Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief.
In May 2017, Gov.Scott Walkermade a claim about tax cuts since he took office in 2011. He said the cuts that had been approved, and those that were proposed in his 2017-19 state budget, would exceed $8 billion by the time the budget is done. Werated the statement True. Now the budget is done and Walker ismakingtheclaimwithoutqualifications. For example, he declared on May 31, 2018,on Twitter: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. Campaigning for a third term in the November 2018 election, its a statement Walker will repeat. Lets see if its right. More governors race fact checks: How Walker and the Democratic candidates for governorstack up on the Truth-O-Meter. The numbers The governors office provided us tallies from the State Budget Office. They show that through June 2019, when the current 2017-19 state budget ends, the tax cuts will exceed $8.85 billion. We also went to a nonpartisan source, the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which did calculations in May 2018 and arrived at a slightly lower figure. The fiscal bureau told us it estimated the reduction in general fund tax revenues and property tax revenues, as a result of tax law changes enacted since 2011, at $8.47 billion: Income and franchise tax reductions $4.82 billion Property tax reductions $3.56 billion Other tax cuts $90 million Total tax reductions 2011 through mid-2019 $8.47 billion Democrats' reaction We asked the stateDemocratic Partyabout Walkers claim. The party did not challenge the $8 billion tally, but criticized a number of Walkers policies. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc Among them: The manufacturing and agricultural tax credit gave an estimated $22 million in creditsto 11 individualswho had an adjusted gross income of $30 million or more in 2017, according to the state fiscal bureau. Our rating Walker says: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. The states official nonpartisan budget scorekeeper puts the figure -- since Walker took office in 2011 and through the current budget that runs through mid-2019 -- at $8.47 billion. We rate Walkers statement True.
In a letter shared by the joint labor union Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) on Feb. 4, 2021, former U.S. President Donald Trump resigned as a member of the union. Trumps resignation came just as the union leadership was moving to expel Trump in the wake of his alleged provocation of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. shared resignation The letterhead appeared to carry the logo for what was called the Office of the Former President, created by Trumps team in Palm Beach, Florida, to serve as the official outlet for Trumps statements and to share his future plans. Office of the Former President However, now, the stationery on which the letter was submitted says Office of Donald J. Trump. The letter was shared on SAG-AFTRAs website, along with the union's response to Trump, which was a simple, Thank you. website response As seen in the document, the end of the letter is indeed signed with President Donald J. Trump.   In the letter, Trump cited his own acting experience and contributions to television: Im very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice  to name just a few! Ive also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others. He concluded with a criticism of the unions actions: Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me  besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas  as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, Why isnt the union fighting for me? These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious. I no longer wish to be associated with your union. Professor and author Seth Abramson pointed out how signing the letter this way is troubling, given that Trump is on trial for inciting the riots:  However, signing a letter as President does not appear to be out of the ordinary. Former President Barack Obama's statements are also released under "President Obama." Former presidents are still addressed as President [insert name] or Mr. President. All U.S. presidents retain their titles for life. statements addressed Given that the official letter was shared by SAG-AFTRA, along with Trumps signature, we rate this claim as True. The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text:  In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates  The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216  a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou.  "Tea Party at the Capitol."
