The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation.
Its commonplace for a governor to tout a states economy. Still, Greg Abbott of Texas made us wonder when hetweetedin mid-November 2017: The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation. Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election in 2018, accompanied his tweet with acampaign videoof Abbott smiling at business groundbreakings. The ad flashes headlines about companies opening facilities and adding jobs in Texas. Tagline: And were just getting started. We got started fact-checking Abbotts tweet by asking his office for his backup; we didnt get a response. In July 2017, Abbott made aMostly True claimabout more Texans having jobs than ever. Yet we noticed that when Abbott tweeted about the states jobless rate last month,  October 2017 unemployment rates had yet to be revealed. To get our fix on the latest available data, we fetched Bureau of Labor Statistics figures showing that the states impressive 4 percent jobless rate for September 2017 tied the previous record low since 1976. According to the bureau, the state similarly had a 4 percent unemployment rate in November and December 2000, 17 years ago.The state jobless rate in fall 1977, 40 years ago, hovered at 5.2 percent. To our inquiry, a Dallas-based bureau economist, Cheryl Abbot, confirmed our read of monthly seasonally adjusted Texas jobless rates since 1976. Mark J. Perry, who teaches at the University of Michigan-Flint, agreed though Perry, by email, called Abbotts overstatement on this point minor. Texas Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted), 1976-September 2017       SOURCE: Website,Local Area Unemployment Statistics,Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 16, 2017 (downloaded Nov. 16, 2017) Job gains? By email, the bureau's Abbot showed that Texas didnt lead the country in job gains for September (again, the latest month of available data). In fact, an October 2017 bureaupress releaseindicates Texas wasn't even among the five states that experienced job gains from August to September 2017. From the release: The largest increase in employment occurred in California (+52,200), followed by Washington (+13,800) and Indiana (+11,400). The states also were described as enjoying statistically significant month-to-month gains. In percentage terms, the bureau said, the largest increase occurred in Nebraska (+0.5 percent), followed by Arizona, Indiana, and Washington (+0.4 percent each). California had a 0.4 percent gain, the release said. According to a more detailed bureau chart we checked in mid-November 2017, Texas saw a 0.1 percent decrease in jobs from August to September 2017 by going from 12,328,400 jobs to 12,321,100 jobs. The chart indicates 30 states fared better month to month though that folds in five states showing no percentage gains (or losses). Theres a more encouraging longer view. The bureaus release lists Texas among 28 states with over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment from September 2016 to September 2017. The release said: The largest job gains occurred in California (+280,300), Texas (+256,100), and New York (+93,100)--with the largest percentage gains playing out in Nevada and Utah (+2.5 percent each) followed by Maryland (+2.4 percent). According to an accompanying chart, Texas and Idaho each saw a 2.1 percent increase in jobs over the year, tying for fourth nationally behind Washington state, which saw a 2.2 percent percentage increase in jobs. Abbot wrote: As you can see, the largest monthly increase in jobs in September 2017 occurred in California (+52,200). In percentage terms, Nebraska led among the states with a 0.5-percent gain. California also recorded the largest  over-the-year increase during this period (280,300), followed by Texas (256,100). Our ruling Abbott tweeted: The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation. The latest unemployment data posted when Abbott spoke showed Texas with a 4 percent unemployment rate in September 2017 though that didn't set a 40-year record. Rather, it tied the previous 40-year low set in two months of 2000. Abbott didnt provide nor did we find data showing jobs created in each state in October 2017. Federal data otherwise indicate that Texas experienced a slight decrease in jobs from August to September 2017 though the state also was home to more jobs than a year earlier. We rate this claim False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. UPDATE, Nov. 17, 2017:Two days after Abbott tweeted his claim about the Texas jobless rate, thefederal government reportedthat the state had a 41-year record low 3.9 percent jobless rate in October 2017.
On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans this year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid: Express   The article was entitled "Asteroid terror: NASA spot mammoth space rock to hit Earth's orbit five days before X-mas." The subheading gave earthlings an even smaller chance of survival: "AN ASTEROID the size of the World Trade Centre is on a dangerous Earth-bound orbit that could see the rock smash the planet during Christmas festivities." When the article was regurgitated by even less-reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!" Digital Wise NASA has made no such announcement, and Earth is not in danger of being hit by an asteroid around Christmas.  These articles are all based on a real asteroid (known as 216258 2006 WH1) and its holiday approach toward Earth. However, these articles present the information as if this asteroid is particularly dangerous. But there's nothing unusually threatening about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles. lists Dr. Paul W. Chodas, the Director of the Center for Near Earth Object Studies, told us in an email that there is "nothing unusual or dangerous" about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1: No, there is nothing unusual or dangerous about this asteroid. It is simply making a close approach to the Earth. Astronomers have been observing this asteroids position for 13 years, we know its orbit very accurately, we can predict its close approaches accurately for the next 200 years, and we know with certainty that it cannot hit our planet. Lindley Johnson, NASAs Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), also told us that this asteroid "poses no hazard to impacting earth":  NASA and other US agencies are lead players in the international effort to develop plans to respond to a possible Near-Earth Object (NEO) impact. In 2018, the White House released the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, which identifies key steps that US agencies need to take to better prepare the United Statesand the worldfor detecting and responding to a possible impact. NASA has been directed by Congress to catalogue and characterize all NEOs bigger than 140 meters, the ones that could be catastrophic. NASA is approximately 35% complete for NEOs 140 meters and larger, and approximately 96% complete for those 1 km and larger. Strategic investments in our space-based programs will lead to the benefit of all of humanity as we continue to catalogue any NEOs that pose a potential threat. This particular asteroids trajectory has been well tracked by NASAs Center for Near-Earth Object Studies since its discovery 13 years and poses no hazard to impacting Earth. Here's a little more information about near-earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours):  writes On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earths surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earths surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earths surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earths surface and cause local disasters or produce the tidal waves that can inundate low lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earths atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earths surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions and structures and to keep an eye upon their future trajectories ... ... No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible so that some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA Near-Earth Object Observations Program is constantly monitoring the skies for approaching asteroids and meteors. So far, the program has discovered more than 19,000 NEOs. When NASA discovers an NEO, it works to determine as much information as possible about the object, such as its size, speed, and orbit, so that the agency can calculate when it will approach Earth and how close it will come when it does.  But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered: discovered Asteroid impacts are a continuously occurring natural process. Every day, 80 to 100 tons of material falls upon Earth from space in the form of dust and small meteorites (fragments of asteroids that disintegrate in Earths atmosphere). Over the past 20 years, U.S. government sensors have detected nearly 600 very small asteroids a few meters in size that have entered Earths atmosphere and created spectacular bolides (fireballs). Experts estimate that an impact of an object the size of the one that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013  approximately 55 feet (17 meters) in size  takes place once or twice a century. Impacts of larger objects are expected to be far less frequent (on the scale of centuries to millennia). However, given the current incompleteness of the NEO catalogue, an unpredicted impact  such as the Chelyabinsk event  could occur at any time. Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting earth in the next 100 years is minimal: hitting The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in sizelarger than a small football stadiumand to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause, and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date. Asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 will pass by Earth a few days before Christmas. However, NASA has issued no warnings about a catastrophic impact, and CNEOS reports that this asteroid will get no closer than 3 million miles from Earth during its approach.  NASA.  "Near-Earth Object Observations Program."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. NASA.  "Planetary Defense Frequently Asked Questions."
