connected to db
selected ihathaway_wordpress
Array ( [0] => 4 [ID] => 4 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-01-19 23:36:50 [post_date] => 2008-01-19 23:36:50 [3] => 2008-01-20 04:36:50 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-01-20 04:36:50 [4] => Healthcare: Is there a fundamental human right to healthcare?  What about health insurance?  Should there be a distinction? Identity and security: Can there be security without trusted ID? RealID: I tend not to trust the government, but a survey of the national debate indicates that a trusted, truly secure ID card would be of benefit to many. (i.e. healthcare, illegal immigration, national security/terrorism) Is security worth it?: Economic impact of security countermeasures vs. impact of security flaws in society. (interestingly, Bruce Schneier wrote an essay on this very topic) The compliance dilamna: it doesn't have to be that hard. The standards all say essentially, "Do what you should be doing any way." [post_content] => Healthcare: Is there a fundamental human right to healthcare?  What about health insurance?  Should there be a distinction? Identity and security: Can there be security without trusted ID? RealID: I tend not to trust the government, but a survey of the national debate indicates that a trusted, truly secure ID card would be of benefit to many. (i.e. healthcare, illegal immigration, national security/terrorism) Is security worth it?: Economic impact of security countermeasures vs. impact of security flaws in society. (interestingly, Bruce Schneier wrote an essay on this very topic) The compliance dilamna: it doesn't have to be that hard. The standards all say essentially, "Do what you should be doing any way." [5] => Potential Topics [post_title] => Potential Topics [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => potential-topics [post_name] => potential-topics [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-01-21 18:57:39 [post_modified] => 2008-01-21 18:57:39 [16] => 2008-01-21 23:57:39 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-01-21 23:57:39 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/4 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/4 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 3 [ID] => 3 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-01-19 02:00:38 [post_date] => 2008-01-19 02:00:38 [3] => 2008-01-19 07:00:38 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-01-19 07:00:38 [4] => Regarding a recent story in North Dakota in which a District Court judge ruled that the use of the command "host -l" to perform a DNS zone transfer constituted "hacking." This represents yet another example of how the technical frontier of the Internet (yes, it is still a frontier) continues to befuddle the legal system. It's a good thing that this is only a trial court opinion and none of the Findings of Law are binding in any jurisdiction. (Click here to read the decision.) This is one of the types of stories that I will be covering on this blog. Given how much of our emerging "service economy" is based on technology, Lady Justice certainly needs a shot in the arm of techno-literacy. [post_content] => Regarding a recent story in North Dakota in which a District Court judge ruled that the use of the command "host -l" to perform a DNS zone transfer constituted "hacking." This represents yet another example of how the technical frontier of the Internet (yes, it is still a frontier) continues to befuddle the legal system. It's a good thing that this is only a trial court opinion and none of the Findings of Law are binding in any jurisdiction. (Click here to read the decision.) This is one of the types of stories that I will be covering on this blog. Given how much of our emerging "service economy" is based on technology, Lady Justice certainly needs a shot in the arm of techno-literacy. [5] => Hacking? or just Open Door? [post_title] => Hacking? or just Open Door? [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => hacking-or-just-open-door [post_name] => hacking-or-just-open-door [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-01-19 02:43:07 [post_modified] => 2008-01-19 02:43:07 [16] => 2008-01-19 07:43:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-01-19 07:43:07 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/3 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/3 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 5 [ID] => 5 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-01-23 15:54:18 [post_date] => 2008-01-23 15:54:18 [3] => 2008-01-23 20:54:18 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-01-23 20:54:18 [4] => I found a good resource for Health IT Privacy and Security issues in the Law today. Bob Coffield is a West Virgina lawyer who is very interested and involved in these areas. His blog is a great resource with links to national projects and articles on the subject. I recommend it to anyone else interested in these topics.  This proves I'm not alone in my mania. [post_content] => I found a good resource for Health IT Privacy and Security issues in the Law today. Bob Coffield is a West Virgina lawyer who is very interested and involved in these areas. His blog is a great resource with links to national projects and articles on the subject. I recommend it to anyone else interested in these topics.  