Is the Jim Henson Company Making Labyrinth 2?
Claim:  The Jim Henson Company has announced development of a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth.  Example:  [Collected via email, November 2013] "Labyrinth 2 return of the goblin king is rumored to be released soon but I can't find a release date anywhere and it's floating around facebook like wild fire.. Is this a rumor? or can all of the Jim Henson lovers of the world get stoked about the upcoming Labyrinth 2?!"   Origins:  On 9 October 2014, a rumor began circulating via social media that the Jim Henson Company was working on Labyrinth 2, a sequel to the 1986 film Labyrinth.  The rumor stemmed from an article published by Variety about Billy Crystal's joining the cast of another Jim Henson project, Which Witch. At the end of the article, author Davy McNary mentioned the Henson company also had several other projects in the works: article It's also working on a quartet of legacy titles in the Henson library  a Fraggle Rock movie that's been in development at New Regency; a sequel to 1982's The Dark Crystal; a sequel to 1986's Labyrinth; and a movie based on the Emmet Otter character. Variety updated the article on 13 October 2014 to clarify the above-quoted sentence: Henson Co. is working on a project based on Labyrinth, but it is not a sequel. But that correction didn't kill the rumor, because in November 2014 a fake movie poster for Labyrinth 2 started circulating on the internet:  That movie poster was a private mockup for the not-in-the-works Labyrinth 2 created by artist Ruben Ireland which went viral shortly after it was published by Slash Film on 11 November 2014 in an article titled "Cool Stuff: Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened."  article In January 2016, Variety reported that Sony had closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce what was described as a Labyrinth "reboot" (rather than a sequel): Sony is developing a reboot of "Labyrinth," the final movie directed by Jim Henson, and has closed a deal with the Jim Henson Co. to produce the film with Sony's TriStar division. Lisa Henson of the Henson Co. will produce the project. "Guardians of the Galaxy" co-writer Nicole Perlman will write the script. The original musical fantasy movie, released in 1986, starred a 15-year-old Jennifer Connelly as the protagonist who has to navigate a maze to save her infant brother, who had been kidnapped by a goblin king  played by David Bowie, who recorded five songs for the film. Tri-Star's Nicole Brown will oversee the new "Labyrinth" for the studio. However, EW then confusingly reported that "the new 'Labyrinth' film will be a sequel to the original, not a reboot." reported Shortly afterwards, screenwriter Nicole Perlman fostered even more uncertainty when she tweeted to say that "no one is remaking 'Labyrinth'" and suggested that a "continuation" of the film was in the works: Guys, please don't fall for all the clickbait. No one is remaking "Labyrinth." That movie is perfect as it is.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 24, 2016 January 24, 2016  Labyrinth is my favorite film from childhood, so I share your concerns that any continuation of the world be handled with love and respect.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016  Henson Co & I started talking in late 2014, so the timing of these rumors is so upsetting. I would never seek to profit from Bowie's death.  Nicole Perlman (@Uncannygirl) January 23, 2016 January 23, 2016  So what's next in the Labyrinth realm: a sequel, a reboot, or a continuation?  The answer remains unclear. The original Labyrinth was something of a box office bust when it was released in 1986 but has built a cult following over the years thanks to Jim Henson's amazing puppetry and a flamboyant performance by the Goblin King, David Bowie:  bust    Last updated:  6 February 2016   Lussier, Germain.  "Movie Posters for Sequels That Never Happened."   Slash Film.  11 November 2014.  McNary, David.  "Billy Crystal Joins Henson Co.'s 'Which Witch.'"   Variety.  9 October 2014.  McNary, David.  "Sony Rebooting Jim Henson's 'Labyrinth.'"   Variety.  22 January 2016.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned about the financial crisis of the 2000s before it happened, she claimed during a CNN town hall where she pitched herself as the best option for president in the 2020 election. Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, told an audience of college students that her whole lifes work has been about what's happening to working families. And starting in the early 2000s, the crisis was coming. I was waving my arms, ringing the bell, doing everything I could. I said families are getting cheated all over this country,Warren said April 22 in Manchester, N.H.It started when the mortgage companies targeted communities of color. They targeted seniors. They targeted Latinos. They came in and sold the worst possible mortgages and stripped wealth out of those communities, and then took those products across the nation. I went everywhere I could. I talked about it to anyone who would listen, a crisis is coming. But nobody wanted to listen, Warren said, so the crisis hit in 2007, 2008, and just took us down. We confirmed that Warren did raise the alarm about the looming housing and financial crisis. She spoke about debt, financial lending practices and other factors affecting families and the economy years before the financial crisis peaked in 2008. Millions of peoplelost their jobs and homes during the recent Great Recession, generally regarded as happening from late 2007 to mid 2009. Experts say the financial crisis resulted from a number ofcolliding factors, including an unsustainable housing boom partly driven by an easy availability of mortgages, banks taking on too much risk, government policies and lax regulation. Subprime loans  loans at higher interest rates made to people perceived to be at greater risk for defaulting on loans (including families with low and moderate income and poor credit histories)  played a key role in the housing crisis. Warrens presidential campaigncitedseveralblogpostsand comments to media outlets in 2005 and 2006, and Warrens 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap, co-authored with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, as examples of Warren warning about subprime lending and an imminent housing crisis. Warren has represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate since 2013. Before going to Congress, she taught law at the university level for more than 30 years, most recently at Harvard, specializing in commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy. Subprime lenders defended their business practices by saying they were helping more families own homes, Warrens book said, but thats little more than public relations