Were Millions of Mail-in Ballots Wrongly Sent to People Who Didn't Request Them?
Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, an email from U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign alleged millions of mail-in ballots were erroneously sent to people who did not request them. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them," claimed a Nov. 16 email obtained by Snopes.   The claim implied people "who never asked" for mail-in ballots wrongfully received them, and, because of that, the election was tainted with fraud and Americans should reject the results of the popular vote. Firstly, let this fact be clear: Americans have been voting by mail since the Civil War in the 1860s. In the modern era, the majority of states for years have allowed anyone to request an absentee ballot and submit it via mail  while others only allowed people to vote absentee if they provided a qualifying reason for why they cant make it to a designated polling station on Election Day, such as illness, physical disabilities, travel, or work. Meanwhile, five states allowed all eligible voters in all elections to submit ballots entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  while other states permitted local jurisdictions to run elections by mail under certain circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, put new pressure on the country to expand existing vote-by-mail systems to avoid spreading the virus at polls. COVID-19 pandemic Several states passed new laws to allow all eligible residents to vote by mail, per the National League of State Legislature's compilation of state laws governing mail-in voting in 2020, or added "COVID-19" to their list of reasonable excuses to request an absentee ballot. National League of State Legislature's compilation But at the core of Trump's allegation about "millions of mail-in ballots" being sent to people who didn't want them were states' varying rules regarding ballot applications. Most states  but not all of them  require voters to submit an application that expresses their desire to vote by mail in order to receive the official ballot paperwork to cast a vote. Additionally, some states permit voters to apply for "permanent absentee ballot status" so they automatically receive ballots via mail each election and do not need to submit applications for each one. The NLSL stated: The ways in which voters may request a ballot vary, as do the deadlines for submitting the application to the local election official. Some states regulate who can distribute or collect applications for delivered ballots as well. Once the application is received, states have a process for verifying that the application did indeed come from the intended voter before sending a ballot to that voter. That said, the handful of states that have for years conducted elections entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  send ballots to every person listed in their respective databases of eligible voters, no application necessary. With COVID-19, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont also conducted the 2020 presidential election that way  every eligible resident received a ballot in the mail to vote for Trump or Biden, per NLSL. Additionally, Montana allowed counties to decide whether they would conduct the election that way, no requests for mail-in ballots necessary. So, considering the number of registered voters in those 10 states (there are more than 4.2 million in Colorado alone) there's some truth to the claim "millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them" in the Trump-Biden race, if you consider the application process the step in which people "ask for" ballots.  Colorado However, that argument is flawed by the fact that recipients of those ballots at one point registered to vote. And, in at least a handful of the 10 states, by registering to vote, they were joining a vote-by-mail system that sends ballots without applications first. In short, it is false to imply that millions of ballots were improperly or erroneously mailed in the 2020 election, or suggest that the system was a nefarious scheme to undermine Trump. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign attempting to sound the alarm on a fictional election conspiracy asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. Brendan Fischer tweeted In sum, while it was true millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who did not submit applications for them in the 2020 presidential election, it was a mischaracterization of states' election laws to frame that fact as evidence of impropriety or fraud. Rather, the ballots were sent to registered voters in accordance with state laws. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false."
Virginia needs a dose of Republican economic medicine to get out of a funk, says Glen Sturtevant, a Richmond School Board member who is running for the state Senate. Last year, we had zero percent growth in GDP in Virginia -- zero percent, Sturtevant said during an Aug. 18 candidates forum, sponsored by WCVE Richmond Public Radio. The only states that did worse than us were Alaska and Mississippi. Sturtevant is seeking the 10th District Senate seat that long has been held by Republican John Watkins, who is not seeking reelection. Also running is Dan Gecker, a Democrat who serves on the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors; Marleen Durfee, an independent who is a former Chesterfield supervisor; and Carl Loser, a Libertarian from Powhatan County. We wondered whether Sturtevants dreary economic statistics were correct. A spokesman for his campaign said the information came from a June article in The Washington Post about preliminary state gross domestic product figures for 2014 that were released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U.S. Department of Commerce. GDP is the value of all finished goods and services produced. Virginias GDP of about $427 billion last year was indeed flat -- there was 0.0 percent inflation-adjusted growth from 2013. Only two states trailed the Old Dominion in growth: Mississippi and Alaska, which saw their state economies shrink. Nationally, inflation-adjusted GDP expanded by 2.2 percent last year. These figures are preliminary, and Virginias position might improve slightly when the bureau releases its final report in September. Last year, for example, the preliminary report ranked Virginia 49th in economic growth in 2013; the final ranking pegged Virginias growth at 0.4 percent, 43rd among the states. The commonwealths economic growth has been lackluster for several years, spanning Democratic and Republican governors. In 2011, the state saw 0.6 percent GDP growth; in 2012, it saw 0.7 percent growth. Economists we spoke with said Virginias low numbers largely reflect a slow recovery from the Great Recession that has been exacerbated by its dependence on federal spending in an era of budget cuts. Virginia is home to large military bases and a fleet of defense and government contractors and federal workers that drive the economy of Northern Virginia. The Pew Charitable Trustsestimatesthat in 2013, federal spending was responsible for about 31 percent of Virginias economic activity. Only Mississippi was more dependent. Under the federal sequestration compromise, which kicked in at the start of 2013, Congress and the White House agreed to an automatic series of budget cuts to trim the national debt by $1 trillion over nine years. Half of the savings are coming from defense spending and half from domestic programs. A 2013studyby Stephen Fuller, director of the Center of Regional Analysis at George Mason University, said Virginia was particularly vulnerable to sequestration and predicted it would bite $15.4 billion a year out of the states economy. That was the second largest of any state. Fuller found California was projected to lose $16.7 billion. Texas was third, projected to lose $11.9 billion annually. Both of those states are seeing much greater growth than Virginia: Texas ranked second in the nation last year, with 5.2 percent growth; California ranked ninth with 2.8 percent growth. It should be noted, however, that both states have larger, more diverse economies than Virginia. Californias GDP was $2.1 trillion