Yes, NASA Is Launching 'Armageddon' Mission to Destroy an Asteroid
As if from a scene in a doomsday movie, real life Earth-bound space experts will take to their workstations in November 2021 to launch a small, golf-cart-sized spacecraft into space with the hopes that it will knock a looming asteroid off of its orbit. Except in this case, the asteroid in question poses no imminent harm. The target is the near-Earth asteroid Didymos and its moonlet, Dimorphos, neither of which pose a direct threat to Earth. And its all part of a test mission to be conducted by NASA to test the capabilities for redirecting potentially hazardous asteroids in the future. NASA announced the upcoming Double Asteroid Reduction Test (DART) mission on Oct. 1 and news outlets like CBS dubbed it an Armageddon-like mission. But rest easy, there is no "Dottie" in sight. DART Armageddon-like mission  At the time of this writing, there are more than 26,000 near-Earth asteroids, nearly 10,000 of which are known to be larger than 450 feet and another 891 that measure a half-mile long. In the last month, NASA says that 14 known asteroids passed closer to Earth than the moon  a number that reaches 127 when counting back 365 days. Thats where NASAs Planetary Defense Coordination Office comes in. This branch is responsible for finding, tracking, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and objects, and this marks its first attempt at what is called the kinetic impactor technique, which sends a spacecraft like DART to the path of an asteroid to change its motion. NASAs Planetary Defense Coordination Office DART is our first full-scale attempt to demonstrate that we can change the motion of an asteroid in space, potentially as a way of defending Earth against the hazard of asteroid impacts, said Tom Statler, a DART scientist, in a podcast interview. podcast interview Asteroids orbit the sun like our home planet does, and when they are in their solar orbit, they do not come near Earths orbit or pose a threat. Asteroids that are potentially hazardous are those whose orbits intersect with Earths. To find those potential threats, telescopes around the world consistently scan the skies and collect data ultimately compiled by the International Astronomical Unions (IAU) Minor Planet Center. IAU then determines whether a detected moving object is an asteroid, calibrates its orbit, and figures whether it has the potential to make contact with Earth.    The key is to be able to find the asteroids on those Earth-intersecting trajectories, find them well in advance of any collision, and to take steps years ahead of time, not to destroy the asteroid -- don't need to do that; in many cases, we wouldn't be able to -- but just to prevent that collision from happening. And that's what we're going to do with DART. We're going to demonstrate one technology to cause that deflection that, someday, if we need to, we might use this technology to prevent an asteroid from hitting the Earth, explained Statler. The half-ton spacecraft will spend the better part of a year transiting to the binary asteroid system, Didymos, which is made up of two asteroids that orbit around each other. Just as the sun holds Earth in its orbit, the half-mile wide asteroid Didymos holds its football stadium-sized moon Dimorphos in orbit. DART is expected to run into the side of this small moon at a high velocity of 4 miles per second to change the motion of the binary asteroid, eventually slowing down and tightening up its orbit around the larger asteroid. Orbits are like donkeys, you pull them one way and they go the other way. So that's an aspect of this. You hit the thing to slow it down and it ends up going around faster, explained Statler.  Four sequential radar images of Didymos and its moonlet taken in November 2003. NASA  NASA   Currently, no known asteroid has a chance of impacting Earth in a century, according to Statler, but there could be some we havent yet discovered, and science is finding new ones all the time. And because scientists have been observing Didymos for decades, this natural laboratory will help researchers to determine whether systems like DART can move an asteroid and if so, by how much.  Two views of the DART spacecraft. NASA  NASA   The images DRACO returns of the target asteroid Dimorphos, including the last-second glimpse of its own impact site on the asteroid, will be crucial toward analyzing the results of the DART test and understanding how the asteroid was affected, wrote NASA in a news statement. news statement DART is scheduled to launch at 10:20 p.m. PST on Nov. 23 aboard a SpaceX Falcon rocket and ill be live-streamed from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The spacecraft will intercept Didymos moonlet in late September 2022 when Didymos is within 6.8 million miles of Earth. And yes, it will be visible to ground-based telescopes. live-streamed  Schematic of the DART mission shows the impact on the moonlet of asteroid Didymos. Post-impact observations from Earth-based telescopes would, in turn, measure the change in the moonlets orbit about the parent body. NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab  NASA   Sources DART. https://dart.jhuapl.edu/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021. Margetta, Robert. NASA Invites Media to Launch of Double Asteroid Redirection Test. NASA, 4 Oct. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-media-to-launch-of-double-asteroid-redirection-test. Moran, Norah. Ep 215: Redirecting Asteroids. NASA, 30 Sept. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/redirecting-asteroids. NASA to Launch Armageddon-Style Mission to Deliberately Crash into an Asteroids Moon and Test Planetary Defense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-dart-mission-crash-asteroid-moon-planetary-defense/. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021. Talbert, Tricia. DART Gets Its Wings with Innovative Solar Array Technology and Camera. NASA, 11 Aug. 2021, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/dart-gets-its-wings-spacecraft-integrated-with-innovative-solar-array-technology-and-camera. Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission. NASA, 30 June 2017, https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart. Planetary Defense. NASA, 21 Dec. 2015, https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense.
Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal have become something of a team, delivering a one-two punch for various economic development projects in Georgia, including metro Atlanta. Although the two line up on opposite sides of the political aisle, they have managed to put the D and R aside to work together on getting funding for Georgia ports, get a new football stadium built and get Porsche to move its North American headquarters close to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The relationship hascaught the eyeof politicos far and near as an example of how leadership should work. But that hasnt always been the case. And Reed noted this last month during the Governing Georgia Leadership Forum in downtown Atlanta. My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office, Reed said. But you would have thought previously that walk was a 10k. PolitiFact Georgia is always looking for an opportunity for a little fun and exercise. So we grabbed our pedometer and set out for a walk. At the Leadership Forum, Reed and Deal were co-presenters for a 30-minute session titled Shared Fortunes -- Building a Better Georgia. The description of the discussion said: the state's governor, a Republican, and the mayor of its largest city, a Democrat, discuss how they are working together to advance a common agenda. And to work together you have to be together. And being together includes office visits, so we set out to check the distance between them. Not depending on our math alone, we got out a pedometer for a more accurate step count. We walked the path from Reeds office in Atlanta City Hall to Deals office on the main floor of the Georgia State Capitol, and back again, twice. We began walking at a normal pace. But the mayor stands at 6feet, a full six inches taller than this PolitiFact Georgia reporter, so we extended our stride a bit. Our calculations found that Reed was correct. The distance from the governors office to the first step outside City Hall was 300 steps. Throw in the distance from the outside City Hall steps to Reeds actual office and the step count increases between 65 and 100 steps, depending on the route through the lobby, whether you take a short ramp or the few steps up to the main office level, and stride of the walker. To sum up, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said his office was about 300 steps from Gov. Nathan Deals office. Walking the path that the mayor is likely to take, it is 300 steps from Deals office to the bottom of the first step of Atlanta City Hall, where Reeds office is located. Walking all the way to the receptionist that sits just outside the mayors office adds additional steps, based on our calculations, which could make the mayors claim off by about one-third. Reeds overall point was that the political divide between he and Deal has closed. Based on their history of delivering economic development projects for the city and state, that statement is correct. But the mayor is off just a bit on his distance claim if you take his statement literally. We rated Reeds claim Mostly True. Texas House Speaker Joe Straus hinted at theTexas Houses derailed push for more state education aidby asserting that absent fresh action, Austin taxpayers can count on ponying up more than half a billion dollars to schools in other places this year. The San Antonio Republican prefaced his Austin-centric claim by rehashing his view that Texas overly relies on property taxes to fund the schools. Property taxes are going up, and more and more of those dollars are going to school districts in other parts of the state through the Robin Hood system, Straus said in anemail blastdistributed two days before the July 2017 special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Straus elaborated: School districts are expected to send away $2 billion through Robin Hood in the upcoming year. One district alone -- Austin ISD -- is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. Is that accurate? Straus was referring to the Robin Hood or recapture facet of state law designed for equalization purposes so districts with rich tax bases share revenue with less property-wealthy districts. In July 2017,  before Straus made his claim, the Texas Education Agencysaid that some $2 billion all told would be redistributedvia the share-the-wealth mechanism in 2017-18. In 2016,we found Truea claim by Travis County state Sen. Kirk Watson that in Austin, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture. That fact-check said the district for 2016-17 would be forwarding more than $400 million for schools elsewhere. Straus cites newspaper Asked how Straus reached the larger $530-million figure, a Straus spokesman, Jason Embry, said by email that Straus relied on a June 19, 2017, Austin American-Statesmannews storyabout the Austin districts board of trustees approving a nearly$1.5 billion budget for 2017-18. The story said the districts recapture payment this year is expected to be $534 million, an increase of 32 percent, or $127.8 million, over 2016-17. It quoted Nicole Conley, the districts chief financial officer, saying the district expects to pay more than $1 billion in recapture payments during the next two years. Austin school districts calculation When we reached out to the district, spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen specified that according to calculations taking into account expected student enrollment and tax collections, Austins estimated payments would total $533,874,730 for the 2017-18 school year. She emailed us the districts calculations,viewable here. Another district spokeswoman, Tiffany Young, sent an email pointing out a May 2017 