  Retrieved 8 November 2019. Day, Joel.  "Asteroid Terror: NASA Spot Mammoth Space Rock to Hit Earth's Orbit Five Days Before X-Mas."
  Express.  23 October 2019. It's been more than three decades since the original "Home Alone" film was released. However, fans of the 1990 movie were still noticing details they may have missed in past viewings, like the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. details We previously reported that the black-and-white gangster films depicted in "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" were not real classics. We also published a story about the fact that Catherine O'Hara was the same actress who played both Kate McCallister (Kevin's mother in "Home Alone") as well as Moira Rose on the TV series "Schitt's Creek." The news may not have shocked some of O'Hara's fans, but the number of likes, comments, and shares on various TikTok videos showed that not everyone realized she played both characters. were not real classics story Speaking of the McCallisters, we decided to take another closer look at "Home Alone" after a TikTok video purported to shine a light on an obscure detail: the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. TikTok video In the plot for "Home Alone," the young Kevin McCallister is accidentally left at home while the rest of his family flies to Paris for a Christmas vacation. A series of events allows the mishap to occur, and one of those was the loss of his airplane ticket:   The TikTok video was posted by @scouseblu on Dec. 17, 2020. The Twitter account @FilmEasterEggs considered the moment to be an Easter egg: posted @FilmEasterEggs  Some responded saying they already knew about the ticket being thrown into the garbage, while others expressed surprise:     One Twitter user claimed that the airplane ticket going into the trash was an "integral plot point," which was potentially questionable:  In "Home Alone," the McCallister family runs through the airport and hands their stack of tickets to a gate agent. However, the gate agent did not appear to look at the tickets, but she did conduct a headcount as they walked to the airplane. While the videos from TikTok and Twitter showed the ticket going in the trash, preceding shots showed a row of cups in front of the tickets and passports:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  After Kevin attacks his older brother Buzz for eating all of the cheese pizza, the stack of tickets and passports are briefly visible for a split second before several cups of milk all come crashing down:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  Milk was mentioned in the scene by Kate and was likely chosen by writers because of its ability for the white color to obscure the ticket during cleanup. The stack of tickets and passports all got soaked, but only Kevin's ticket made it in the trash. Freeform aired double features of "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" multiple times in December 2020. Some of the showings included interesting tidbits about the films, in what the Disney-owned channel called its "Pop'n Knowledge Edition." One of those tidbits popped onscreen the moment that Kevin's ticket was thrown in the trash. Freeform also partially edited a sceneout of the sequel "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." partially edited a scene Claim:  Coca-Cola has announced that it will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have heard various rumours about the nature of the relationship between Coca-Cola and the State of Israel.  Today, I received a text message on my cell phone stating:  "NBC states that: the income that Coca-Cola will get in the coming 4 days starting from Monday will be donated to Israel." Origins:  The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East makes for a precarious business climate, one in which any company doing business in both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries is subject to being denounced by one side as a supporter of the other.  Companies dealing in relatively inexpensive, ubiquitous products such as soft drinks or fast food are very visible targets to those who call for boycotts to protest financial support of one side or the other. American-based companies, in particular, are often the focus of such boycotts, since the USA is not only home to many of the world's most well-known brands but has also been one of the few countries to openly support    Israel.  McDonald's and Coca-Cola are frequent subjects of boycott calls, the former becoming a target a few years ago when Saudi Arabian McDonald's outlets donated a portion of their proceeds to Palestinian childrens' hospitals, and the latter a current victim due to false claims that they will be "donating four days' worth of income to Israel."  (Pepsi is also a member of this short list, with claims  sometimes taken literally  that Pepsi is a 'Jewish product' whose name is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.'  As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state.") donated Lately a series of graphics employing Coca-Cola imagery (like the one to the right of this text, which is itself a deception within a deception, as it uses a controversial photograph of a Jewish student who was mistakenly identified as a Palestinian) has been circulated to garner support for an Arab boycott of American companies such as Coca-Cola (at least one such image, which depicts the Dome of the Rock emblazoned with a Coca-Cola logo, has caused an uproar among Muslims who have mistaken it for a bona fide Coca-Cola advertisement), lending support  to the unfounded rumor that Coca-Cola will be donating four days' worth of income to Israel. It's hard to imagine that this rumor could be anything but a deliberate lie concocted to smear an American-based company that does business in both Israel and  Middle Eastern countries, as (unlike the case of the McDonald's brouhaha mentioned above) no Coke-related business is currently engaged in any sponsorship that could reasonably be misunderstood as constituting a financial "donation" to the state of Israel.  As The Coca-Cola Company itself has stated: photograph Dome of the Rock The Coca-Cola Company does not support or oppose political or religious causes and does not take a stance on issues that do not directly affect the soft drink industry. The Coca-Cola Company operates worldwide in nearly 200 countries andterritories with different cultures, political systems, religions and histories.  People from all around the world own shares in The Coca-Cola Company, and the company employs people from many different backgrounds and nationalities. Our partners who bottle, distribute and sell our products are local business people. They hire people in their local markets.   We cannot and do not take the side of one country over another in any dispute. It's unfortunate that the incredible power of the Internet is being misused to spread false information. Moreover, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis.   Ramallah Unfortunately, the maxim that the first casualty in war is truth still holds sway. Last updated:  2 December 2007 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott drew cheers from supporters in San Antonio as he vowed to keep the Texas economy rocking and laid a claim to history. The Republican governor, kicking off hisre-election campaign, said in July 2017: And since I took office, in just the last two and a half years, in Texas, weve added more than 450,000 new jobs. More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. That jobs-gained number sounded a little low. According toBureau of Labor Statistics figureswe drew from a bureau economist, Cheryl Abbot, when Abbott took office in January 2015, the state was home to nearly 11.8 million non-farm jobs. As of June 2017, that count was up by about 507,500, exceeding 12.3 million. We decided to check whether more Texas residents have jobs than ever before. Abbotts campaign didnt answer requests for the basis of the claim. Meantime, economists concurred that according tobureau figures drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, more than 12.8 million Texas residents had jobs from April 2017 through June 2017--with the April 2017 count of 12,872,506 employed people setting a record, though the tally subsequently slid marginally, reaching 12,848,980 in June 2017. A bureau-provided chart shows the dip in employment after that count had mostly steadily increased since January 2015: SOURCE:Chartshowing Texas Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS (received by email from Cheryl Abbot, regional economist, BLS, July 21, 2017) The economists we queried noted that because Texas continues to grow in population, it makes sense, barring economic disaster, that youd see more people having jobs year after year. Status quo in Texas,Mark J. Perry,an economist at the University of Michigan-Flint, told us by email, its always had steady job growth. Perry passed along a chart showing the nearly uniform annual upticks in employed Texas since 1939: SOURCE:Chart based ondata posted by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis(provided by email from Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., scholar atThe American Enterprise Institute, professor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, July 28, 2017) So, Abbott was mostly right about the record count of Texans with jobs at the time he spoke. Jobless rate, employment-population ratio Other indicators provide context, however. For instance, the month before Abbott kicked off his re-election effort, the states unemployment rate of 4.6 percent--as in the share of able workers unsuccessfully seeking employment--was not a record