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  28 February 2009. On Oct. 11, 2020, Allstate insurance company released a new television advertisement that showed a man going about his day on what turned out to be a tiny island. The aim of the commercial appeared to highlight a new payment option that allowed drivers to only pay for miles driven. This meant smaller bills for drivers who don't drive a lot. released  The ad featured Babe Rainbow's "Morning Song." In the final shot, it was revealed that the man lived on a very small island. We found no shortage of tweets that asked if the island was real: "Morning Song."    The island in the Allstate video is indeed real. It is Ona, located in Norway. RepublicWorld.com reported the news in October. reported  Norway, Ona island lighthouse. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  According to Fjords.com: "Ona is the name of the island community which consists of the two islands Ona and Husya. The two islands are connected with a small bridge." Fjords.com VisitNorway.com published a page with information for what tourists could expect when visiting the island: published Norway's southernmost living fishing village. The island serves as a year-round residence for 11 people and has a beauty that attracts travelers from far and near. Ona Fyr is a 15-meter high landmark built in 1865, located on the island's highest point, Onakalven. It is possible to go inside the lighthouse, and from the top, there is a fantastic view out over the sea and towards the mainland. You will also find the exclusive Ona Chocolate here, a small summer caf, two pottery workshops, a craft shop, a chapel, and a long, white sandy beach. The island is a peaceful place where you can enjoy the silence and tranquility. On the island, there are holiday homes located directly on the dock, and local suppliers offer a wide range of activities on-site, including various forms of fishing. While Ona is a real island, it appeared that the final shot of the Allstate advertisement might have been altered in editing to give the island a bit of a cleaner look. For instance, here is the view of the island from the end opposite the one shown in the Allstate advertisement:  Ona, Norway. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  A number of YouTube videos also showed that small patches of rock surround Ona, which did not appear in the Allstate video. For example, small patches of rock appeared here at 0:23, but not in the advertisement: number of YouTube videos appeared here at 0:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP5X-OxbUFI?t=23 Digitally altered or not, Ona appeared to be a quiet, lovely vacation destination for anyone visiting Norway in the future. Speaking of islands, we previously reported about a photograph of a purported "Violin Island" in Costa Rica. That picture first arrived in our inboxes in 2017. reported Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. On 6 April 2016, the Facebook page "Worldwide Infidels United" published the above-reproduced meme, along with the following text: published This is Sajid Muhammed, a Muslim man living in the UK. In 2002 he set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwitch and only got 2 year in prison! He was released early to appease the local Muslims protesting against his arrest! SHARE if you think he should be hung! The text included a photograph of theactor Ian Hart, who portrayed Professor Quirinus Quirrell in the film adaptation ofHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: Professor Quirinus Quirrell    The meme achieved tens of thousands of shares; alarge number of those sharing were in on the joke, but not all of them.Some were outraged: I'm not sure on the death penalty but he should served his sentence then been deported n not allowed a passport again pure evil the system over here stinks It's unbelievable what these Muslims get away with in our country what is our government trying to do .God Help Us Others were offended for different reasons: Whoever put up this post should be prosecuted for using a misleading image from Harry Potter and The Philosophers stone to promote racist comment whoever you are you should be ashamed of yourself! And you need to apologise to the Muslim community for peddling such lies! Incitement to hatred is a criminal offence! Putting asideany individual reader or commenter's interpretation, "World Infidels United" was not ananti-Muslim page, nor was its content meant to be taken literally. Additional content on the page clarifiedits satirical nature:  Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016  Please share to help spread the word! Posted by Worldwide Infidels United onWednesday, April 6, 2016 Worldwide Infidels United Wednesday, April 6, 2016 The meme's maker was mocking British people who shared similar (but serious) anti-Muslim memes on Facebook, and wasn't literally claiming that Professor Quirrell set a woman on fire for eating a bacon sandwich. 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 During the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate held in Cleveland on Sept. 29, Democratic nominee Joe Biden said he does not support the Green New Deal, a resolution introduced in Congress by members of his own party proposing strategies for dealing with climate change, but instead backs the Biden Plan for doing so, which is laid out on his campaign website. Biden's disavowal came on the heels of an attempt by his opponent, U.S. President Donald Trump, to tie him to the Green New Deal, claiming it would cost $100 trillion if implemented. Biden's responses (which begin one hour and 20 minutes into the below video clip) were as follows: That is not my plan. The Green New Deal is not my plan. [] The Green New Deal will pay for itself as we move forward. Were not going to build plants that in fact are great polluting plants. [] No, I dont support the Green New Deal. I support the Biden Plan that I put forward. The Biden Plan, which is different than what [Trump] calls the radical Green New Deal.  https://www.c-span.org/video/?475793-1/trump-biden-debate These statements sparked criticism from Republicans like Omar Navarro, who ran three unsuccessful bids for Californias 43d Congressional District in 2016, 2018, and again in 2020. On Sept. 30, Navarro shared a screenshot from Bidens website that described the Green New Deal as a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges Omar Navarro  three unsuccessful bids   The language in the tweeted screenshot above was indeed found on Bidens website as of Sept. 30, but