MOU impact excerpt
Full Session
"Just the facts M'am, Just the facts." -- Sgt. Joe Friday
By Brooks
MOU impact excerpt
Full Session
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Brooks
Posted 01/28/2013 07:02 PM ET, Investors Business Daily
Big Government: For an industry all puffed up about its supposed environmental virtue, green energy sure is attracting a dirty crowd. Witness its latest entrant, Italy’s Mafia. The mob knows a good fraud when it sees one.
Alongside strip joints, drug smuggling, human trafficking, leg-breaking and political shakedowns, Mafia soldiers have moved in on the something-for-nothing world of green energy.
The Washington Post, in a page-one story, reported last week that a major sting operation by Italian authorities yielded a swarm of corrupt front groups run not by green hipsters, but by the Cosa Nostra of Sicily and the Calabrian syndicate known as ‘Ndrangheta.
The plot was “part ‘Sopranos,’ part ‘An Inconvenient Truth,'” the Post noted, with the mob shaking down legitimate farmers for title to their land, and then accepting EU subsidies for windmill construction, paying off political players to ensure the subsidies came.
It’s the latest chapter in an ongoing story of corruption continuously surrounding green energy. In 2009, Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy boss Oreste Vigorito was busted for building wind farms on public subsidies that sopped up state cash and delivered nothing. In 2010, cops seized $2 billion in 43 solar and wind fronts from “businessman” Vito Nicastri, known as “Lord of the Winds.”
Can’t happen here? Along with pay-for-play subsidies that have rolled into politically tied companies like Solyndra, green Mafia scams have reached the Netherlands, Britain, Ireland and Spain. Meanwhile, in Germany, carbon trading has drawn corruption of its own.
Italian blogger Pasquale Trivisonne denounced the waste of these scams in Italy — with wasted farmland and noisy windmills, but zero jobs and no energy.
It’s money in the pockets of criminals. Green millionaires such as Vigorito got their seed capital from U.S. sources, Trivisonne noted. Vigorito, for one, had ties to Bryan Caffyn, founder of the “Cape Wind Project” in Massachusetts, which has been criticized for giving taxpayers little value for their money.
The Mafia only moves in on industries that have no need to create anything of value.
The green energy industry is shot through with government cash and “direction” because it can’t stand on its own. Its inability to turn a profit legitimately leaves it one of the least-free markets.
A nonfree market is like a dung heap for creepy crawlies. No wonder the face of green is increasingly a mob face. It’s an offer the Mafia can’t refuse.
By Brooks
Environmentalists, with a basket of scare tactics, have evidently decided to carve out Elbert County from the modern world of energy harvesting . Meanwhile, Denver Basin aquifers were successfully protected through thousands of oil and gas drilling installations across the front range. (click graphics to enlarge) It is time for sound science to control the local regulatory process.
By Brooks
He doesn’t want it, so no one should have it.
By Brooks
Posted: Thursday, Jan 24th, 2013
By Judy ApplewhiteDEL NORTE—First Liberty Energy, Inc. is seeking conditional use permit to drill for oil in the Old Woman’s Creek area near Del Norte.
The company has already received a permit from the Colorado Division of Oil and Gas, COGCC. Rio Grande county commissioners called a public hearing on Jan. 16 to give the locals a chance to weigh in on the decision process. . .
See whole story: Rio Grande County oil and gas decision delayed again
Now see:
The previous blog post about the planning commission activities last night showed a promising forum between government, industry experts and the public that could produce a practicable working arrangement that might protect all stakeholders’ interests in the development of oil and gas in Elbert County. Nothing is certain but things appeared to be moving toward a compromise solution.
Why, then, did the BOCC decide to create an oil and gas citizens advisory committee now, just when things appear to be on track in the planning commission?
Was the planning commission process we witnessed last night too reasonable? Too scientific? Insufficiently corruptible? Inadequately manipulable for political objectives? Did the planning commission not come up with the right answer?
Take a hard look at the above story out of Rio Grande County yesterday, for it is predictive of what our BOCC is setting up. Our BOCC apparently wants an ongoing scenario where, after all state and local regulatory burdens have been met, after all available science and best management practices have been satisfied, further approval will be thrown into a kangaroo BOCC court to be punched around for who knows how long.
