Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign Articles of Impeachment?
On Jan. 15, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The signing ceremony was historic  it was only the third time in U.S. history that a president has been impeached. And, according to critics, the event was bit unusual because Pelosi used multiple pens to sign the documents and then handed the writing utensils out as souvenirs.  A rumor soon started to circulate on social media positing that the pens Pelosi had used had cost an obscene amount of money. One Twitter user, for instance, claimed that each pen Pelosi used cost $2,025. A message on Facebook held that Pelosi had used a total of $15,000 worth of pens to sign these documents. This number was exaggerated even further by another Facebook user who claimed that each pen cost $15,000, and that the signing ceremony used a total of $450,000 pens: claimed Facebook claimed   The most prominent claim, and one that was re-shared verbatim by several different accounts, stated: "Pelosi uses $15,000.00 worth of bullet pens to impeach the president. President Trump uses $1.99 Sharpie to sign $2 billion trade deal with China. That's the difference in a business man and a worthless professional."  re-shared verbatim several different While this claim was widespread, it was not supported by evidence. We have encountered no news reports, budget statements, or any other credible information to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens (or $450,000 worth of pens or $2,025 per pen) to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump. Furthermore, these claims appear to have originated with random social media users who would not have been privy to this sort of information. As these users appear to have been making this information up out of whole cloth, it isn't surprising that the alleged cost of these pens varies from one claim to the next.  Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, told us that the pens Pelosi used to sign the articles of impeachment cost just under $15 apiece, and that they were the same type of pen used to sign other pieces of legislation. At $15 a piece, that means the total cost for these pens was about $450, well under the $15,000 (or $450,000) amount claimed in those baseless social media posts.  Does Trump use a $2 Sharpie to sign legislation?  In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 "Century II" pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama's administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail.  placed an order However, Trump has since switched from the Century II pen to a Sharpie pen. While Sharpie pens can certainly be purchased in the $2 range, Trump doesn't use a Sharpie that you can purchase at a school-supply store. The Commander-in-Chief reportedly uses a custom Sharpie with his signature inscribed down the side. You can see an image of the pen Trump uses to sign executive orders here. custom Sharpie here We reached out to the White House and Newell Brands, the company that manufacturers Sharpies, for more information on Trump's pen. While we can't say exactly how much Trump spends per pen, it seems reasonable to assume that this custom pen is worth more than a $2 generic Sharpie, but well under the $100 pens used at the start of his administration. The "Official Donald J. Trump Fine Point Markers" available via the Trump campaign shop are sold for $15 for a five-pack (which works out to $3 piece).  Trump campaign shop Is it unusual to use multiple pens to sign important legislation? In addition to claiming that Pelosi used obscenely expensive pens to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump, many social media users were upset that the House Speaker used multiple writing utensils and then handed them out as souvenirs to mark the occasion. However, this isn't an unusual practice.  In fact, on the same day Pelosi handed out the impeachment pens to various lawmakers, Trump performed a similar ritual in the Oval Office after signing a trade deal with China.  The photograph above is available via Getty Images with the following caption: "WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (2nd L) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (R), hands out pens to Senators after he and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, signed phase 1 of a trade deal between U.S. and China, in the East Room at the White House, on January 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Phase 1 is expected to cut tariffs and promote Chinese purchases of U.S. farm, and manufactured goods while addressing disputes over intellectual property. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)"  Getty Images Time Magazine explained that this tradition  using multiple pens to sign a document and then to give those pens to various people involved  dates back to at least the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office: explained The pen used to sign historic legislation itself becomes a historical artifact. The more pens a President uses, the more thank-you gifts he can offer to those who helped create that piece of history. The White House often engraves the pens, which are then given as keepsakes to key proponents or supporters of the newly signed legislation. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he reportedly used more than 75 pens ... and gave one of the first ones to Martin Luther King Jr. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Everett McKinley Dirksen also received pens for their aid in shuttling the bill through Congress. And in 1996, President Clinton gave the four pens he used to sign the Line-Item Veto bill  which allowed Presidents to veto individual sections of legislation rather than the entire thing  to those most likely to appreciate the bill's impact: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The U.S. Senate also provided souvenir pens in 1999 during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. According to a contemporary report in the Akron Beacon, senators used silver Parker Vector pens (worth about $10 a piece) to sign the oath book after they were sworn in and were allowed to keep the pens as a memento:   Unfortunately, the pens used during Clinton's trial contained a typo (the term "United States Senator" on the pen was misspelled "Untied States Senator") and had to be replaced.  replaced Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign the Articles of Impeachment? In summary, no evidence exists to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens to sign the articles of impeachment. This claim originated with random social media accounts and was not supported with documentation. Furthermore, Pelosi's chief of staff refuted the claim, saying the pens cost just under $15 a piece. While some may find it objectionable to hand out souvenir pens after signing such a grave document, it isn't unusual. The tradition of using multiple pens to sign important documents, and then giving those pens away to the people involved, can be traced back decades.  Klein, Betsy.  "'Trump Sticks With Tradition for Presidential Pen Choice."
  CNN  27 January 2017. Hanbury, Mary.  "'Make it Look Rich': Trump Told Sharpie to Create a Custom Pen For Him to Sign Important Documents."
  Business Insider  16 November 2018. O'Rourke, Ciara.  "No, Nancy Pelosis Impeachment Pens Didnt Cost $2,025 Each."   Politifact.  17 January 2020. Akron Beacon.  "Pens Ink Spot in History."
  8 January 1999. Suddath, Claire.  "Why Did Obama Use So Many Pens to Sign the Health Care Bill?"   Time Magazine.  24 March 2010. Correction [18 January 2020]: The markers available via the Trump campaign store are sold in packs of 5, not individually as originally stated.
On Nov. 29, 2020, a Facebook page purporting to represent Costco, a chain of membership-only warehouse stores, posted a message offering a free grocery box to anyone who shared and commented on their post. The message was purportedly written by Costco's CEO Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo): message My name is Craig Jelinekand I'm the CEO of Costco Inc. To celebrate our 35th Birthday, Every single person who shaes and comments in the next 24hrs will get one of these Christmas Food Box delivered straight to their door on Monday 30th November. Each Food box contains groceries worth of $250 and a $35 Costco voucher. Make sure you validate your entry. Limit 1 Food box per person.   This message was not posted on Costco's official page and it was not written by the company's CEO. This is a scam that was shared by an imposter Facebook page. A nearly identical version of this scam (with Aldi swapped in for Costco) was also shared on social media in November 2020.  Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message to Facebook alerting their customers about the scam: Facebook Hey ALDI fans! Looks like another Facebook scam is making its way around. We can confirm it is a scam and the page has no affiliation with ALDI. We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused!We have been working with Facebook since yesterday to get the page taken down, but we'd love your help! Please share this post to help us spread the word and always be sure to look for the blue check mark by our name for authenticity! One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not.  Costco   Social media users could have also clicked the "Page Transparency" button on Facebook to unearth some more details about this fake page. In this case, the page transparency button reveals that the scam "Costco US" page was created on Nov. 29, the same day that this "free grocery box" scam started to circulate. It would be unusual, to say the least, for Costco to start an entirely new page (one that its shoppers do not know about) in order to host a giveaway.    A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not on the up-and-up. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally show boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image (below) shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo in order to make it seem like the store was truly giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image: several years old similar scam   The best way to tell that this offer is a scam, however, is to ask yourself a simple question: Does it seem too good to be true?  This type of scam is commonplace on social media. A fraudulent page (in this case a fake Costco page) posts an especially appealing offer (free grocery boxes) and then asks social media users to like, share, or comment on the post. This ensures that the scam message will spread to as many people as possible, which gives the fraudsters a better chance of success. "Success," in this case, is people being tricked into parting with personal information, such as email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. 