low. We counted 59 months since 1976 when the Texas jobless rate was lower, per an Abbot-providedchart. Also, a ratio that compares the number of people with jobs to the population as a whole was higher for Texas and other states in the 1990s, a facetexploredby PolitiFact in Washington in July 2016. That story also noted that nationally since the end of the Great Recession, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio had climbed, slowly but fairly steadily. When we asked, Abbot shared bureau figures rooted inCensus Bureau survey findingsto represent changes in the Texas employment-population ratio. Similarly, economistTara Sinclair, an associate professor at George Washington University, drew onbureau figuresshowing that the states employment-population ratio exceeded 65 percent from 1995 through 2000 but fell to 61.5 percent in 2014 and to to 60.9 percent and 60.7 percent, respectively, in 2015 and 2016. In the latter year, the bureau says, that ratio reflected 12,671,801 Texans with jobs out of 20,861,611 residents. By email, Sinclair wrote that similar to thenational pattern for the employment-population ratio,Texasis still low relative to its historical peak (although doing a bit better than the national ratio). SOURCE: Chart drawing on BLS annual data for Texas (received by email fromTara Sinclair, associate professor of Economics and International Affairs, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, July 21, 2017) Our ruling Abbott said: More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. By raw numbers, the more than 12.87 million employed Texans in April 2017 set a record though that count had dipped to 12.85 million by the time Abbott spoke. Also, the states June 2017 jobless rate, 4.6 percent, exceeded the rate in more than 50 months since 1976 while Texas in 2016 (like the nation) had an employment-population ratio trailing what it used to be. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. At 1:30 am on the morning of 23 March 2002, a 41-year-old dental surgery student was shot and killed by an off-duty police officer while pulling his car from a parking lot in front of a D.C.-area apartment complex: killed In the middle of a night in March 2002, Brian Hundley and a woman were in a car parked outside an apartment complex in Washington, D.C. Off-duty Metropolitan Police Department Officer Marcus Gaines tapped on the window of the car as he walked past. Hundley, who was in the drivers seat, began to drive the car in the direction of Officer Gaines. Officer Gaines pulled his gun, yelled police, and ordered Hundley to stop and get out of the car. Hundley complied and exited the car. According to Officer Gaines, while Hundley was standing outside the car, Hundley suddenly moved his right hand from behind his back and began lunging toward Officer Gaines, who was about 10 to 15 feet away. In apparent self-defense, Officer Gaines shot and killed Hundley. The Hundley family brought a civil suit against Gaines, another officer, and the District of Columbia in three separate areas: First, a tort law claim of assault and battery based on the officers fatal shot; second, a violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on excessive force; and third, a tort law claim of negligence based on Gaines initial stop of Hundley. civil suit A jury awarded the Hundley estate $242,000 based on the the third claim, ruling that Hundleys death was the result of a the officers negligence in performing this initial traffic stop. Both sides were unhappy with the ruling, according to the Washington Post's 2004 coverage of the trial: coverage The jury found that Officer Marcus Gaines was negligent in the steps leading to the shooting of Brian Hundley, 41, in a Northwest Washington parking lot. But it rejected the family's bid for more damages, finding that Gaines did not abuse Hundley, violate his civil rights or inflict emotional distress upon him when he killed him with a single gunshot to the chest ... Although the verdict was a victory on paper, Hundley's relatives and lawyers called the amount of the award a bitter insult to Hundley's life and said they will appeal. "It really defies logic," said Carl Hundley, who brought the wrongful death suit on behalf of his late brother. "They found the [traffic] stop was negligent, they found my brother didn't threaten the officer. One is left to wonder if they are just deciding his life had no value." The family's attorney, Gregory L. Lattimer, called the award a "travesty ... A 41-year-old man dies at the police's hands without threatening him or doing anything wrong, and his life is worth $241,000. How are the police allowed to get away with this?" ... A spokeswoman for the D.C. attorney general's office, which defended the department, said that the jury erred in siding with the family and that the city might seek to overturn the award. On appeal, both the defendants (Officer Gaines et al) and the plaintiffs (the Hundley family) challenged that ruling, as described in court documents: described Hundleys estate challenges the assault and battery and excessive force verdict, arguing that the jurys verdict was inconsistent with the written interrogatory answer. Defendants challenge the judgment for plaintiffs on the negligence claim. This appeal was heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who later became President Trump's controversial nominee to the Supreme Court.  controversial The crux of the appeal argument centered on jury inconsistency. In the original trial, the jury was asked to rule on the three issues brought to the court and, in what is known as an interrogatory jury question, on the reliability or truth of Officer Gaines' version of events: In addition to asking the jury to render a verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims, the judge also instructed the jury to answer a written interrogatory: Do you find that Brian Hundley was shot after placing his right hand behind his back and then making a lunging motion toward Officer Marcus Gaines? ... The written interrogatory tracked Officer Gainess testimony regarding the apparent self-defense shooting. The jury answered No. Both the lawyers representing Gaines as well as the lawyers representing the interests of the Hundley family pointed to this fact as a reason for appeal, as jury inconsistency is a valid grounds for appeal under in Federal Law. In the Hundley familys case, they argued that the jurys written interrogatory response is inconsistent with the jurys findings for defendants on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. Gaines et al, on the other hand, pointed to the finding as a reason to reject the damages awarded to the Hundleys by the jury, as their verdict with respect to negligence relied on a narrative the jury themselves said was not truthful. Kavanaugh agreed that the jury verdict was inconsistent: Two distinct versions of events were presented to the jury. The jury could conclude either that Officer Gaines shot Hundley in self-defense as described by Officer Gaines, or that he shot Hundley without justification. In making their cases to the jury, both sides agreed that liability turned on which version of events the jury believed ... Yet the jury found for defendants [Gaines et al] on the assault and battery and excessive force claims while simultaneously answering a written interrogatory indicating that the jury did not believe Officer Gainess version of events. The two answers cannot coexist; they make no sense in the context of the evidence presented in this case. Ultimately, Kavanaugh rendered a 180-degree shift on both sides of this argument. He ruled that because the negligence claim relied on a narrative deemed false by the jury, that that charge and the damages awarded because of it should be overturned. This aspect of the decision has led to the online narrative that a jury found that a cop lied [but] Brett Kavanaugh threw out the verdict:   While this meme expresses a factually accurate statement, it tells only a portion of the story. Using the same logic that prompted the reversal of the negligence charge, Kavanaugh also overturned the earlier rulings that did not hold the officer liable for assault or excessive force, remanding that aspect of the case for a new trial:  new trial We agree with Hundley's estate that the jury verdict on the assault and battery and excessive force claims was inconsistent with the jury's answer to the written interrogatory. We agree with defendants that the negligent stop, as a matter of law, did not proximately cause the shooting death and thus cannot justify the damages for the shooting death. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for a new trial for Hundley's estate on the assault and battery and excessive force claims. It is uncertain if the Hundley family sought a retrial after this ruling or reached a settlement with the defendants. (An email to the lawyer who represented the Hundleys in this matter was not immediately returned.) Regardless, Kavanaughs ruling did have the effect of reversing a cash settlement given to the Hundley family, but it also allowed for a new trial on first two claims the Hundleys had lost during their initial trial. U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  No. 05-7152 & 05-7161"
  24 July 2007.
 Tucker, Neely.  "Family Sues in Police Slaying."
  The Washington Post.  6 April 2002.
 Leonnig, Carol D.  "$242,000 Award Ordered by Jury In Police Killing."
  The Washington Post.  8 December 2004. 
 Levy-Edwards, Ariel.  "Brett Kavanaughs Poll Numbers Are Firmly in the Red."
  The Washington Post.  26 September 2018.
 U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 49. Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions."