Even with the regulatory scheme contemplated in Elbert County’s currently proposed “O&G Zone + MOU” device, modifications to the standard MOU, after confirmation by all the planners and experts, still must pass under the magic pen of the BOCC. Is this where the proposed citizens political advice takes over? The planners say this will only add 2 weeks to the expedited MOU approval process, and rumor has it they have beachfront property out by the Blotter place in Agate for sale..
If the end game in this deal is merely to create grist for the BOCC mill, then let’s skip all the expensive foreplay and get right to the main event.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
Continuation Part 2: here
(Note: A couple minutes of discussion between parts 1 and 2 were lost due to a degraded system that began repetitive disconnects. Not sure if it was the internet link or webcast software, so I re-initiated all elements and that cleared up the problem.)
By Brooks
Commissioner Rowland, after observing your leadership in a couple meetings now, I have to give you some constructive advice. I’m writing this for the good of the forum, and I expect you to change your speaking style as a result of it. I have to assume no one has told you this before, and that you’re not going to hear it from anyone at the county over whom you have dominion. So here goes.
The campaign is over. You don’t need to consume every available syllable in the room like a ravenous pack animal at a feeding frenzy. You won already.
I wouldn’t expect you to change the way you think. But the way you speak impacts everyone in the room. The cumulative time you cost an audience is significant.
If you expect to hold an audience over the next four years, you must not continue to air out every incomplete thought, and every alternate construction of language that just says the same thing in as many different ways as you can imagine. The repetition is not effective. It’s redundant.
The office you hold is not a casual forum. People go there to hear legal decisions that might affect them in the future, and if necessary, to add some data to improve the quality of a future decision. They don’t go to hear streams of consciousness that are not dispositive to making a decision.
Effective leadership is orderly, succinct, and respectful of scarce time. Please respect the time of “we the people” whom you have often spoken of as your principle motivation.
Lay out the facts in clear non-repetitive statements when a decision calls for them. Everyone thinks about the issues all the time. If you have new information, then please, advance the topic. Otherwise, let someone else speak who does have new information to impart.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
“What on earth has happened to democracy if the opinions of mere fractions of the electorate are allowed to dominate the economic self-interest of far more? Who is to create a “controversy” out of thin air next?”
By Brooks
By Brooks
“Let’s put some facts in those minds and see what happens.”
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Brooks
Ric Morgan and Rick Blotter on setbacks.
Consider that Mr. Blotter made his preference known moments after Mr. Morgan had described the consequences of the proposed setback. Blotter, without hesitation, had completely filtered out the foregoing analysis in favor of his agenda for stopping all drilling. This is very typical of the Left. They’ll engage in endless dialog under the pretense of seeking truth. But it’s not truth they’re after.
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Jennifer Finch, Information Specialist, Weld County Office of County Commissioners
Thursday, January 17th, 2013, 4:02pm
Reposted from littleton.kdvr.com
The Weld County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, calling upon the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to dismiss its recent decision to increase setbacks for oil and gas facilities and to convene “a meaningful stakeholder process that will consider the need for a close working and coordinating relationship between local governments and the COGCC…”
The resolution cities numerous issues with the COGCC rule-making process including: the lack of stakeholder outreach by the COGCC to the Local Governmental Designees (LGD’s) of three of the highest producing counties in the state, including Weld County; the violation of C.R.S. 24-4-103(4)(a) regarding the rule-making process of the COGCC ruling; and the underestimation of the comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of inaction as is also required by Colorado Revised Statue (C.R.S. 24-4-103(4.5)(IV)).
“The process we witnessed last week at the hearings was government at its worst,” said Weld County Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer. “To rush this rule change through in the manner they did, without allowing the public to view and analyze the language and the impacts of the change, is irresponsible.”
The resolution also states that the Board of Commissioners has “…no intention of changing Weld County’s setbacks merely to mirror those setbacks set by the COGCC without any scientific or technological basis, which…the Proposed Amendments and new Rules lack…”
“County government, our municipalities and the oil and gas industry have worked together for decades to develop setback regulations that work for Weld County,” said Commissioner Douglas Rademacher. “The proposed change, which is not based on science, will have a substantial negative impact on our farmers, our ranchers, our schools, our fire districts…these changes will negatively impact the entire state of Colorado.”
By Brooks
Commissioners Meetings Details
Please click here to see Special Meeting-Executive Session
“. . .to discuss specific legal matters with their attorneys.”
