July, 2009 Assembled By Dana West

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

Our next meeting is July 11th. Candidates for local City and County
offices will meet, address the Forum, and answer your questions.
MEETING TIME AND PLACE
We will be at Gander Mountain, 9923 Grant Street, Thornton, CO from 9:15-10:45 a.m. on the
second Saturday of each month in the employee training room. If you live in Adams County or
Denver's northern suburbs, come join us for lively spirited debate and to meet Republican
movers 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, turn
left 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 checks payable to NSRF. It’s $3
per 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 Hoover
The 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's
license without that person's permission.

And adults will be in big trouble if they're caught "sexting" to a child.

1
 The three measures are among the 57
new laws that go into effect today.

One of the more high-profile bills this year

increased auto-registration fees an
average of $41 to start, as part of an
omnibus transportation bill aimed at
raising money to fix 125 of the state's
crumbling bridges.

The new law is expected to generate

criticism and about $250 million a year,
just half of what transportation experts
have said is the annual minimum the state
needs to maintain its infrastructure.

The state is also adding some text

messaging 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 6
percent annual growth limit on the state's general fund that also ratchets down the budget in years when
revenue falls, making it hard for the state to recover from recessionary years. The law replaces the old
limit 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 several
years.

The law imposes a fee on hospitals to generate an estimated $600 million that in turn allows the state to
collect a matching amount in federal Medicaid funding and money for the Children's Basic Health Plan to
expand 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 have
not yet ironed out all the details of the fee.

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

2

 REVIEW & OUTLOOK
 JUNE 26, 2009

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House,
and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the
discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural
and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their
home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim
the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has
come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would
cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author,
instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a
postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that
it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-
and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted
nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to
reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please
rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's
analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is
tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of
permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of
buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day
costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would
have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate
the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of
electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in
electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers

3
will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs
created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with
the 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's
restrictions 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 account
the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing
states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural
gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose
than 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 rose
10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated
all of them.

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

Americans should know that those

Members who vote for this
climate bill are voting for what is
likely to be the biggest tax in
American history. Even
Democrats can't repeal that
reality.

4
EDITORIAL

Cap and trade is wrong solution

The U.S. needs to cut its greenhouse emissions, but legislation
expected to be taken up today isn't the way to go about it.

By The Denver Post

POSTED: 06/26/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

Congress is expected today to take up the so-called "cap and trade" bill that
Democrats hope will drastically cut the greenhouse gases that many scientists
believe imperil our planet.

We know our country must cut its greenhouse gas emissions, but this bill isn't the
way to do it. Even supporters of this complex system acknowledge that the
measure relies far too much on clean-energy technology break-throughs that
remains only theoretical.

The proposed legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.,

and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and championed by President Barack
Obama, has been placed on a fast track by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who
wants it passed before the July 4 congressional recess.

The debate on such a transformative issue ought to continue and broaden. How is
it possible the 1,200-page American Clean Energy and Security Act is being
rushed through Congress in a repeat of what happened with the stimulus
package? Has anyone read this one?

The legislation seeks to reduce how much carbon dioxide, or CO2, is produced in
our nation by 17 percent by 2020, and by 83 percent in 2050.

It would do so by creating a new market, where essentially shares of carbon

allowances could be bought and sold. A power plant that needed more allowances
could buy them from another that had reduced its carbon emissions. Over time,
the number of allowances would shrink, forcing reductions of CO2.

Critics say such a market could be gamed by powerful interests and also would be
susceptible to fraud.

Some environmentalists say a simple tax on emissions would be a far simpler way
to discourage polluters and encourage green energy innovations. Such a "carbon

5
tax" could be increased over time to spur our nation's weaning from fossil fuels. We see merit in that
approach.

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

A newer estimate by the CBO that looks more narrowly at costs to families for 2020 suggests a more
modest $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, it
could 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 United
States cut emissions 83 percent by 2050, we would have trimmed global CO2 gases by but a few
percentage 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 would
someday 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 reducing
CO2 depends on more atomic development. And for good reason. Nuclear power generation produces
zero 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 efficiency
of 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 build
many 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.

6
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 national
security.

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 competitiveness
globally without effectively lowering global greenhouse gases.