hot air. In the overwhelming majority of cases, subprime lenders prey on families that already own their own homes, rather than expanding access to new homeowners. Fully 80 percent of subprime mortgages involve refinancing loans for families that already own their homes,Warren said in the book. For these families, subprime lending does nothing more than increase the family's housing costs, taking resources away from other investments and increasing the chances that the family will lose its home if anything goes wrong. In aJune 2004 interviewwith PBSs NOW host David Brancaccio, Warren spoke about growing household debt, against risky mortgage lending practices and what she regarded as bad advice to Americans by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Warren said Greenspan encouraged families to borrow against their house to pay for basic expenses. I think what the landscape shows is the middle class is under assault in a way that has not happened before in our history, Warren said. Stagnant wages, rising costs, wildly rising debt. It's in everyone's interest to turn that back around. Warrens campaign noted that The New York Times quoted Warren in an October 2005articlethat said homeowners in suburbs were taking on more and more home-equity debt to stay out of bankruptcy. The article said: Professor Warren of Harvard believes that disaster lurks as homeowners borrow against their homes to forestall bankruptcy. When the stock market tumbled five years ago, people in trouble could sell stocks to stay afloat, she said. But home equity doesn't work the same way. As she put it, You can't sell a part of your home like you could a stock in the stock market bubble. Warren told the newspaper that after a new bankruptcy law went into effect that month, filing for bankruptcy would become more difficult: And that means more families are set up to lose their homes. Warren was substantially correct in herassessmentthat home prices were going up rapidly relative to incomes (particularly for households with a one wage earner), said Ed Pinto, co-director of the Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. But Pinto disagrees with Warren about what caused the crisis. Warren blames banks and lenders, when in fact Congress andgovernment policiesaimed at making homes more affordable are the root cause, Pinto said. (Check out our2008 in-depth analysison the causes of the financial crisis and how that issue was debated in the 2008 presidential campaign. Then, both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama said they sounded warnings, and both blamed the other for helping cause the crisis.) Warren was also a vocal opponent of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, because she thought the law would hurt consumers, said Deborah Goldstein, an executive vice president at the Center for Responsible Lending, which advocates for consumer financial protections. Risingcredit card debthurt Americans already struggling with mortgage payments. I remember (Warren) talking about credit card abuses and how they were harming families, Goldstein said. People were using credit to manage basic daily expenses. Goldstein said that her group, also concerned about the imminent financial crisis, in the early 2000s communicated with Warren on what could be done about it. I'd give then-professor Warren the credit for banging the drum and ringing the bell early on unfair financial practices, said Ed Mierzwinski, senior director of the Federal Consumer Program at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Warren was the No. 1 go-to academic expert in the mid-to-late '90s and 2000s in the debate over changes to the bankruptcy code, he said. Warren in January 2007testifiedbefore the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, saying that the credit card market was broken and hurt consumers. Warren was chosen in 2008 to lead theCongressional Oversight Panel, established by Congress to review the state of the financial markets and the regulatory system. Warren also helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The bureau emerged from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, designed to enforce federal consumer financial laws and protect consumers. In 2013 and 2014, Goldstein's groupcollaborated with the CFPBin drafting payday lending rules. Speaking of the financial crisis that gained traction in 2007, Warren said, I talked about it to anyone who would listen, a crisis is coming. There is documented evidence that Warren spoke against risky mortgage lending practices, rising debt and other factors that contributed to the financial and housing crisis years before it materialized. We rate Warren's claim True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. In mid-2015, thehistoric Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Carving Stone Mountain In June 2015, rumors claimed that a petition was being circulated that aimed to destroy the Stone Mountain carving permanently, but those rumors referenced a long-inactive petition that antedated the Charleston massacre.  Then a "like and share" image began to circulate online alongside claims that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had issued a formal statement demanding the memorial be "sand-blasted off" Stone Mountain: Stone Mountain circulate That rumor was particularly upsetting to those opposing the removal of Confederate symbols, who feared the carving (along with parts of Southern history) would be permanently destroyed. Confederate symbols Southern history News articles and social media posts referencing the NAACP claim overwhelmingly linked back to a single article published by Atlanta television station WSB-TV on 13 July 2015, titled "NAACP Wants Removal of Confederate Generals from Stone Mountain." The article quoted Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose, who opined that the Stone Mountain carving ought to be removed (and used the term "sand-blasted"): article The organization issued a statement calling for the removal of all symbols of the Confederacy from the park.     "My tax dollars should not be used to commemorate slavery," Rose said.      Rose said his group wants Confederate symbols removed from all state-owned buildings, parks and lands.       Rose told Petersen he would start with Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.     "Those guys need to go. They can be sand-blasted off, or somebody could carefully remove a slab of that and auction it off to the highest bidder," Rose said. The following day (14 July 2015) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article titled "Sandblasting the Confederate Faces Off Stone Mountain? Yeah, Right." Curiously, what appeared to be link to the purported NAACP statement merely led to an image of the carving and a photograph of a document (which was undated and nearly impossible to read): article Although subsequent references to an NAACP statement calling for the destruction of the Stone Mountain carving were rife in articles across the web, we were unable to locate an actual copy of the purported statement to review its content or substantiate its existence. No mention of it appeared on the Atlanta NAACP's web site, nor was it mentioned on their Facebook  page. No information was provided in any reference to it about the date on which it was issued, what its content may have been, or what formal action was supposedly being sought by the Atlanta NAACP chapter.       web site Facebook It's true Atlanta NAACP chapter president Richard Rose said that the Stone Mountain carving should be "sand-blasted off" the mountain in a June 2015 interview and that the following day the Journal-Constitution referenced a "statement" from the local NAACP chapter. However, we were unable to locate a purported statement released by that chapter (or the larger national NAACP organization) demanding such an action. Moreover, whether such an action is even possible or plausible (not to mention under consideration to any meaningful degree) is doubtful. In October 2021, a list of what appeared to be failed, and in some cases rather bizarre, historical proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution proved popular on the online forum Reddit. An Oct. 20 post bore the headline "A list of American amendments that were never approved," and consisted of a photograph of a page from a book, containing the following text: Oct. 20 post The following is a very limited list of some of the proposed amendments that never left the halls of Congress: 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate1876 The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding1878 An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President1893 Renaming this nation the United States of the Earth1893 Abolishing the United States Army and Navy1894 Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs1912 Making marriage between races illegal1914 Finding divorce to be illegal1916 All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army.1933 An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million1936 An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war1938 The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories1947 The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%1948 The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.   On the whole, the list presented 15 proposed amendments with a very high degree of accuracy. Most were entirely accurate, a few were accurate in their substance, with some relatively insignificant disclaimers necessary, and only one involved a degree of misrepresentation.  The source of the list was "The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It," a book that has been printed and updated by Oak Hill Publishing, since the early 1990s. The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It Oak Hill Publishing As the book suggests, the 15 proposals on the list represent a very tiny fraction of all of the failed proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution over the years. According the U.S. Senate historian, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789. Of those, only 27 have come into effect, while six others gained the two-thirds majority required in both houses of Congress, but failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed since 1789 The following is a breakdown of the details and context associated with each of the 15 failed amendments included in the list, presented in chronological order. 1876 An attempt to abolish the United States Senate. In April 1876, U.S. Rep. Sobieski Ross, R-Pennsylvania, presented two "memorials" (petitions) on behalf of 22 residents of Potter County in northern Pennsylvania, near the border with upstate New York. One called for the "abolition of the presidency," the other called for the "abolition of the United States Senate." The proposed amendments were forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, but do not appear to have advanced from there.  presented two "memorials" (petitions) In April 1911, U.S. Rep. Victor Berger, a Socialist from Wisconsin, introduced his own proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate. The resolution read, in part: proposal to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Senate Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth... All legislative powers shall be vested in the House of Representatives. Its enactments, subject to referendum...shall be the supreme law, and the President shall have no power to veto them, nor shall any court have the power to invalidate them. Berger's proposal never made it out of committee, but shortly afterwards, the Senate passed a separate resolution that would go on to become the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct popular elections to the U.S. Senate, and replaced the existing method whereby state legislatures selected the members of the upper chamber.  separate resolution 1876: "The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding.". This appears to be a reference to the Blaine Amendments  a series of proposals between 1875 and 1876, the first of which was made by James Blaine, a Maine Republican who was a member of the House, and then the Senate, during that period. Blaine's December 1875 proposal prohibited states from allowing religious groups or schools to receive taxpayer dollars, as follows:  December 1875 proposal No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any funds so raised, or lands so used, be divided among any religious sects or denominations. However, it did not address the eligibility of "religious leaders" to hold office, and its restrictions relating to public funding were limited to the states, rather than including federal funding. A subsequent Republican revision of Blaine's proposal, in 1876, did expand the funding restrictions to the federal level, but did not involve barring religious leaders from holding office.  Republican revision 1878: "An Executive Council of Three to replace the office of President."  In the spring of 1878, U.S. Rep. Milton Southard, D-Ohio, introduced a proposal to replace the existing office of the president with a new "Supreme Executive Council of three." The triumvirate was to be chosen by "qualified electors" of the states, and taken from three would-be new districts: the Western states; the Eastern and Middle states; and the Southern states.  The original proposal can be found here. The exact stage at which the proposed amendment failed is not clear.  