last year, Texas was $1.5 trillion, and Virginias was $427 billion, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis figures. Maryland, where many federal employees live, ranked 36th in economic growth last year. Although Maryland also is home to many federal employees, its less dependent on federal spending than Virginia. According to Pew, Uncle Sam funds about 27.5 percent of the economic activity in Maryland. While federal cuts start the discussion about Virginias sluggish recovery from the recession, theyre not the whole conversation. The state has also been hurt by the sagging coal industry in Southwest Virginia and declining furniture manufacturing in Southside Virginia, according to Terry Terry Rephann, regional economist at the University of Virginias Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. Our ruling Sturtevant said that Virginia had zero percent economic growth last year, the third worst result in the nation. We rate his statement True. In mid-2015, social media users got their collective hopes up about the advent of the pizza vending machine, an innovation that would enable them to obtain one of their favorite things (pizza) while simultaneously avoiding one of its least popular aspects (human interaction). Tweets and Facebook posts about the pizza vending machine (called "Let's Pizza") touted the announcement of this "new" concept: @italiaricci You should get one for your house! #PizzaVendingMachine #NowIWantOne pic.twitter.com/3SV5Z9bAuX @italiaricci #PizzaVendingMachine #NowIWantOne pic.twitter.com/3SV5Z9bAuX  Stephanie (@Xxsteff22xX) July 1, 2015 July 1, 2015  Photo: #PizzaVendingMachine this is so cool!!! https://t.co/V0S2MtG9sB #PizzaVendingMachine https://t.co/V0S2MtG9sB  Linda Glatham (@LindaGlatham) June 30, 2015 June 30, 2015  The tone of the social media buzz suggested that pizza vending machines were, if not yet popping up all over the place, at least a soon-to-be common sight. (Although hot food vending machines are somewhat common, the novelty of one devoted specifically to pizza apparently fires the imagination.) Interest in the concept in mid-2015 appeared to stem in part from a confusing article titled "Watch This Vending Machine Make Pizza" that was dated 27 June 2015 but had been originally published on 21 March 2014, featuring a YouTube clip uploaded in February 2013 that was filmed in 2012: published During our trip to Italy in 2012, in the little town of Sorrento, my wife and I discovered a Lets Pizza vending machine that promised freshly made pizza in just 2.5 minutes and all for 3 euros. It was such a novel idea, we figured we had to film the whole process.  In a 5 March 2014 article published in The Gate entertainment magazine, the author described encountering one of these contraptions in Sorrento, Italy, the same place where the video clip seen above was shot: article My last travel piece about Sorrento was filled with details about why I loved this beautiful town along the coast of Italy. There was one other reason why I loved the town though, and it all came down to a magical vending machine that made pizzas. Yes, its a pizza vending machine (called Lets Pizza), and it makes them from scratch. For 3 euros, this machine mixes up dough from scratch, covers it in pizza sauce and cheese, and then bakes itall in less than 2-and-a-half minutes. On 14 June 2012, the pizza vending machine branded "Let's Pizza" was covered by The Frisky in an article that touted the machines as soon to arrive in the U.S.: article Turns out the pizza gods have heard our prayers, because an innovative pizza vending machine called Lets Pizza is finally making its way to the States. The Lets Pizza has been popular in Europe for years (for obvious reasons), but heres what Americans can expect ... A Facebook page for Let's Pizza UK also promoted the concept, but that page hasn't been updated since 2011, and the mid-2015 reaction to the pizza vending machine rumors that circulated on social media indicated that if any of the machines already existed in the United Kingdom, they weren't very popular or well-known. Let's Pizza UK In April 2015, Rochester television station WHEC tweeted about pizza vending machines: Local business offers pizza vending machines @whec_rleclair has the story https://t.co/K0F8flxpFb @whec_rleclair https://t.co/K0F8flxpFb  news10nbc (@news10nbc) April 21, 2015 April 21, 2015  However, that tweet linked to an on-site article describing a different pizza vending machine, Pizzametry, that was still in the conceptual stages: article It's a pizza vending machine that creates hot, fresh pies and the prototype is in Webster. So the search is on for investors, possible manufacturers and vendors to help Pizzametry grow along with the upstate economy and its all thanks to the pizza lovers of the Rochester region ... The pizzas will sell for about $4 to $6. The machines can be built for $28,000. A Daily Mail article published in July 2014 reported the "Let's Pizza" machines had not caught on after their 2009 unveiling, primarily due to their considerable size and cost: article The Let's Pizza machine was unveiled by Mr Torghele in 2009 but has been slow to catch on. The downside is that it is each one is the size of nearly three average vending machines. It also retails for more than ten times the amount, at $32,000. When the meme peaked, there was perhaps at least one "Let's Pizza" pizza vending machine operating in Sorrento, Italy -- but predictions of its immigration to the United States were then largely unfulfilled. But in 2016, the Tampa Bay Times reported that a handful of the machines popped up in Florida; at least one more was spotted in Ohio: reported Guys, the stories are true! Xavier now has North America's first Pizza ATM and we got it j https://t.co/oVJlzHXjsv pic.twitter.com/mbTvsQQmpz https://t.co/oVJlzHXjsv pic.twitter.com/mbTvsQQmpz  Xavier Admissions (@XUAdmissions) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  In January 2017, Grub Street noted that "after nearly four years of teasing," an unreported number pizza vending machines were scheduled to be installed that month. Little Caesar's announced a "Pizza Portal" in August 2017, but the technology still required a trip to the store to pick up a pizza. Although a handful of pizza vending machines appeared in the United States after the meme circulated, they remained few and far between as of late 2017. noted announced Claim:  A Texas business provides big game hunters with an opportunity to participate in "horse hunt adventures."   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] There's a blog going around about "Texas Horse Hunts" where horses are hunted on paid hunts....could this possibly be true?   Origins:  In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines:  petition blog site If youve dreamed of big game horse hunting in Texas and are interested in a superior, top quality, exciting and successful horse hunting experience, join Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions, LLC and Master Guide Tom D. Welderman IV on your next horse hunt adventure. Youll enjoy some of the most dynamic and beautiful wilderness in the world! We guide areas within National Wildlife Refuges and receive the  finest guiding expertise, personal service and attention to detail found anywhere. Im a guide because I love horse hunting, Texas, the outdoors and because I enjoy sharing these things with other humans who appreciate what horse hunts have to offer. Our goal, aside from helping you harvest a magnificent trophy horse, is to share with you this incredible state and all that it has to offer. When you leave one of our camps as a friend, we want you to take home fond lifetime memories of your horse hunt experience. The quality of your horse and your whole experience is my primary concern. We are not narcissistic; your hunt with us is not about us but about you and your horse. This is your horse hunt and we want to help fulfill all of your expectations. Multiple factors pointed to the whole thing being a satirical hoax, however, including:  The lack of any previous news coverage or any effort to publicize the business beyond a single blog entry.  The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites.  