed 3-1.
But this was Kerber’s turn to show some mettle, breaking back to 3-all and again to end it. She dropped on her back after the last point, then climbed into the stands to begin the celebration with her coach and others.
“She really proved she’s the world No. 1,” Pliskova told the fans. Then she addressed Kerber directly, saying: “It was a great match, and I’m very honored to play with you.”
Kris Teegardin, Mayor of Edgewater, Colorado, says he’s not banking on marijuana revenue for the long-term. Courtesy Luke Runyon, KUNChide caption
toggle captionCourtesy Luke Runyon, KUNC
Voters in Maine and a handful of other states are deciding whether to legalize recreational marijuana this November. One thing that could swing the vote is the possibility of millions of dollars in tax revenue from retail marijuana sales. Colorado was the first state in the country to roll out a tax scheme for legal marijuana in 2013, after recreational marijuana was legalized in 2012. So how are voters in Colorado spending the cash, and what should Maine voters expect?
Maine, like a lot of other states, could always use more revenue, so the possibility of millions from legalizing marijuana is enticing. But many voters there are unsure how that money will be spent. Erin McGee Ferrell spoke to us in downtown Portland. McGee is a foster parent and says she doesn’t get reimbursed much. She says that area is one state program that could use more funding.
“I know there’s a lot of problems in terms of needing more money for health issues and people who are addicted to opioids. I mean, there’s such a lack of money for children, and health issues,” she says.
The mayor of Portland, Ethan Strimling, shares voters’ concern. Specifically, he wants to know, how is the money from marijuana going to be dedicated to individual communities?
“All we have at the local level is property taxes,” Strimling says. “It would be great if some of the revenue that’s generated from this legalization could stay in the community where it’s having the most impact.”
In other words, to fund substance abuse programs to offset any of negative impact of legalization.
In Colorado, it’s a mixed bag with regard to where the money from pot is spent.
The state has a slew of local and state taxes on retail marijuana. Almost everybody through the entire supply chain is paying into the system, including growers, testing laboratories and retail shops. To some extent, pot is paying for schools in Colorado, with much of the state tax revenue going toward school maintenance and construction – paying for things like new roofs and HVAC systems in rural school districts.
But Chris Stiffler, an analyst with the Colorado Fiscal Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, cautions against getting too excited about marijuana tax revenue.
“We like to talk about it as if you were walking home today and you found a $20 bill on the ground,” Stiffler explains. “You wouldn’t go home and buy a new car or new house. But you would maybe go out for a Chipotle burrito with guacamole and a margarita, right?”
He says when voters in Colorado were considering legal marijuana, some of them thought that this was going to be a huge amount of money for education.
“They want to know why they’re not getting new schools, more teachers, why they’re not getting better roads because they were promised so many marijuana dollars were going to fix and pay for the things that really drive their communities,” Stiffler says.
The revenue is basically a drop in the bucket for the state budget. But for local communities, which can levy their own taxes on the marijuana industry, it appears that marijuana tax money can actually make more of a difference.
Take Edgewater, Colorado, a small town of 5,300 people in the Denver metro area. The city has five retail marijuana shops and they’re projected to bring in more than $1 million in marijuana tax revenue this fiscal year. To put that in perspective, their annual budget is $6 million, so that’s one so that’s one sixth that’s coming from marijuana.
Mayor of Edgewater, Kris Teegardin says,”Tax sales have been able to speed up major infrastructure improvements otherwise we that would have to take a very incremental approach to.”
One of those improvements is road paving. Teegardin even jokes that maybe they should be paving the road in green to show people how their marijuana tax dollars are being spent. They’re also putting money toward a brand new civic center and a police station. Other cities in Colorado are funding homelessness programs and mental health centers. But Teegardin is not banking on this money coming in forever.
“This is something that we know could go away in the blink of an eye,” he says. “Or, it could have a downturn when other states legalize it or other municipalities decide to join, so we are really looking at a murky forecast for sales in the next three to four years.”
With that in mind, tax analysts say the possibility of more revenue from pot shouldn’t be the sole reason to support marijuana legalization because it may not be enough to solve big budgetary problems that states face.
