Did Travis Kelce Post Expletive About Trump on X?
On Feb. 12, 2024, a screenshot claimed to show a post from Travis Kelce's official X account that said, "How about this: I'll keep playing American football and Donald Trump can keep sucking Russian d***." The screenshotted post was an apparent response to former U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting that he had once threatened to encourage Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO allies. screenshot suggesting Shared by X account @FaithRubPol, the screenshot had the caption, "Travis Kelce SLAMS Trump over his NATO comments." (Screenshot via X) The above screenshot is fake and was shared by an account that describes itself as satirical in nature. As such, we rate it as "Labeled Satire." describes The X account @FaithRubPol's description states: "Most of the images we share are parodies." The screenshot also has the label "Parody by Back Rub." description We also found no evidence on Kelce's official account that he ever made such a statement. Furthermore, the account handle in the screenshot does not belong to Kelce. Kelce's real X account is @tkelce, while the screenshot shows the handle @tkelpe. @tkelce During a campaign rally on Feb. 10, 2024, Trump generated controversy when he said he would "encourage" Russia to attack "delinquent" NATO member states. He suggested he would not abide by the alliance's collective-defense clause  which states that if an ally is attacked it is considered an attack on all members  if that ally was not meeting defense spending obligations. said He cited a conversation from his time as president with an unnamed world leader: cited One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay, you're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened." "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills." In sum, the above post is satirical in nature and completely fake. For background, here iswhywe sometimes write about satire/humor. why Haberman, Maggie, and Jonathan Swan. "G.O.P. Officials, Once Critical, Stand by Trump After NATO Comments." The New York Times, 12 Feb. 2024. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/politics/trump-nato-republicans.html.Accessed 13 Feb. 2024. Knutson, Jacob. "How Trump's NATO Comments Escalate His Disdain for America's Allies." Axios, 12 Feb. 2024, https://www.axios.com/2024/02/12/trump-nato-history. Accessed 13 Feb. 2024.
Claim:  At the end of 2009, Bank of America will be dropping FDIC coverage on all interest-bearing accounts.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, December 2009] Bank of America, the largest bank in the U.S., posted notices attall branches that as of January 1, 2010 it will no long participate in the FDIC insurance guarantee program on interest bearing accounts. As of January 1, 2010, all deposits in interest bearing accounts will not be protected from bank losses. This development not only suggests that the FDIC is totally insolvent, It suggests that U.S. fiat money, placed in interest bearing accounts, will soon be defaulted in bank losses or replaced. How many other banks will quickly follow?  Origins:  After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system. The FDIC currently provides federal government guarantees of deposits up to $250,000 per account holder per bank (subject to certain conditions) at insured financial institutions.   FDIC If, as claimed above, Bank of America (the United States' largest commercial bank) were dropping out of the FDIC program, that would certainly be alarming news that would shatter consumer confidence, not just in Bank of America, but in the FDIC and the entire U.S. commercial banking system.  Fortunately, no such thing is happening. We made a trip to our local Bank of America branch, where a helpful assistant manager made us a photocopy of the sign referenced in the example quoted above and took the time to answer some questions about its provisions.  Here is exactly how the sign reads: Beginning January 1, 2010, Bank of America will no longer participate in the FDIC's Transaction Account Guarantee Program.  Thus, after December 31, 2009, funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will no longer be guaranteed in full under the Transaction Account Guarantee Program, but will be insured up to $250,000 under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules. The first item of importance is to note is that the change in question applies not to "interest bearing accounts" (e.g., savings accounts, certificates of deposit, individual retirement accounts, etc.) as claimed above, but only to noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (i.e., checking accounts). The second, larger item of importance is to note that Bank of America is not dropping FDIC insurance protection on any of its accounts.  It is merely winding down its participation in a temporary FDIC program that is already due to expire at the end of 2009. On 14 October 2008, the FDIC announced the implementation of its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), which included a program known as Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG). The TAG program guaranteed that the FDIC would  TAG provide full deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing deposit transaction accounts (primarily business checking accounts), regardless of their dollar amount.   In other words, TAG was extra insurance protection in addition to, and separate from, the $250,000 coverage available under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules  under TAG, a depositor who held, say, $2 million in a checking account was covered for the full $2 million amount, not just the first $250,000.  Bank of America will still be providing FDIC coverage for all accounts up to the standard $250,000 limit; it just won't be providing the extra TAG coverage that temporarily guaranteed noninterest-bearing accounts up to their full amounts beyond that $250,000 limit. Moreover, the reason Bank of America is dropping that extra coverage at the end of 2009 is because the TAG program was originally scheduled to expire on 31 December 2009.  The FDIC later announced it would provide participating institutions the choice of either opting out of TAG at the end of 2009 or of temporarily extending TAG coverage for another six months in exchange for increased fees.   