  Accessed 1 October 2018. 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. On 11 September 2018, our readers asked for verification of a meme circulating on social media that reported Donald Trump had helped with search-and-rescue efforts in the rubble of the Twin Towers after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 17 years prior: "2 days after the September 11th attacks Donald Trump was at ground zero with hundreds of workers that he payed for to help find and identify victims. Share this photo to remind people exactly what kind of American our President is!"   Although the image used in the meme above was taken on 18 September 2001 outside the New York Stock Exchange, the meme reflects comments Trump made two days after the attack, when he told an interviewer for a German television station about his efforts to help: taken Well I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we'll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they're doing is amazing. And we'll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.   Trump made similar remarks to an NBC News reporter: NBC News Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we're bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they've never done work like this before. And they're hard-working people but they've never seen anything like it. And they've never done work like this before, it's terrible. Reporter: Have you spoken to any of your men? Do you know how they're reacting to this, because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult. Trump: Well there are a lot of them but they've never seen bodies like this -- bodies all over. The great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing, and that's what they were all striving for. But generally speaking that's not the case. So, they are working very, very hard, but it's a very depressing situation for these folks.  President Trump described it a little differently during a speech at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2019, saying he went down to Ground Zero on the day of the attacks "with men who worked for me to try to help in any little way that we could." described it a little differently Trump's statements were vague, so they didn't provide any specifics that would help verify who the men he referenced were, what their relationship to him was, and whether he "paid for" their labor, making it difficult to tease out the accuracy of what he said. His claims about what he did and witnessed on the day terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center buildings have been sources of confusion or consternation since the real estate mogul launched his bid to seek the presidency in 2015. Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. "This is the first Im hearing of it," Alles told us by phone. "There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered." Alles added that the construction crews he saw at Ground Zero who came to help rescue workers were from the trade unions and were not hired by Trump. John Feal, founder of the 9/11 first responder health advocacy non-profit the FealGood Foundation, responded to Ground Zero on 12 September 2001 as a construction demolitions expert. He also told us he didn't see evidence of hundreds of workers hired by Trump at the site, and added that by 15 September 2001 the area was on lock down. "There was no way anyone could get in and out of there without a [government-issued] badge," he told us. (Feal was forced off the site as of 17 September 2001 when he suffered a life-threatening injury caused by a 4-ton piece of steel falling on his foot, crushing it and resulting in a major infection.) non-profit forced off According to the New York Times, the entire Trump organization didn't even encompass enough people in 2001 to have assisted in the manner described: New York Times [Timothy] OBrien, the author [of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald], said the size of the Trump Organization at the time was a little bit over a dozen people, which would have made it impossible to send hundreds of people to participate in the relief effort. At the time, Mr. Trump had a large number of casino workers based in Atlantic City, but there is no documented evidence of him marshaling his resources to aid in the relief effort. Hes very comfortable propagandizing that event for political purposes, Mr. OBrien said. Even in the face of tragedy, he cant help but self-promote and self-aggrandize. We reached out to the White House Press Office and the Trump Organization asking for corroborating evidence of these claims but received no response, although we don't know of anyone who raised questions about the veracity of his statements at the time they were made. But now that Trump is president, his political opponents seized on the opportunity to proclaim that he was lying about having helped in the aftermath of 9/11: Heres video of @realDonaldTrump claiming he helped look for survivors & clear rubble on 9/11. He didn't. He was lying. #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ @realDonaldTrump #NeverForget pic.twitter.com/gvc3MsbaJZ  Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018 September 11, 2018 It's not the first time Trump's accounts of his experiences in New York related to the 11 September terrorist attacks have been called into question. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, some critics cited a TIME magazine report that placed Trump in Chicago at the time of the attacks -- but that was due to an error in the report. For his part, Trump claimed at a campaign rally in 2015 that he watched from his apartment in Trump Tower as people jumped from the burning WTC buildings to their deaths, but multiple news organizations pointed out that would have been an impossibility because Trump Tower is four miles away from Ground Zero: some error pointed out I have a window in my apartment that specifically was aimed at the World Trade Center, because of the beauty of the whole downtown Manhattan. And I watched as people jumped, and I watched the second plane come in Trump also famously but falsely claimed repeatedly that he witnessed Muslim Americans in New Jersey celebrating as the WTC buildings came down: falsely claimed Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. Keneally, Meghan and Liz Kreutz.  "Where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Were on 9/11."
