Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
--------
Question: As the stock market plunged on Monday  taking the Dow Jones industrial average down almost 1 600 points intraday   CNBC's Jim Cramer  wanted to help investors assess the drop.
"I hate to sound glib here  but ... we were due for a decline. We just were " the "Mad Money" host said. "Markets do not go up in a straight line. "
"Despite the large  scary red numbers you see on your screen  the truth is that these things happen. You've got to be ready for them ... at all times  " Cramer  said.
First   Cramer  analyzed the causes of the sell-off. Bullish exuberance  rising interest rates  declines in key stock sectors and weak-handed shareholders all contributed to the losses  but Europe really "got the ball rolling "  he  said.

Answer: Cramer Remix: The 5 events that triggered the massive sell


Question: Scott Pruitt  Declares War on Wind and Solar Energy  While Fossil Fuels Get Billions in Subsidies
 Scott Pruitt  speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor  Maryland  on February 25  2017.
Photo Credit:  Gage Skidmore/Flickr
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt  recently proposed eliminating federal tax credits for wind and solar power  arguing that  they  should âstand on  their  own and compete against coal and natural gas and other sourcesâ as opposed to âbeing propped up by tax incentives and other types of credits....â
Stand on  their  own?
 Pruitt  surely must be aware that fossil fuels have been feasting at the government trough for at least 100 years. Renewables  by comparison  have received support only since the mid-1990s and  until recently  have had to subsist on scraps.
Perhaps a review of the facts can set  Administrator Pruitt  straight. Thereâs a strong case to be made that Congress should terminate subsidies for fossil fuels and extend them for renewables  not the other way around.
A new study by Oil Change International brings us up-to-date. Published earlier this month  it found that federal subsidies in 2015 and 2016 averaged $10.9 billion a year for the oil and gas industry and $3.8 billion for the coal industry. By contrast  the wind industryâs so-called production tax credit  renewed by Congress in December 2015  amounted to $3.3 billion last year  according to a Congress Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate. Unlike the fossil fuel industryâs permanent subsidies  Congress has allowed the wind tax credit to expire six times in the last 20 years  and  it  is now set to decline incrementally until ending in 2020. Similarly  Congress fixed the solar industryâs investment tax credit at 30 percent of a projectâs cost through 2019  but reduced  it  to 10 percent for commercial projects and zeroed  it  out for residences by the end of 2021. The JCT estimates that the solar credit amounted to a $2.4-billion tax break last year. Totaling it up  fossil fuels â at $14.7 billion â still received two-and-a-half times more in federal support than solar and wind in 2016.

Answer: Scott Pruitt Declares War on Wind and Solar Energy While Fossil Fuels Get Billions in Subsidies