This proves I'm not alone in my mania. [5] => I'm not the only one [post_title] => I'm not the only one [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => im-not-the-only-one [post_name] => im-not-the-only-one [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-01-23 15:55:36 [post_modified] => 2008-01-23 15:55:36 [16] => 2008-01-23 20:55:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-01-23 20:55:36 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/5 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/5 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 6 [ID] => 6 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-02-07 17:21:06 [post_date] => 2008-02-07 17:21:06 [3] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_date_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [4] => HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, PCI DSS, is it working, or are we just wasting money? Research plan: Inverviews - 3 Hospital CIO's, 1 Payor CIO, Auditor? [post_content] => HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, PCI DSS, is it working, or are we just wasting money? Research plan: Inverviews - 3 Hospital CIO's, 1 Payor CIO, Auditor? [5] => Is regulation making us safer? [post_title] => Is regulation making us safer? [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => draft [post_status] => draft [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => [post_name] => [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-02-07 17:21:06 [post_modified] => 2008-02-07 17:21:06 [16] => 2008-02-07 22:21:06 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-02-07 22:21:06 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/?p=6 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/?p=6 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 7 [ID] => 7 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-02-03 13:59:31 [post_date] => 2008-02-03 13:59:31 [3] => 2008-02-03 18:59:31 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-02-03 18:59:31 [4] => So I've decided on my first project for this space. I'm very interested in how law and business interact. This might be a personal take on legal realism, but my knowledge of that branch of legal theory is sketchy enough to prevent me from fully endorsing it. Here's the question I've been asking myself: "Does security/privacy regulation make a difference in practice?" My intent is to examine this question in the healthcare industry by interviewing local CIO's at least on the provider side (and I hope to be able to contact some on the payer side as well) to find out what they are doing differently in their organizations today as opposed to 2003 (before the HIPAA privacy and security rules went into effect). My thesis is that the regulations have led to a tightening of policy and procedure, but that substantive change affecting the true risk to patients' private information has not been achieved yet. We'll see how much info I'm able to collect, and whether my thesis holds up. It is likely that my initial stab at collecting information will only go to my first point. I'll probably need to address the second part later using another method. [post_content] => So I've decided on my first project for this space. I'm very interested in how law and business interact. This might be a personal take on legal realism, but my knowledge of that branch of legal theory is sketchy enough to prevent me from fully endorsing it. Here's the question I've been asking myself: "Does security/privacy regulation make a difference in practice?" My intent is to examine this question in the healthcare industry by interviewing local CIO's at least on the provider side (and I hope to be able to contact some on the payer side as well) to find out what they are doing differently in their organizations today as opposed to 2003 (before the HIPAA privacy and security rules went into effect). My thesis is that the regulations have led to a tightening of policy and procedure, but that substantive change affecting the true risk to patients' private information has not been achieved yet. We'll see how much info I'm able to collect, and whether my thesis holds up. It is likely that my initial stab at collecting information will only go to my first point. I'll probably need to address the second part later using another method. [5] => First Project [post_title] => First Project [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => first-project [post_name] => first-project [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-02-03 14:27:57 [post_modified] => 2008-02-03 14:27:57 [16] => 2008-02-03 19:27:57 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-02-03 19:27:57 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/7 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/7 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 8 [ID] => 8 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-02-13 12:25:15 [post_date] => 2008-02-13 12:25:15 [3] => 2008-02-13 17:25:15 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-02-13 17:25:15 [4] => I was working with a former employer yesterday when one of my pet peeves about technology management reared its ugly head again. Maintenance Contracts (cue the Psycho music), two words that strike fear into the hearts of CIO's and IT Managers across the globe. Why does it have to be so hard? First off, why am I posting this as an IT Security topic? Maintenance contracts are required to get both assistance and updates for all of the sophisticated hardware and software we deploy to protect our principals from the big bad world out there (and sometimes from themselves, but that's another article). When the next big attack hits the 'net, you may very well have to install a patch or updated OS on your firewall/VPN/mail gateway/router, etc. in order to prevent a costly disruption or even critical data loss. And you likely won't be able to get that patch unless you have maintenance. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity in the ways that vendors run their maintenance programs. I'm not talking about the service organizations themselves. The engineers that staff the phones and chat lines certainly vary in competence and their support organizations can range from mediocre to very good at supporting the front line of support. I'm talking about the contract that allows you and your staff to talk to the good folks at 1-800-2HELPME. Hardware vendors, and many smaller software vendors, usually sell maintenance for their products as a separate SKU at the time of purchase. For your 30% fee, you get hardware replacement and technical support for a period of time, usually one year. Once that year is up, you have to buy another contract before the anniversary of the purchase or your maintenance lapses. If you buy another Super Switch two months later, you now have two anniversaries you have to remember. I can remember the anniversary of my marriage (it's the day after Tax Day, April 16), but I can't remember the anniversary of every piece of equipment I buy, and I have too many fires to put out and super important strategic planning sessions to attend to develop a system to track all these dates. My approach has been to push back on my resellers and make my maintenance headaches their headaches. I have fired more than one reseller for failing to hold my hand all the way through the maintenance cycle. With each vendor, I set a Magic Date. The rule is that every product I buy from them must have a maintenance contract that terminates on the Magic Date. I'm so insistent, that if you say my name to my sales folks, the first words out of their mount are, "May 16, 2009." This doesn't have to be anyone's headache though. Generally speaking, I tend to prefer working with hardware vendors over software vendors. Maybe it's just my background, but they seem to be more value oriented and customer facing in my experience. However, the way they handle maintenance contracts is one thing they could take from the software industry and really improve their offerings. Here's an example of what I mean. If I buy a $1 million dollar hospital accounting system from McKesson, I get a maintenance contract that automagically renews every year. They send an invoice with the new price, and I pay it. Done. On the other hand, if I buy $1 million in Cisco network gear, I get 40 shrink wrapped boxes with a registration code in each one. Either I or my vendor must type each code into a web site along with the serial numbers of the equipment and all the demographic data necessary to administer the contract. One year later, we get to do the same thing all over again. God forbid I buy anything else before that anniversary to complicate the matter. Most Cisco resellers worth their salt actually employ one or more FTE's just to keep up with this process. Cisco and their comrades in maintenance mediocrity could do us all a big favor, facilitate the transfer of maintenance dollars from customers to manufacturers, and help keep critical security infrastructure safe from new threats by adopting the model used by the software industry. The resellers wouldn't even have to lose out on their piece of the pie if the manufacturers paid them an annual commission on contracts they originate when the renewal is paid. All that brain power going to mopping up after the sales process could be mobilized towards helping customers keep their network architectures up to date with the latest and greatest bug blockers and traffic silly putty. Vendors, I know fear sells security products very well, and that fear is frequently well founded. Once a product is sold though, I'm yours. You can have my money for maintenance. Please take it! Let's just make this as painless as possible for both of us. I don't want my network to end up just like Mrs. Bates. [post_content] => I was working with a former employer yesterday when one of my pet peeves about technology management reared its ugly head again. Maintenance Contracts (cue the Psycho music), two words that strike fear into the hearts of CIO's and IT Managers across the globe. Why does it have to be so hard? First off, why am I posting this as an IT Security topic? Maintenance contracts are required to get both assistance and updates for all of the sophisticated hardware and software we deploy to protect our principals from the big bad world out there (and sometimes from themselves, but that's another article). When the next big attack hits the 'net, you may very well have to install a patch or updated OS on your firewall/VPN/mail gateway/router, etc. in order to prevent a costly disruption or even critical data loss. And you likely won't be able to get that patch unless you have maintenance. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity in the ways that vendors run their maintenance programs. I'm not talking about the service organizations themselves. The engineers that staff the phones and chat lines certainly vary in competence and their support organizations can range from mediocre to very good at supporting the front line of support. I'm talking about the contract that allows you and your staff to talk to the good folks at 1-800-2HELPME. Hardware vendors, and many smaller software vendors, usually sell maintenance for their products as a separate SKU at the time of purchase. For your 30% fee, you get hardware replacement and technical support for a period of time, usually one year. Once that year is up, you have to buy another contract before the anniversary of the purchase or your maintenance lapses. If you buy another Super Switch two months later, you now have two anniversaries you have to remember. I can remember the anniversary of my marriage (it's the day after Tax Day, April 16), but I can't remember the anniversary of every piece of equipment I buy, and I have too many fires to put out and super important strategic planning sessions to attend to develop a system to track all these dates. My approach has been to push back on my resellers and make my maintenance headaches their headaches. I have fired more than one reseller for failing to hold my hand all the way through the maintenance cycle. With each vendor, I set a Magic Date. The rule is that every product I buy from them must have a maintenance contract that terminates on the Magic Date. I'm so insistent, that if you say my name to my sales folks, the first words out of their mount are, "May 16, 2009." This doesn't have to be anyone's headache though. Generally speaking, I tend to prefer working with hardware vendors over software vendors. Maybe it's just my background, but they seem to be more value oriented and customer facing in my experience. However, the way they handle maintenance contracts is one thing they could take from the software industry and really improve their offerings. Here's an example of what I mean. If I buy a $1 million dollar hospital accounting system from McKesson, I get a maintenance contract that automagically renews every year. They send an invoice with the new price, and I pay it. Done. On the other hand, if I buy $1 million in Cisco network gear, I get 40 shrink wrapped boxes with a registration code in each one. Either I or my vendor must type each code into a web site along with the serial numbers of the equipment and all the demographic data necessary to administer the contract. One year later, we get to do the same thing all over again. God forbid I buy anything else before that anniversary to complicate the matter. Most Cisco resellers worth their salt actually employ one or more FTE's just to keep up with this process. Cisco and their comrades in maintenance mediocrity could do us all a big favor, facilitate the transfer of maintenance dollars from customers to manufacturers, and help keep critical security infrastructure safe from new threats by adopting the model used by the software industry. The resellers wouldn't even have to lose out on their piece of the pie if the manufacturers paid them an annual commission on contracts they originate when the renewal is paid. All that brain power going to mopping up after the sales process could be mobilized towards helping customers keep their network architectures up to date with the latest and greatest bug blockers and traffic silly putty. Vendors, I know fear sells security products very well, and that fear is frequently well founded. Once a product is sold though, I'm yours. You can have my money for maintenance. Please take it! Let's just make this as painless as possible for both of us. I don't want my network to end up just like Mrs. Bates. [5] => Rant: Shrink wrapped maintenance [post_title] => Rant: Shrink wrapped maintenance [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => rant-shrink-wrapped-maintenance [post_name] => rant-shrink-wrapped-maintenance [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-02-13 12:25:15 [post_modified] => 2008-02-13 12:25:15 [16] => 2008-02-13 17:25:15 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-02-13 17:25:15 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/8 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/8 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 10 [ID] => 10 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-02-20 01:12:30 [post_date] => 2008-02-20 01:12:30 [3] => 2008-02-20 06:12:30 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-02-20 06:12:30 [4] => recession: 1. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. - An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. 2. WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University - the state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year U.S. Department of Commerce: GDP Growth - 2007 Q3 = 4.6%, Q4 = 0.6% (full report) We can't officially label this period a recession until the end of March at the earliest (or the end of June if these numbers hold up). Beware those who claim, "Everyone knows we're in a recession."  Left-winger or right-winger, bear or bull, any person who makes false and hysterical claims deserves to be ignored. [post_content] => recession: 1. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. - An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product. 2. WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University - the state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year U.S. Department of Commerce: GDP Growth - 2007 Q3 = 4.6%, Q4 = 0.6% (full report) We can't officially label this period a recession until the end of March at the earliest (or the end of June if these numbers hold up). Beware those who claim, "Everyone knows we're in a recession."  