Meeting Name: | Elbert County Board of County Commissioners-Special Meeting |
Meeting Type: | Commissioners Meetings |
Date: | 1/15/2013 |
Start Time: | 02:00 PM |
End Time: | 03:00 PM |
All day meeting? | No |
Location: | 215 Comanche-County Administrative Offices, 2nd Fl |
Contact Name: | Candace Meece |
Contact Phone: | 303-621-3133 |
Contact Email: | candace.meece@elbertcounty-co.gov |
“(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. Mere presence or participation of an attorney at an executive session of the local public body is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this subsection (4).”
“Specific legal matters.” Unaccountable and transparently vague.
By Brooks
“Under Bowen/Edwards, state preemption by reason of operational conflict can arise where the effectuation of a local interest would “materially impede or destroy the state interest.” Bowen/Edwards, supra, 830 P.2d at 1059.” (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1394587.html)
At Thursday’s Planning Commission public meeting, in response to a question about the material differences between items in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and COGCC regulations, Richard Miller said that (paraphrasing), “If it’s in the MOU then it is a higher standard than called for by the COGCC.”
There are at least 22 such items and some of them cost drillers, developers, and mineral rights owners substantial sums of money and lost property.
In addition, Best Management Practices (BMP) references in the proposed MOU have no definition. When asked what authority is responsible for defining these standards, Mr. Miller said that their incorporation into the MOU came about through informal discussions by the editing committee.
Informal discussions? No ISO? No ASTM? No ANSI?
The Bureau of Land Management is one source of definition for these standards. A scan of the Air Resource BMPs pdf shows a wide range of operational practices that may not be congruent with COGCC regulations.
The Natural Resources Law Center at CU Boulder publishes the Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP project. These standards appear to be closely coupled to objectives generally found in the environmentalism rubric.
Elbert County’s proposed MOU incorporates numerous expensive and open ended directives that are undefined by any measurable standard that could provide a means to enforce them. By its own terms, the MOU contract fails for lack of specificity. Moreover, this game of hiding county zoning dictats inside a compulsory agreement in order to sidestep COGCC’s occupation of the field of oil and gas regulation reeks of petty magisterial hubris. “Yeah, that’s the ticket, we’ll call it a contract. . .”
On the proposed setback scheme alone, Ric Morgan’s analysis presented at Thursday’s planning commission illustrated that all drilling would be preempted in most of Elbert County. Moreover, the impact of drilling envelopes on subsequent property development, post oil and gas development, has not even been addressed.
“The mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is to foster the responsible development of Colorado’s oil and gas natural resources.” It is fair to say that Elbert County’s proposed MOU completely frustrates this mission, and this represents an operational conflict in toto.
All of this MOU environmentalism, however, is probably a moot point because, as the COGCC representative indicated after the meeting, “Not a driller in the country would accept these terms.”
This means that the special use review, 6-month long, expensive, planning roadblock is the only ostensible means to get an oil well approved in Elbert County. Compared to approval time frames in other parts of the state and country measured in days rather than months, Elbert County is effectively closed for oil and gas business.
Since, as one planning commission member recently noted, the county has already been closed for business for the past 5 years, this should come as no surprise.
A year ago, Arapahoe County, similarly situated to Elbert County today, made the right decision by shutting down a local oil and gas planning process that had run amok, and affirming COGCC authority.
In Elbert County, it is not enough to end the MOU madness and default to special use review. We already know that special use review is a deal killer too.
Will Elbert County be able to break the stranglehold the environmentalist no-growth movement has on the county and do something economically beneficial for the citizens? Based on the preliminary moves made by the new BOCC majority floated on a tide of regulation seeping through CDS and the Planning Commission, don’t bet on it.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
5th Am. to the U.S. Constitution:
No person shall be. . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Oil and Gas Cover Letter from ElCo Webposting 1-2-2013:
An “Oil and/or Gas Development Permit” may be obtained following one of two Special Permit review Processes:
Major facilities will follow the standard Special Use Review process as provided for in these regulations. (Approximately 5-6 month process)
or
Minor facilities may choose to apply as a standard Special Use Review process or may choose to follow an administrative process, provided a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Elbert County is approved in conjunction. (Approximately 30-45 days)
It shall be Elbert County’s policy to encourage the use of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with individual oil and gas production companies that are active within the County and are proposing a Minor Oil and/or Gas Facility.
