july 2009 - north suburban republican forum newsletter

8/14/2019 July 2009 - North Suburban Republican Forum Newsletter

1/12

1

July, 2009 Assembled By Dana West

Last month, State GOP Chair, Dick Wadhams, discussed Republican opportunities in 2010

Our next meeting is July 11 th . Candidates for local City and Countyoffices will meet, address the Forum, and answer your questions.

MEETING TIME AND PLACEWe will be at Gander Mountain, 9923 Grant Street, Thornton, CO from 9:15-10:45 a.m. on thesecond Saturday of each month in the employee training room. If you live in Adams County orDenver's northern suburbs, come join us for lively spirited debate and to meet Republicanmovers and shakers

Directions to Gander Mountain:Gander Mountain is a huge sporting goods store in the old Biggs, now Wal-Mart/Home Depot

shopping center just east of I-25 and south of 104th Ave. Just go in the front door, turnleft at the first aisle and follow it to the employee meeting room on the far left.

Yearly membership dues are $20, while a couple is $30. Make chec ks payable to NSRF. Its $3per person to attend the monthly meeting to pay for the provided continental breakfast.

For more information on politics or the Republican Party, go to the following internet sites:

www.Examiner.com/Denver www.CompleteColorado.com http://www.ColoradoPols.com/

www.FaceTheState.com/ www.i2i.org/ www.TonysRants.com/ www.ALineOfSight.com/

www.AdamsCountyGOP.com/ www.ColoGOP.org/ www.RNC.org/

www.PoliticalLiveWires.com www.OpinionJournal.com http://FactCheck.org

www.850koa.com/pages/MikeRosen.html www.Heritage.org/ http://Townhall.com/

DENVER AND THE WEST

As new laws kick in today, Colorado auto fees to rise

By Lynn Bartels and Tim HooverThe Denver Post POSTED: 07/01/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

Starting today, Coloradans will pay more to register their vehicles.They'll face criminal charges if they possess someone else's passport, Social Security card or driver'slicense without that person's permission.

And adults will be in big trouble if they're caught "sexting" to a child.
http://www.examiner.com/Denverhttp://www.examiner.com/Denverhttp://www.completecolorado.com/http://www.completecolorado.com/http://www.coloradopols.com/http://www.coloradopols.com/http://www.facethestate.com/http://www.facethestate.com/http://www.i2i.org/http://www.i2i.org/http://www.tonysrants.com/http://www.tonysrants.com/http://www.alineofsight.com/http://www.alineofsight.com/http://www.adamscountygop.com/http://www.adamscountygop.com/http://www.cologop.org/http://www.cologop.org/http://www.rnc.org/http://www.rnc.org/http://www.politicallivewires.com/http://www.politicallivewires.com/http://www.opinionjournal.com/http://www.opinionjournal.com/http://factcheck.org/http://factcheck.org/http://www.850koa.com/pages/MikeRosen.htmlhttp://www.850koa.com/pages/MikeRosen.htmlhttp://www.heritage.org/http://www.heritage.org/http://townhall.com/http://townhall.com/http://townhall.com/http://www.heritage.org/http://www.850koa.com/pages/MikeRosen.htmlhttp://factcheck.org/http://www.opinionjournal.com/http://www.politicallivewires.com/http://www.rnc.org/http://www.cologop.org/http://www.adamscountygop.com/http://www.alineofsight.com/http://www.tonysrants.com/http://www.i2i.org/http://www.facethestate.com/http://www.coloradopols.com/http://www.completecolorado.com/http://www.examiner.com/Denver


2/12

2

The three measures are among the 57new laws that go into effect today.

One of the more high-profile bills this year increased auto-registration fees anaverage of $41 to start, as part of anomnibus transportation bill aimed atraising money to fix 125 of the state'scrumbling bridges.

The new law is expected to generatecriticism and about $250 million a year,

just half of what transportation expertshave said is the annual minimum the stateneeds to maintain its infrastructure.

The state is also adding some textmessaging and instant messaging to the list of Internet crimes against a child.

Adults who propose sexual acts or talk about sexual activity could be prosecuted under the law.

Also taking effect today is Senate Bill 228, but its impact may not be felt for years. The law removes a 6percent annual growth limit on the state's general fund that also ratchets down the budget in years whenrevenue falls, making it hard for the state to recover from recessionary years. The law replaces the oldlimit with a new one that restricts general fund growth to no more than 5 percent of the total amount of Coloradans' personal earnings.

Another new law expands health coverage for an estimated 100,000 uninsured Coloradans over severalyears.