Left-winger or right-winger, bear or bull, any person who makes false and hysterical claims deserves to be ignored. [5] => Recession? Not yet [post_title] => Recession? Not yet [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => recession-not-yet [post_name] => recession-not-yet [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-02-20 01:12:30 [post_modified] => 2008-02-20 01:12:30 [16] => 2008-02-20 06:12:30 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-02-20 06:12:30 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/10 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/10 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 11 [ID] => 11 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-03-20 00:40:07 [post_date] => 2008-03-20 00:40:07 [3] => 2008-03-20 05:40:07 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-03-20 05:40:07 [4] => OK, I intended this to be my professional blob where I would post my carefully crafted prose that would promote my professional image. Well, I admit my professional persona and the rest of me are one and the same. I can't mis-represent myself in either aspect of myself. With apologies to E.C. Segar, "I am what I am and that's all that I am. . . " My values are may values, and if those manifest as IT musings, my legal education, or political musings, I have nothing else to offer. May it please the court. . . (okay I am a law student) This posting is prompted by my observation while watching Fox News of the shift in the media from covering exploding people in the Middle East from "suicide bombers" to "homicide bombers" (I like to call them "Self-detonated Charged Highly-explosive Localized Extremely Perilous Explosive Device's (SCHLEPED). One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. If Fox News was so Pro-Bushie, why would they engage in such blatantly Politically Correct rhetoric? Merriam-Webster says that suicide is "the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself." When did killing one's self in the interest of a deranged ideology become "homicide" instead of "suicide?" Who's interest are we advancing here? [post_content] => OK, I intended this to be my professional blob where I would post my carefully crafted prose that would promote my professional image. Well, I admit my professional persona and the rest of me are one and the same. I can't mis-represent myself in either aspect of myself. With apologies to E.C. Segar, "I am what I am and that's all that I am. . . " My values are may values, and if those manifest as IT musings, my legal education, or political musings, I have nothing else to offer. May it please the court. . . (okay I am a law student) This posting is prompted by my observation while watching Fox News of the shift in the media from covering exploding people in the Middle East from "suicide bombers" to "homicide bombers" (I like to call them "Self-detonated Charged Highly-explosive Localized Extremely Perilous Explosive Device's (SCHLEPED). One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. If Fox News was so Pro-Bushie, why would they engage in such blatantly Politically Correct rhetoric? Merriam-Webster says that suicide is "the act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself." When did killing one's self in the interest of a deranged ideology become "homicide" instead of "suicide?" Who's interest are we advancing here? [5] => Update Suicide Bombers? [post_title] => Update Suicide Bombers? [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => update-marchsuicide [post_name] => update-marchsuicide [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-03-20 00:47:05 [post_modified] => 2008-03-20 00:47:05 [16] => 2008-03-20 05:47:05 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-03-20 05:47:05 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/11 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/11 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 12 [ID] => 12 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_date] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [3] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_date_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [4] => http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/redflag.shtm Hmmm.  Need to spend some time on this. [post_content] => http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/redflag.shtm Hmmm.  Need to spend some time on this. [5] => FCC Deputizes Corporate America [post_title] => FCC Deputizes Corporate America [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => draft [post_status] => draft [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => [post_name] => [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_modified] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [16] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=12 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=12 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 13 [ID] => 13 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-07-15 14:59:21 [post_date] => 2008-07-15 14:59:21 [3] => 2008-07-15 19:59:21 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-07-15 19:59:21 [4] => Released two weeks ago, the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis announced its final figure for Q1 2008 GDP.  The final number was revised upward to reflect more complete data.  Total economic growth for the quarter in terms of GDP was +1%.  Using the classical definition , the economy is still at least 6 months away from a recession. What kind of a perspective should a Chief Executive of the country have of its financial well-being?   With all his Harvard education, Barack Obama either does not know what the word recession means, or he is pandering to voters' fears. While also guilty of pandering, John McCain at least acknowledges that the U.S. is not 'certainly' in a recession. Caution: Beware politicians predicting disaster [post_content] => Released two weeks ago, the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis announced its final figure for Q1 2008 GDP.  The final number was revised upward to reflect more complete data.  