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 want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers In efforts to lure Amazon to the Midwest, Missouri officials sent three proposals to the tech-giant by Oct. 19 to be considered for the location of its second headquarters. Kansas City and St. Louis officials threw their hats into the ring, and state officials proposed an innovation corridor along I-70, which would link the two metro areas. Missouris brochurereleased on theMakeMOHQ2Home websiteclaims the state ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries. When you think of a high-tech state, California and New York may be the first states to come to mind, but not Missouri. We wanted to find out how high-tech Missouri really is, and how it ranks in the country. We spoke with the researchers behind the data and economic experts who all agreed that rate of growth can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that defining high-tech is a moving target. Generally, though, it considers jobs with lots of workers in science, technology, engineering and math fields to be part of the high-tech industry. Missouri officials used a2016 Milken Institute studyin their claim.The Milken Instituteis a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank. The Milken Institute has a free-market slant, said Michael Leeds, chair of the economics department at Temple University, but (is) a credible group of scholars. Minoli Ratnatunga, director of regional economics research at the institutes Center for Regional Economics, was a researcher in the study. Ratnatunga said the group considered 19 industries it thought were high-tech. A few of these industries include: pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing, commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing, medical equipment and supplies manufacturing, telecommunications and computer systems design. The Milken Institutes2016 State Technology and Science Indexshows that Missouri ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries from 2010 to 2015. However, this is just one component that makes up Missouris overall placement. In 2016, Missouri ranked 28 out of 50. Two years prior, Missouri ranked 34 out of 50. In 2012, Missouri ranked 29 out of 50. These scores are based on several factors: human capital investment, research and development, risk capital, technology and science workforce, and technology concentration. Massachusetts, Colorado and Maryland were ranked the top three states overall in 2016. Kansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma ranked behind Missouri, with West Virginia rated last. That tells us where Missouri ranks relative to its peers, Ratnatunga said. Its improving, and things like (high-tech) growth is one aspect thats impacted its overall ranking, but its not in the top tier. Ratnatunga said its easy for Missouris high-tech industry to look as if its grown exponentially. If you have a relatively small sector, its easier to get a higher growth rate, Ratnatunga said. The same 500 jobs added in California would be a smaller growth rate. Leeds also said the rate of growth can be deceiving. If you have a very small base, twice a very small number is 100 percent growth, but it can be a very small number, he said. Ratnatunga said companies like Amazon need to look at the index overall when considering a states economy. This means recognizing qualities like overall growth in the economy, the quality of the workforce, universities, capital investments and research and development inputs. If it doesnt meet Amazons requirements, it might be a great choice for other companies that are looking to grow in high-tech, Ratnatunga said. Missouri officials claimed Missouri ranked 3rd (in) average yearly growth of high-tech industries. While Missouri high-tech industries may have seen growth, the size of base matters. Missouri has seen a growth in high-tech jobs, but the claim can be misleading when you dont consider the size of the base. Overall, Missouri is about average in the rankings. We rate this Mostly True. In an opinionarticlehe wrote for the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Sen.Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for an end to corporate socialism and made a claim about wealth inequality. The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country, and they will do everything they can to block our agenda, wrote Sanders, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The latest-available data back up his statement, and it appears the gap is widening. A note aboutwealth, before we dig in: Many Americans make a good income, have some savings and investments, and own a nice home. But they also have debt, typically from a mortgage, credit cards or other bills. The result is that even some people with relatively healthy incomes, as well as many poorer people, have a negative net worth   the more technical term for wealth. Sanders campaign told us his claim is based on a 2017 study from the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies. It used Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans and data from agold-standardfederal government source on wealth. Those are 2016 figures, from the Federal Reserve Boards Survey of Consumer Finances, which are updated every three years. The study found that the three wealthiest individuals wereBill Gatesof Microsoft with $89 billion, Jeff Bezos of Amazon with $81.5 billion andWarren Buffettof Berkshire Hathaway with $78 billion. Their total wealth of $248.5 billion was higher than the wealth of the bottom 160 million Americans, at $245 billion. Despite Sanders suggestion that the three men would block his agenda, they have expressed centrist political views over the years, and Buffett was a well-known supporter of