district chart suggesting its recapture payments could top $800 million by the 2020-21 school year: SOURCE: Document,FY2018 Recommended Budget,Austin Independent School District, May 2017 (web link received by email from Tiffany Young, senior communication specialist, AISD, July 17, 2017) States preliminary analysis We also asked the Texas Education Agency how much the Austin district will be expected to forward in recapture money in 2017-18. By email, Lauren Callahan guided us to an agency estimate, last updated June 21, 2017, of $513,633,317. Thats $20 million less than the districts announced estimate. But Callahan also cautioned that the state figure is preliminary and likely to increase depending on the districts tax rate. Callahan wrote: We use different estimates of local property tax collections as well as different estimates of student counts, both of which affect the estimate of recapture. Our numbers tie together when all final data is reconciled. Our ruling Straus said the Austin district is expected to lose more than $530 million in local property taxes to Robin Hood this year. As of May 2017, the Austin district estimated that in 2017-18 it would flow nearly $534 million in local property tax revenue through the states school finance system, nicknamed Robin Hood, to help equalize school funding across the state. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. The Raimondo administration wants to see more efficiency when it comes to spending on Medicaid, the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor and people with disabilities. Roughly every dollar spent by the state is matched by the federal government. Duringa March 2, 2015, presentationto the Reinventing Medicaid Working Group, the state's secretary for health and human services, Elizabeth Roberts,displayed a slidewhich said that nearly a third of all state tax dollars goes to Medicaid. More than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid, the slide said. It also contained a pie chart in which Medicaid is shown eating up 31.5 percent of those tax dollars. The slide lists the source as the state budget for the 2013 fiscal year. But on March 31, 2015, groups that want to create a single-payer health insurance system in the statechallenged that statistic and othersbeing used by the Raimondo administration in itspush for Medicaid reform. The Rhode Island chapters of Physicians for a National Health Program and HealthCare Now said the actual percentage isn't 31.5 for fiscal 2013, but closer to 22. We decided to see who was correct. Because Roberts specifically mentioned state tax dollars, for this fact check, we will only look at general revenue funds raised by the state, not federal funds shared with the state or restricted funds. When we contacted Roberts' office, spokesman Michael Raia said the source of the information was listed incorrectly. The 31.5 percent is based on the current fiscal year of 2015. According to data from the House Finance committee, this year the state is slated tospend $1.084 billionof its unrestricted money on Medicaid. That's 31.5 percent of the$3.445 billion in general revenue funds. (The state budget enacted that year totaled $8.78 billion, including restricted revenue and federal money for Medicaid and other things.) That made us curious. What were the numbers in 2013, the year cited incorrectly by Roberts? The Rhode Island Health Care Association, one of the groups questioning the numbers, referred us to the executive summary ofGov. Lincoln Chafee's budget for the 2015 fiscal year. Page A-5 listed $3.216 billion in general revenue for that year and page 71 of the budget'stechnical appendixsays the Office of Health and Human Services (OHHS) actually received $772 million from the general fund. That would be 24 percent, close to what the critics claimed. But in the 2013 enacted budget,20 percent of the state's Medicaid money was spent by other departments, including Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) and the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). That makes the 24 percent too low. When all of the states spending for Medicaid out of its general revenues is accounted for, the percentage comes out to around 31 percent. Our ruling Roberts said more than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid. She cited a specific percentage of 31.5 percent and said it came from the 2013 fiscal year. It's actually from the 2015 fiscal year. But the percentage from 2013 is very close to that. Roberts may have gotten the source year wrong, but it turns out that either year produces the same result. We rate her statement asTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) In May 2022, after the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion showed that the justices were set to overturn Roe v. Wade, a piece of text supposedly written by a pastor named Dave Barnhart about how the "the unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for" was widely circulated on social media: the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion widely circulated  This message was truly written by the pastor. Barnhart, who is a pastor at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, first posted this message to his Facebook page in 2018. At the time, Alabama politicians were in the process of passing an amendment to the state's constitution that would "recognize the rights of the unborn" in order to ensure that "state funds [would] not go to funding abortion care," according to AL.com. was truly written posted this message to his Facebook page in 2018 according to AL.com The full text of Barnhart's Facebook post read:  "The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. Some of the most popular iterations of this quote introduced Barnhart as a "traditional Christian" pastor. Other versions introduced Barnhart as a "Methodist pastor" or simply a "pastor." Barnhart operates a network of house churches called the Saint Junia United Methodist Church. Saint Junia United Methodist Church describes itself on its Facebook page as a "a diverse community of sinners, saints, and skeptics who join God in the renewal of all things." Methodist pastor pastor Facebook page After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldnt stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water.Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase.While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TVs 10 News Conference on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they werent out of line.For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge  I dont think thats an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island, Licht said.Could the fees atstate beachesstill be lower than town beaches  even if doubled?When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governors spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us wed hear back by the next day.While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season.Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. And there are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents and seniors. (The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey. )We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents -- who dont live in beach communities -- would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, theyd all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, theyd pay that communitys non-resident fee.The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Comptons South Shore Beach. Middletowns Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newports Eastons Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly.So how does the states proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach, on the Sakonnet River.So far, so good for Licht.But what about daily fees? (Remember, were comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents. )Lets begin with weekdays.The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10.Three towns -- Warren, Bristol and Tiverton -- charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6 and Portsmouth charges $7.Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns -- Barrington and North Kingstown -- dont allow non-residents to park at their beaches.So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners.On weekends and holidays, the states new fee would be $14 -- less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns.So when Licht says the new state fees are less than some of the town beaches, we cant  disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances.We wont kick any sand at Licht on this one. We rate his claimTrue. As President Donald Trump weighed imposing tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, some commentators have warned that this would be a misguided approach. Noah Smith, a columnist for Bloomberg View and a former finance professor, wrote acolumnin which he noted, among other things, that a crucial issue facing metals-producing industries isnt foreign competition  its automation. Tariffs, Smith wrote, wont bring back good jobs at steel and aluminum factories. Since 1990, production of metals in the U.S. has held roughly constant, but the number of people employed in the industry has fallen steadily. Thats due to technological improvements, he wrote: Productivity has improved, even as demand has stayed more or less constant. Mathematically, that means fewer jobs for steel and aluminum workers. Tariffs wont change that equation. If anything, by hurting downstream industries like car and equipment manufacturers, the new import taxes will probably kill more factory jobs than they save. We cant predict what will happen in the future, but we wondered whether Smith is right about the trend lines for production and employment in the American metals-producing sector since 1990. And when we took a closer look, we found that hes on target. We found data for employment in the primary metals-producing sector, which incorporates five subcategories: iron and steel mills, steel product manufacturing from purchased steel, aluminum production and processing, production and processing of metals other than iron and aluminum, and foundries. Employment levels in this sector have declined reasonably steadily since 1990, despite a period of stable employment during the late 1990s, a sharp but temporary fall during the Great Recession, and a modest uptick over the past year or two in which metals employment growth has outpaced that of the overall economy, said Jed Kolko, chief economist at the jobs site Indeed.com. Overall, since 1990, employment has declined by about 42 percent. At the same time, production in primary metals has remained roughly the same since 1990 except for the Great Recession. For most of that period, production has ranged between 90 percent and 110 percent of the benchmark level (the amount produced in 2012): If you put these two statistics together, the overall pattern becomes clear: As production stays roughly the same and as fewer workers make it happen, productivity rises over time. The idea that steel in particular has experienced a productivity revolution due to technology is the same story I have been telling since the early 1990s, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. The basic story is that one person can produce a lot more metal today than he or she could produce a few decades ago. Burtless said he has a brother whos been working in the coke oven of a steel plant since the mid 1970s and who has seen first-hand the dramatic reduction in person-power needed to keep integrated steel mills running at full capacity  as well as improvements in quality. Michael J. Hicks, the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, agreed that Smiths analysis is on target. I would agree that the most likely cause of the productivity gains are technology, though I would interpret technology broadly to include not just machinery but the way that factories organize production, such as internal logistics and the reduction of redundant operations that might be enabled by technology, Hicks said. And J. Bradford Jensen, a professor of international business at Georgetown Universitys McDonough School of Business, added that imports did have something to do with the loss of employment in steel and aluminum, but the more important factor is technological change and productivity growth, he said. Tariffs won't change that, much like relaxing regulations on coal and pollution will not bring back many coal-mining jobs, he said. Smith wrote, Since 1990, production of metals in the U.S. has held roughly constant, but the number of people employed in the industry has fallen steadily. His numbers are solid, and experts agree that automation has done significant harm to employment levels in the metal industry. We rate the statement True. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. An Orlando businessman vying for Marco Rubios soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat announced his candidacy by saying fresh blood is needed to change the worst economic climate the countrys ever faced. It's time to restore America's prominence both here at home and abroad, Todd Wilcox, a former Green Beret and CIA veteran, said in a statementannouncing his candidacyon July 8, 2015. The economy is growing at a dismal rate. More businesses are closing than are opening for the first time in our nation's history. The recent recession obviously has been an economic low point, but are the number of new businesses being eclipsed by the number of businesses closing for the first time ever? Well, its certainly true for as long as the government has been tracking that statistic. Beyond that is anyones guess. Wilcox, a Republican, told PolitiFact he was citing aMay 2014 storyfrom theWashington Posts Wonkblog that said as much. The story was about a Brookings Institution study released that month called Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros, which examined business creation and destruction in the U.S. since 1978. The report said that business failures had held steady over most of that period, while business entries had steadily declined. Starting in 2008, the two points intersected for the first time in their 35-year history of the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsdata. The trend continued through 2011, the last year of available data in the study.The studys authors said they couldnt speak to the causes for this trend, which they called noteworthy and disturbing. But they noted that it is clear that these trends fit into a larger narrative of business consolidation occurring in the U.S. economy -- whatever the reason, older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. Where Wilcoxs claim falters is that the data isnt for the entire 239-year history of the United States, but just the 35 years examined in the study. The Business Dynamics Statistics database only has figures from 1976 to 2012. What truly happened prior to that is largely anyones guess, economists told PolitiFact. I am not aware of any standard measures before then. I suspect that other measures do exist, but I doubt that they are systematically measured, year in and year out, UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian said. While its possible there have been other periods of history where a similar trend has occurred, such as during the Great Depression, there is no dependable source of data measuring it, they said. Its somewhere between plausible and impossible to prove, said Robert Litman, one of the authors of the Brookings study. He suggested it would be more accurate to say that for the first time since the government began tracking these things, fails have exceeded starts. Our ruling Wilcox said, More businesses are closing than are opening for the first time in our nation's history. Hes right that more firms are now closing up shop than starting up, a trend that started in 2008. But the stat hes citing is from a study of a 35-year period from 1978 to 2011, not all of American history. The Census Bureau database used for that study has only been measuring entries and exits since the 1970s. Economists, including the studys author, told us Wilcox overreached a bit, because this trend may have happened before. There are no dependable sources of information to prove this is the first time this has occurred. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. A law professor running against U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of South Florida says she is in the pocket of big banks and isnt looking out for consumers who get crushed by debt from payday loans. My opponent, after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFTP) from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans, said Tim Canova on hiswebsite. Canova, a first-time candidate and professor at Nova Southeastern University, is challenging Wasserman Schultz in the August Democratic primary in a Broward/Miami-Dade district. The race has drawn national attention because Wasserman Schultz is the Democratic National Committee chair. Did Canova accurately describe her donations from banks and her votes related to payday loans and car loans? There is some truth to his attack, but each one requires explanation. Donations from Wall Street banks Canovas campaign pointed to donations from banks, securities/investment firms and finance/credit companies to Wasserman Schultzs campaign committee and her political action committee, or PAC. At PolitiFact Floridas request, the Center for Responsive Politics compiled the large individual donations (more than $200) and donations to her PAC starting with her 2006 election. The center found she received $309,020 from commercial banks, which represented about 2 percent of the total; $408,450 from securities/investment firms, and $325,850 from finance/credit companies. Her leadership PAC, Democrats Win Seats, received donations from the Goldman Sachs PAC:$5,000 in 2016and$10,000in 2014. Wasserman Schultz spokesman Sean Bartlett