Total economic growth for the quarter in terms of GDP was +1%.  Using the classical definition , the economy is still at least 6 months away from a recession. What kind of a perspective should a Chief Executive of the country have of its financial well-being?   With all his Harvard education, Barack Obama either does not know what the word recession means, or he is pandering to voters' fears. While also guilty of pandering, John McCain at least acknowledges that the U.S. is not 'certainly' in a recession. Caution: Beware politicians predicting disaster [5] => Update: Recession? Not yet [post_title] => Update: Recession? Not yet [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => update-recession-not-yet [post_name] => update-recession-not-yet [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-07-15 14:59:21 [post_modified] => 2008-07-15 14:59:21 [16] => 2008-07-15 19:59:21 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-07-15 19:59:21 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/13 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/13 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 14 [ID] => 14 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-09-25 12:21:20 [post_date] => 2008-09-25 12:21:20 [3] => 2008-09-25 17:21:20 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-09-25 17:21:20 [4] => Got this in an email forward from a friend.  It is an essay by Bruce Walker from americanthinker.com.  The link doesn't work as of this writing, but the original was posted here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_lawyers_party.html The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer. The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich. The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers. Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing. We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy. Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse. [post_content] => Got this in an email forward from a friend.  It is an essay by Bruce Walker from americanthinker.com.  The link doesn't work as of this writing, but the original was posted here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_lawyers_party.html The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer. The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon. Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich. The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation. This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers. Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing. We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy. Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse. [5] => Thoughtful point of view: repost [post_title] => Thoughtful point of view: repost [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => thoughtful-point-of-view-repost [post_name] => thoughtful-point-of-view-repost [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-09-25 14:23:29 [post_modified] => 2008-09-25 14:23:29 [16] => 2008-09-25 19:23:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-09-25 19:23:29 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/14 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/14 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 15 [ID] => 15 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2008-12-12 21:21:31 [post_date] => 2008-12-12 21:21:31 [3] => 2008-12-13 02:21:31 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-12-13 02:21:31 [4] => Yesterday I attended a meeting of the IT Committee of the Colorado Telehealth Network.  The task of the day was to start to develop  the purpose and objectives of group.  We made considerable progress.  The final product as it comes out of the IT Committee envisions this group taking a leadership role in connecting health providers in the state of Colorado.  Armed with a chunk of money from the FCC, we plan to build a broadband ethernet network linking all Colorado hospitals, beginning with rural providers. The group has already made significant progress towards the goal inexpensive, reliable health care network infrastructure.  With a funding commitment in hand, an RFP has already been issued.  Vendor responses have been evaluated, and a selection for further negotiations has been made.  A contract may be forthcoming very soon. This is exciting, timely work.  President Bush has included health IT as part of his vision for health care reform from the beginning of his presidency.  In yet another display of how the two aren't so far apart in some ways, President-elect Barak Obama puts health IT front and center in his plans for reforming health care in the US.  The Feds are already funding significant efforts, and it looks like more is on the way. Before any type of health information sharing can begin, the infrastructure needs to be in place to carry the data safely and reliably.  Colorado TeleHealth Network is building these pipes today while groups like Colorado Regional Health Information Organization tackle the tough issues surrounding data interoperability standards and related issues.  When they're ready with the killer app, the network will be ready to carry whatever they can throw at it. [post_content] => Yesterday I attended a meeting of the IT Committee of the Colorado Telehealth Network.  The task of the day was to start to develop  the purpose and objectives of group.  We made considerable progress.  The final product as it comes out of the IT Committee envisions this group taking a leadership role in connecting health providers in the state of Colorado.  