former PresidentBarack Obama, a Democrat. Whatever their views, Sanders is correct about their wealth, which is on the rise. Forbes latest annual rankingsfor 2018show Bezos, Gates and Buffett still ranked at Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and that their total wealth was $345 billion. New federal figures for the bottom 160 million Americans arent expected to be released until sometime later in 2019. For the 160 million people at the bottom of the scale, the study used the net worth figure reported by the Fed and then subtracted automobiles and other durable goods such as electronics, furniture, and household appliances, from that figure. Subtracting durable goods from net worth offers us a more accurate depiction of household wealth as these items are not easily sellable and neither appreciate nor hold constant their value, the study said. University of Michigan sociology professorFabian Pfeffer, whose research specialties include wealth inequality, was among a number of economists and wealth inequality experts who told us the federal figures used in the study are the best for assessing wealth in the population. He told us that the wealth gap is much greater in the United States than in other Western industrialized nations. Pfeffer said the top 5% hold more than 70% of all net worth in the United States. Thats compared to 44% in Austria and Sweden, and lower figures in other comparable nations. Sanders said, The wealthiest three families now own more wealth than the bottom half of the country. The latest available figures indicate that the total wealth of Gates, Bezos and Buffett was $248.5 billion, exceeding the total wealth of $245 billion of the bottom half of Americans. We rate Sanders statement True. Less than two weeks into the 2015-16 school year, Milwaukee voucher school Daughters of the Father Christian Academy closed its doors, sending the families of about 150 kids on a scramble to find a new school. In the wake of the closing -- triggered by a state Department of Public Instruction order questioning the qualifications of school administrators -- Democratic opponents of vouchers cited it as evidence that the program needed better oversight. Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse) tweeted: GOP voucher school that closed after 9 days this year collected $5.4 million in taxpayer subsidies since first opening. Is she right? About the program Voucher schools are private schools, usually religiously affiliated, that receive taxpayer dollars to pay for the tuition of lower-income students. As part of the 2015-17 state budget, the Republican-controlled Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker raised the limit on how many students statewide can participate in the program. The program, which began in Milwaukee, had been extended statewide two years earlier. About 26,900 Milwaukee students are enrolled in voucher schools, according to the Department of Public Instruction and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. In addition, there are about 1,700 students in Racine and 1,000 statewide who were part of the program in the 2014-15 school year. The Milwaukee program cost about $191 million. Other schools statewide cost an additional $22 million Supporters say voucher schools give parents a valuable choice of where to send their children, particularly where local public schools may be low-performing. Critics say the voucher program is a drain on public school budgets and the private schools do not always adhere to the same educational standards. What about Daughters of the Father? Shillings claim seems pretty straightforward. But her tweet can read as saying the school had received the money and then quickly closed. In other words, that the school was new and the $5.4 million was immediately lost to taxpayers. But thats not exactly what happened. Daughters of the Father first opened its doors in 2007-08 and had just begun its ninth year. Records show it had 153 students in 2014-15 and through the states voucher program received about $7,200 that year for each student. That tallies out to more than $1.1 million. The school ran into financial trouble that led to canceled bus service at the end of the school year. In aMay 14, 2015 press releaseexecutive director Doris Pinkley blamed lower-than-expected enrollment. After a change in the schools leadership, the state Department of Public Instruction determined the school had failed to comply with statutory and administrative rules governing participation in the voucher program. The department issued an orderAug. 4, 2015banning the school from participating in the voucher program because the school did not have a qualified administrator on staff. The principal had only an expired substitute teacher's license. The $5.4 million represents the total the school has received since its inception. In all, the state has terminated 57 schools from the voucher program since the 2003-04 academic year, although some of them were schools that ceased operating on their own. Those schools had been paid a total of $176 million. Our rating Shilling tweeted that the Daughters of the Father Christian Academy closed after 9 days this year collected $5.4 million in taxpayer subsidies since first opening. The school did not just open its doors, receive $5.4 million and quickly close. The school had operated for eight years. The money represents the amount received since it opened. We rate the claim Mostly True. Metro Atlanta cities may do little to ensure government dollars to promote tourism are doing their job, but