OIL & GAS DRAFT REGS – Final for Public Hearings SUR PERMIT ZR PART II SECTIONS 26 1-2-2013:
Section 26.2 – Application Review & Permit Processing
B. POLICY STATEMENT – MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (for Minor Oil and/or Gas
Facilities only)For those oil and gas production companies that choose not to enter into a MOU with Elbert County; the requirements of Section “E”, below, will apply.
E. PROCESSING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A MINOR OIL AND/OR GAS FACILITY (When the production company does NOT have an executed MOU with Elbert County) & FOR A MAJOR OIL AND/OR GAS FACILITY
The Special Use Permit process for a Minor Oil & Gas Development Permit in Elbert County when the oil/gas production company chooses not to enter into a MOU with Elbert County, or for obtaining a Major Oil & Gas Development Permit is as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING O&G 1-2-2013 Final for Public Hearings:
ADDENDUM “A”
1. There shall be a minimum of 1,320 feet between the wellhead and any residential structure, domestic well or platted building envelope.
5 . . . Only closed-loop drilling systems shall be permitted in Elbert County for drilling and completion operations rather than open earthen pits.
Summary:
Terms in Elbert County’s proposed MOU are more restrictive than COGCC regulations.
Nothing prohibits Elbert County from seeking a voluntary agreement between energy developers and the county for more restrictive conditions of development. But this is hardly a voluntary agreement.
The above scheme threatens a longer (5 to 6 months), and much more expensive planning process for companies that do not agree to the more restrictive conditions in the MOU for their minor Oil and Gas facilities–the majority of the facilities. Community and Development Services is proposing treating all minor facilities under the process for major facilities if the developer does not kow tow to the terms of the MOU.
Where is the “just compensation” to developers and mineral interest owners who do not agree with Elbert County’s more restrictive Oil and Gas development conditions? Not only is there no “just compensation,” there are in fact penalties–added procedural costs and the lost time value of potential earnings.
For those developers who accept CDS’s coercive scheme, the MOU appears to have a few weak links–the adhesive forced circumstances constructed by Elbert County government that create a take-it-or-leave-it superior bargaining position, the requirement of the additional expense of closed loop systems, and the opportunity costs from land taken out of production due to the greatly expanded setbacks. Where is the “just compensation” for these takings?
While paying lip service to the governing regulatory laws of the State of Colorado promulgated by the COGCC, this sham MOU contract is clearly intended to subvert state regulatory authority.
This proposed scheme appears ripe for legal challenges from developers, stakeholders and the state. Didn’t Rowland and Ross both campaign on the claim that the (then) current BOCC had a propensity for spawning litigation against the county? It seems they’re rushing headlong into a much deeper quagmire.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
Enviros fool themselves over the purported dangers to the environment from oil and gas fracturing. The only thing this technology puts at risk is their ability to control society through fear. Environmentalism requires that man pose a continuing threat to the earth. For them, man is essentially evil, destructive and polluting. He damages everything he touches. Enviros built a trillion dollar industry on this myth, and any evidence to the contrary must be ruthlessly suppressed. No tactics are off limits in this final battle for our very survival—and the protection of their rice bowl.
Oil and gas fracturing pops the balloon of environmental mythology with a pin of proven technology. Rather than merely promising betterment, fracturing delivers, and this genuinely threatens environmentalists. In Jonas Nightingale’s words in the movie Leap of Faith, “I know the real thing when I see it.” When enviros look out above their denial, they know it too.
Meanwhile, science, causation, the direction of time, basic physics, language definitions, human nature–these building blocks of civilization must all bow to the higher objectives of the mission. Reality must give way to the higher purposes of gaia lovers, busy replacing God with a new supreme being. They practice new ritual sacrifices in new church buildings full of think tanks and symposiums attended by enviro high priests and their legal staffs. They sanctify their objectives in fervent reliance on metaphysical constructs much like those held in traditional religions.
These modern gnostic practitioners, possessors of true knowledge—not the stuff most people hold as commonly true—lead the Church of Environmentalism. Most hold high office in the adjunct Church of Social Justice, as well as the Perpetual Church of Totalitarian Light, the Church for Reconstructed Sexuality, the Church for Cultural Equivocation, the Church for Economic Liberation from Capital, the Church for Recreational Mental Adjustment Through Chemistry, the Church for Aliens Spawned Earthly Life, as well as numerous smaller ad hoc conclaves. Go fishing with one of these worms and you’ll tip over the whole can.