here 1893: "Renaming this nation the 'United States of the Earth'"1893: "Abolishing the United States Army and Navy." Based on a news report from the spring of 1893, and a 1987 New York Times article, both these measures were included in a proposed constitutional amendment put forward in February 1893, by U.S. Rep. Lucas Militiades Miller, D-Wisconsin.  news report from the spring of 1893 1987 New York Times article However, Miller may have made the proposals at the request of James Seldon Cowen, a Virginia inventor with eclectic interests and theories, who advanced detailed proposals for renaming the country, as well as abolishing the Army, Navy and their "schools of organized murder," in a book published the previous year.  inventor eclectic interests in a book published the previous year 1894: "Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs."In 1894, U.S. Sen. William Frye, R-Maine, introduced a proposal to amend the preamble to the Constitution and explicitly assert the Christianity of the United States. After the words "We the people of the United States," and before "in order to form a more perfect union," Frye proposed to add the following:  proposed to add the following ...devoutly acknowledging the supreme authority and just government of God in all the affairs of men and nations, and grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty; and encouraged by the assurances of His word, invoke His guidance, as a Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ,... 1912: "Making marriage between races illegal." In December 1912, U.S. Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, D-Georgia, introduced a proposal to prohibit inter-racial marriage by way of constitutional amendment. Roddenberry, a white supremacist and racist extremist even by the standards of the early 20th century, explicitly cited his own revulsion at the recent high-profile marriage between Jack Johnson, the Black heavyweight boxer, and Lucille Cameron, a white woman, as the catalyst for his crusade against "miscegenation," as interracial relationships were at that time widely described.  In support of his cause, Roddenberry described inter-racial marriage as being "repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit," according to a contemporaneous news report that contains some exceptionally offensive racist language.  news report Roddenberry's proposed amendment did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee, but several states subsequently introduced laws banning inter-racial marriage, until 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia, that any and all laws prohibiting or restricting marriage based on racial considerations were in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.  did not make it past the House Judiciary Committee ruled, in Loving vs. Virginia 1914: "Finding divorce to be illegal." In February 1914, U.S. Sen. Joseph Ransdell, D-Louisiana, proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw divorce in the United States, arguing that the increased prevalence of divorce posed a threat to "the home," which he described as "the chief bulwark of society." He added: increased prevalence He added The remedy by constitutional prohibition is drastic, but the malady is so fatal that nothing short of it will prove efficacious. In the United States, divorce is spreading with alarming rapidity. It has permeated every walk of life and is prevalent among every class of people. The proposal did not make it out of committee.  did not make it out of committee 1916: "All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army." Several sources refer to a 1916 petition, signed by a group of Nebraska residents, which proposed to amend the constitution by requiring a referendum in order to declare war. A 1987 New York Times article reported that "the petition proposed that all those who voted in favor of the United States entering World War I be willing to enlist." Several sources We haven't yet tracked down that 1916 petition, but its description in the 1987 Times article was based on the account of a National Archives curator, and so can be relied upon as accurate. We were able to locate a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916, by U.S. Rep. Denver Church, D-California, who similarly called for a popular vote before any declaration of war. However, it's not clear if this was separate to the "Nebraska" proposal, or one and the same.  a proposal, brought before the House in February 1916 1933: "An attempt to limit personal wealth to $1 million." On May 9, 1933, U.S. Rep. Wesley Lloyd, D-Washington, proposed House Joint Resolution 178, which called for a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set "the maximum amount of wealth allowed to any one individual" at a ceiling of "1,000,000 gold dollars." It's not clear at what stage the proposal died, but it does not appear to have reached a vote in either house.  House Joint Resolution 178 1936: "An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war."true. (The proposed amendment would still have allowed the U.S. to go to war without popular approval, in the event of an attack or invasion). Since the 1910s, several members of Congress advocated for the introduction of referendums as a prerequisite for the United States' entering a war. Most notably, between 1935 and 1936, U.S. Rep. Louis Ludlow, D-Indiana, embarked on what one historian described as a "war referendum crusade."  one historian described as In January 1935, he introduced a resolution in the House, calling for a constitutional amendment that would require that, "except in the event of attack or invasion," any Congressional resolution to go to war must be put to a popular referendum, and would not come into effect unless backed by a majority of voters.  The resolution was debated in the House Judiciary Committee, where it remained during 1935 and 1936, but advanced no further. 1938: "The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories." In April 1938, U.S. Rep. Gomer Griffith Smith, D-Oklahoma, introduced House Joint Resolution 661, a proposed constitutional amendment that stated: "Drunkenness in the United States and all Territories thereof is hereby prohibited." The proposal was considered by the House Judiciary Committee, but appears to have gone no further. In a copy of the resolution provided to the committee  and now held by the National Archives  an unknown individual added a handwritten note ironically suggesting an additional section: "That period of time, commonly known as Saturday night, is hereby stricken from the calendars of the United States, and abolished." copy of the resolution 1947: "The income tax maximum for an individual should not exceed 25%"true. This one appears to be referring to one of two tax-related proposed constitutional amendments put forward in 1947 by U.S. Rep. Noah Mason, R-Illinois. We haven't yet been able to locate the exact wording of those proposals, but we know that a subsequent compendium of proposed constitutional amendments, compiled by the U.S. Senate Library, described House Joint Resolutions 24 and 256 as both being "relative to taxes on incomes, inheritances and gifts." compendium of proposed constitutional amendments 24 256 We also know that in the previous Congress, in 1945, Mason  a Welsh-born conservative Republican  had proposed House Joint Resolution 88, which the same compendium described as proposing to "repeal the Sixteenth Amendment"  which allowed Congress to levy a federal income tax without having to distribute those monies among the states  as well as limiting "income, gift and inheritance tax to 25 percent."  