that doesnt mean that the state should rein in spending, an elected official said recently.Georgia isnt spending enough money in the first place, said state Rep. Ron Stephens, chairman of the House Economic Development and Tourism Committee.We spend less dollars advertising than any other state in the South, Stephens said in an Aug. 6 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution about oversight of city tourism funds.Thats exactly the kind of thing wed expect the head of the tourism committee to say. But is it true? We asked the Savannah Republican for more information.We feel obliged to note that Georgia and its cities have a checkered history in tourism marketing.State taxpayers will be paying $1.2 million annually for the next few decades on former Gov. Sonny Perdues Go Fish tourism program.Perdue's vision for the plan was to make Georgia a fisherman's paradise by developing the economy, attracting high-dollar fishing tournaments, improving access to state lakes and increasing angling participation.Critics argue it was a pork project for Perdues hometown, Bonaire, which is near the Go Fish Education Center.And theres Brand Atlanta, a shuttered effort to market Georgias capital city. It raised some $8 million between 2005 and 2006 from corporations and government, including $1 million from the convention and visitors bureau. The campaign featured a widely panned theme song.But the budget went bust during the Great Recession, its staff was laid off in 2008 and Brand Atlanta is no more.State tourism funds shrank as the economy stumbled, and Stephens thinks its a shame.If we advertise the jewels we have, then more people will come here and well get that money back, Stephens said.Stephens said his statement about low spending referred to the amount of money state governments spend to promote tourism, as well as the number of dollars spent per capita. It excludes spending by the city of Atlanta and other localities.Stephens referred us to data collected by the Georgia Department of Economic Development.A department spokeswoman sent us state-by-state figures compiled by the U.S. Travel Association, an industry group that researches and promotes travel to and within the country.Policymakers, other trade organizations and media use USTAs numbers widely. We were unable to find another organization that collects similar data.We started our analysis by separating out USTA data for Southern states. This is more difficult than you might think.Government agencies disagree on what counts as the South. Born and bred Southerners do, too.Even some newcomers get the vapors when Yankees lump South Florida in with the rest of us.Whats worse, the official U.S. census definition includes Oklahoma.Really? We thought. Do they even sell sweet tea there?We struck a Great Compromise and focused on the 11 states that formally seceded from the Union during the Civil War, plus Kentucky. (What would the South be without Kentucky or its bourbon? )Then we crunched the numbers for fiscal year 2011-2012.Georgia was second only to Kentucky in the lowest amount spent on tourism. Our fiscal year 2011-2012 provisional budget stood at $2,551,516, according to USTA data. Kentuckys was $1,888,300.The Peach State fared worse in other measures of state tourism spending.The population and budgets of Southern states vary widely, so we considered two additional pieces of data that take these differences into account: The amount of state tourism funding allocated per capita, which Stephens also said was the lowest in the South; and tourism allocations as a portion of a states budget.Georgia ranked last on a per capita basis at $0.26 per person. Arkansas placed first at $3.05 per person.Georgia also ranked last on tourism advertising as a portion of the state budget. During fiscal year 2012, Georgia set aside 0.014 percent of its general fund budget toward tourism advertising.Kentucky was the second-lowest on our list. Once again, Arkansas placed first.Our ruling:Stephens said that Georgias state government spends fewer tourism advertising dollars than any other in the South. He was right in the metrics that matter most: per capita spending, and spending as a percentage of state budget.In dollars, Stephens was close. Only Kentucky spends less.Stephens earns a True. The morning after the Atlanta area overwhelmingly said no to a 1 percent sales tax to fund more than 150 transportation projects across the region, one prominent leader said that her fellow state lawmakers now needed to take the lead on the issue.Georgia has under-invested in our transportation network for years, and we rank near the bottom in per capita transportation spending, House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, an Atlanta Democrat, said in a press release.PolitiFact Georgia wondered if the state representative was correct. Or do we need to put a stop sign in front of Abrams before she repeats this claim again?As we began our research, PolitiFact Georgia found several officials making similar claims, including the states Transportation Department.Georgia is the 6th fastest growing state in the nation, yet 49th in per capita spending on transportation, said a May 16 press release from the state agency about bridge replacements over Lake Lanier.A spokeswoman for the states House Democratic Caucus, which sent out Abrams press release, initially forwarded us a link to the Atlanta Regional Commissions top 10 facts about the recent transportation referendum. The ARC, which works on growth and development issues for the 10-county metro area, said