Due to the fluid notions of deterministic causation that all these churches share, symposiums begun under the auspices of one church usually develop into general sessions for the advancement of all related modalities. Practitioners find this a real benefit—like getting something for nothing—except in these cases it’s getting nothing for nothing. But that’s okay, inside their klatches they remain a cheerful bunch who practice abundant love and happiness among each other.
Non-initiated skeptics only see the prickly shell that new age cults present to outsiders. This shell protects insider believers from the intrusion of information that could lead to schisms and defections from the ranks. An unfortunate side effect of their self-referential domain is a growing disconnection from reality feedback that, over time, might help them improve the efficacy of their belief systems. But this begs a larger question, already answered through their modifications to many of the informing constructs that normally lead to provable objective knowledge.
In the long run, and not withstanding the fervency of environmentalists’ beliefs, their willful dodges will play out and the rules that govern the universe will hold sway. In the short run, Katy bar the door because this party is just getting started. Again.
But let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is the enforcement of beliefs through intimidation, coercion and legal compunction to achieve pre-ordained secular outcomes that offends far more than the substance of their conclusions. A conservative might have no problem arriving at some point in the Left’s universe of acceptable ends, provided they got there from substantiated, proven evidence.
Ironically, while professing unfathomable degrees of faith in their objectives, on the issues the Left have claimed dominion over they grant no faith to mankind. They do not allow people to voluntarily make up their own minds. And this is quite odd for a group of people who call themselves humanist.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
. . .Tony Corrado spread his large flag like a blanket over a whole basket of spaghetti-intertwined Leftist mythologies. To rebut;
B_Imperial
By Brooks
Everyone knows about the County Clerk’s emotional distress over the budget. Does this really constitute an emergency? Are the citizens of Elbert County at risk of life and limb because they can only walk in to register their vehicles on a Monday or a Wednesday and the other days they have to mail it in? Perhaps the County Clerk should seek a less stressful office.
By Brooks
The Republican Party in Elbert County talks about how their job is to elect Republicans. And surely it is, but that’s like having a job to make sure the wind blows around here. It’s going to happen regardless of what anyone does.
The Elbert County New Plains Left have already criticized the new commission, and no matter what happens over the next two years, they will stay hyper critical. Recalls will be attempted and lost. Defamatory cartoons and opinion paragraphs will be penned. Commissioners will be stalked, ridiculed, insulted, and made the butt of jokes. Very little of what commissioners actually say will be addressed in the context it is delivered. All ambiguities will be construed against them. No benefit of doubt will accrue to them.
Will they deserve this maximally harsh treatment? No, of course not. But what treatment do they deserve?
The new commissioners were built up by the New Plains Left last Spring and Summer. Everyone knew the Left’s support for Rowland and Ross would evaporate if they defeated Shipper and Schwab, because the point was to put weaker candidates in place to face off against the Democrats. But the Democrats were supposed to win in the General election. When they didn’t, the Left were exposed in an awkward hypocrisy.
In the wings of this Primary electoral Kabuki theater, the Republican Central Committee sat silent. The ECR leadership, deterred by ECR bylaws from speaking out before the Primary, to this day have maintained public silence about the new commissioners. Rowland and Ross return the favor by avoiding Republican Central Committee meetings. Silence by the Republican leadership in 2012 constructively helped them get elected, but concerns about the candidates’ Republican bona-fides persist.
Conservatives believe in a linkage between freedom and responsibility—the two positively correlate. The ECR leadership freely chose their path in 2012. By doing so they earned the responsibility to do what they can to make this electoral outcome benefit Elbert County. Voters elected Republicans, not liberals. ECR leaders have a duty to deliver Republicans, not liberals. ECR leadership may not just bow out and allow matters to foreseeably degrade now that the election is over.
While there is no legality to enforce this duty, the ECR leadership have an ethical responsibility to help this commission understand and act on real conservative values, every step of the way, at least until they prove they can govern as Republicans.
Party leaders spend many unremunerated hours to make the Elbert County Republican Party function. This provides a valuable service to the county. Other things being equal, that is more than anyone has a right to expect of them. But other things are no longer equal.
Without the bully pulpits of ECR leadership joined in the fight to keep these commissioners on a conservative track, voters will be at the mercy of the New Plains Left, and the uncertain Republican bona-fides from the candidates themselves.