The law imposes a fee on hospitals to generate an estimated $600 million that in turn allows the state tocollect a matching amount in federal Medicaid funding and money for the Children's Basic Health Plan toexpand eligibility and services and increase Medicaid fees paid to doctors and hospitals.

The state still must get federal waivers to impose the fees, and hospitals and state health officials havenot yet ironed out all the details of the fee.

Democrats called it "the most significant health reform legislation in Colorado in four decades," whileRepublicans argued it will just subtly shift the cost of the fees onto insured patients while doctors andhospitals see increased Medicaid payments.


3/12


4/12

4

will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobscreated or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, withthe same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill'srestrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into accountthe fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturingstates more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or naturalgas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to losethan high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the

scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments:one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeatedall of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predictingclimate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A betterindicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Allianceestimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cuttingprograms in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that thoseMembers who vote for thisclimate bill are voting for what islikely to be the biggest tax in American history. EvenDemocrats can't repeal that

reality.


5/12


6/12

6

tax" could be increased over time to spur our nation's weaning from fossil fuels. We see merit in thatapproach.

Another problem with Waxman- Markey is that the analysis keeps changing. An early estimate by theCongressional Budget Office suggested the cost to families could be about $1,600 a year as theratcheting down of credits to industry intensified.

A newer estimate by the CBO that looks more narrowly at costs to families for 2020 suggests a moremodest $175 a year, but critics loudly dispute that calculation, because it doesn't consider the stricter cap-and-trade limits coming years down the road.

And it doesn't take into account the potential decrease in gross domestic product.

The cost to families could be seen as a necessary step. If we face catastrophic climate change, after all, itcould be argued that it's time to sacrifice for the greater good.

But here another problem arises with Waxman-Markey. As supporters of the bill admit, even if the UnitedStates cut emissions 83 percent by 2050, we would have trimmed global CO2 gases by but a fewpercentage points.

Supporters argue that large polluting nations such as China and India would follow our lead, adopt cap-and-trade provisions of their own, and/or start investing in the new-energy innovations that wouldsomeday come on line.

But that's a huge bet that could prove reckless.

Largely left out of the current debate are questions about nuclear power. House Republicans say reducingCO2 depends on more atomic development. And for good reason. Nuclear power generation produceszero greenhouses gases and the technology far outpaces renewables like wind and solar in the amount of electricity it can add to the grid.

But public fear of reactor problems and radioactive waste stopped new construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.

European countries that rely much more exclusively on nuclear power have made advances in efficiencyof the plants, which create less waste, and also ways to recycle and reuse spent rods. We would welcome

its development here.But with 104 nuclear reactors currently supplying only 20 percent of our power, we would need to buildmany more plants to offset our use of fossil fuels in time to meet the 2050 deadline.

Unless Congress truly believes it can convince enough communities to accept scores of new nuclear plants across our nation, Waxman- Markey's goals exist in fantasy.
http://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Congressional%20Budget%20Office&searchTerm=Congressional%20Budget%20Officehttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Congressional%20Budget%20Office&searchTerm=Congressional%20Budget%20Officehttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=China&searchTerm=Chinahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=China&searchTerm=Chinahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=China&searchTerm=Chinahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=India&searchTerm=Indiahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=India&searchTerm=Indiahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=India&searchTerm=Indiahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=India&searchTerm=Indiahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=China&searchTerm=Chinahttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=United%20States&searchTerm=United%20Stateshttp://www.denverpost.com/topics?topic=Congressional%20Budget%20Office&searchTerm=Congressional%20Budget%20Office


7/12

7

Creating green jobs and investing in renewable energy excites us. Quickly and intelligently curbing our reliance on fossil fuels makes sense in terms of caring for our environment and protecting our nationalsecurity.

But Waxman-Markey isn't the solution.

Fashioned to avoid appearing like a new tax, the measure nevertheless would work like one, as the higher

costs of meeting the caps get passed on to consumers. The measure risks hurting our competitivenessglobally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases.

Congress should instead consider a simpler carbon tax, creating a "nuclear-arms race" to harness atomicpower to replace fossil fuels and provide incentives to speed new-energy innovation.

Colorados U.S. Senators contact information:

Mark Udall Washington DC office: 202-224-5941 Denver office: 303-650-7820999 18 th St North Tower #1525, Denver, CO, 80202http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Michael Bennett Washington DC office: 202-224-5852 Denver office: 303-455-76002300 15 th St, Suite #450, Denver, CO, 80202http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

The NSRF Board recommends you mail, call or email your Senator to let them know you are againstthe Cap and Trade bill that was narrowly approved by the US House of Representatives. Be an

activist!!! We dont think you want more government control of your life and this bill does just that. If passed, it will raise your costs, cause more unemployment, and let Obama bureaucrats run your life.Michael Bennetts seat is up for election in 2010 so also use this as leverage.