pointed to donations only to her campaign and plucked out what he said were the big bank donations. That totaled $15,400, including $4,000 from Goldman Sachs. But the Center for Responsive Politics shows a longer list of bank donations even if we only examine her campaign committee. It shows$171,303 for commercial bankindustry donations. Payday loan bill Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. It is a controversial industry that targets the poor and is disproportionately located in minority communities. For years, payday loans were unregulated by the federal government, although some states had their own laws. President Barack Obama took a step toward regulating the industry when he signed a bill in 2010 that included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have targeted the bureau for years. Enter some Democrats into the fray -- including Wasserman Schultz, who has gotten about $68,000 from payday lenders, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wasserman Schultz is among Florida lawmakers who have defended Floridas payday law despite the fact that some consumer advocates have bashed it and say it traps the poor in a debt cycle. Wasserman Schultzs position is to give precedence to the state law, her spokesman said. On the federal level, the bureau released anoutline of payday loan rulesin March 2015 and is expected to announce a more complete proposal within the next several months. Congress doesnt have to approve it but can introduce legislation to kill it. All but one member of Floridas congressional delegation (Tom Rooney) signed aletterin April 2015 pushing back against the proposed rules. Instead, they want the bureau to look at Floridas law as a model. That led U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, a Florida Republican, to file the Consumer Protection and Choice Act,H.R. 4018in November. Half of the 24 cosponsors are from Florida, including Wasserman Schultz, and nine of the cosponsors are Democrats. Canovas website said Wasserman Schultz voted on the bill, but it was only referred to a committee without a vote. (After we pointed that out to Canova senior adviser Richard Bell, the campaign changed the website to say co-sponsored instead of voted.) The bill states that if the bureau determines that a states law meets the federal requirements, then only state law will apply. It would also delay federal regulations for two years, which would allow states to come up with their own laws. More than 200 consumer or civil rights groups -- including the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, Southern Poverty Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America -- wrote aletterto Congress urging them to defeat the bill. They argued that the bill favors an industry-backed Florida law and would hurt consumers. Floridas 2001 payday loan law was a compromise and included protections that were intended to help the poor avoid an endless cycle of debt. But the loans leave consumers stuck on a debt treadmill in Florida, where they have racked up $2.5 billion in fees since 2005, according to the Center for Responsible Lendings Marchreport. In the past year, the average Florida payday loan had an annual rate of 278 percent. Richard Cordray, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, disputed Ross description of Floridas law as the gold standard during a congressional hearing on March 16. In Florida, these loans are still being made above the 300 percent, and they are being rolled over on average nine times, Cordraysaid. Bartlett argued that Wasserman Schultz has fought against abusive payday lending practices and pointed to her vote on a separate bill in 2015. She voted against HR 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, which opponents argued would have prevented the Justice Department from going after the financial industry. Racial discrimination in car loans Canova also said Wasserman Schultz prevented action to stop racial discrimination for car loans. This part of Canovas attack relates to a2013 bulletinfrom the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which recommended steps for auto lenders to avoid discrimination. The bulletin was intended to provide clarity about existing law. But theHouse of Representativespushed back against the bureau by passing a bill to nullify the bulletin. The bill passed the House 332-96 in November 2015 and hasnt had a vote in the Senate. Wasserman Schultz was one of 88 Democrats who voted in favor of it, while 96 Democrats opposed it. Proponentsof the bill -- including auto dealers -- said the bureaus efforts would increase costs for consumers. Groups that representedminoritieswanted the new guidelines. This legislation in no way prevented the CFPB from addressing racial discrimination in car loans, and the congresswoman does not support that as a policy position, her spokesman said. The bill hasnt been acted on, and discrimination investigations can continue. A few months after the House vote,Toyotaagreed to a $21.9 million settlement to black and Asian buyers. Our ruling Canova says Wasserman Schultz after taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, has voted to prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from regulating payday loans and addressing racial discrimination in car loans. Her campaign committee and PAC have taken $309,020 from commercial banks since her re-election campaign in 2006 -- about 2 percent of the total. That includes $15,000 in donations from Goldman Sachs to her leadership PAC. The payday loan bill hasnt had a vote in the House yet, although Wasserman Schultz is a co-sponsor. The bill would not prevent the bureau from regulating payday loans entirely, but it would cede power to the states, including Florida, which has its own payday law that some advocates have criticized as weak. She voted for a bill that squashed bureau guidelines that were intended to provide clarity about the law on racial discrimination related to car loans. We rate this claim Mostly True.