The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a  rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004. Rogues Gallery Kennel lying dead news article stock photo Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): article Hi, my name is Joseph, and I hunt horses with sticks, crossbows and firearms. And if you believe this, Ive got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you. Sadly, though, several people do believe it, thanks in part to a photo stolen from my personal blog, https://www.rogueskennel.com, and used out of context on a site proclaiming to be for Texas Horse Hunts. Not hunting on horseback, but actually hunting and killing horses. It's left me having to assert and explain something so bizarre I never thought Id have to utter these words  I have not, do not and would not ever hunt horses. The photo they found on my site and reposted was taken in Alaska, after my wife and I retrieved a horse that died of natural causes from Sterling residents who had no way to bury it and didnt want it to attract summer bears. The part that really smarts is that the most extensive damage to our reputations was not done by the initial website post. Rather, it was from the dozens of outraged animal rights activists on Facebook pages and other social media sites who began spreading the photo with lightning speed. (A week after we published this article, all the photos and descriptive information were removed from the Texas Horse Hunt page.)  The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. horse slaughterhouses  We could find no record of "Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions" being registered as an LLC (limited liability company) in Texas or any other state.  The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing  Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport." article  One of the best ways of determining whether web-advertised businesses of suspect nature are legitimate is by attempting to purchase what they're supposedly offering for sale (because the whole point of businesses to make money by servicing customers). But the Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions page includes neither a physical address nor even a general indication of where in the world the supposed hunts take place (somewhere in Texas, presumably), key pieces of information which any prospective customer would want to know.  And none of our e-mails or phone calls to Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions expressing interest in participating in one of their "adventures" was returned. Last updated:  29 May 2013 The Raimondo administration wants to see more efficiency when it comes to spending on Medicaid, the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor and people with disabilities. Roughly every dollar spent by the state is matched by the federal government. Duringa March 2, 2015, presentationto the Reinventing Medicaid Working Group, the state's secretary for health and human services, Elizabeth Roberts,displayed a slidewhich said that nearly a third of all state tax dollars goes to Medicaid. More than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid, the slide said. It also contained a pie chart in which Medicaid is shown eating up 31.5 percent of those tax dollars. The slide lists the source as the state budget for the 2013 fiscal year. But on March 31, 2015, groups that want to create a single-payer health insurance system in the statechallenged that statistic and othersbeing used by the Raimondo administration in itspush for Medicaid reform. The Rhode Island chapters of Physicians for a National Health Program and HealthCare Now said the actual percentage isn't 31.5 for fiscal 2013, but closer to 22. We decided to see who was correct. Because Roberts specifically mentioned state tax dollars, for this fact check, we will only look at general revenue funds raised by the state, not federal funds shared with the state or restricted funds. When we contacted Roberts' office, spokesman Michael Raia said the source of the information was listed incorrectly. The 31.5 percent is based on the current fiscal year of 2015. According to data from the House Finance committee, this year the state is slated tospend $1.084 billionof its unrestricted money on Medicaid. That's 31.5 percent of the$3.445 billion in general revenue funds. (The state budget enacted that year totaled $8.78 billion, including restricted revenue and federal money for Medicaid and other things.) That made us curious. What were the numbers in 2013, the year cited incorrectly by Roberts? The Rhode Island Health Care Association, one of the groups questioning the numbers, referred us to the executive summary ofGov. Lincoln Chafee's budget for the 2015 fiscal year. Page A-5 listed $3.216 billion in general revenue for that year and page 71 of the budget'stechnical appendixsays the Office of Health and Human Services (OHHS) actually received $772 million from the general fund. That would be 24 percent, close to what the critics claimed. But in the 2013 enacted budget,20 percent of the state's Medicaid money was spent by other departments, including Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) and the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). That makes the 24 percent too low. When all of the states spending for Medicaid out of its general revenues is accounted for, the percentage comes out to around 31 percent. Our ruling Roberts said more than 30 cents of every state tax dollar goes to Medicaid. She cited a specific percentage of 31.5 percent and said it came from the 2013 fiscal year. It's actually from the 2015 fiscal year. But the percentage from 2013 is very close to that. Roberts may have gotten the source year wrong, but it turns out that either year produces the same result. We rate her statement asTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was brutally murdered by Jonathan (Jon) Venables (10) and Robert (Bobbie) Thompson (10) in Liverpool, England.  Example: On February 12, 1993 a small boy who was to turn three in March was taken from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two 10 year old boys. Jamie Bolger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson.  They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him and threw stones at him and rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed batteries up his anus. They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created.  These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities.  We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to University.   They are getting away with their crime. They need to pay, and we have to do something to make them pay for their horrific crime. They took Jamie's life violently away, and in return they get a new life. Please add your name and location to the list and forward to friends and family. Please copy this email instead of forwarding so we do not get > at the beginning of sentances.  If you are the 200th person to sign please forward this email to st.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk attentioning it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and sent to your friends and family.  The Love-Bug virus took less that 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this does too. We need to protect our family and friends from creatures like Robert and Jon. One day they may be living next to your and your small children without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10, imagine what they could do as adults? With only one exception (the batteries in the victim's anus  they went into his mouth) the details of the crime as outlined in the e-mail are accurate. The boy was taken from a shopping mall while there with his mother. (A video surveillance camera captured footage of the two killers leading James away.) The child was brutalized as he was forced to walk along with the boys. (Witnesses later reported seeing the boys dragging, pushing, and carrying the weeping-two-year old during a disjointed journey through the streets of Liverpool.) And they did kill him in the manner described, albeit more brutally than even the text of the e-petition lets on. Two days after the murder, James' remains were found on a lonely stretch of railroad track. He was naked from the waist down  his shoes, socks, trousers, and underpants had been taken off. His penis had been manipulated by his abductors, but he had not been anally penetrated (by batteries or anything else). He'd been beaten to death with rocks, bricks, and an iron bar. As the boys hammered at him, they splattered him with model airplane paint stolen days earlier. Once he was dead, his killers laid him on the tracks, and his body was cut in two by a passing train. (The killers hoped to hide their crime by having it mistaken for an accidental death of a young child who'd foolishly played on the tracks.)  