Most of the largest banks in the U.S. (including Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo) have chosen to opt out of the program rather than pay the increased FDIC fees for extended temporary TAG coverage. expire Last updated:  20 December 2009 <!--    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002. Claim:  An Indiana Congressman is introducing legislation to change the name of Interstate 69. Status:  False. Example:  [Hoosier Gazette, 2004] John Hostettler, the Congressman representing the 8th district of Indiana, has been convinced by local religious groups to introduce legislation in the House that would change the name of an Interstate 69 extension to a more moral sounding number. There are plans to extend the interstate from Indianapolis through southwestern Indiana all the way through Texas into Mexico in the coming years.  While most believe this highway will be good for the states economy, religious conservatives believe "I-69" sounds too risqu and want to change the interstates number. [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  Despite   the disclaimer on the site of the Hoosier Gazette, a number of its satirical articles have been mistaken for real news (such as a report that a Kinsey Institute study found that having children lowers the IQ of parents).   disclaimer Hoosier Gazette report Now yet another entry from the Hoosier Gazette has made the news, this one proclaiming that Indiana Congressman John Hostettler is attempting to introduce legislation to rename Interstate 69 (because the pronunciation of its common abbreviation, I-69, sounds like a slang term for a sexual position).  The spoof has caused no small amount of consternation at Congressman Hostettler's office, where aides have been kept busy handling calls about the fictional legislation: entry John Hostettler Interstate 69 sexual position U.S. Rep. John Hostettler's office is fielding outraged calls about an Internet hoax that says he's proposed changing the name of Interstate 69 to Interstate 63 for religious reasons.  Hostettler spokesman Michael Jahr said Monday he had been fielding calls about the story all day.  "There is no truth in the story about any legislation changing the name of I-69," he said. "The Web site is satirical in nature, and any suggestion otherwise is absurd." The Hoosier Gazette has also published a sampling of responses to their I-69 article, many of them submitted by readers who didn't get the joke. responses Last updated:  21 November 2004    Sources:   Wehrman, Jessica.  "Hostettler's Office Fields Hoax Calls."   Evansville Courier & Press.  16 November 2004. Claim:  Former New York mayor Ed Koch delivered a radio address on anti-semitism.  Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] We are now going through the most virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin. Nearly 60 years after the end of World War II almost every country on the European continent, including England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, has seen major outbreaks of physical violence against their Jewish citizens, and against Jewish institutions, including synagogues and cemeteries. At the same time, open hostility toward the State of Israel is at an all-time high.  Only in the United States have we seen a full acceptance of Jews as citizens and the Jewish state treated as a friend and ally by an overwhelming number of fellow citizens. In the U.S., Jews have been permitted to rise and fall based on their individual talents, virtues and faults. In one elite bastion after another, Jews have been selected to head institutions heretofore seen as beyond their reach. Today the presidents of Harvard and Yale Universities are Jews, as are recent former presidents of Columbia and Princeton. Having been elected three times as mayor of the City of New York, I have been the beneficiary of this country's generosity and freedom from bigotry, and I will be eternally grateful.  Americans traditionally make New Years resolutions. Before I list my own resolutions, I want to thank President George W. Bush and his advisers, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for their support of the State of Israel. They could easily have jettisoned Israel as a liability in their efforts to forge an international coalition against worldwide terrorism. I will be forever grateful to them, and I hope that many other supporters of the State of Israel will recognize and appreciate what they have done.  Fortunately for Jews and the State of Israel, American support of the Jewish nation has been bipartisan. Particularly helpful has been the Democratic leadership in both houses including Senator Tom Daschle, outgoing Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many others on both sides of the political aisle who deserve similar praise.  In the religious sector, I am grateful to the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, both of whom have stood up time and again in support and defense of the Jewish nation. Regrettably, there have been many clergy who have unfairly attacked Israel for attempting to defend itself against near-daily terrorist acts against its citizens. We were made privy to the true thoughts of Rev. Billy Graham caught on tape telling President Nixon his real feelings about Jews and Israel. He has since apologized, but what is an apology without contrition and efforts to right the wrong done? Worthless.  Now to my personal New Years resolutions. I will avoid France as a place to vacation. France leads those countries in the Security Council who are the enemies of the State of Israel. So too is Mexico, joining as a consistent supporter of resolutions unfairly denouncing Israel at the U.N. Security Council.  I will not support National Public Radio in any way. NPRs reporters and management delight in unfairly attacking Israel.  I will no longer lend financial support to New Yorks Channel Thirteen public television station. That station recently showed a documentary that was blatantly biased against Israel and has refused to acknowledge the bias or to try to correct it.  I will not watch ABCs World News Tonight anchored by Peter Jennings. For many years, Jennings has specialized in vicious and unfair portrayals of Israel intended to injure the Jewish state and lionize Palestinians.  