Our ECR leadership must step up to offset the non-stop din emitted from the local Left. They need to defend and protect our Republican values in local property, zoning and taxation issues—all founded in constitutional principles. Empty rhetoric and campaign lip service will not protect us for the next two years.
The ECR leadership faces an intra-party election this February. The next two years are no time to continue business as usual. The next class of party officials must step up to the nature of this reality, use their offices to guide substantive local issues, and help make sure that conservative values prevail in Elbert County governance.
B_Imperial, Precinct 13
By Brooks
By Brooks
By Brooks
The subject of cutting federal spending isn’t manageable in the abstract. While the “fiscal cliff” and “cutting spending” make for nice sound bites, they convey very little practicable information. Unfortunately the problem is vast, however, it is not impossible. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a great place to start to understand the elements of the spending problem. It takes 38 typed pages just to list the 2,192 Federal Domestic Assistance programs in all their various types:
A: Formula Grants
B: Project Grants
C: Direct Payments for Specified Use
D: Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use
E: Direct Loans
F: Guaranteed/Insured Loans
G: Insurance
H: Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods
I: Use of Property, Facilities, and Equipment
J: Provision of Specialized Services
K: Advisory Services and Counseling
L: Dissemination of Technical Information
M: Training
N: Investigation of Complaints
O: Federal Employment
The above 38 page table is extracted from the 3000+ page CFDA 2012 Print Edition.
Let’s be clear, this is not an optional civics matter for an American citizen. The Founders contemplated that our citizenship would entail a functional understanding of what our Federal government does, and whether it acts within the constitutional limits that authorize it to do those things.
Read the list. Imagine if you can, the tortured logic necessary to make a constitutional justification for each line item on the list. Many will require extended powers of fantasy to do so.
In a rational country governed by the rule of law, those programs least connected to constitutional authority should be the first to go.
The U.S. Supreme Court became the arbiter of legislative constitutionality with the 1803 Marbury decision. But the Court only acts on constitutional questions that the judicial system delivers to it. The Court requires a “case in controversy” to hear a constitutional question, let alone make a decision.
We will not see cases in controversy on the question of the constitutionality for most, if not all, of the 2,192 established Federal Domestic Assistance programs. And we know that under Obamacare, thanks to Justice Roberts, the 2012 list is scheduled to grow substantially (see previous post). We have no grounds to expect the Court to save us from totalitarianism.
But the process of the Courts’ deciding constitutionality in no way impedes or prohibits citizens from making their own assessments of what is constitutional, and exercising their political authority at the ballot box to make it so.
To be sure, the media will not enable this detailed citizens’ decision to proceed. It will continue to toss out sound bites and leave the citizens largely in the dark about the real nature of the problem. And those politicians wed to their pork who do not practice statesmanship will, in like manner, act to thwart any efforts to diminish the power of their pork-enabling offices.
We can save our country from financial ruin. It starts with understanding the real problem. It proceeds to finding and electing men and women who will represent us in the dismantling of the Federal Domestic Assistance state.
B_Imperial
By Brooks
Below is a list of new boards and commissions created in the Obamacare bill.
1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p. 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
108. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p. 2285)
135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*
By Brooks
“In the English-speaking nations, the earliest statute directed to statutory interpretation made it a punishable offense for counsel to argue anything other than original understanding. Enacted by the Scottish Parliament in 1427, the act was entitled “That nane interpreit the Kingis statutes wrangeouslie.”3 it read: “Item, The King of deliverance of councel, the manner of statute forbiddis, that na man interpreit his statutes utherwaies, then the statute beares, and to the intent and effect, that they were maid for, and as the maker of them understoode: and quha so dois the contrarie, shall be punished at the Kingis will.”4 Even with its Law French (“whosoever speaks the contrary”), the original meaning of this statute is quite plain.”
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, (2012).
The debate over constitutional originalism or textualism vs. the “living constitution” is not new. Nor is it settled, as Obama and his party would have us believe.
By Brooks
“You might be tempted to say, “If the language were plain and unambiguous, we wouldn’t be arguing about it, would we?” Banish the thought: Lawyers argue about plain and unambiguous language all the time. That is their job: to inject doubt when it is in their clients’ interest.”
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, (2012).
Law degrees are held by 167 Members of the House (38% of the total House) and 55 Senators (55% of the total Senate).
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Thomas Jefferson