How many more government agencies will be branded as devious, unreliable or outright fraudulent before the penalties the Justice Department imposes has teeth? Oh, wait, the Justice Department is on the hook for targeting private phone records from Fox News and the Associated Press because of so-called “leaks.”

Then, there are the scandals at the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, HUD, the Secret Service, Veterans Affairs, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Labor Department and FEMA — to name just a few.

The FBI case tops all, however, because what they did actually killed people. The Washington Post broke the story on Saturday:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.

What’s interesting about all these violations of the public trust is that no one ever seems to go to jail for their crimes. Is the government too big to succeed? We complain about Wall Street execs getting off scott free for their roles in the Great Recession. Why is this different?

More Quick Hits from The Fiscal Times:

The Coca-Cola bottle, with its distinctive contoured glass, was created a century ago as a way for the soft drink company to give its product a competitive edge. As the company website explains, “In 1915, Coca-Cola attempted to fend off a host of copycat brands by strengthening its trademark. The company and its bottling partners issued a creative challenge to a handful of U.S. glass companies: To develop a “bottle so distinct that you would recognize if by feel in the dark or lying broken on the ground.”

The winning design, created by the Root Glass Company of Terre Haute, Ind., worked — so well, in fact, that a century later the company is still using that basic concept to market its signature brand. Coca-Cola this year is celebrating the 100^th anniversary of the bottle — and its influence in pop art and other realms — through a global advertising campaign, art exhibitions and a photo book, among other avenues.

Now the bottle and its history will also be the subject of a new “authorized” documentary, according to The Hollywood Reporter. (Coke will help pay for the movie’s marketing.)

Related: Why the Soda Industry Is Still Full of Hot Air

“When I can hold up a Coca-Cola bottle and ask, ‘is this art or is this commerce?’ and most commonly hear ‘it’s both,’ that sets the stage for an intriguing narrative,” the movie’s producer and co-director, Matthew Miele, told THR.

That narrative could include how the Coke bottle became the first commercial product to make it to the cover of Time magazine in 1950, or how it provided fodder for artists like Andy Warhol — and, especially if the film touches on today’s backlash against soda, it might even mention that the 10- and 12-ounce bottles that made their debut in 1955 were called “King Size” and a 26-ounce bottle was marketed as “Family Size.”

Miele and his team reportedly hope their documentary will premiere in November to coincide with the Nov. 16, 1915 date that the bottle design first won a patent.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• The Harsh Truth About Fast Food for Kids
• The Companies Americans Hate Dealing With the Most​
• The 15 Worst Supermarkets in America in 2015​​

The latest Gallup survey shows the rate of American adults without health insurance dipped to an all-time-low of 11.9 percent in the first quarter of this year, down from 12.9 percent at the end of 2014 and 18 percent in mid-2013. That means nearly nine in 10 adults now say they have health coverage, which Gallup attributes primarily to provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

So far, the White House estimates that more than 16 million people have gained health coverage through Obamacare.

Related: Obamacare Goes to Court as Uninsured Rate Hits New Low

Gallup notes that the uninsured rate is likely to continue trending downward this year as more people sign up for coverage during the special enrollment period, which ends on April 30. The administration granted extra time to people who were unaware of the law’s individual mandate requiring everyone to have health coverage or be subject to a tax penalty.

The pollsters noted that there are, of course, other factors that have helped lower the percentage of uninsured people in the U.S., including the improving economy and a falling unemployment rate. Even so, they suggested that Obamacare played the largest role: “The uninsured rate is significantly lower than it was in early 2008, before the depths of the economic recession, suggesting that the recent decline is due to more than just an improving economy.”

Related: Poll Shows Why Obamacare Ruling Could Be Devastating

The poll of 43,575 adults over the first three months of the year suggests that the health care reform law is succeeding in its primary goal of expanding access to coverage, though questions remain about just how affordable that care is — and whether the law will be undone by a Supreme Court ruling, scheduled to be announced in June in the case of King v Burwell. The high court’s interpretation of language in one sentence of the Affordable Care Act will determine whether roughly 8 million people will lose health insurance subsidies. Read about the case here. 

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• 6 Popular Social Security Myths Busted 
• The Battle Is On to Save Military Bases from Closure​
• The 10 Worst Places for Obamacare in 2015​

Everyone hates the IRS. Even the mothers of its agents hate the tax-collection agency. And that sentiment rises to new levels around this time of year.

On his HBO show last night, John Oliver said those feeling are only natural: “Is it any wonder that everyone hates the IRS?” he said. “Dealing with them is obligatory. It often functions badly. And it combines two of the things we hate most in life: someone taking our money and math.”