House Joint Resolution 88 It is therefore highly likely that Mason's subsequent proposals, in 1947, called for substantially the same outcome. 1948: "The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others."In May 1948, U.S. Rep. Oren Harris, D-Arkansas, introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution as follows: "The right of any number of citizens to voluntarily segregate themselves from others for any lawful purpose shall not be denied."  introduced a proposal Harris, who opposed racial desegregation, was explicitly responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Shelley vs. Kraemer, which had been published just days earlier. In that opinion, the Court had ruled that racially restrictive covenants  which were relatively common at that time and prohibited homeowners in historically white neighborhoods from selling their houses to non-white buyers  violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  explicitly responding Shelley vs. Kraemer Harris's proposal languished in the House Judiciary Committee.  1971 American citizens should have the [in]alienable right to an environment free of pollution.  In 1968, U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisconsin, proposed a constitutional amendment that stated simply "Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every state shall guarantee this right." proposed Nelson, a progressive Democrat, environmentalist and co-founder of Earth Day, proposed the same amendment again in January 1970, explaining:  proposed the same amendment again in January 1970 In its degradation of the quality of American life, in its danger to the future of man himself, I believe the environmental crisis is the greatest single threat to our pursuit of those inalienable rights  life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness  which we have recognized as a society. Although that resolution was first introduced in 1970, the 91st Congress lasted until early 1971, so it's reasonable to date it to that year, although 1970 would probably be more suitable.  A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Dissolve the United States Senate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/A-proposed-constitutional-amendment-to-dissolve-the-United-States-Senate/. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021. The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., known for his eloquence and ability to mobilize the masses throughout the Civil Rights era, is often incorrectly credited for quotes that he never said. One of the most famous lines attributed to King is typically quoted as "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. In January 2024, this quote was even posted on the official X (formerly Twitter) page of the State of Israel. "???????? ?????? ????? ??? ????????, ???? ????? ??? ?? ????. ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ?? ????." - ?????? ?????? ???? ??. Today we mark Martin Luther King pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r pic.twitter.com/QJaIbnF42r  Israel  ?? (@Israel) January 15, 2024 January 15, 2024 These words were indeed written by King. However, for more than a decade now, there has been confusion as to the precise wording of the quote. In 2011, following the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011, a version of the quote went viral on the internet. It stated: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." Given that if followed the controversial killing of bin Laden, the quote spread across the internet at an impressive reach, especially for the time. Penn Jillette, a famous magician and outspoken libertarian, tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers, and it only continued to go viral from there. tweeted the quote to his 1.6 million Facebook followers Questions about whether the quote was presented accurately were picked up by The Atlantic, NPR, and other news outlets. They found the wording was correct except for the very first sentence, which was not found in King's speeches or writings: "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." The Atlantic NPR As it turns out, however, Jillette was only a perpetuator  not the originator  of the erroneous version of the quote. Before Jillette shared it, Facebook user Jessica Dovey quoted the King passage correctly on her status, but prefaced it with a sentence expressing her own personal thoughts: "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." She distinguished her own thoughts from King's via an opening quotation mark, which was dropped somewhere along the line as it picked up internet traction. on her status  (Image via The Atlantic) The complete quote by King, which can be found in his 1963 book "Strength to Love," read as follows: "Strength to Love," Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says Love your enemies, he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemiesor else? The chain reaction of evilhate begetting hate, wars producing more warsmust be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. Commenters on Israel's X post quoting King were quick to point to a clarification provided by Bernice King, MLK's youngest daughter, on Oct. 31, 2023, in regard to her father's stance on Israel. ? Amy: Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released https://t.co/haahcqcuAf https://t.co/haahcqcuAf  Be A King (@BerniceKing) November 1, 2023 November 1, 2023 We've previously written on other rumors related to King, including whether the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself and whether King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth. rumors related to King the FBI sent a letter telling him to kill himself paid the hospital bill for actress Julia Robert's birth.  Grant, Drew. Penn Jillette Explains the Fake Martin Luther King Jr.: I Made a Mistake.Salon, 3 May 2011, https://www.salon.com/2011/05/03/fake_mlj_quote_osama_death/. Https://Twitter.Com/BerniceKing/Status/1719524029600612666.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1719524029600612666. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Https://Twitter.Com/Israel/Status/1746912379667890196.X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1746912379667890196. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Jr, Martin Luther King.Strength to Love. Beacon Press, 2019. Loving Your Enemies, Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/loving-your-enemies-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. McArdle, Megan. Anatomy of a Fake Quotation.The Atlantic, 3 May 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/anatomy-of-a-fake-quotation/238257/. Peralta, Eyder. As The Bin Laden Story Raced Online, A Tale Of Two Misattributed Quotes.NPR, 3 May 2011.NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/04/135965263/as-the-bin-laden-story-raced-online-a-tale-of-two-misattributed-quotes. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes People Think He Said but Actually Didnt.Yahoo News, 17 Jan. 2016, http://news.yahoo.com/5-martin-luther-king-jr-121303266.html. Claim:  Photographs show poachers collecting sea turtle eggs in Costa Rica. REAL PHOTOGRAPHS; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] Aha, maybe we have just discovered why the sea turtle is going extinct & it is not global warming. !!!!!!!....  Sending you an e-mail of the turtle poachers on the beaches of Costa Rica.  See the 2nd picture too, where the female cannot cover up her own eggs, before the intruder steals away what Nature has given her to protect her young. These people have unfortunately, taught their children nothing for the future generation to cherish. Look at these children and they do not know anything about conservation of Marine Life Protection and look at the disastrous road their parents are taking too... What have they they all gained for the future of Costa Rica's Marine Life protection? World Wide shame in COSTA RICA. Please distribute widely. The Turtle eggs  are stolen to be sold. The PLANET IS THANKFUL.                           Origins:  These photographs do show the collection of olive ridley sea turtle eggs in the coastal town of Ostional, Costa Rica, but those who are gathering them are not "poachers" (i.e. people who catch fish or game illegally), nor are they regarded as threatening the sustainability of the sea turtle population in that area.  As described in a 1998 article by National Public Radio correspondent John Burnett, the gatherers are engaged in a government sponsored conservation activity, collecting a relatively small portion of eggs, which  biologists have averred would otherwise have been destroyed, from the millions of olive ridley eggs laid during the turtles' reproductive season: olive ridley conservation activity In the coastal town of Ostional, located on Costa Rica's Guanacaste Peninsula, a 13-year-old project has helped stabilize the population of the olive ridley sea turtle.  For 10 months of the year, usually around the third quarter of the moon, olive ridleys swim by the hundreds of thousands to a single mile of beach at Ostional in an ancient reproductive rite little understood by scientists. They scuttle onto the sand, dig a hole with their flippers, and drop in an average of 100 leathery, white eggs the size of ping pong balls. Over the course of a five-day "arribada," literally, an arrival, nesting females will leave as many as 10 million eggs in the black, volcanic sand. Mass nesting is nature's way of ensuring that after the turkey vultures, feral dogs and raccoons have eaten all the fresh eggs they want, there will be enough left over to produce a sustainable population of olive ridleys. In the early 1980s, scientists learned that because of limited space on the beach, females arriving later destroy the first laid eggs. The researchers wondered: why not let poachers have the doomed eggs? Under a law written especially for Ostional, the government allows an egg harvesting cooperative to collect all they can during the first 36 hours of every arribada. Coop members then truck the eggs around the country, selling them to bars and restaurants. In return, the community must protect the olive ridley. Coop members clean debris from the nesting areas and patrol the beach day and night for poachers. Forty days later, when the hatchlings emerge, children from the Ostional Primary school run to the beach. "We protect the tortugitas when they crawl to the ocean. If we don't, the vultures will get them and bite their heads off," says a local 8-year-old boy, breathlessly. A Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) representative noted that the activity pictured here is controversial but legal (Ostional is the only part of Costa Rica where sea turtle egg gathering is allowed), and that investigation to determine its overall effect on the olive ridley population is ongoing: STC Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) has seen a lot of recent communication among conservation groups and turtle advocates concerning these photos showing sea turtle eggs being harvested in Costa Rica. The reality is that this harvest is the only remaining LEGAL harvest of turtle eggs in that country. The community of Ostional on the Pacific Coast is permitted to harvest all of the olive ridley eggs that are deposited during the first couple of days of an arribada (when thousands of turtles return to nest at the same time over about a week). The eggs are packaged and marked for sale around the country, with much of the income returning to the community. While I don't personally agree with this egg collection, the project is endorsed by the Costa Rican government for the time being. This is a very controversial subject among sea turtle scientists, conservationists and community members in Costa Rica. Among other issues, the legal sale of any turtle eggs in the country opens the door for clandestine egg harvesting from other parts of the country. The photos being circulated have served as a catalyst for the Costa Rican National Sea Turtle Conservation Network (of which STC is an integral part) to initiate an investigation of the scientific justification for this egg harvest. Specifically, the group is investigating the validity of claims that the harvest increases (or at least doesn't reduce) overall hatching productivity on this beach. The claim put forth is that during an arribada, many of the first nests to be laid are dug up and destroyed by females attempting to nest in the same spot days later. Not only are the earliest nests often destroyed, the rotting eggs become putrid and attract lots of bugs and predators, thus threatening the last nests deposited. A committee of the CRNSTCN was formed (on which STC's scientific director, Dr. Emma Harrison serves) to investigate the issues surrounding this legal harvest further. In addition to an independent investigation of the issue, questions are being asked of the people in charge of the project to help determine whether there is sufficient monitoring of the program and its impacts on the Ostional olive ridley population.  