was taken out of context and doesn't reflect the differences between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal, which we will discuss below. The Green New Deal resolution was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 7, 2019, in response to Trumps 2017 announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The 14-page proposal sets forth a number of policies aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions produced by American companies, creating high-wage jobs for Americans, and to set an overall framework for environmental justice and resiliency against climate change-related disasters. It is important to note that the Green New Deal is nonbinding, and if it were to pass, nothing outlined within its pages would become law. 14-page proposal nonbinding Biden made climate change a cornerstone of his 2020 bid for the presidency, in turn criticizing Trump's handling of environmental affairs. It is true that the Biden Plan (archived here for reference) includes elements of the Green New Deal and is similar to it in that both plans agree that the U.S. needs to act urgently and epically to meet the scope of the climate change challenge, and that the environment and the economy are completely and totally connected. The Biden Plan addresses many of the issues outlined in the Green New Deal, with the addition of specific actions that a Biden administration would take should he be elected in November 2020. cornerstone Biden Plan here We dug through both proposals to understand the nuances between the two, where they differ, and where they are the same. Generally speaking, both policies establish a similar framework but differ in the specifics of how policymakers should go about enforcing and reaching defined goals. For example, both plans highlight the importance of clean, safe drinking water and community-driven projects that promote social and environmental justice in areas disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.  The greatest difference between the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal lies in their stances on the Paris Agreement, an international agreement established in 2015 with the central aim of coordinating and strengthening the global response to climate change and keeping the global temperature rise in this century below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Whereas the Biden Plan promises a recommitment to the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal does not mention it at all.  Paris Agreement When it comes to clean energy, the Green New Deal and the Biden Plan are similar in that they aim to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions, but the former sets forth a 10-year mobilization deadline, whereas the Biden Plan sets a goal of no later than 2050. Both plans establish priorities for investment in clean energy innovation and research; however, the Biden Plan is far vaguer. The Green New Deal goes into greater detail, specifying that those investments should include infrastructure and industry, sustainable farming and land-use practices, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, manufacturing public transit, removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry, and the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies. Other key areas of overlap between the two plans include creating resiliency across the nation and committing to international policy and trade that employ strong labor and environmental protections. According to his website, the Biden plan will be paid for by rolling back Trump tax incentives and will require a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next decade, leveraging the additional private sector and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion. This estimated cost is significantly lower than the $100 trillion bill that Trump claimed the U.S. would foot during the debate. However, serious disagreement exists over how much implementation of the Green New Deal might actually cost.  website After its 2019 introduction by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Republican leaders and some media publications cited research by the right-wing think tank American Action Forum that speculated the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion, or an estimated $600,000 per household, in its first 10 years. (A supplementary brief from the organization outlining the projected costs can be found here.) But a number of financial experts have countered that research, suggesting that it is more likely that the Green New Deal would cost significantly less, and in some estimates half as much. In fact, a September 2020 study published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science suggested a total overall cost of just over $16 trillion over 15 years. media publications American Action Forum here financial experts estimates Energy Research & Social Science Though both the Biden Plan and the Green New Deal provide similar general frameworks for moving towards a cleaner economy and combating the effects of climate change at a national level, subtle differences exist between the two. Although Biden stated outright that he does not support the Green New Deal, it is apparent from his own policy statements that he supports elements of it that have been incorporated into his own plan. As such, we rate this claim as a "Mixture." Green New Deal Friedman, Lisa.  "What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained."
  The New York Times.  21 Feb. 2019.  116th Congress 1st Session  "Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal."
  7 Feb. 2019.  Muyskens, John, Uhrmacher, Kevin.  "Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change."
  The Washington Post.  8 April 2019.  Relman, Eliza.  "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Re, Gregg.  "Green New Deal Would Cost Up To $93 Trillion, Or $600G Per Household, Study Says."
  Business Insider.  5 June 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, et al.  "The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, and Implications."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Holtz-Eakin, Douglas.  "An Initial Analysis of the Green New Deal."
  American Action Forum.  25 Feb. 2019.  Sherman, Amy.  "The Green New Deal Would Put a $600,000 Tax Burden on Every Household."
  PolitiFact.  27 Sept.. 2019.  McDonald, Jessica.  "How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?"
  FactCheck.org.  14 March 2019.  Galvin, Ray and Noel Healy.  "The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay For It."