Still, Oliver went on to “attempt the impossible”: making viewers feel at least a smidgen of sympathy for the tax man — and explaining why our widespread hatred may be misguided. It’s Congress, after all, that writes the tax code. And it’s Congress that has made it harder for the agency to do its job by cutting the IRS budget from $13.4 billion in 2010 to $10.9 billion this year. As BusinessWeek just said in its latest cover story, "if you think paying your taxes is bad, try working at America's most unloved agency."

Related: IRS Says Budget Cuts Could Bilk Billions from Taxpayers

“I’m not saying the IRS is a likeable organization,” Oliver said. “But not everything that’s important is likeable. Think of our government as a body. The IRS is the anus. It’s nobody’s favorite part. But you need that thing working properly…”

It’s not that we should love the IRS, or even like them, Oliver said. But the agency deserves “a few minutes of at least grudging acknowledgment of the unpleasant, necessary function they serve.” And to provide that, Oliver brought on the singer who might be even more despised than IRS: Michael Bolton.

Watch the segment below (warning: it includes HBO-appropriate language):

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• IRS Struggles to Help Victims of Identity Fraud​​
• The Battle Is On to Save Military Bases from Closure​
• Six Fascinating Facts About the Future of Religion​

The Star Wars movies are available today for digital purchase on services like iTunes, Google Play and Amazon Instant Video for the first time. For $89.99 you can own two and a half good movies, and then hours of other stuff George Lucas also made, now featuring nine additional hours of bonus features. 

That purchase price might be palatable to some fans, but seems a lot to charge as a promotional tool ahead of this December's new J.J. Abrams-directed installment in the franchise, now owned by The Walt Disney Company. Especially considering the franchise has already earned something on the order of $27 billion across its various outlets.

But most of that went directly to Lucasfilm, before Disney completed its purchase. Along with its Marvel revenues, Disney should see quite the revenue bump from the sci-fi/fantasy world this year, with The Avengers: Age of Ultron, the sequel to the third-highest grossing movie ever, opening next month, followed by Star Wars: Episode VII in November.

While there are probably some people out there who have no idea what it means to ask "who shot first?", those people are not likely to pay $90 to find out. And for those fans who do know, it seems the new digital versions still have the wrong answer.

If, for some reason, you’ve ever wanted to induce a diabetic coma, tomorrow might be the time to do it.

7-Eleven, the chain of convenience stores most favored by packs of high-school layabouts who aren’t yet old enough to hang out in bars, is holding a promotion called “Bring Your Own Cup Day” tomorrow, April 11.

What is it? Glad you asked. Bring Your Own Cup Day (or #BYOC if you’re on the Twitters) is a Bacchanalian feast of excess where customers bring a watertight vessel to their nearest 7-Eleven, smack $1.50 on the counter, and fill said vessel with the Slurpee of their choosing.

Related: 10 Best Fast Food Restaurants in America

There are limitations though, so hold your hedonistic horses. Whatever container you choose to use must be non-porous, so no baseball caps or fedoras. Also, whatever container you bring must be able to fit through a 10-inch diameter hole – so put that oil drum back in the basement. Even with the size limitations, you could still be getting a deal – USA Today posits that a cup that just makes the cut could hold a gallon of 7-Eleven’s finest sugar water.

According to 7-Eleven’s VP of marketing, Laura Gordon, the event is being presented as a “Summer Kickoff,” which seems a little optimistic considering the fact that it’s foggy, 48 degrees Fahrenheit, and drizzling right now in New York City. Still, who am I to judge? Maybe the gods will look favorably upon 7-Eleven’s offering, and bring a day of sunshine, Slurpees, and nothing but syrup:

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times:

• The Long, Slow Death of Cable Just Reached a Tipping Point
• The App-Selling Power of Kate Upton’s Cleavage
• 10 Biggest Tech Flops of the Century​

The Apple Watch is Apple's first entry into an entirely new product category in about five years, and it’s come under much scrutiny during the process of its development and unveiling. Reviewers have finally got ahold of the device and have released a glut of early evaluations. The consensus: The Apple Watch is great — definitely better than most, if not all, of its predecessors — but with some caveats potential buyers should keep in mind. Most critics so far agree that the device seems superfluous, tricky to use, and a little silly at first — but then it quickly grows on you. Reviewers like The New York Times's Farhad Manjoo, The Wall Street Journal's Joanna Stern and The Verge's Nilay Patel have extended cautious thumbs up for the product, but still warn that it’s a flawed device that may not be right for buyers just yet. Here are six reasons why the reviewers are hesitant — and perhaps you should be, too:

1. The Cost
The Apple Watch costs a pretty penny: The cheapest model clocks in at $349, with prices for fancier models going all the way up to an ultra-exclusive $17,000. At those prices, you want a device that does a lot more than look cool. “You only get a charging cable, which is lame,” Patel wrote. “For $700, you should get a nice charging stand, like you get with the $249 Moto 360. Apple makes a stand, but it only comes with the $10,000-and-up Apple Watch Edition models. Crazy.”
Watch It: As was the case with the original iPhone, the high price might be part of the appeal for some show-offs. As Joanna Stern says in her review: "After over a week of living with Apple’s latest gadget on my wrist, I realized the company isn’t just selling some wrist-worn computer, it’s selling good looks and coolness, with some bonus computer features."