BBC News is horrifically anti-Israel and I will shun it completely.  Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel. I will no longer read her works.  Regrettably, there are many others whom I could include on this list, but I will leave that for another day. I must confess I got enormous pleasure from the defeat of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and her father in the recent primary elections in Georgia. In my view, both are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. No longer able to feed at the public trough, I doubt that either will make a comparable living in the private sector.  I must close now to get ready for my Chanukah and Christmas shopping. I enjoy celebrating those holidays with Jewish and Christian friends whose goodwill and affection I will always cherish. Origins:  Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989,   mayor  was a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio until his death in 2013.  On 7 December 2002, he delivered a commentary dealing with his perception that western society is experiencing its most"virulent anti-Semitic period since Hitler and Stalin" and offered a list of new year's resolutions regarding people and institutions he would shun for being anti-Israel.  Transcripts of that commentary (reproduced above) have since been posted to a variety of web sites. Bloomberg Radio Just to be sure this information was accurate, we contacted Bloomberg Radio for verification and received an affirmative response: Hello and thank you for your inquiry. Former Mayor Ed Koch is a regular commentator on Bloomberg Radio.  On 7 December 2002, Mr. Koch delivered a commentary on our "Bloomberg On the Weekend" broadcast in which he postulated a growing anti-semitism in America and elsewhere in the western world.  He asserted that public broadcasting  had an anti-Israeli attitude and declared he would no longer contribute.  I hope this answers your question, and I invite you to listen to us each weekend for Ed Koch and much more.   If you are in the greater New York area you will find us on Bloomberg Radio, WBBR, 1130 on your AM radio dial. Elsewhere we can be heard on the internet at http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio. http:/www.bloomberg.net/radio Sincerely,Wes Richards, Host. Last updated:  6 January 2014 Claim:  A 15-ton "giant shark," previously believed to be extinct (and a "a parent of the Megalodon") was captured off the coast of Pakistan by local fishermen.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September  2014] 15-Ton Prehistoric Shark Captured Off Coast Of Pakistan. Just seems sketchy in all aspects.   Origins:  On 24 September 2014, World News Daily Report published an article sure spark interest in shark fans. According to the site, a "parent" species of the famed Megalodon was captured off the coast of Pakistan, near Karachi. article Megalodon The undated article "quotes" a local marine biologist as surmising that "rising sea temperatures [are] forcing these beasts to come up closer to the shores," or perhaps the shark was "simply hurt and suffering from a disorienting handicap" after reporting: A giant prehistoric shark previously thought to be extinct for more than 20 million years has been captured by local fishermen off the coast of Pakistan, reports the Islamabad Herald this morning. The giant creature first thought to be a great white shark was rapidly declared by experts to be an unknown species of shark as its great weight and size were unheard of. Analysis of the teeth suggest the shark to be a parent of the Megalodon, an extinct species of shark that lived approximately 28 to 1.5 million years ago, during the Cenozoic Era. Given broad interest in the Megalodon, the "prehistoric shark" story quickly gained traction on social media sites.  Unfortunately, World News Daily Report is one of a number of "satire" news outlets, churning out passably believable articles to be shared on Facebook and Twitter. A disclaimer page on the main site states: disclaimer World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. In addition to the "prehistoric giant shark" story, World News Daily Report's featured daily articles include "Elderly Woman Vanishes During Magic Show" and "Homeless Man Sexually Assaulted By Top Models In Limousine."   Last updated:  25 September 2014 Claim:  The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds.  Status:  False. Examples:  [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course  what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more.  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins:  On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll.  The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes.  It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength  of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings.  The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.)  Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of  the officially reported 6.7).  Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure  the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe.  Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans.    Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure.  Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense  under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7.  The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones.  There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it.  Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with  questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed  FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information:        Federal Emergency Management Agency   (FEMA)        Earthquake Myths   (U.S. Geological Survey)   Last updated:  18 July 2007    Sources:   Harvey, Steve.  "Only in L.A."    Los Angeles Times.  2 March 1994  (p. B2).    Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin.  "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet."    Los Angeles Times.  23 October 1989  (p. A1).    Mitchell, Sean.  "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True."    Los Angeles Times.  24 November 1996  (Magazine, p. 32). In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A state senator opposed to a proposal intended to enable some children to attend private schools with government aid asserted that Texas already has a hard time keeping pace with other states. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, during an April 9, 2013, committee meeting that we in the state of Texas are 49th in the country in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. She added that she prefers to prioritize putting dollars into the public schools. A reader asked us to check that ranking. Senator cites newspaper report By email, Davis spokesman, Rick Svatora, told us she was referring to a report described in a Feb. 22, 2013,Dallas Morning Newsarticlestating that preliminary figures released by the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union, indicate Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year. The national average is $11,455, the report said, putting Texas per-student expenditures below every state save Arizona and Nevada. So, compared to other states, Texas reportedly ranks 48th in per-student spending. Then again, theNews story notes that the associations analysis also considered spending in District of Columbia schools, a consideration leaving Texas 49th in per-student spending among 51 jurisdictions. TheNews story said the associations comparisons, based on data furnished by state education agencies, are among the most reliable in the nation and are frequently cited by officials in Texas and other states. The NEA has been issuing its annual reports on public school spending since the early 1960s. Education association report We turned to the associations report, downloadablehere, finding the figures cited by the newspaper in Summary Table K, Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13, which indicates that Texas this year is spending less per student in average daily attendance (the aggregate attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of days school is in session that period) than all states but Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the report says these expenses include salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials and energy costs. A wrinkle: Part of the report says that in making useful comparisons among states, a different way of counting students, fall enrollment, is preferred to average daily attendance because of its standardized definition. Based on fall enrollment, the report says, Texas is spending an estimated $7,886 per pupil, less than every state except Utah and Arizona, according to Table K. So, it looks like two states trail Texas in per-pupil spending, either way you count students. For each state, Table K also lists current estimated expenditures for other programs, meaning such expenses as summer school and adult education, which are not part of regular public elementary and secondary day-school programs, the report says. The table also shows spending by each states schools on interest on debt and capital outlays, which conservative observers such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation have said should always be taken into account when making state-by-state comparisons. Considering all education-related expenditures When we checked asimilar Davis claimabout Texas spending on education in 2011, a foundation spokesman pointed out a March 2010 report by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute that reviewed 2008-09 budgets for districts in the nations five largest cities, including Houston, concluding that average per-pupil spending was 44 percent higher than was otherwise reported by public schools. Separately at the time, Frank Johnson, a statistician with the National Center for Education Statistics, told us the center doesnt take into account capital outlays in estimating per-pupil spending because such costs can create false assumptions about whats spent on instructional programs, school supplies and teachers. In the latest education association report, Table Ks last column presents each states total school spending, rolling in all subcategories. We wondered, then, how Texas stacks up by all expenditures per pupil. The report does not present such a calculation, so wemade our own run, dividing the total spending for each state by the states average daily attendance, as shown in the reports Summary Table D. And by this approach, it appears that more than $50 billion in total Texas school spending breaks out to nearly $11,090 per pupil, placing Texas 38th nationally, ahead of states including California, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona. By phone, a spokesman for the education associations Texas affiliate, the Texas State Teachers Association, suggested it doesnt make sense to roll in all expenditures because school districts have varied commitments to capital outlays and debt, while spending reflected in the presented per-pupil tallies are driven by legislative decisions about spending and finance formulas. Clay Robison followed up by email, saying that in many cases those expenditures pay to build football stadiums and other facilities, such as fine arts centers. I am not going to engage in the argument about football stadiums, but I dont think it gives a fair comparison of how much states are spending on students. In other words, capital costs lump new classroom construction, which benefits all students, with expenditures that dont apply to all students. Robison pointed out that according to the reports Table H-14, Texas spent $9,462 per pupil in 2010-11, which was before legislators cut education aid in the 2011 legislative session. This year, the associations report suggests, such spending is down by more than $1,000 per pupil from 2010-11. Our ruling Davis said Texas ranks 49th in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. A report drawing on states figures estimates Texas is spending $7,886 or $8,400 per student this year, depending on how students are counted. Both ways, Texas ranks third to last among the states. Then again, folding in capital outlays, other education expenditures and interest on debt, total estimated spending in Texas of nearly $11,090 per pupil lands the state 38th among the states. But the senator focused on state investment which, unlike locally determined debt and capital outlays, are driven by legislative actions. Our sense is that this is the appropriate comparison, though Davis failed to clarify that Texas is 49th by this yardstick in comparison to other states plus Washington, D.C., which is not a state. Absent this clarification, her claim rates as Mostly True. A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruzs comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to ablog poston txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. Every year, Cruz elaborated, we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS. Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president.But hed already calledfor a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman  Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew ona chartposted byThe Washington Postin 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE:Blog post,Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts,Wonkblog,The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citingCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) ThePostrelied on the Washington, D.C.-basedCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentswhere by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the militarys 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra, he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the militarys base budget doesnt include overseas contingencies. But its your rigged game, you make up any facts you want, Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around compliance costs, we reached out to certified public accountantConnie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us toJune 2011 testimonyon compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations costs taxpayers time and money, at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes. Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker atThe Washington Postawarded two Pinocchios toHouse Speaker John Boehners claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, thePostwrote, with the safest bet at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRSsTaxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes.Adjusting for inflation,that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again afternoticing Cruzmade his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didnt say what he meant by compliance costs  where hed draw the boundaries  an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayers basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities. For an individual, she said, its easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. When you try to aggregate that nationally, she said, its very difficult. She said she wouldnt be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruzs figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from anApril 2011 analysisby supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and aMay 2013 studyby researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual hidden costs of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. * Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the  time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes, filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, thePosts FactChecker called the Laffer study dubious, noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Services Tax Advocate  that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements  and got to its cost estimate by multiplying it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Centers study, led byJason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the average income used to monetize taxpayers time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates. For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection though the authors said they couldnt pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. Its not that one method is better than anotheror right versus wrong, Fichtner said. All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent. Heres a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003:                  Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruzs figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organizationthat saysits devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The unions April 2014report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRSs National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours  the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year. (The unionslatestlook at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruzs figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senators spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the militarys nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. In December 2022, a FedEx email scam was going around that claimed to be a "package delivery notification" from the company, which said, "Your package is held in our warehouse." The scam was being sent around at the same time that people across the world were ordering and receiving packages for gift-giving holidays. We previously looked at similar scams for UPS, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other package delivery companies. In fact, one of our previous stories about a FedEx package delivery email scam was published a decade ago. Needless to say, scammers have been doing this for a long time. UPS U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published According to a copy of the FedEx email scam that we reviewed, the message came from admin@america-groups.xyz. This was not an official FedEx email address.  The message read as follows: Your package delivery Notification ID#0164278468-735 'Fedex' admin@america-groups.xyz via walisdom.biz Important Message for (name)Your package delivery Notification FedEx  Order 29194773US Your package is held in our warehouse You have (1) package waiting for you in our warehouse, ready for delivery. Use your order number to track and receive your package! TRACK YOUR PACKAGE Order numberOrder 29194773US DeliveryExpected delivery: 1 - 2 days The tracking number was real, but the package associated with it had already been delivered in April 2022. The scammers sent the email in the hope that people might click the link, not look up the tracking number. We investigated the link in the email and found that it was a phishing scam, meaning that the scammers were looking to obtain personal information and financial data. The link in the scam email led to the URL, storage.googleapis.com/pemotion/tixrin.html, which was followed by a long string of additional code that likely was for the scammers' own tracking purposes. Upon clicking on the URL, we were led to mooltay.com, then redirected toponnel.com, a website that displayed an "Express" logo without the word "Federal" in front of it.  