Venables and Thompson were taken into custody a few days later. Each sought to blame the other for the killing, but both eventually confessed. They were tried, found guilty of murder, sentenced, and placed in separate detention homes. The killers have not seen each other since the trial. All this is true. And horrifying. Yet even so, there's no point in signing the petition or urging others to. Beyond all the usual problems with e-petitions, one issue specific to this case rules against the utility of such a plan: the situation being decried is already a done deal. On 8 January 2001, the High Court of England guaranteed both Venables and Thompson lifelong anonymity plus an unprecedented open-ended injunction barring any publicity about them. Each of these young men were released in June 2001 when they were 18. The e-mail states that two killers "will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence." That statement is false. Although there is no theoretical maximum length of sentence imposed, a minimum sentence of 8 years had been set. And that 8-year minimum was satisfied. The boys were detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (without a maximum fixed term). Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) sentences are imposed only in cases of murder and manslaughter committed by children under 18. In these cases, the judge sets a tariff (minimum term, defined as the period required for retribution and deterrence). Once the tariff has been satisfied, the prisoner is assessed on the basis of the likely risk he will pose to the outside community. Therefore, a killer sentenced to such a term is eligible for release once the tariff has been served, provided he does not impress the court as posing a danger to society. The judge at Venables' and Thompson's November 1993 trial set an 8-year tariff. In early 1994, Lord Taylor, then Lord Chief Justice, recommended increasing this minimum to 10 years. Michael Howard, Home Secretary, imposed a 15-year sentence on Venables and Thompson in July 1994, but his actions were ruled unlawful by the High Court, and the Court of Appeals in 1996, and struck down. Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, ruled in 2000 that the killers' tariff was 8 years, a term that was reached on 21 February 2001. Venables' and Thompson's sentences were thus 8 years each, and they have been served. Had the sentences unlawfully imposed by Michael Howard been upheld, then the e-petition's claim about the killers' only having served "half their sentences" would be relevant. The anonymity guarantee and publication ban were set in place by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the High Court's Family Division. She was convinced the pair would be genuinely at risk if their identities and locations were disclosed, hence her ruling. "Although the crime of these two young men was especially heinous, they have the right of all citizens to the protection of the law." She said people other than James Bulger's family "continue to feel such hatred and revulsion at the shocking crime and a desire for revenge that some at least of them might well engage in vigilante or revenge attacks." She may well have been right, especially in light of threats received. Dame Butler-Sloss banned the media from publishing any information leading to the identification or disclosure of whereabouts of Venables or Thompson, including photographs and descriptions of their appearance. She also banned, for 12 months, publication of information about their eight-year stay in local authority secure units. Even after that, confidential information relating to their treatment and therapy cannot be published.  The judge admitted she was aware the injunctions she imposed might not be fully effective outside England and Wales. She banned the domestic media from giving wider circulation to material from the Internet or media elsewhere if it was likely to breach the injunction.  Was it right for Venables and Thompson be protected from the public? Some said yes, that otherwise they'd have been torn limb from limb (and that would render society no better than those it would prosecute for such crimes), or that children (which the defendants were at the time of the Bulger murder) should not be held accountable for a crime  even a heinous one  in the same manner that we hold adults. Others said no, that the public had a right to know where potentially dangerous felons are, and others on that side of the fence laid claim to there being some crimes which cannot fully be expiated by time served. Jon Venables' reprieve from incarceration proved to be temporary when he violated the terms of his release by downloading and distributing indecent images of children and was returned to jail in March 2010. In July 2013 the U.K. parole board confirmed that Venables had been granted parole for a second time, although that body declined to provide details about when he would be released. In June 2006 the following related item began circulating: Hello friends I am just so angry, frustrated and really upset at what has happened at the Livingston Shopping Centre that I needed to let you all know the "truth" behind the mongrel murderer. About 3 yrs ago when I was working at the prison we found out that one of the boys (at the time aged about 12) that abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in the U.K., then brutally raped and murdered him, had reached the age of 18 and had been sent out to Australia with a new identity for his family, etc. Long story short is that he was given the name of Dante Arthurs, his grandfather's name is Arthur Dante, and his family moved into a house in Canning Vale. When the prison staff got wind of this it was all supposed to be kept hushed up, it was some sort of prisoner exchange deal the Aust Govt set up. Soon after he got here he assaulted a 12 yrd old girl in a park in Canning Vale and consequently came to Hakea prison but for only about 6 weeks as they couldn't get enough evidence on him and the incident was brushed under the mat. His parents used to visit him and their photos were on the computers at work and I clearly recall seeing his mum at the Livingston shops one day. I even had his address and because I've got friends and family in the area, I felt I had a right to tell them, stuff the prisons!! I had even driven past his house in Lakeview Rise estate in Canning Vale! Anyway when this happened yesterday I said to Ron, it'd be interesting to see if it's that Dante Arthurs guy from the U.K. and sure enough today we find out that it is him. I am, along with a lot of others, absolutely furious that the mongrel arsehole was allowed to come here via the Govt in the first place and that he was allowed to appear to live a normal life!! Why haven't the police done something about this - he should not be allowed to breathe air, he is the scum of the earth. And tonight he would be sitting back in a comfortable cell in prison, having just had a reasonable hot dinner and be watching TV! That innocent little girl and her poor family will never ever be the same again - all because the piss weak Justice System and Govt allowed him to live in our country! There is a register for paedophiles so that the community are allowed to know where they're living and yet this piece of shit can live on our back door step with a new identity. People winge about illegal immigrants, what about this? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's whisked out of the country in the same manner he was bought here, then again knowing our pathetic laws, we'll probably keep him here in our justice system, costing tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed and entertain him PLUS the do-gooders will believe in their minds that they can rehabilitate him! I was just going to type "sorry " but I'm not at all sorry for alerting my friends to something that should be publicly known. Stay safe, talk soon. This message refers to the rape and murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu in a suburban shopping center restroom in Canning Vale, Australia, on 26 June 2006.  A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger's killers, renamed and relocated to Australia after having served out his sentence as a juvenile in England (even though both of the principals in the Bulger murder were then at least 23 years old).  The British High Commission and Australian police have denied any link between the Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu and Jamie Bulger killings: murder denied The British High Commission has ruled out claims that a man charged over the rape and murder of a Perth schoolgirl was one of two notorious English child killers. Perth police also denied that Dante Wyndham Arthurs, 21, of the Perth suburb of Canning Vale, was one of the killers of British boy James Bulger.  Clive Hunton, of the British High Commission in Canberra, said there was "no connection between the man arrested in Western Australia and the individuals involved in the James Bulger case." Arthurs was remanded in custody after appearing in Perth Magistrates Court charged with wilful murder, sexual penetration of a child and deprivation of liberty. He was charged following the discovery of the body of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu on the floor of a shopping centre toilet. The fact that Dante Arthurs was born in Australia (and was not an English immigrant using an assumed identity) has been confirmed by both his birth notice and the doctor who delivered him.  Also, his fingerprints do not match up with those of Jonathan (Jon) Venables or Robert (Bobbie) Thompson, the murderers of James Bulger. The e-mailed rumor quoted above was presented as if it were written by a prison officer.  According to the  West Australian, that message is being investigated by Australian authorities: The Department of Corrective Services has confirmed that an investigation was under way into an email claiming to be from a prison officer which was sent to thousands of people across Australia. 'The email appears to have come from outside the department,' a spokeswoman said. Nonetheless, rumors persisted that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were relocated to Australia, and in May 2008 Australian MP Liz Cunningham raised the issue of investigating whether the pair had been accepted by Queensland authorities.   In March 2010, the BBC reported that Jon Venables (then age 27) was back in prison for after having breached the terms of his release. Image caption: Denise Fergus, the mother of murdered two-year-old James Bulger,  attends a press conference to launch an appeal to raise funds for bullied children on March 14, 2008 in Liverpool, England. The Red Balloon learner Centre bearing James Bulger's name will be a sanctuary for bullied children.  Adshead, Gary and Sean Cowan.  "Birth Doctor Scoffs at Arthurs Rumours."
  The West Australian.  30 June 2006. Burrell, Ian.  "Bulger Killers Are Granted Right to a Life of Anonymity."
  The [London] Independent.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Dyer, Clare.  "Bulger Killers Close to Release."
  Manchester Guardian Weekly.  8 November 2000  (p. 7). Gartrell, Adam.  "Bulger Link to Killing Denied."
  The Advertiser.  29 June 2006. Giles, Darrell.  "Robert Thompson and Jon Venables Mystery."
  The [Queensland] Courier-Mail.  4 May 2008. Lowrie, Margaret.  "Two Boys Found Guilty in Bulger Murder Trial."
  CNN.  24 November 1993  (News; International; 12:24 pm ET). Rice, Robert.  "Home Secretary 'Acted Unfairly.'"
  [London] Financial Times.  31 July 1996  (UK News Digest; p. 7). Seamark, Michael.  "How Can the Law Give Secret New Lives to My Son's Killers?"
  [London] Daily Mail.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Sereny, Gitta.  "Re-Examining the Evidence."
  The [London] Independent.  6 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 4). Sereny, Gitta.  "Approaching the Truth."
  The [London] Independent.  13 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 5). Tibbetts, Graham.  "Evil Child Killers Set for New Identities."
  The Mirror.  22 January 2001  (p. 5). Associated Press.  "Notorious U.K. Child Killer Jon Venables to Be Paroled Again."
  CBSNews.com.  5 July 2013. BBC News.  "James Bulger Murderer Jon Venables Returned to Prison."
  2 March 2010. news.com.au.  "'Sombre' School Mourns Murdered Girl."
  28 June 2006. On Nov. 22, 2022, we received an email from a reader who spotted a survey scam on the Facebook page named "Groceries today" that promised a "$500 store credit" or "$500 Walmart credit" to users.  We were unable to find the origins of the picture of the Walmart employee and the carful of groceries, but it likely showed products provided in the past as part of a charity food drive. In other words, the person pictured in the post had nothing to do with the scam. Survey scams usually begin on social media with a big promise, then ask users who clicked on the posts to fill out a seemingly endless amount of online surveys with further promises of other prizes. This survey scam that promised a $500 store credit to Walmart asked for personal information and perhaps even financial data. We strongly recommend against believing in any offers that don't come from a company's official social media pages. As we've mentioned in the past, some survey scams often begin with a big promise of $750 delivered via PayPal or Cash App. Usually, the scammers who create the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that pop up during the survey scams, as they might land them small amounts of referral commission. At the same time, survey scams also have a chance of being quite dangerous,reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize  something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a"free trial" offerthat's actually a costly subscription for adietary supplementor other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use foridentity theftor sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise all of our readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing this article with family members or friends who often shop at Walmart, as they might be more susceptible to falling for the scams. Note: Walmart does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion, but they don't use Facebook to do it. does give away gift cards in an official and recurring promotion "Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information."AARP, 1 Sept. 2021, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. "Groceries Today." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/Groceries-today-107660332152080/. Liles, Jordan. "Was Walmart Giving Away $1,000 Gift Cards by Email?" Snopes, 7 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-1000-gift-cards/. Claim:  Congress supported a bailout of AIG because that company insures the Congressional pension trust.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, January 2009] Politicians!!!! Did you ever wonder? I couldn't figure out why would the Congress let some firms go under and then bend over backwards to help others.This makes sense now!!!!!! This sounds almost too logical...... why hasn't it gotten national press coverage? Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.? Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: "That's strange what does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?" I think I just found the answer. Among other things, AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!! No wonder they got bailed out right away! To hell with the people, let's protect our future, said all our Senators and Congressmen.  Nice to see where their loyalties lie! I'm from the government and I'm here to help myself ! Origins:  As the U.S. government began, in the latter part of 2008, to grapple with growing economic turmoil and the prospect that many large U.S. financial and corporate institutions were on the brink of failure, one of the vexing issues it confronted was which businesses it should attempt to rescue.  