Related: Apple Watch Could Be Apple’s First Major Flop This Century

2. The Learning Curve
A surprisingly common complaint was the apparent lack of out-of-the-box workability, with many reviewers claiming that it took them several days of tweaking to get things going just right. Said Manjoo: "Indeed, to a degree unusual for a new Apple device, the Watch is not suited for tech novices." Bear in mind, too, that this is an experienced tech writer who has presumably seen way more than his fair share of badly implemented devices with limited documentation, so if he had to spend time tweaking things, you can bet that your average out-of-the-box, "it just works" Apple user is going to be utterly baffled. Give it a year or so, and they'll have ironed out all the kinks and streamlined things a bit.
Watch It: Tech writers may be more critical than the average buyer, and less wowed by Apple’s cool factor. Early adopters in particular may be willing to scale the learning curve while Apple makes improvements for next generations of the Watch.

3. Battery Life Should Be Better
The Watch is on your wrist — it's always there and is intended to consistently be in use — but reviewers have found that the Apple Watch’s charge ran low after a day of heavy use. Stern’s barely managed to last the course of a full day, and that was while leaning on its "power saving mode," which cut features and dimmed the backlight. “Do you want another tiny computer in your life that you have to worry about and charge every day?” Patel asked.
Watch It: Hey, how often do you charge your smatphone? Is it such a big deal to plug in the device at night while we all wait for battery life to improve across all our devices?

Related: 10 Biggest Tech Flops of the Century

4. It's Painfully Slow
Here’s how Patel at The Verge summed it up: "There’s no getting around it, no way to talk about all of its interface ideas and obvious potential and hints of genius without noting that sometimes it stutters loading notifications. Sometimes pulling location information and data from your iPhone over Bluetooth and Wi-Fi takes a long time. Sometimes apps take forever to load, and sometimes third-party apps never really load at all. Sometimes it’s just unresponsive for a few seconds while it thinks and then it comes back."
Watch It: Apple has already claimed that it will be releasing a series of updates to address these issues. Of course, future generations of the Watch will undoubtedly come with hardware improvements as Moore's Law threatens to overtake us all.

5. It's Not Yet Ubiquitous Enough to Be Needed
The marketing of the Apple Watch frames it as a time-saving panacea: Swipe it at an Apple Pay-enabled checkout counter and complete your purchase without having to whip out your wallet; tap it against a hotel room door to gain entry without fussing with a keycard; or hail an Uber with a quick wrist-call to Siri. The thing is, none of those things have been put in place yet, at least not on a universal scale, so for now the Watch mainly serves to tell the time, browse Twitter, check e-mails and remind you of appointments. There are plenty of other devices that can handle that in the interim.
Watch It: Much like the slow takeover of the smartphone, though, we'll probably see an increased adoption of the technology as developers scope out the market and adoption grows. Have you checked out the App Store lately?

Related: What the Apple Watch Will Do for Apple

6. The Backlash
It's the curse that befalls all early adopters in the wearables industry: No matter how cool or slick a product may be, it’s kinda hard to wear out in public without attracting stares. Early adopters of Google Glass faced similar issues, becoming the unfortunate targets of the derogatory pseudonym "Glassholes." When the day-one fanboys start sitting on public transit, talking into their wrists like a low-budget Dick Tracy, it's hard to imagine they won't come under some kind of ridicule. If you think you can handle a bit of mockery and attention, more power to you.
Watch It: First off, Apple has made a concerted effort to make the Watch as aesthetically pleasing as possible at all points along the price spectrum. Second, those stares and questions are part of the appeal for some buyers. And even if you aren’t looking for added attention, it might not be long before the Apple Watch just becomes part of our everyday scenery. How many people are still asking to look at your iPhone 6 Plus?

Top Reads From The Fiscal Times:

• The App-Selling Power of Kate Upton’s Cleavage
• 15 of the Most Valuable Beanie Babies​​​
• Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise​

It’s not just Wall Street bankers, hedge fund traders and corporate raiders who will join the one percent.    Nope.  By now you may have heard that the new look of affluence in America is kind of… girly. The 7^th Fidelity Millionaire Outlook found that today’s emerging high rollers are 66 percent female and 25 percent non-white. 