Question: Senator Elizabeth Warren (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
Donald Trumpâs taunts may turn out to be the least of  Elizabeth Warrenâs  problems if  her  refusal to apologize for  her  false claims of native American heritage angers the Left.
Since the issue was first raised during  her  2012 Senate election campaign   Senator Elizabeth Warren  has acted as if questions about  her  past claims of Native American ancestry were simply racist.  Her  assumption was that the more President Donald Trump called  her  âPocahontas â the better it was for  her   since his insults are a badge of honor on the left. But as  she  prepares for what looks like a run at the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination  it turns out the man in the White House is not the only one who thinks thereâs something fishy about  Warren âs attempt to brush off criticism of  her  fibs.
The fact that  Warren  has been involving  herself  in Native American issues and spoke to the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) earlier this month is a tipoff that  she  is thinking about more than what will be a cakewalk to reelection in Massachusetts this fall. The Native American controversy is a potential liability  and not just because Republicans will never let  her  forget about it. In what is likely to be a brutally competitive 2020 Democratic race with a large field of candidates  for the first time   she  can expect some fellow Democrats to chime in about  her  past claims.
That ought to provide plenty of motivation for  Warren  to dispose of the issue  by apologizing for what  she  can call a misunderstanding based on what turned out to be a family myth. Simply saying youâre sorry and leaving it at that goes a long way toward silencing critics in any crisis. But it appears that  Warren  isnât choosing that path. Instead of putting the controversy to rest   Warren  has chosen to embrace it.
If it was only Trump calling  her  âFauxcahontas â  Warren  would probably have let the issue rest and relied on the willingness of the media and other liberals to label the president and anyone else lobbing the epithet at  her  as racists. But once  Warren  heard The Daily Showâs Trevor Noah mock  her  false claims of Cherokee ancestry   she  likely realized that Republicans werenât the only ones ready to finally hold  her  accountable for  her  decades-long pose as a minority. A similarly critical piece about the issue by a Cherokee activist  published on the left-wing ThinkProgress website  also made it clear that the cover  she âs received from fellow liberals on this point is vanishing. More important   she âll likely be facing off against actual minority candidates  such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker  in 2020  at which point the authenticity of  her  background will again become an issue.
 Her  solution was to give a series of interviews and speeches in which  she  admits that  her  past assertions cannot be backed up by the record  but continues to insist that  she  did no wrong  asserting that the notion of  her  Cherokee identity is a long-cherished part of  her  family lore that was handed down to  her . When  she  told the Boston Globe  âI know who I am â it came across as defiant.
The falseness of Warrenâs claims about  her  heritage seems clear by now. Though  Warren  keeps saying that  she  was told  her  motherâs family was part Cherokee and Delaware  there is no proof that this is true. Both genealogists and historians have examined the birth  marriage  and death records of  her  family and found no trace of either tribe. The tribal rolls also show no one in  her  family as having been a registered Cherokee or Delaware. Thatâs a point on which Native American activists have been assertive with respect to other whites seeking to gain either a fake minority status or access to some of the privileges or income available to tribal members in an era when casinos have become a lifeline for their communities.
While  Warren âs puzzling choice to try and have it both ways can be attributed to poor judgment  it also demonstrates the fatal appeal of identity politics on the left.
Faced with these inconvenient facts   Warren  appears to think a strategy in which  she  can be anointed as a sort of honorary Native American might serve to undermine any criticism. In  her  speech to the NCAI   Warren  admitted that  âYou wonât find my family members on any rolls  and Iâm not enrolled in a tribe. And I want to make something clear: I respect that distinction  I understand that tribal membership is determined by tribes  and only by tribes.â
Yet rather than leave it at that   Warren  didnât apologize for past claims of identity and then asserted that  she  had never used those claims to get ahead in  her  career  even though that is disputed.  She  also went on to say that whenever  she  is attacked for  her  past fibs in the future   she  would âuse it to lift up the story of your families and communities.â And indeed   she  has lately signed up to co-sponsor some bills of interest to Native Americans that were promulgated by other senators.
But at the same time   she  hasnât apologized for listing  herself  as a Native American during the course of  her  career as a law professor  which may have given  her  a leg up in the fierce competition for coveted spots on the Harvard Law School faculty. Nor has  she  stopped sticking to  her  unsubstantiated story about  her  fatherâs family opposing  her  parentsâ marriage because of  her  motherâs tribal ties;  she  even retold it during  her  speech to the NCAI.
While  Warren âs puzzling choice to try and have it both ways can be attributed to poor judgment  it also demonstrates the fatal appeal of identity politics on the left. In a political culture that prizes any link to victimization   Warren  still canât resist holding onto  her  past claims  even though a simple apology would seem the smarter move.
 Warren âs supporters point to the fact that Scott Brown   her  2012 Senate opponent  didnât seem to profit from his campaignâs emphasis on the âfake Indianâ issue. But once  she âs competing for liberal votes in Democratic primaries  rather than counting  as  she  did then  on  her  party uniting behind  her  no matter what the opposition says  it will be a very different story.  She âll likely discover that the game  she âs playing is a lot more dangerous on the national stage than it was in Massachusetts.

Answer:
Elizabeth Warren Native American Heritage Controversy a Vulnerability for 2020