Should the government take over or provide direct financial assistance ("bailouts") to mortgage finance  companies (particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), or to the banking industry, or to the auto industry? One of corporate entities "bailed out" by the government was the insurance giant American International Group, commonly known as AIG.  In September 2008 the Federal Reserve (not Congress) provided AIG with an $85 billion loan in exchange for a 79.9% equity stake, and the Federal Reserve also provided another $37.8 billion loan to AIG three weeks later and subsequently gave the company access to another $20.9 billion.  (These loans were restructured in November 2008 to provide a total bailout package of over $150 billion to AIG.) Why did the government decide to assist AIG?  The item reproduced above posits that it was pure self-interest:  Supposedly Congress "bailed out" AIG because that company "insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" while supposedly allowing other financial institutions to wither and die or pushing them into "forced marriages."  (Global financial services firm Bear Stearns didn't "go under"; it was acquired by JPMorgan Chase, with assistance from the Federal Reserve, back in March 2008. In other transactions, Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, and JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual.) acquired However, AIG was more than just an ordinary "insurance company."  That firm insured the debt of other financial institutions, and government officials were greatly concerned that AIG's failure could have a cascading effect that would produce catastrophic results among the entire U.S. (and global) financial industry: What frightened Fed and Treasury officials was not simply the prospect of another giant corporate bankruptcy, but A.I.G.'s role as an enormous provider of esoteric financial insurance contracts to investors who bought complex debt securities. They effectively required A.I.G. to cover losses suffered by the buyers in the event the securities defaulted. It meant A.I.G. was potentially on the hook for billions of dollars worth of risky securities that were once considered safe. If A.I.G. had collapsed  and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims  institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of those securities, and that in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt. Small investors, including anyone who owned money market funds with A.I.G. securities, could have been hurt, too. And some insurance policy holders were worried, even though they have some protections. "It would have been a chain reaction," said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University. "The spillover effects could have been incredible." Associated Press economics writer Jeannine Aversa explained the importance of the government's decision in the wake of the AIG bailout: Q: Why is it important to keep AIG afloat? A: AIG is a global colossus, with operations in more than 130 countries. It is so interconnected with other financial firms that its problems have a jolting ripple effect both in the United States and abroad. AIG was pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in September [2008] when its credit rating was downgraded and it could not post the collateral for which it was obligated under the "credit default swap" contracts it had issued. Credit default swaps are a type of corporate debt insurance. The Fed raced to the rescue at that time to prevent AIG's failure, which could have triggered billions of dollars in losses at other banks and financial firms that bought these swaps from AIG  sending them into failure as well. As a final nail in the coffin of the "AIG insures the pension trust of the United States Congress" claim, we reproduce the following response provided to us by Charlie Armstrong, AIG's Senior Director of Advertising & Global Branding: In response to your question as to whether AIG insures the US Congressional Trust, we don't.  In fact, we've been told that no private company insures federal pensions  such a product doesn't exist.  Further, none of our financial services companies provide advisory services to Congress' pension fund.  We've explored this issue at length with our business units and have found no connection whatsoever to the fund. This rumor surfaced recently on a blog.  We're not sure who started the rumor, or why, but the rumor is baseless. The OpenSecrets web site lists Barack Obama among the many politicians from both parties who have previously received campaign contributions (not "bonus payments" or "bailout money," as is frequently reported) from AIG. campaign contributions Last updated:  18 March 2009    Aversa, Jeannine.  "Meltdown 101: Why Did the AIG Bailout Get Bigger?"   The Guardian.  12 November 2008.    Bawden, Tom.  "Citigroup Buys Debt-Hit Wachovia."   The [London] Times.  30 September 2008.    Gordon, Marcy.  "JPMorgan's WaMu Purchase Stands  Bailout or No."   The Seattle Times.  29 September 2008.    Montia, Gil.  "Bear Stearns Acquired by JPMorgan Chase for $240 Million."   Banking Times.  17 March 2008.    Ventura County Star.  "Bear Stearns Acquisition Sends Tremors Through Markets."   Banking Times.  23 March 2008. Claim:  Notorious mob lawyer "Easy Eddie" O'Hare teaches his son Butch the value of honesty and integrity; the son goes on to become a decorated war hero and dies in the service of his country. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] During the course of World War II, many people gained fame in one way or another. One man was Butch O'Hare. He was a fighter pilot assigned to an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. One time his entire squadron was assigned to fly a particular mission. After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank. Because of this, he would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship. His flight leader told him to leave formation and return. As he was returning to the mother ship, he could see a squadron of Japanese Zeroes heading toward the fleet to attack. And with all the fighter planes gone, the fleet was almost defenseless. His was the only opportunity to distract and divert them. Single-handedly, he dove into the formation of Japanese planes and attacked them. The American fighter planes were rigged with cameras, so that as they flew and fought, pictures were taken so pilots could learn more about the terrain, enemy maneuvers, etc. Butch dove at them and shot until all his ammunition was gone, then he would dive and try to clip off a wing or tail or anything that would make the enemy planes unfit to fly. He did anything he could to keep them from reaching the American ships. Finally, the Japanese squadron took off in another direction, and Butch O'Hare and his fighter, both badly shot up, limped back to the carrier. He told his story, but not until the film from the camera on his plane was developed, did they realize the extent he really went to, to protect his fleet. He was recognized as a hero and given one of the nation's highest military honors. And as you know, the O'Hare Airport was also named after him. Prior to this time in Chicago, there was a man named Easy Eddie. He was working for a man you've all heard about, Al Capone. Al Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic, but he was notorious for the murders he'd committed and the illegal things he'd done. Easy Eddie was Al Capone's lawyer, and he was very good. In fact, because of his skill, he was able to keep Al Capone out of jail.  