The Fidelity Outlook identified 6 wealth-building traits that multi-millionaires have in common: Their starting point—a mere $250,000 in assets. 

Related: Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise

1   Time Horizon: On average, emerging affluent investors are just 40 years of age with 27 years left before they reach the normal retirement age of 67. Only one percent of the emerging affluent is retired.

2.   Career: Many of the emerging affluent have pursued similar professions to today’s millionaires, including information technology, finance and accounting. While they might be at lower-level positions than millionaires, they have a number of years in front of them to move up the ladder.

3.   Income: At $125,000, the median annual household income for the emerging affluent is 2.5X the median U.S. household income⁸ and is nearing the income of today’s millionaires ($200,000 for those still employed). 

Related: The 10 Best States for Taxes in 2015​​​ 

4.   Self-Made Status: Approximately eight in 10 emerging affluent investors have earned or increased their assets on their own, a trait they share with millionaires and deca-millionaires.

5.   Long-Term Focus: The emerging affluent share millionaires’ long-term focus, with three in four of both groups focused on the long-term growth of their assets, and three in 10 focused on supporting the lifestyle they want in retirement.

6.   Investing Style: Similar to deca-millionaires, the emerging affluent display a willingness to invest aggressively to help maximize returns, as well as a willingness to set aside a significant portion of their portfolio for riskier investments that promise a bigger payoff. The emerging affluent and deca-millionaires were also most likely to describe themselves as “self-directed” investors, seeking hands-on involvement with their investments.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• The 10 Worst States For Paying Taxes
• 6 Popular Social Security Myths Busted​
• The Worst States For Retirement in 2015​

Arthur Caplan, one of America’s top medical ethicists, is worried about pollution. Not the kind that ruins our oceans or makes it hard for us to breathe, but the kind that poses a threat to the “trustworthiness, utility, and value of science and medicine.”

Caplan, who directs the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, wrote a blistering essay in last week’s Mayo Clinic Proceedings, saying, "The pollution of science and medicine by plagiarism, fraud, and predatory publishing is corroding the reliability of research. Yet neither the leadership nor those who rely on the truth of science and medicine are sounding the alarm loudly or moving to fix the problem with appropriate energy."

He goes on to cite three causes of publication pollution, which can undermine these areas of “hard science” that should be sacrosanct.

• The proliferation of journals that recruit authors who pay to get their articles published. Despite having substandard or no peer view, these "predatory publishers" now comprise an estimated 25 percent of all open-access journals. "Not only do they provide opportunities for the unscrupulous in academia and industry to pad their curriculum vitaes and bibliographies with bogus articles and editorial appointments, they also make it difficult for those involved in the assessment and promotion of scholars to discern value from junk," writes Dr. Caplan.
• Research misconduct, like falsifying or fabricating data or concealing serious violations. Fourteen percent of scientists report that their colleagues falsify data, and 72 percent report other questionable practices, according to one 2009 study published in PLoS One.
• Plagiarism, which, according to a 2010 Nature article was "staggering," requiring editors to spend "inordinate amounts of time" checking submissions they receive.

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• The Biggest Outrage in Atlanta’s Crazy Teacher Cheating Case​​
• $45 Billion in Tax Dollars Goes Missing in Afghanistan​​
• How Dark Money Is Distorting Politics and Undermining Democracy​

That loose change in your pocket really adds up…for the government: The Transportation Security Administration collected $674,841.06 in quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies left behind by busy travelers at airport security in fiscal 2014.

In 2005, Congress allowed the TSA to put unclaimed money toward its security operations. The agency says it “makes every effort to reunite passengers with items left behind at the checkpoint, however there are instances where loose change or other items are left behind and unclaimed.” That money is turned into the TSA’s financial office.

Related: 10 Outrageous Items Confiscated by the TSA in 2014

The amount collected has been climbing each year since 2010. The 2014 total is almost $37,000 more than the agency collected the previous year and nearly $300,000 more than was left behind in 2008. In all, over the past seven years travelers have gifted the TSA $3,557,538.39.

Yes, that’s $3.5 million in spare change the agency has added to its coffers courtesy of harried travelers.

Maybe the yearly total have been climbing because travelers are increasingly engrossed with their smartphones, or maybe it’s a sign that the economy has perked up a bit so they no longer care to scoop up those nickels and dimes. Maybe it’s just that getting through a TSA checkpoint is such a hassle that travelers are willing to donate a few coins to be done with the process several seconds sooner.

Whatever the reason, here are the 20 airports where travelers left behind the most spare change in 2014:

Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:

• It Just Got Even Cheaper to Travel Overseas​
• How Many Agencies Does It Take to Change a Lightbulb?​
• The Government’s $125 Billion Slap in the Face to Taxpayers