  Energy Research & Social Science .  September 2020. In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. In March 2019, news reports emerged warning readers in the United States that they would need a new kind of visa to visit Europe beginning in 2021, prompting inquiries from our readers about the veracity of those claims.  On 9 March, CNN published an article with the headline, "United States citizens will need a visa to visit Europe starting in 2021," which went on: article "U.S. citizens traveling to Europe without a visa will be a thing of the past come 2021. The European Union announced on Friday that American travelers will need a new type of visa  a European Travel Information and Authorization System or ETIAS  to visit the European Schengen Area. The Schengen Area is a zone of 26 European countries that do not have internal borders and allow people to move between them freely, including countries like Spain, France, Greece, Germany, Italy and Poland. Currently, U.S. citizens can travel to Europe for up to 90 days without a visa." That article was subsequently syndicated by other news websites, as part of CNN's wire service. other news websites In fact, the European Travel Information and Authorization System is not a visa. It is a new kind of travel authorization  similar to the ESTA program available to visitors to the United States  that citizens of certain non-European countries will need in order to make short visits to some European countries. ESTA CNN quickly corrected the errors in its original article, but some versions published by other websites remained uncorrected, as of 15 March 2019.  corrected The European Travel Information and Authorization System was first announced in September 2016, not on 8 March 2019 as CNN's article originally claimed, by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, a body that is akin to the executive branch of the European Union (E.U.)  In his 2016 "State of the Union" speech, Juncker said: speech "We will defend our borders, as well, with strict controls, adopted by the end of the year, on everyone crossing them. Every time someone enters or exits the E.U., there will be a record of when, where and why. By November, we will propose a European Travel Information System  an automated system to determine who will be allowed to travel to Europe. This way we will know who is traveling to Europe before they even get here. And we all need that information. How many times have we heard stories over the last months that the information existed in one database in one country, but it never found its way to the authority in another that could have made the difference?" Over the following two years, the proposal went through the E.U.'s somewhat complicated ratification processes, ultimately gaining the approval of the European Parliament in July 2018 and the European Council in September 2018. On 19 September 2018, the regulations establishing ETIAS were published in the Official Journal of the E.U. ratification published In response to our inquiries, a spokesperson for Frontex, the E.U.'s Border and Coast Guard Agency that oversees ETIAS, told us that since September 2018, "no significant new developments" emerged in relation to the program, which the spokesperson said is still on track to be launched in 2021.  For that reason, it's not clear what prompted the March 2019 news reports about ETIAS. CNN's original article claimed that the E.U. had "announced" what the article mistakenly called a "new type of visa" on 8 March, linking to a post on the website Etiasvisa.com, which bore the headline "ETIAS Visa Waiver for Americans." original article post However, as we have explained, the ETIAS program was first announced in 2016 and officially ratified in 2018. Furthermore, the spokesperson for Frontex confirmed that Etiasvisa.com is not operated by the European Commission or any other E.U. agency or body. Along with the website Etias.com, it is an unofficial, privately run site.  As of March 2019, the citizens of 60 non-European countries do not need a visa for short visits to a group of 26 European countries known as the "Schengen Area" (named after the town of Schengen, Luxembourg, where the 1985 agreement that formed the Schengen Area was signed).  agreement Historically and in principle, travelers moving between Schengen states saw no internal border checks, although in recent years some Schengen countries have availed themselves of a controversial, temporary reinstatement of internal Schengen border controls.  reinstatement The 60 "visa-exempt" countries include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and several Asian, Pacific and South American nations. The full list is available here.  here The Schengen Area is composed of 22 E.U. member states (including Germany, France, Spain, and Italy) as well as four non-E.U. countries: Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Two E.U. member states, Ireland and the U.K., have opted out of the Schengen agreement. Four other E.U. member states  Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus and Croatia  have not yet joined the Schengen Area, although Bulgaria and Romania are currently in the process of being admitted. This official map outlines the Schengen Area: admitted official map   Travelers from one of the 60 visa-exempt countries can enter and move throughout the Schengen Area for a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period, provided they have a valid passport and border agents don't determine that they present a threat to public safety and security. Those traveling from one of the roughly 100 "visa-obliged" countries (largely in Africa and the Middle East) must obtain a visa in advance. This "short stay" visa system allows the holder to enter and move throughout the Schengen Area (again, for a maximum of 90 days in any 180-day period). However, it also allows E.U. member states to obtain advance information about would-be visitors and make a case-by-case decision on whether to admit them into their country (and thereby, into the Schengen Area), a capability that is inherently advantageous from a security point of view.  