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

Colorado’s U.S. Senators contact information:

Mark Udall Washington DC office: 202-224-5941 Denver office: 303-650-7820

th
999 18 St North Tower #1525, Denver, CO, 80202
http://markudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Michael Bennett Washington DC office: 202-224-5852 Denver office: 303-455-7600

2300 15th St, Suite #450, Denver, CO, 80202
http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

The NSRF Board recommends you mail, call or email your Senator to let them know you are against
the Cap and Trade bill that was narrowly approved by the US House of Representatives. Be an
activist!!! We don’t 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 Bennett’s seat is up for election in 2010 so also use this as leverage.

The North Suburban Republican Forum‟s upcoming meetings are:

August 8th Candidates for State office

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

Oct. 10th ***Candidates for Colorado Governor

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

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

***The October and November locations will be at the Westminster Recreation Center, located at 10455
Sheridan Blvd in Westminster. The meeting times will be from 10am-12noon. The NSRF is partnering with

7
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. You’ll 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 first
to last in a ranking of states‟ attractiveness for oil and gas investment. The continually shifting
political environment, last minute regulatory changes, punitive measures and rising costs have seen
many 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 or
second-to-last in six of 16 categories in comparison to the 27 producing states. Our neighboring states
of 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 in
economic 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 our
neighboring states.

The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) says not one permit has been approved
in the first 84 days of the governor‟s new regulations – a 94% decline over 2008. This is despite the
fact the 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 Collins
as saying, “This study demonstrates the harsh reality of an inconsistent regulatory regime, and these
numbers run contrary to the belief of some policy makers that Colorado‟s energy industry will grow no
matter the constraints placed upon it. It is clear from this survey that the COGCC‟s regulations and
other political influences have seriously diminished the industry‟s willingness to invest in Colorado at
a time when economic development and activity is desperately needed to counter the effects of a
8
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 question

global 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 advance

President Barack Obama‟s climate change initiatives, apparently
suppressed a report from leading experts calling into question
the science behind the theory of manmade climate change. The
98-page report, submitted to agency leaders just prior to it
recommending regulation of carbon dioxide emissions,
continues to call into question the „consensus‟ many have said
the scientific community has about the theory.

Alan Carlin, the report‟s primary author, was told via email from
superiors 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 the
report 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 conclusions
on the subject.”

Carlin and his co-authors believed that the EPA and other government agencies were ignoring science
that 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 outside
groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical
examination of their conclusions and documentation.”

9
The report went on to cite a number of discrepancies and inconsistencies in the science behind
arguments made by Al Gore, James Hansen, and the United Nations‟ Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate 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 not
happened at all.
 Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and
“not supported by empirical evidence.”
 Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and
new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth‟s global temperatures” could be
caused by solar variability.
 Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the
most 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 make
their argument and conclusions with enough data to raise serious questions about the science and the
administration‟s push for new legislation. If the report‟s conclusions are accurate it would cause
serious doubts about the need for the new legislation whose hallmark includes a cap-and-trade
scheme which is expected to cost consumers thousands of dollars a year and place a large burden on
industry 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 a
decision 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
10
nominated saying, “I will ensure EPA‟s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted
in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and
overwhelming transparency."

Despite claims by Jackson and the administration of new transparency supposedly not seen during
the Bush administration, emails obtained by theCompetitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) show a
decidedly difference picture. Al McGartland, the EPA‟s National Center for Environmental
EconomicsDirector, told a researcher via email that, “The administrator and the administration has
decided 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 carbon
dioxide 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, and
that would be a very negative impact on our office.” Further highlighting that Carlin was expected to
remain 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 up
in the agency and administration. He told CBSnews.com that, "It was his view [McGartland‟s] that he
either lost his job or he got me working on something else. That was obviously coming from higher
levels."

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

NSRF Board of Directors Email Address

John Lefebvre President john.lefebvre@comcast.net
Phil Saner Vice-President psaner@msn.com
Jan Hurtt Treasurer jansadvertising@msn.com
Phil Mocon Secretary ph7ss@msn.com
Jerry Cunningham Membership jlcham4@aol.com
Wanda Barnes Planning Wandaleabarnes@aol.com
Dana West Communications dana.west@live.com

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

1. Personal responsibility
2. Strong national defense
3. Smaller government
4. Fiscal restraint
5. Embrace technology
6. Recruit, recruit, recruit

11
 The North Suburban
Republican Forum
1149 W 102nd Ave
Northglenn, CO 80260
Membership Application

This application is for:

Regular Membership (individual)
$20.00 fee
Regular Membership (couples)
$30.00 fee
Associate 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
12