  ABC News.  9 September 2016. Waldman, Paul.  "Trumps Long History of Lying About 9/11 and Exploiting It for Personal Gain."
  The Washington Post.  11 September 2018. Hind, John.  "21 Awful Truths About 9/11."
  The Telegraph.  5 September 2001. Neilan, Terrence.  "Hopes Are Raised, And Dashed, About Rescue of Firefighters."
  The New York Times.  13 September 2001. Balsalmo, Michael and Nancy Benac.  "Trump's Claims About 9/11 Don't Hold Up to Scrutiny."
  Associated Press.  20 April 2016. Rogers, Katie.  "Fact-Checking Trumps Claim He Spent a Lot of Time With 9/11 Responders."
  The New York Times.  29 July 2019. On 14 June 2015, a number of Florida news outlets published a seemingly remarkable photograph, sent to them by a man named Richard Jones, showing a raccoon riding the back of an alligator like a surfboard: published  The peculiar sight may have been endearing, but it also left many viewers questioning the image's authenticity. Photographer Richard Jones's explanation of how he snapped the image was that he was walking with his son along the Oaklawaha River in the Ocala National Forest when they came across a raccoon. Their appearance startled the creature, he said, which sought the safety of the water, where it hopped onto the back of an alligator. The raccoon was only "riding" the alligator for a short while, Jones said, as the gator quickly slipped underwater and the raccoon scurried back onto land:  Had a wonderful morning with the family in Ocala National forest and took an equally wonderful photo! We were walking along the Oaklawaha river watching some gators warm up in the morning. My son went through some palm fronds to catch a different angle and frightened a raccoon. It must have been asleep because it stumbled toward the water and hoped on top of the gator we were watching. I snapped a lucky picture right when the gator slipped into the water and before the raccoon jumped off and scurried away. Without the context you'd think the raccoon was hitching a ride across the river. Pretty amazing. Definitely the photo of a lifetime. Included a second one my wife took or the area. You have my permission to share the photo and use the photo in any way. I don't want anything in return. Just thought other people might enjoy it. However, not everyone took the photograph at face value. The Florida Times-Union published it but included a disclaimer stating that they hadn't confirmed its authenticity:   published The photo of the gator with raccoon in tow seems to have gone viral on social media, and the story has been picked up by several other media outlets. And although we haven't been able to confirm the authenticity of these images, this was too good of a story to leave our viewers out of the loop. DISCLAIMER: Mr. Jones did not leave a phone number in his email so that we could confirm the authenticity of the image. We did try to contact him via his email address and we also requested he phone us. At the time this story was posted, we still have not received a call or email from Mr. Jones.   The Ocala Star Banner was more skeptical, opting not to publish the photograph due to questions about its authenticity and a lack of response from the submitter:Until now, the Star-Banner has declined to publish the photo because we still have questions about its authenticity. We have reached out to the photographer, a man named Rich Jones, but [have] not heard back from him. Heres a summary of our concerns: +Scope: The raccoon seems out of proportion -- too big -- compared with the alligator. +Feet: Even zooming in, you cant tell whether the raccoon has feet. +Tail: Dont raccoons usually have longer, fluffier tails? +Posture: That is an unusual pose for a raccoon. It almost looks like a taxidermy piece. +Gator: The alligators eye has an odd color, shape and placement. Its body seems rubber-like. +Mask: The raccoons mask seems like an add-on. When a photographer in London captured a somewhat comparable image of an animal "riding" another animal in February 2015  a rather amazing picture of a weasel hitchhiking on the back of a woodpecker in flight  a small army of photoshop experts also declared that picture to be fake for similar reasons. But in that case the photographer made himself available for interviews, and the consensus remains that that photograph was real. captured consensus While Jones didn't come forward with more information about the image, a performance artist who goes by the name "Zardulu" did. In December 2016, Zardulu told the Washington Post that she was responsible for a number of social media hoaxes, including this photograph of the raccoon riding an alligator: Washington Post In 2015, there was an incredible viral photograph, a lucky shot, that showed a raccoon perched on the back of a swimming alligator. A man named Richard Jones told the local news that hed snapped the picture himself, and a lot of Florida news outlets ran with it. The story spread to larger publications. It went viral. There were plenty of doubters, of course. But also many believers, people who would prefer to live in a world where a raccoon could use a predator as a ferry. And that preference is exactly what Zardulu understands so well. I staged the raccoon and the alligator, Zardulu said. The animals are taxidermied; she sprayed each with a commercial product used to waterproof leather to protect them from the water. Zardulu showed us photographs of the setup, and some of herself, in costume, clutching the animals:   Weber, Greta.  "Raccoon Rides Alligator in Florida  Is It for Real?"