Based on the results of this investigation, there could be some recommendations for changes in the future. For the time being, what you see in these photos is completely legal and regulated by the Costa Rican government, though it remains quite controversial, and there is a formal review of the program underway by independent biologists in Costa Rica. The Costa Rica Tourism Board has also placed a notice on its web site in response to the circulation of these photographs: notice A chain of emails is circulating on the Internet with false information regarding the Conservation and Use of Ridley Sea Turtle Eggs Project (Lepidochels olivacea) at the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge in Guanacaste. There are 12 photos of the legal gathering of eggs accompanied by text labeling it as "theft" and an "international shame." The Costa Rica Tourism Board (ICT) seeks to clarify that the images actually represent a model of sustainable development in the Ostional community, approved in 1990 by executive order for the Protection, Conservation, and Recovery of Sea Turtle populations enacted on November 28th, 2002 and by Fishing and Agriculture law approved on April 25th, 2005. The legal use and allotment of resources plan, far from being an embarrassment, is the pride of the country and has been applauded and recognized by national and international scientists.  The Ostional National Wildlife Refuge witnesses up to 200,000 Olive Ridley turtles during the rainy season and about 15,000 in the dry season. Upon their arrival, the sea turtles lay thousands of eggs and destroy a large portion of them as they return to the ocean. That's why, under the sustainability development concept, the nearby rural areas are allowed to remove a specified amount for commercial purposes in Costa Rica under the Ostional Internal Development Association (ADIO). ADIO assures a rational use of the eggs and avoids massive and uncontrolled removal by communities. The association works together with the Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications Ministry (MINAET), the Costa Rica Institute of Fishing and Agriculture (INCOPESCA), and the Biology Department of the University of Costa Rica. Only ADIO has permission to commercialize turtle eggs in the country, packed in sealed bags displaying the association's logo and sold with corresponding invoices. Any other consumption is illegal.    Reuters.  "Caribbean Turtles Said Threatend by Catches, Trade." A set of images supposedly documenting the impact of socialism on the lives of people residing in some unidentified locale(s) is frequently circulated on social media as a warning about the alleged deleterious effects of that system: circulated   The "Your City on Socialism" meme has been circulated online since at least February 2017, when it was posted to the Facebook page of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA along with the caption "Socialism Never Works. Never Has, Never Will." Turning Point USA Turning Point USA's point would be more effective, of course, if they used images that accurately reflected the impact of socialism. The first image ("Your City on Socialism") was not taken in any socialist country but rather in the United States. It's an Associated Press file photo shot by Paul Sancya in July 2011 that captured a row of abandoned stores in Detroit, Michigan: Associated Press In this July 27, 2011 file photo, a section of vacant stores is shown in Detroit. Michigan is getting $100 million in federal aid to demolish abandoned buildings to fight blight in Detroit and four other cities, Gov. Rick Snyder said Tuesday. Snyder said the U.S. Treasury Department has approved the aid. Detroit is getting $52.3 million, Flint $20.1 million and Saginaw 11.2 million. Pontiac is getting $3.7 million and Grand Rapids $2.5 million, while $10.2 million goes to a reserve fund for additional demolition, Snyder said. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, file) The second image ("Your Hospital on Socialism") is the lone photograph in this meme that was actually taken in a socialist country. It was included in a 2016 New York Times article about the health care crisis in Venezuela: New York Times The economic crisis in this country has exploded into a public health emergency, claiming the lives of untold numbers of Venezuelans. It is just part of a larger unraveling here that has become so severe it has prompted President Nicols Maduro to impose a state of emergency and has raised fears of a government collapse. The economic crisis in Venezuela is frequently brought up by those arguing against the merits of socialism. While Venezuela is a socialist country, that aspect is far from the only factor that has led to the country's severe economic turmoil. As we noted in a previous article on the topic, news outlets ranging from Bloomberg, the New York Times, to Fox News have noted that plunging oil prices, government corruption, and political unrest have also contributed to the crisis. article Bloomberg New York Times Fox News Furthermore, a single photograph of a run-down hospital is not representative of socialized medicine as a whole. The following image, for instance, was taken at a hospital in Switzerland, a country with universal health care:   The third image ("Your Grocer Story on Socialism") does not document a grocery store that ran out of food due to a failed socialist economy. It actually captures a Walmart outlet in Texas that ran out of food items and other supplies as it was thronged by customers stocking up ahead of the approach of Hurricane Rita in 2005. The picture was taken by Jay Jenner for the Austin-American Statesman, and the  original caption described it as follows: "Preparing for Hurricane Rita, Maria Chavez of Austin looks for a loaf of bread Thursday in the empty shelves of a Wal-Mart at Interstate 35 and Slaughter Lane. The store was sold out." original caption Turning Point USA isn't the only conservative group to use this image to push an anti-socialism narrative. In 2015, the National Review published a doctored version of this image in an article critical of Bernie Sanders. National Review doctored version The final photograph ("Your Politician on Socialism") does not show the home of a politician in a socialist country. Again, this image was taken in the U.S. and pictures a hotel in Glen Cove, New York, called The Mansion. hotel The Mansion Rather than accurately depicting the impacts of socialism, this meme is perhaps a better example of how images can be taken out of context, re-captioned, and repackaged in order to spread a political agenda. Llorente, Elizabeth.  "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
  Fox News.  4 April 2019. Malkin, Michelle.  "Ask Venezuelans How Sanders-Style Socialism Is Working Out for Them."