To show his appreciation, Al Capone paid him very well. He not only earned big money, he would get extra things, like a residence that filled an entire Chicago city block. The house was fenced, and he had live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day. Easy Eddie had a son. He loved his son and gave him all the best things while he was growing up: clothes, cars, and a good education. And because he loved his son he tried to teach him right from wrong. But one thing he couldn't give his son was a good name, and a good example. Easy Eddie decided that this was much more important than all the riches he had given him. So, he went to the authorities in order to rectify the wrong he had done. In order to tell the truth, it meant he must testify against Al Capone, and he knew that Al Capone would do his best to have him killed. But he wanted most of all to try to be an example and to do the best he could to give back to his son, a good name. So he testified. Within the year, he was shot and killed on a lonely street in Chicago. This sounds like two unrelated stories. But Butch O'Hare was Easy Eddie's son.  Do you think Easy Eddie was able to pass the value of integrity on to his son? Origins:  Some parts of this glurge about Edgar Joseph "Easy Eddie" O'Hare (also known as EJ) and his son, Edward Henry "Butch" O'Hare, are true, if exaggerated in the presentation above. The senior O'Hare provided legal services to Al Capone and later helped the government bring that notorious gangster to justice on tax fraud charges in 1931, then was murdered on 8 November 1939.  (Exactly who killed Eddie O'Hare has always been a subject for debate, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was killed on orders from Capone for having given information to the government that led to Capone's imprisonment.)  Eddie's son Butch was a pilot who died in the Pacific during World War II when he failed to return to his carrier after a night mission on 26 November 1943, and Chicago's O'Hare airport was indeed named in his honor. (Dispute remains over exactly what happened to Butch, a Medal of Honor winner, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates his plane was downed by friendly fire rather than Japanese Zeroes.)   This glurge completely  jumps the tracks, however, in trying to turn the story of Eddie and Butch O'Hare into a tale of redemption, a little morality play to demonstrates the importance of recognizing the errors of one's ways, of atoning for one's misdeeds, of trying to do right and prevent one's sins from being visited on future generations.  Those are all valuable lessons, but they have precious little to do with this story. Eddie O'Hare was not just a gangster's lawyer, he was also a partner in some of Al Capone's illegal activities. Despite having entered a profession in which he was expected, of all things, to uphold the law, the senior O'Hare broke the law to enrich himself through unethical and illegal schemes in partnership with the most notorious gangster in American history.  What's more, he served Capone as an attorney and business manager, aiding the mobster in setting up illegal enterprises and helping to keep Capone and his cronies out of prison. When "Easy Eddie" did eventually provide information that aided federal authorities in sending Capone to prison for income tax evasion, it was far less likely that he did it because he had an attack of conscience, wanted to right the wrongs he'd done, or sought to teach his son the value of integrity.  More probably he turned state's evidence because he could see the handwriting on the wall: Capone was going to be nailed with or without his assistance, but by doing the government a favor Eddie could keep himself out of prison.  (Some sources even suggest the connections Eddie made by turning government informant were what got his son Butch a berth at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis.) Perhaps Eddie O'Hare believed or knew he would be killed for what he had done; perhaps not.  Either way, it was his son Butch who redeemed the family name through his wartime bravery and heroism, and the price he paid for that redemption was his life.  None of that redemption was achieved through the actions of Easy Eddie. Was the elder O'Hare "able to pass the value of integrity on to his son"?  If his actions illustrated anything, it was just the opposite of integrity: if you're clever enough and sufficiently lacking in moral values you can live a life of wealth and privilege by victimizing others, and if  your gravy train should ever derail you can adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and save your own skin by ratting on your associates. Butch O'Hare was suitably honored when the Chicago airport known as Orchard Depot was renamed O'Hare International in 1949.  It's unfortunate that he and the airport have to share the O'Hare name with his unscrupulous father. Additional information:     Capone and the O'Hares  (Combined Counties Police Association)  Last updated:  1 February 2005    Sources:    Ewing, Steve and John B. Lundstrom.  Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare.   Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1997.  ISBN 1-55750-247-1. Fateful Rendezvous: The Life of Butch O'Hare Gov. Tony Evers proposed that Wisconsin keep up with three of its neighbors and legalize marijuana, but the plan has already gone up in smoke. The GOP-controlled Legislatures budget-writing committee on May 6, 2021 removed legalizing marijuana -- and hundreds of other provisions -- from the governors proposed 2021-23 spending plan. In making the changes, and starting fresh, the panel created agap of about $3.4 billion. With that gap, and polls showing general public support for legalized marijuana, it brought to mind a claim from Evers that we had set aside: Regulating and taxing marijuana  much like we do alcohol  would generate more than $165M in revenue starting in 2022, Evers tweetedApril 14, 2021. In all, 36 states have medical marijuana programs (including Iowa), while14 states-- including neighboring Illinois and Michigan -- have legalized marijuana for recreational use: But what about the money? Is Evers correct that his plan would add $165 million to the states coffers in the upcoming budget? When asked for backup to the claim, Britt Cudaback, Evers communications director, pointed us to the states Budget in Brief document, released in February 2021, which includes more detail on how his plan would work. Under the plan, the state Department of Revenue would issue permits to those wishing to sell recreational marijuana. The Governors proposal imposes a 15 percent excise tax on the sales price of each wholesale sale by a permit-holding producer to a permit-holding processor, according to the budget document. In addition, the proposal imposes a 10 percent excise tax on the sales price of each retail sale. Retail sales, except for medical use, would be subject to the sales tax. So, how did the governor arrive at that $165 million figure? According to Cudaback, the budget office looked at data from other states, including Colorado, which was the first state to legalize marijuana, and made adjustments for population and reported marijuana usage. She noted that other states have relied on Colorados data in developing their own budgets, and noted that the estimates were on the conservative side, meaning they could be closer to the low end of potential tax revenue. According to the Evers figures, if sales were to begin Jan. 1, 2022 -- roughly six months after expected passage of the budget -- $165.8 million would be reached if tax collections were $19 per-capita. That is, if -- on average -- every person in the state bought enough marijuna to generate $19 in annual tax revenue. Here is the math: $19 per capita per year x 5.8 million population x 1.5 years = $165.8 million. That includes a projected $65 million from taxes on sales at the wholesale level, $67.1 million from retail taxes and $33.6 million from the sales tax. Its difficult to compare states because of their varying size and different taxing structures around marijuana sales. For instance, Illinois has a lower excise tax, but far higher sales taxes on recreational marijuana, and more than double Wisconsins population. According to the Public Policy Forum, a non-partisan think tank that has analyzed the Wisconsin budget, Illinois likely collectedaround $175 millionin revenue in its first year of recreational implementation. Thats not much more -- despite twice the population size -- than what Evers is anticipating. The administration's estimate appears to imply a pretty rapid implementation, the Policy Forum said. Nevada, meanwhile, has a 15% tax on wholesale sales and a 10% tax on retail sales, so