The North Suburban Republican Forum s upcoming meetings are:

August 8 th Candidates for State office

Sept. 12 th Round two for any candidate running for office

Oct. 10 th ***Candidates for Colorado Governor

Nov. 14 th ***Candidates for U.S. Senate

Dec. 12 th TABOR debate between State Senators Don Marostica & Shawn Mitchell

***The October and November locations will be at the Westminster Recreation Center, located at 10455Sheridan Blvd in Westminster. The meeting times will be from 10am-12noon. The NSRF is partnering with
http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfmhttp://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfmhttp://bennet.senate.gov/contact/http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm


8/12

8

other metro Denver Republican groups to sponsor these two Town Hall Forums so you can meet and greet your Colorado Governor and the U.S. Senate candidates. Youll also be able to submit your questions to hear their answers. Pass the word to other Republicans so they can join us.

Colorado now ranks as least attractive state for oil and gas investment

June 29th, 2009 . by Tony

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and the state's Democrat controlled legislature are driving the oil and gas industry out of the state.

Thanks to Governor Bill Ritter and the Colorado State Legislature, the state has plummeted from firstto last in a ranking of states attractiveness for oil and gas investment. The continually shiftingpolitical environment, last minute regulatory changes, punitive measures and rising costs have seenmany oil and gas companies close up shop in Colorado and head for neighboring states.

In just two short years, the study from the Fraser Institute says that Colorado now ranks last orsecond-to-last in six of 16 categories in comparison to the 27 producing states. Our neighboring statesof Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Utah all rated much more favorably.

The oil and gas industry employs more than 70,000 people in the state and provides $23 billion ineconomic benefit to the state annually. We have already seen the results of the unfriendly environment Colorado has created as many of these companies flee for the friendly environs of ourneighboring states.

The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) says not one permit has been approvedin the first 84 days of the governor s new regulations a 94% decline over 2008. This is despite thefact t he state has more than 9% of the nation s supply of natural gas, a clean -burning fuel that should

be key to weaning our nation off of dependence on foreign oil.The Colorado Springs Business Journal quoted Colorado Oil & Gas Association president Meg Collinsas saying, This study demonstrates the harsh reality of an inconsistent regulatory regim e, and thesenumbers run contrary to the belief of some policy makers that Colorado s energy industry will grow nomatter the constraints placed upon it. It is clear from this survey that the COGCC s regulations andother political influences have serious ly diminished the industry s willingness to invest in Colorado ata time when economic development and activity is desperately needed to counter the effects of a
http://www.tonysrants.com/colorado/colorado-now-ranks-as-least-attractive-state-for-oil-and-gas-investment/http://www.tonysrants.com/colorado/colorado-now-ranks-as-least-attractive-state-for-oil-and-gas-investment/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/6765.aspxhttp://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/6765.aspxhttp://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/6765.aspxhttp://oil-gas.state.co.us/http://oil-gas.state.co.us/http://oil-gas.state.co.us/http://csbj.com/2009/06/26/colorado-falls-to-last-place-among-state-for-energy-investment/http://csbj.com/2009/06/26/colorado-falls-to-last-place-among-state-for-energy-investment/http://csbj.com/2009/06/26/colorado-falls-to-last-place-among-state-for-energy-investment/http://www.coga.org/http://www.coga.org/http://www.coga.org/http://www.coga.org/http://csbj.com/2009/06/26/colorado-falls-to-last-place-among-state-for-energy-investment/http://oil-gas.state.co.us/http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/6765.aspxhttp://www.tonysrants.com/colorado/colorado-now-ranks-as-least-attractive-state-for-oil-and-gas-investment/


9/12

9

slumping global economy. Coloradoans are losing their jobs and our communities are missing out on valuable revenue as a result.

EPA suppresses report calling into questionglobal warming science June 30, 6:14 AM Tony Hake - Denver Weather Examiner

Recently released documents and emails show dissent

within the Environmental Protection Agency over

the manmade climate change theory.

The Environmental Protection Agency , keen to advancePresident Barack Obama s climate change initiatives, apparently suppressed a report from leading experts calling into questionthe science behind the theory of manmade climate change. The98-page report, submitted to agency leaders just prior to itrecommending regulation of carbon dioxide emissions,continues to call into question the consensus many have s aidthe scientific community has about the theory.