  National Geographic.  16 June 2015.


 Ohlheiser, Abby.  "She Staged a Viral Story. You Fell for Her Hoax. She Thinks Thats Beautiful."
  The Washington Post.  14 December 2016. WFTV.  "Man Snaps Picture of Raccoon on Top of Gator in Ocala National Forest."
  14 June 2015. Many Missouri lawmakers are worried about the estimated $456 million budget gap for fiscal year 2018. By law, thegovernment cannot approve an unbalanced budget. Although the state has made some cuts, more work still needs to be done. That has lawmakers looking for answers as to why state revenues have dropped. Rep. Kip Kendrick, D-Columbia, was interviewed by KMIZ's Joey Parker on This Week, on Jan. 20. Kendrick stated why he believes the budget gap is so large. If you look at the budget right now, income tax collection is right where it was projected, the same with sales tax collection, he said. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. We wanted to check out Kendricks claim that corporate entities are paying a lot less in taxes  and if they are, why? Budgeted vs. actual revenues The first half of Kendricks statement is easy to verify. Overall, the state of Missouri collected less corporate income taxes and about the same amount of individual income tax and sales tax when comparing the collected year-to-date revenue from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017. According to the latest monthly general revenue report released Feb. 2from the Office of Administration Division of Budget and Planning, individual income tax and sales tax both grew around 3 percent. However, corporate tax income collections are significantly down compared to last year. In FY 2016, the state collected about $272 million. In FY 2017, it collected only $193 million, which is a 29 percent decrease or about $78 million less. Source: Missouri Office of Administration/Division of Budget & Planning Note that these are collections year-to-date, comparing the collections as of Jan. 31 for FY 2016 to FY 2017. The fiscal year for 2017 runs until June 30, so we wont know the full accounting until then. Corporate tax income from the tax deadline on April 18 could make up the difference. However, evenGov. Greitens proposed FY 2018 budget, which still has to be approved by the Missouri legislature, projected a $97 million decrease in corporate tax income for FY 2017. So what we do know supports Kendricks point: Income tax collection is right where is was projected, the same with sales tax collection. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Missouri business climate The second half of his claim is trickier to pin down: Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. First, is there another explanation as to why the corporate tax collections are low? There could be fewer businesses in the state, or these businesses could have generated less income. The Missouri Department of Economic Development tracks the number of businesses in the state. Because the 2016 data are only available through the third quarter, the department provided data in an email for the third quarters in 2014, 2015 and 2016 to compare. According to the department, the numbers are counts of establishments, or individual locations, which is the same measure on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. This means that instead of counting Wal-mart once, the data reports individual Wal-mart establishment. In 2014 there were 185,634 establishments; in 2015, there were 192,108 establishments; and in 2016, there were 193,695 establishments. So the number of businesses increased, if only slightly. So are businesses in Missouri not doing well? Do they have less taxable income? Both Chuck Pierce, the government relations consultant for the Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants, and Tracy King, the vice president of governmental affairs at the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said that corporate income can vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the economy. Profits can be reduced by a recession. However, Tom Kruckemeyer, the chief economist for the liberal think tank Missouri Budget Project, said the state economy is doing reasonably well. Broadly speaking, the economic indicators for the state of Missouri are actually pretty good, Kruckemeyer said. One economic indicator is the unemployment rate. According to the numbers release Jan. 24 fromU.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Missouris seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 4.4 percent, compared to the national rate of 4.7 percent. And over the past few years, theMissouri and national unemployment rates have dropped. The2016 Missouri Economic Reportproduced by the Missouri Department of Economic Development found that 50,000 jobs were added in Missouri between December 2014 and December 2015. This is the largest year-over-year growth in 10 years. The report also stated that Missouris personal income increased 2 percent in 2015 and has averaged an increase of 1.8 percent from 2010 through 2015. Overall, these numbers show that Missouris economy is doing fine, so corporate entities must be paying less taxes due to tax cuts as Kendrick claims. Taxing corporations In the KMIZ interview, Kendrick said there was a loophole in a bill passed in 2015 that caused corporations to pay less taxes. Kendrick, in an interview with PolitiFact, said thebill he was referring to was Senate Bill 19, which changed the way corporate income tax was allocated for multi-state corporations. The bill expandedHouse Bill 128, passed in 2013. Before SB 19 was passed, King, of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said Missouri taxed 50 percent of any goods produced in the state and sold in another state, so these businesses were double taxed. She said that businesses were moving out of the state and taking jobs because of this tax. Thanks to SB 19, Missouri no longer taxes the production of goods sold out of state. In the fiscal notes for SB 19, theestimated cost of the law was $15.2 million per year. However, Kendrick said the new estimate of the bills effect on the states revenue is a drop of $200 million, which other legislators confirmed. Rep. T.J. Berry, R-Kansas City, said he also heard the bill reduced tax collections by $200 million.And in a Jan. 24 House debate, Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said a corporate allocable tax bill passed two years ago cost the state $200 million. The Department of Revenue has not responded to PolitiFacts inquiries for how much SB 19 affected the revenue collections. A few tax authorities have said this bill has played a part in the decrease of corporate income tax revenues. Kruckemeyer said the combination of HB 128 and SB 19 were the primary causes of the low corporate income tax collections because they were explicit changes in tax law. However, Ray McCarty, president of Associated Industries of Missouri, said SB 19 did lower collections but cautioned that corporate income tax revenue is only a few million dollars out of multi-billion dollar revenue collection. He stressed that there may be other factors at play, including above average tax refunds and other legislation. Our Ruling Kendrick said, Corporate entities are paying less taxes this year. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015. There hasnt been a decrease in businesses, and the Missouri economy is doing well as indicated by various economic data. So corporations must be paying less taxes  though experts can argue about which tax cuts and other factors are behind Missouris lower corporate income tax collections. However, we dont have the complete numbers of corporate tax collections because the fiscal year doesnt end until June 30. With that caveat, we rate this claim as Mostly True. During the U.S. federal government shutdown that began in December 2018, President Donald Trump and many of his supporters blamed Congressional Democrats for the budgetary impasse. As part of that rhetorical battle, Trump and others accused Democrats of hypocrisy and political opportunism, alleging that their current opposition to providing funding for the president's long-promised border wall was in stark contrast to their past support for border security infrastructure. In his 8 January 2019 Oval Office address, President Trump alluded to this notion by taking a swipe at Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate Minority leader who, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was scheduled to offer a response to the president's primetime immigration speech: "Senator Chuck Schumer  who you will be hearing from later tonight  has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected President." In a similar vein, around the beginning of 2019 a widely-shared meme posed a rhetorical question about $50 billion in funding for border infrastructure that was supposedly part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, implying that Democratic Congressional leaders had somehow been involved in misappropriating the money: "Schumer, Pelosi and the Dems may have wished they had just given POTUS the 5 Billion for the wall ... rather than having to answer this question!!! ... or is this the bigger picture??? Where is the $50 Billion set aside for the 2006 Secure Fence Act? Bush signed it & Obama was supposed to oversee its construction? Where is the money?" A 12 January post on the website of the conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense contained this graphic version of the meme: website   The figure of $50 billion was especially significant because it was a far greater sum than the $5 billion for border wall construction which President Trump demanded be included in the 2019 federal budget, and which formed the crux of the partisan standoff and ensuing government shutdown. The "$50 billion" message was shared widely on Twitter and Facebook, prompting inquiries from readers about its veracity. Twitter Facebook In reality, $50 billion was not set aside for border security infrastructure as part of the 2006 Secure Fence Act, and therefore no misappropriation of such funding occurred. One analysis, which predated the Secure Fence Act by seven years, predicted that building and maintaining the type of border fencing provided for in that legislation might cost up to $49 billion over the course of 25 years, but that analysis did not play a significant role in Congressional deliberations before the passing of the Secure Fence Act. The Secure Fence Act was a law introduced by Republican Congressman Peter King of New York in September 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2006. Among other provisions, the law required the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin (within 18 months) the construction of at least two layers of fencing, along with barriers, cameras, and sensors, along five sections of the United States border with Mexico: law required In the context of the 2018-19 controversy over President Trump's proposed border wall, Republicans made claims about the effectiveness of that border fencing in reducing illegal border crossings into the United States. In a previous fact check, we found such claims to be vague and flawed. fact check Some Democrats supported the bill, and some didn't. In the House of Representatives, the Secure Fence Act passed by 283 votes to 138, with 64 Democrats voting in favor and 131, including Nancy Pelosi, voting against it. passed In the U.S. Senate, the bill passed 80-19. Some 26 Democrats supported it, including future president and vice-president Barack Obama and Joe Biden, 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and future Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, while 17 Democrats, including future Secretary of State John Kerry and future Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, opposed it. passed The claim that Congress "set aside" $50 billion for border fencing in 2006 appears to have been derived from a 1999 study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In a 2 January 2019& column for Fox News, Republican U.S. Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana used the figure in accusing Congressional Democrats of "playing games with America's safety": column The bill before us would certainly do some good. It would authorize some badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country. No, that statement wasnt made by a Republican. It was a speech given by then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in 2006, when 26 Senate Democrats -- including Obama and Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer of New York - voted for The Secure Fence Act, which allocated $50 billion over 25 years for 700 miles of fencing along the border. Thats right. Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer voted for 10 times more funding than President Trump is requesting now to secure our border. What has changed Democrats recognition that our southern border needs to be secured? Two words: President Trump. In a 2017 Boston Globe column, Annie Linskey wrote of the Secure Fence Act that "Congress put aside $1.4 billion for the fence, but the whole cost, including maintenance, was pegged at $50 billion over 25 years, according to analyses at the time." column Several articles from early 2007 and 2008 referred to the $50 billion claim. For example, in September 2008, then-Democratic U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas wrote in opposition to the border fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act: 2007 wrote "With construction expected to exceed $1.2 billion and lifetime maintenance of up to $50 billion, the exorbitant cost of this border fence would be better invested in additional Border Patrol agents, equipment and technology." In January 2007, the Migration Policy Institute cited a report by the Congressional Research Service as its source for the $50 billion figure, writing: cited The 700 miles of double-layer border fencing called for in the Secure Fence Act of [2006] could cost more than $50 billion over 25 years, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) ... The report cites a Corps of Engineers study that estimates construction of the fencing would cost about $1.2 to $1.3 million a mile, in addition to costs for labor and for purchasing the required property. Further, the Corps of Engineers estimates that maintenance of the fence over its 25-year lifespan would cost between $16.4 million to $70 million per mile, depending on the frequency and strength of attempts to cross it. The CRS report was dated 21 September 2006: seven days after the House of Representatives passed the Secure Fence Act, and eight days before the Senate did likewise: report Because border fencing is a relatively new and limited phenomenon along the U.S.