its framework is generally similar. Infiscal year 2020, with just over half of Wisconsins population, Nevada collected $105.2 million. That said, the Policy Forum notes Nevadas unique tourism industry -- i.e., legalized gambling -- may make it a poor basis for comparison. Andrew Reschovsky, University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Applied Economics pointed out that forecasting revenue from a new tax is always difficult. He said the State Budget Office has taken the sensible approach and based its estimates on the experience of other states that have already legalized marijuana sales. But that doesnt mean its sure to come true. The Administrations forecast, like all revenue forecasts, is based on a set of assumptions, he wrote. While some of the Administrations assumptions may result in an under-estimate of tax revenues, I do worry that the state may be overly optimistic about the time needed to implement the issuing of both medical and recreational marijuana retail sales licenses and the time needed to open retail outlets throughout the state. In other words, the state may not be able to get a system up and running in time to meet the Jan. 1, 2022 date the budget projections are based upon. Based on the experiences in Massachusetts and California, this may be an overly optimistic estimate of the time it takes to license and open retail sales outlets, Reschovsky wrote. If the rollout process is in fact slower than anticipated, revenue during the next biennium may be lower than the Administrations forecast. Evers tweeted Regulating and taxing marijuana  much like we do alcohol  would generate more than $165M in revenue starting in 2022. Experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin, generally speaking, had no quarrel with the states math, but questioned the implementation schedule baked into the estimates. In other words, if legalized marijuana were to go forward, it may not generate the revenue Evers claimed because it may take too long to get a licensing system in place, and to license and open retail outlets. In a nutshell, the Evers projections are plausible, but may be overly optimistic. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, our rating is Mostly True. Claim:  The "Cap and Trade energy bill" requires that all existing real estate must meet new energy standards before it can be sold.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] For those of you who have real estate for sale or rent, be advised that the Cap and Trade energy bill that passed Congress has the following provisions: Before any real estate, new or old, commercial or residential, can be sold or rented, the building must meet the new energy standards set forth in the Bill. These standards are about a general 35% increase in what is now required in building codes. It requires such things as requiring solar reflective roofs, double pane windows, energy efficient appliances and lighting, increased insulation, leak test, and on and on and on. In order to sell or rent any building, you will be required to have a certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector (new division of the US Dept. of Energy). No certification, no sell or rent, simple as that.  [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] A License Required for your HOUSE? Thinking about selling your house.  Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill), that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. The caveat is, that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission,you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Cost $200 to start. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements, which easily could cost over $50,000. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.  The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America. The label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. The government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Origins:  HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the "cap-and-trade energy bill"), is a bill intended to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy."  The bill was passed by the Houseof Representatives in June 2009, but it has not yet been voted upon by the Senate. HR 2454 The version of the bill passed by the House sets energy efficiency standards benchmarks that must be met by new buildings, both residential and  commercial, constructed after the bill takes effect (i.e., after the bill was passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law).  Contrary to what is claimed above, however, HR 2454 contains no provisions requiring that existing homes "must meet the new energy standards" before they can be re-sold.  Likewise, the bill includes no requirements that an existing residential property undergo an energy usage-related audit or inspection and be assigned a "certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector" before it can be re-sold or rented. This misinformation about mandatory energy standard retrofits and licensing requirements has been promulgated primarily through a misunderstanding of Section 202 of HR 2454, which is headed "Building Retrofit Program" and calls for the establishment of "standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy."  However, those standards are specifically indicated as being part of the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program, a program intended to establish state programs to provide cash incentives to property owners who voluntarily choose to make their buildings more energy efficient.   REEP The House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has jurisdiction over the implementation of cap-and-trade legislation, notes in their section-by-section explanation of HR 2454 that Section 202: explanation Establishes the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program to provide allowances to states to conduct cost-effective building retrofits. Provides that states may use local governments or other agencies or entities to carry out the work and may use flexible forms of financial assistance providing up to 50% of the costs of retrofits, with funding increasing in proportion to efficiency achievement. Provides additional assistance for the retrofitting of historic buildings. Directs the Administrator of EPA to establish standards and guidelines for the program, in consultation with the Secretary of DOE. Allows federal funds provided to disaster victims to qualify as a building owner's contribution toward matching requirements. Requires states to offer preferential access to at least 10% of dedicated program funding to public and assisted housing. Nothing would require a homeowner to audit or retrofit their home to ensure that it meets building code requirements. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) also noted of that section of HR 2454:  NAR [HR 2454] does not require that buildings be retrofitted. Rather, it provides federal funding for states to offer financial incentives, such as loans or grants, for property owners to voluntarily decide to improve energy efficiency. In order to receive the funding, there are conditions on how states can spend the money, such as verification of energy improvements performed by private contractors, but that is only to ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually spent on the purpose for which it is intended (building efficiency improvements). There is no point-of-sale guideline or any other requirement of any sort in the House passed bill. Nowhere does this bill create a federal requirement that a property owner would have to retrofit a property to any guideline at any time  let alone at point of sale. The bill does stipulate federal guidelines to ensure that states spend and verify that bill funding goes to financial incentives for property owners to voluntarily make improvements. An entirely separate bill would have to be drafted, introduced, passed by committees and both houses of Congress, and signed by the President into law in order for the Federal government to go beyond [HR 2454's] financial incentives for voluntary energy improvements. Last updated:  7 September 2010 <!--    Ellen, Daryn.  "Guide to Tipping."   O, The Oprah Magazine.  December 2002.