On the ponnel.com scam website, we were guided through a series of questions about the supposed package delivery issue. One step falsely claimed that there would be a $1.95 charge to release the nonexistent package from a customs distribution hub.  At the end of the steps, the ponnel.com website redirected to webwinnalists.com, a page that asked for personal information and a credit card number. We strongly advise against giving any of these websites your data. On FedEx.com, one of the scams the company advises that its customers be on the lookout for was, "Unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package, often with a sense of urgency." That's exactly what this FedEx email scam for a "package delivery notification" was all about. FedEx.com By email, FedEx shared the following statement with us: FedEx does not send unsolicited text messages or emails to customers requesting money or package or personal information. Unfortunately, scammers often invoke the names of trusted brands when attempting to take advantage of the public and FedEx is one of many companies whose brand has been abused in this way. Any suspicious text messages or emails should be deleted without being opened and reported toabuse@fedex.com. For more tips on detecting online scams, visit the FedEx Customer Protection Center athttps://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud. abuse@fedex.com https://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud This story will be updated if further details come to light. Source: "Recognize & Report Fraud." FedEx.com, https://www.fedex.com/en-us/trust-center/report-fraud.html. Dec. 14, 2022: This story was updated to add a statement from FedEx. Californiasworkforce of 19 millionis spread across distinct metro regions, from tech-heavy Silicon Valley to the agricultural powerhouses of Fresno and Bakersfield, to the movie studios of Los Angeles. Less talked about are the nearly two million who work in the states Inland Empire. Its home to more than 4.5 million people in sprawling San Bernardino and Riverside counties east of Los Angeles. Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor, recently claimed this region of high desert and valley communities is among the leaders in California job growth. The Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California, Newsom said in an interview on MSNBCsMorning Joeon July 12, 2017. Its about logistics, warehousing, transportation. Newsom makes his claim at about the 2:00 minute mark above. We took Newsoms statement to mean the Inland Empire has the states second fastest job growth rate because the lieutenant governor went on to talk about statewide job growth immediately after making this claim. Newsoms comments follow Gov. Jerry Browns recent claim on NBCsMeet the Pressthat Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. We examined that claim and rated itMostly True. Still, we wondered whether Newsom was right. We set out on a fact check. Our research Asked for evidence to support the claim, Newsoms spokesman cited research from John Husing, chief economist with the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. The industry group advocates for jobs creation in the region. The spokesman specifically pointed to a section of HusingsApril 2017report that found the Inland Empires 3.47% growth rate in 2016 was second to San Francisco (4.16%). The report went on to say the region added the second most total jobs of any in the state, 47,500, behind Los Angeles 109,000 and ahead of San Franciscos 43,800. These figures back up Newsoms claim. His statement also holds when looking at job growth rates over the past five years. In April 2017, Jeffrey Michael, director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, compiled data showing job growth rates by metro area. The Inland Empire had the fastest job growth rate over the past year at that time, 3.2 percent, and the second fastest rate, 22.3 percent, over the past five years. The economists analyzed data from the California Employment Development Department. Types of jobs Newsoms claim about the rapid pace of job growth appears on the money. But what about the type of jobs he described: logistics, warehousing, transportation ? Husing told us this description was also on the right track. With the explosion of e-commerce, developers have seized on the Inland Empires vast and affordable stretches of land to build warehouses for products shipped through ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach. More than 60,600 distribution and transportation jobs have been added in the Inland Empire since its rebound from the Great Recession in 2010, Husing said. In addition, nearly 46,000 construction jobs; about 25,000 healthcare jobs and 15,000 manufacturing positions have been created. Logistics, transportation and construction are overwhelmingly the sectors that are driving the growth, the economist said. Husing described most of these positions as blue collar jobs. In April, Husing described in more depth the Inland Empires wage picture. He said it had a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. But, he said, the region was outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Our ruling Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently claimed the Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California. We took Newsoms claim to mean it has the second fastest job growth rate. Data compiled by two leading economists back up Newsoms assertion. It shows the Inland Empires nearly 3.5 percent jobs growth rate in 2016 was second only to San Franciscos 4.16 percent. Figures over the past five years show the Inland Empire grew jobs at 22.3 percent, again second only to the San Francisco market. The lieutenant governor was also correct to describe these Inland Empire jobs as based in the transportation and distribution sectors, based on data from the economists. We rate Newsoms 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.