that Georgia was 48th in per capita spending on transportation. The ARC report did not have any charts or graphics showing how Georgia compares to other states.The caucus later sent us a report by the fiscally conservative Georgia Public Policy Foundation that said Georgia ranks 49th in per capita transportation spending. The report did not have a chart showing Georgia in comparison to the other states.We decided to do the math for ourselves as well.As part of our research, we noticed that several groups used data compiled by the Federal Highway Administration to calculate how much money each state spends on transportation. One chart we saw on its website had revenues used for highways. The most recent year was 2010. PolitiFact Georgia calculated the totals for each state and excluded federal funds since we are examining a claim about state spending on transportation. We then divided the total for each state by the number of its residents. Only two states had lower per capita highway spending, South Carolina and Tennessee. Georgia spent about $298 per person on highways.How did that compare to other reports on per capita highway spending that we reviewed? Georgia ranked similarly low.The Washington, D.C.-based Tax Policy Center found in 2009 that Georgia ranked ahead of just Rhode Island and South Carolina in per capita highway spending. The Tax Policy Center, a partnership between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, examines federal and state tax policies and those of this years presidential candidates.Another report we found that examined transportation spending in Pennsylvania, based on data compiled in 2010, ranked Georgia 50th in per capita highway spending, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Federal Highway Administration. The report on Pennsylvania shows Georgia has more miles of highway than 40 states. Most of the states with more miles of highway also ranked low in per capita highway spending.The National Conference of State Legislatures ranked Georgia second to last in per capita revenue on highways in a report it released in 2006. The report examined highway spending from 1999 to 2004. Georgia spent about $220 per person annually, the report found. Only California was lower. Delaware was first, spending more than $900 per person, according to the research.The NCSL report also included data on spending for public transportation. Georgia ranked 38th of the 45 states that had data that could be examined. Georgia spent 55 cents per person in 2004, according to a chart in the report. Massachusetts was first, spending approximately $376 per person. Northeastern states dominated the top of the rankings and had more sources of transportation funding. We did not see any other reports on public transportation spending by state.The charts we reviewed and our own research all showed the same thing: Georgia was among the five lowest states in terms of per capita spending on highways. The most recent NCSL report on public transportation showed a similar conclusion. Therefore, we rate the statement by Abrams as True. In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE  Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.  You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers   Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica.  "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral."   The Daily Dot.  30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence.  "Fascism Anyone?"   Free Inquiry.  31 March 2003. The Right Stuff.  "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular."   22 January 2014. The idea that United States citizens can gain access to secret funds because of a government-created "strawman" is a persistent myth  and one was debunked long ago as a get-rich-quick scheme promulgated by shysters with links to far-right groups: When your birth certificate was monetized and converted into a UNITED STATES Government Bond shortly after your birth by your Mother, your net worth became unlimited, into Billions of Dollars, without your, nor your Mothers, and Fathers, knowledge. When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy in 1933 under the bankruptcy (Straw man) law known as HJR 192, pledged all Americans as collateral (debt slaves) against the national debt to the International Bankers; gave all the land to the international bankers (Federal Reserve Corporation); and confiscated and outlawed all the gold except for one ounce for each person; thus, eliminating the lawful means (Gold and Silver Coins) by which you could legally pay your debt, the UNITED STATES also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay. In 1933, the UNITED STATES Government declared that they would pay all of YOUR debts with the money they receive from your labor, birth certificate, and Social Security registered number by what is known as your Reserve Account worth Billions! The UNITED STATES Corporation Government did that by providing what is known as the Exemption Account. The bankers loan credit and not money, because there has not been any lawful money since 5 June 1933. The Exemption Account is your exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that something is your credit. This secret has been hidden for over 79 years. Your value to society was then and is still calculated using actuarial tables. At birth, average value bonds were created from your birth certificate. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars at your birth when your mother unknowingly gave her baby, you, away to the UNITED STATES Government. These birth certificate bonds were collateralized by your birth certificate and your mothers maiden name under an Act of Congress in 1921. Then your birth certificate bond became a negotiable instrument just like any security instrument under UCC Article 3, code of commercial law in which the world trade falls under. The bonds are hypothecated and traded on the stock market until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes. People all over the world buy and sell your bond every day over the stock markets as investments. All that credit created is technically, and rightfully, yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption Account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number, without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number from the UNITED STATES CORPORATION of America."  The "strawman," the theory states, is an entity created by an alleged 1933 "House Joint Resolution" marking U.S. residents as collateral for the country's loans. Though it is unclear how prevalent it is today, the FBI has classified the idea of birth certificate "redemption" as a common form of bond fraud: classified Proponents of this scheme claim that the U.S. government or the Treasury Department control bank accountsoften referred to as U.S. Treasury Direct Accountsfor all U.S. citizens that can be accessed by submitting paperwork with state and federal authorities. Trainers and websites will often charge large fees for kits that teach individuals how to perpetrate this scheme. They will often imply that others have had great success in discharging debt and purchasing merchandise such as cars and homes. Failures to implement the scheme successfully are attributed to individuals not following instructions in a specific order or not filing paperwork at correct times. This scheme predominately uses fraudulent financial documents that appear to be legitimate. These documents are frequently referred to as bills of exchange, promissory bonds, indemnity bonds, offset bonds, sight drafts, or comptrollers warrants. In addition, other official documents are used outside of their intended purpose, like IRS forms 1099, 1099-OID, and 8300. This scheme frequently intermingles legal and pseudo legal terminology in order to appear lawful. Notaries may be used in an attempt to make the fraud appear legitimate. Often, victims of the scheme are instructed to address their paperwork to the Secretary of the Treasury. Filing these types of "frivolous tax submissions" can incur a $5,000 fine, though authorities give offenders 30 days to retract the documents. The Treasury Department's office of the Inspector General published an example of a "sight draft" while warning that they were being used "in an attempt to pay for everything from cars to child support": incur warning  The Treasury also provided us with an April 2009 guidance they sent to financial institutions advising them how to report loan modification scams, which included a description of a hidden "account" being used as a bogus payment: guidance A homeowner maintains that he/she does not need to pay a mortgage because the loan contract is invalid, or the customer attempts to pay with a bogus sight draft, Federal Reserve Bank/Treasury letter, or check that accesses a Treasury Direct Account. Such homeowners may be committing fraud or may have been duped by individuals who claim government-related contracts are illegitimate. Other homeowners may have unsuspectingly paid for illegitimate or bogus pay-off documents. A spokesperson for the Treasury told us on 17 January 2017 that these types of scams have not been a "recent issue of concern" for the department's investigators. However, they are still reported to its financial crimes enforcement division. reported The Southern Poverty Law Center stated in a 2002 report that the redemption "movement" can be traced back to a South Dakota man, Roger Elvick, who has ties to the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist organizations: traced Elvick first started spreading his crackpot vision in the 1980s, when he was the national spokesperson for Committee of the States, a white supremacist group Elvick started with William Potter Gale, who had previously founded the Posse Comitatus, a violent anti-Semitic organization. By 1990, Redemption groups advised by Elvick were active in 30 states and several provinces of Canada, and had tried to pass more than $15 million in bad checks. Elvick was eventually convicted of personally passing more than $1 million in sight drafts, and, in a separate case, of filing fraudulent IRS forms. He spent most of the 1990s in federal prison. Elvick was indicted again in Ohio in 2003 and charged with corruption, extortion, and forgery, but his courtroom behavior derailed his trial: During preliminary hearings, Elvick frustrated court officials by denying his identity, claiming the court had no jurisdiction over him or his straw man, and constantly interrupting with unfathomable questions about procedure. A judge ruled Elvick mentally unfit to stand trial and committed him to a correctional psychiatric facility, where he was diagnosed with an "unclassified mental disorder" and underwent nine months of treatment before facing trial. Elvick then surprised prosecutors by changing his plea to guilty. The inspector general's office for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, noted the use of "UCC" (Uniform Commercial Code) in a 2015 bulletin concerning right-wing sovereign citizen groups, pointing out members commonly use the term in fraudulent documents: bulletin sovereign citizen  FBI.  "Common Fraud Schemes  Redemption/Strawman/Bond Fraud."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Legal Information Institute.  "26 U.S. Code  6702  Frivolous Tax Submissions."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Treasury.  "Bogus Sight Drafts/Bills of Exchange Drawn on the Treasury."   Accessed 12 January 2017. Southern Poverty Law Center.  "His 'Straw Man' Free, A Scammer Finds the Rest of Him Isn't."   27 July 2005. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.  "Integrity Bulletin."   Summer 2015. Alexander, Dean C.  "The Sovereign Citizen Movement: Threats and Responses."   Security Magazine.  1 June 2016. While the debate over the compromise tax agreement proposed by President Barack Obama has focused mostly on Bush's income tax cuts and whether they ought to be extended to wealthy Americans, the issue of estate taxes has also become a sticking point for some legislators.Under the plan, the estate tax rate would be set at 35 percent, with an effective exemption of $5 million.Many Republicans had hoped to do away with the estate tax altogether, and Democrats last year had proposed a higher rate: 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million.The compromise has ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., for example, said he would not support the plan because he considered the estate tax compromise a tax increase. We ruled that claimBarely True.Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont and a self-described democratic socialist, sent out amessage via Twitteron Dec. 13, 2010, saying that under the estate tax plan, 99.7% of American families will not pay 1 nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.According to ananalysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Sanders is correct.The Tax Policy Center estimated that about 99.7 percent of estates were exempt from the estate tax in 2009 when the first $3.5 million of an estate was exempt. Even fewer people would be subject to the tax if the threshold is increased to $5 million, as proposed in the compromise tax plan.Under the compromise plan, less than 2/10 of 1 percent of estates would be subject to the estate tax next year, said Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. That means more than 99.8 percent would be completely exempt.The Tax Policy Center estimates that about 3,600 estates would be subject to the tax under the $5 million threshold. Those 3,600 estates would have to pay an estimated $11.4 billion in estate taxes under the compromise tax plan.Estate tax rates have fluctuated through modern history. In 2001, President George W. Bush signed a plan to gradually reduce the estate tax from 55 percent to 45 percent, while at the same time increasing the exemption value from $1 million in 2002 to $3.5 million in 2009. The estate tax disappeared altogether in 2010.But the Bush plan only had a 10-year window because Republicans didn't have the votes at the time to permanently abolish the estate tax. It passed the Senate under budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 votes but which also limited it to a 10-year shelf life. Barring a new tax agreement, the rate was set to revert next year to a 55 percent rate with an effective exemption of $1 million.Last year, Democrats proposed a plan to permanently set the estate tax rate at 2009 levels -- 45 percent on the value of estates over $3.5 million. But the plan never reached a vote in the Senate. Had that plan gone through, the Tax Policy Center estimates it would have subjected 6,460 estates to a tax (bring in an estimated $18.2 billion). If no tax plan passes, and the rate goes back to 55 percent on the value of estates over $1 million, an 43,540 estates would have to pay (bringing in an estimated $34.4 billion next year).Sanders was correct that in 2009, when the effective exemption was $3.5 million, about 99.7 percent of all estates were exempt and didn't pay anything. The compromise plan -- which would set effective exemption at $5 million -- would push the number of exempted estates even higher, so that more than 99.8 percent of estates would not pay anything. We rate Sanders' comment True. An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesnt mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofitCitizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens, following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing too much in Ukraine hasskyrocketedfrom 6% in March to 48% today. First, lets set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine,according to calculationsby Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some wont be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that havent been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Bidens administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statisticscollectedby the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on childrens behalf  a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing  amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Bidens administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found  far more than the $66 billion thats been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Bidens American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Bidens 2021 inauguration. One of the bills centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other childrens programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to theTreasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fire!