-Mexico border, there is a dearth of information concerning its overall costs and benefits. The Corps of Engineers study predicted that the costs of constructing a double layer fence consisting of primary fencing and Sandia fencing would range from $1.2 million to $1.3 million a mile. The Corps of Engineers also predicted that the 25 year life cycle cost of the fence would range from $16.4 million to $70 million per mile depending on the amount of damage sustained by the fencing. If significant portions of the border were to be fenced, reducing the areas along which individuals could cross the border, it may stand to reason that the fencing will be subjected to more breaches and other attempts to compromise than the fencing that has already been constructed. This may mean that the costs of maintaining border fencing that is widely deployed in the future will be higher than they have been thus far for the limited deployment. The double-layer fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act was expected to stretch for a total of around 700 miles. If the "25-year life cycle cost" of the fence was between $16.4 million and $70 million per mile, that would equate to a 25-year cost of between $11.5 billion and $49 billion. That "worst case" estimate of $49 billion over 25 years is the source of the "$50 billion" claim which was promulgated in 2007 and 2008, and then again in 2017 and 2019, amid the controversy over President Trump's border wall proposals, and Democratic opposition to them. Because the original Corps of Engineers study was seven years old by 2006, the CRS adjusted the original figures presented in the 1999 report for inflation. The Corps of Engineers recommended using landing mat fencing for a primary fence and Sandia fencing for a secondary fence. Those figures were as follows: study   The existence of the 1999 Corps of Engineers study shows that, at the time lawmakers voted through the Secure Fence Act in 2006, one analysis from a reliable source included estimates that indicated the 25-year cost of a 700-mile double-layer fence along the southern border (such as that envisioned in the Secure Fence Act) could range from $11.5 billion to $49 billion. Furthermore, a Congressional Research Service report which reiterated those findings was published on 21 September 2006, too late to be taken into consideration by U.S. Representatives, but before their Senate counterparts cast their votes. However, these estimates (the source of the "$50 billion" figure) only appear to have attracted attention and gained traction after the passing of the Secure Fence Act (for example in the January 2007 Migration Policy Institute analysis), rather than beforehand. In a debate about the bill on 29 September 2006, for example, several U.S. Senators offered varying estimates of the likely cost of the fencing envisioned in the Secure Fence Act. None of them mentioned a figure of $50 billion, or even close to that. debate In fact, no member of either house of Congress mentioned either the figure of $50 billion nor the original 1999 Army Corps of Engineers study during any debate about the Secure Fence Act. On 25 September 2006, the Washington Post reported that confusion existed over how much the construction of the fencing would cost, although again, none of the estimates listed in the article came anywhere close to $50 billion: reported The House has passed and the Senate is debating legislation to build 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border with no certain idea of how much it would cost. Estimates range from $2 billion, cited by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for homeland security, to $7 billion, the figure used by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Homeland Security officials told congressional aides it would cost about $5 billion. The department would not confirm that figure nor address the cost of the 107 miles of fencing already up along the nearly 2,000-mile border. The cost can vary depending on whether the government or a private contractor builds the fence. So while it's true that the Army Corps of Engineers study was publicly available when Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and could have proved instructive to the debate around the planned construction of border fencing, no evidence suggests that either document played a part in the considerations or deliberations of lawmakers before they cast their votes. This is worth bearing in mind when evaluating any claim that lawmakers (particularly Democrats now hostile to President Trump's border wall plans) passed the Secure Fence Act despite estimates which placed its 25-year cost at $50 billion. Finally, the more specific claim made in the meme and by Rep. Scalise, that the Secure Fence Act "allocated" or "set aside" $50 billion over 25 years, is false. In fact, the Secure Fence Act did not authorize, allocate or "set aside" any funding. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) had spent $2.3 billion on building 654 miles of border fencing between 2007 and 2015, and that CBP had projected in 2009 that the cost of maintaining its border fencing for 20 years would be $1 billion. reported U.S. Congress. "Public Law 109-367 -- Secure Fence Act of 2006."
 26 October 2006. Kasprak, Alex.  "Did Illegal Border Traffic Drop by 90% in Areas Where Physical Barriers Were Expanded?"
  Snopes.com.  8 January 2019. Scalise, Rep. Steve.  "Democrats Need to Stop Playing Games with America's Safety and Fund Border Security Now."
  Fox News.  2 January 2019. Linskey, Annie.  "In 2006, Democrats Were Saying 'Build That Fence!"
  The Boston Globe.  27 January 2017. The Washington Times.  "Fence Advocate Calls Estimates Exaggerated."
  16 January 2007. Kariam, Reed.  "America's Border Fence."
  CQ Researcher.  19 September 2008. Gelatt, Julia.  "New Congress Takes First Steps Toward Immigration Reform."
  Migration Policy Institute.  15 January 2007. Nuez-Neto, Blas and Stephen Via.  "Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border."
  Congressional Research Service.  21 September 2006. Marsh, Dr. Charles P. et al.  "Engineering Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Study of Barrier Fencing Systems."
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.  February 1999. Gamboa, Suzanne.  "Questions Remain on Cost of Border Bills."
  The Washington Post.  25 September 2006. U.S. Government Accountability Office.  "Southwest Border Security -- Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps."
  February 2017.