By contrast, E.U. member states and E.U. authorities generally gain little advance knowledge about the arrival of visitors from visa-exempt nations, presenting a security liability that the ETIAS program was designed to address. A European Parliament briefing document explains the impetus behind ETIAS: document "For the purposes of combating serious crime and terrorism, law enforcement authorities can obtain information on visa holders from the visa information system (VIS). For visa-exempt travelers, this is only possible if they arrive by air, as, according to the PNR Directive, data on such travelers are transferred to the Member States law enforcement authorities to process for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious crime. However, for visa-exempt passengers arriving on foot or by car, bus or train, no such comparable information exists prior to their arrival." According to a fact sheet published by the European Commission, the basic process of applying for travel authorization under ETIAS should work as follows: fact sheet Further details about the planned workings of the ETIAS program can be found on this European Commission fact sheet.  fact sheet Johnson, Lauren M.; Holcombe, Madeline. "United States Citizens Will Need a Visa to Visit Europe Starting in 2021."
 CNN. 9 March 2019. Juncker, Jean-Claude. "State of the Union 2016: Towards a Better Europe -- a Europe That Protects, Empowers and Defends."
 European Commission. 14 September 2016. Radjenovic, Anja. "European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS)."
 European Parliamentary Research Service. 18 October 2018. Official Journal of the European Union. "Regulation (EU) 2018/1240, Regulation (EU) 2018/1241."
 19 September 2018. Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. "Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control."
 European Commission. 15 March 2019. Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs. "SchengenArea."
 European Commission. 15 March 2019. European Commission. "Fact Sheet -- Security Union: A European Travel Information and Authorization System."
 5 July 2018. In April 2021, American readers may have been intrigued to see a curious article about Denzel Washington and Netflix. The headline from the We Got This Covered website read, "An Underrated Denzel Washington Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week."  Mysterious and sometimes misleading content might be what a lot of Google Discover users are shown these days.  Some readers may have noticed the article in their Google Discover feed. For those unfamiliar with Google Discover, it's a free and personalized news feed that displays content that Google thinks each user might find interesting and relevant. The headline likely led American readers to believe that the "underrated" film was available to stream in the U.S. After all, Netflix's headquarters are located in Los Gatos, California. This was all somewhat misleading. The source referenced by the We Got This Covered article did not show that the movie in question, "The Equalizer 2," was "dominating" Netflix. Instead, FlixPatrol.com indicated that the film barely made the top 10 worldwide movies on Netflix during week 16 of 2021. week 16 of 2021 Further, not included in the Google Discover card for the story was one important tidbit: "The Equalizer 2" was not available to be streamed by Netflix users in the U.S. According to an unofficial website that tracks Netflix availability by country, "The Equalizer 2" was only available on the streaming service in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. unofficial website This was not the first time that the We Got This Covered website published a misleading article about a famous actor and Netflix. In February 2021, the same website also claimed: "Tom Hanks New Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week." The film in question was the 2020 flick "News of the World." claimed As with "The Equalizer 2," "News of the World" wasn't exactly "dominating Netflix," nor was it available for streaming in the U.S. "The Equalizer 2" was originally released in 2018. It received a 51% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 50 out of 100 on Metacritic. 51% critic rating a score of 50  The film reunited director Antoine Fuqua with Washington after they had previously worked together on 2001's "Training Day," a film that is available on Netflix in the U.S. The synopsis for "The Equalizer 2" read: "Denzel Washington returns to one of his signature roles in the first sequel of his career. Robert McCall serves an unflinching justice for the exploited and oppressed  but how far will he go when that is someone he loves?" As of April 2021, no plans had been announced by Netflix to bring "The Equalizer 2" to American audiences. However, it's available to rent for $3.99 on YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and a number of other streaming services. YouTube Amazon Prime Video In sum, a movie starring the actor was not "dominating Netflix," nor was it even available in the U.S. 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.