Alan Carlin, the report s primary author, was told via email fromsuperiors in the agency to not have any direct communication with anyone outside his group at the EPA. The well-published

PhD has experience in environment and public policy dating back to 1964 but after submitting thereport was told to discontinue working on climate change entirely.

In reviewing the report, it is obvious why the administration would find the report very untimely leading up to its decision on CO2 and its push for climate change legislation. The report authors saw the rush to judgment and urged caution saying their concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt to reach conclusionson the subject.

Carlin and his co-authors believed that the EPA and other government agencies were ignoring sciencethat is coming to light calling into question the entire manmade climate change theory. It is their belief that the EPA and other organizations have tended to accept the findings reached by outsidegroups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and criticalexamination of their conclusions and documentation.
http://www.epa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/


10/12

10

The report went on to cite a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the science behindarguments made by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. The authors make note of many issues with the including:

Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2. Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global

warming and yet that has not occurred.

The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has nothappened at all.

Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty andnot supported by empirical evidence.

Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data andnew research shows that up to 68% of the increase in Earth s global temperatures could becaused by solar variability.

Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet themost basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements.The Urban Heat Island effect is considered key to this.

Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

In all, the report attacks virtually every point global warming advocates have used. The authors maketheir argument and conclusions with enough data to raise serious questions about the science and theadministration s push for new legislation. If the report s conclusions are accurate it would causeserious doubts about the need for the new legislation whose hallmark includes a cap-and-tradescheme which is expected to cost consumers thousands of dollars a year and place a large burden onindustry as the nation attempts to recover from a deepening recession.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson promised new transparency but

her agency apparently quashed an internal report calling into

question the science behind the global warming theory. (AP)

The Obama Administration and new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson were anxious to render adecision on CO2 so as to move forward with the president s agenda. A review process that normally would take years was completed in weeks, contrary to Ms. Jackson s assurances after being


11/12

11

nominated saying, I will ensure EPA s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rootedin three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, andoverwhelming transparency."

Despite claims by Jackson and the administration of new transparency supposedly not seen duringthe Bush administration, emails obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) show adecidedly difference picture. Al McGar tland, the EPA s National Center for Environmental

Economics Director, told a researcher via email that, The administrator and the administration hasdecided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

In a statement the EPA said Carlin was not a scientist and not part of the group working on the carbondioxide issues. However, McGartland told Carlin via email in March that, I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, andthat would be a very negative impact on our office. Further highlighting that Carlin was expected toremain silent, McGartland said, Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls,etc."

For his part, Carlin has said that he believed McGartland was acting on orders from others higher upin t he agency and administration. He told CBSnews.com that, "It was his view [McGartland s] that heeither lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higherlevels."

As the president s marquee climate change bill was be ing heard in the House last week, Republicansattempted to raise a flag in light of this new evidence. The bill however passed and is now in theSenate where Sen. James Inofe, R-Okla, is saying he is going to ensure the full details of the report seethe light of the day.

NSRF Board of Directors Email Address John Lefebvre President [email protected] Phil Saner Vice-President [email protected] Hurtt Treasurer [email protected] Mocon Secretary [email protected] Cunningham Membership [email protected] Wanda Barnes Planning [email protected] West Communications [email protected]

Basic Principles of the G.O.P. (The only Party for all of the People)

1. Personal responsibility2. Strong national defense3. Smaller government4. Fiscal restraint 5. Embrace technology 6. Recruit, recruit, recruit
http://cei.org/http://cei.org/http://www.epa.gov/economics/http://www.epa.gov/economics/http://www.epa.gov/economics/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.epa.gov/economics/http://www.epa.gov/economics/http://cei.org/


12/12

12

The North SuburbanRepublican Forum

1149 W 102 nd AveNorthglenn, CO 80260

Membership Application

This application is for:Regular Membership (individual)$20.00 feeRegular Membership (couples)$30.00 feeAssociate Membership

$10.00 fee

Name (Both names if couple); Please Print.

___________________________________________________ Last: _ _________ ____First:__ _______ _ MI:_____

___________________________________________________ Last: _____________ First:_______ __ MI:_____

Address:___________________________________________________________________

City:___________________________________________Zip Code:____________________

Telephone:(________)____________-_____________________

E-Mail Address:_______________________________________@_____________________

Signature

Signature

Payment by: Cash Check

Date:__________________________ 2nd VP Treasurer

july 2009 - north suburban republican forum newsletter

Documents