  National Review.  27 May 2015. Novak, Matt.  "5 More Viral Photos That Are Totally Fake"
  Gizmodo.  2 June 2015. Little Green Footballs.  "Busted! National Review Crops and 'Dirties' Photo from Austin Walmart, Claims It Shows 'Venezuela.'"
  31 May 2015. Casey, Nicholas.  "Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuelas Failing Hospitals."
  The New York Times.  15 May 2016. This story has been corrected to reflect that Glen Cove is in New York, not New Jersey. Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 The name New York has been borne by at least seven different U.S. military ships, most recently the nuclear submarine USS New York City, commissioned in 1979 and retired in 1997.  Construction on another ship bearing that name, the 684-foot amphibious transport dock ship USS New York, began at a shipyard in Avondale, Louisiana. On 1 March 2008 the new vessel was christened there, and it was commissioned in November 2009: commissioned  Artist's Rendering of the USS New York  With a year to go before it even touches the water, the Navy's amphibious assault ship, USS New York, has already made history. It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center. It is the fifth in a new class of warship  designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be   delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft. Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, La., to cast the ship's bow section.  When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there.  "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there." Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."  The ship's motto?  'Never Forget' The vessel was of interest because its bow stem was said to incorporate 7.5 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center which was melted down at a foundry in Amite, Louisiana. (A photograph of employees pouring the molten scrap steel at the Amite Foundry can be viewed here.) The name New York was reportedly revived for the warship (which was already under construction) at the request of New York governor George Pataki to commemorate the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., creating an exception to current U.S. Navy policy of using state names only for nuclear submarines. here According to the Associated Press, the USS New York would be the fifth ship of its class, at least two more of which will also be named for locations associated with the 9/11 attacks: USS New York USS New York is the fifth in a new class of warship designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft. Later ships in the class will include USS Arlington, the location of the Pentagon, also struck by a hijacked jetliner on Sept. 11, and USS Somerset, named for the Pennsylvania county where United Flight 93 crashed after its passengers fought off hijackers apparently planning to attack another Washington target. The quotes from Navy personnel and shipyard workers included in the e-mailed version reproduced above were taken from an Associated Press article about the ship. article In December 2006, the following image began to circulate with this e-mail in place of the artist's rendition displayed above, although it is not a photograph of the USS New York but rather the then-recently commissioned USS San Antonio: USS San Antonio  The following set of photographs was taken at the christening of LPD 21 with the name USS New York at Northrop Grumman's Avondale, Louisiana, shipyard on 1 March 2008: christening     On 13 October 2009. the USS New York left the Louisiana shipyard for New York, where it was scheduled to be formally commissioned on 7 November 2009: A Navy assault ship built with tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center towers began its journey to New York [on October 13], sailing down the Mississippi River in a pea-soup fog as watchers along the levee strained for a glimpse. The USS New York, named to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, left the Northrop Grumman shipyard where it was built for the trip to its namesake city. The $1 billion ship will be formally commissioned in New York in early November. The New York is 684 feet long and can carry up to 800 Marines. It has a flight deck that can handle helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Four tugboats performed an intricate set of maneuvers to pull the warship from the dock at the New Orleans-area shipyard and turn it 180 degrees toward the waters of Gulf of Mexico. An armed Coast Guard speedboat and a helicopter flying overhead guarded the vessel. The ship will sail through the Gulf and around Florida before turning north and continuing to New York. Bohrer, Becky.  "Ship Built with WTC Steel Christened."
  Associated Press.  1 March 2008. Sayre, Alan.  "Ship Built with WTC Steel Sails for Namesake City."
  Associated Press.  13 October 2009. Associated Press.  "New Navy Ship Being Built with WTC Steel."
  ABC News.  3 April 2006.