Armed with a chunk of money from the FCC, we plan to build a broadband ethernet network linking all Colorado hospitals, beginning with rural providers. The group has already made significant progress towards the goal inexpensive, reliable health care network infrastructure.  With a funding commitment in hand, an RFP has already been issued.  Vendor responses have been evaluated, and a selection for further negotiations has been made.  A contract may be forthcoming very soon. This is exciting, timely work.  President Bush has included health IT as part of his vision for health care reform from the beginning of his presidency.  In yet another display of how the two aren't so far apart in some ways, President-elect Barak Obama puts health IT front and center in his plans for reforming health care in the US.  The Feds are already funding significant efforts, and it looks like more is on the way. Before any type of health information sharing can begin, the infrastructure needs to be in place to carry the data safely and reliably.  Colorado TeleHealth Network is building these pipes today while groups like Colorado Regional Health Information Organization tackle the tough issues surrounding data interoperability standards and related issues.  When they're ready with the killer app, the network will be ready to carry whatever they can throw at it. [5] => Health IT in the National Crosshairs [post_title] => Health IT in the National Crosshairs [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => health-it-in-the-national-crosshairs [post_name] => health-it-in-the-national-crosshairs [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2008-12-12 21:21:31 [post_modified] => 2008-12-12 21:21:31 [16] => 2008-12-13 02:21:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-12-13 02:21:31 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/15 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/15 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 16 [ID] => 16 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-01-20 15:37:04 [post_date] => 2009-01-20 15:37:04 [3] => 2009-01-20 20:37:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-01-20 20:37:04 [4] => I got an email today reminding me to check my profile on Naymz website.  I'd nearly forgotten about this social networking site for professionals.  Since my Rep. Score is only a 5, I probably ought to do some updating on it.  The interesting thing about this visit to the site though was one of the references to me I found. Apparently a journalist in the UK accidentally came across this site while looking for another Owen Hathaway (who actually turned out to be Owen Hatherley).  From this post, it appears that I am not THE Owen Hathaway. Given the personal reference, I found the article somewhat amusing.  Just to clarify one point though, I don't think her reference to pl------- was directed my way.  Unless you count her use of my name.  Hmm...  I think I'll go get a cup of Starbuck's coffee and ponder this. While Helen DeWitte's reference to my online presence seems fairly innocuous, I'm not real thrilled about seeing that p- word on in a headline next to my name.  That word is a serious charge, and I don't go there.  Once you're out there, though.  Some things are just out of your hands. My discovery is somewhat timely given that next week marks International Data Privacy Day.  This year's focus is on awareness of online safety.  Given the rash of news accounts detailing private information making its way into the wrong hands via postings on social sites like Facebook and MySpace.  The organizers wish to encourage teens to think before they post. I wholeheartedly endorse this effort, to the extent that I am taking part in activities at the University of Denver Law School in support of the cause.   This discovery is a sober reminder though, of how non-deterministic the Internet truly is.  Regardless of how in control you feel, you never know who is going to read what you post. [post_content] => I got an email today reminding me to check my profile on Naymz website.  I'd nearly forgotten about this social networking site for professionals.  Since my Rep. Score is only a 5, I probably ought to do some updating on it.  The interesting thing about this visit to the site though was one of the references to me I found. Apparently a journalist in the UK accidentally came across this site while looking for another Owen Hathaway (who actually turned out to be Owen Hatherley).  From this post, it appears that I am not THE Owen Hathaway. Given the personal reference, I found the article somewhat amusing.  Just to clarify one point though, I don't think her reference to pl------- was directed my way.  Unless you count her use of my name.  Hmm...  I think I'll go get a cup of Starbuck's coffee and ponder this. While Helen DeWitte's reference to my online presence seems fairly innocuous, I'm not real thrilled about seeing that p- word on in a headline next to my name.  That word is a serious charge, and I don't go there.  Once you're out there, though.  Some things are just out of your hands. My discovery is somewhat timely given that next week marks International Data Privacy Day.  This year's focus is on awareness of online safety.  Given the rash of news accounts detailing private information making its way into the wrong hands via postings on social sites like Facebook and MySpace.  The organizers wish to encourage teens to think before they post. I wholeheartedly endorse this effort, to the extent that I am taking part in activities at the University of Denver Law School in support of the cause.   This discovery is a sober reminder though, of how non-deterministic the Internet truly is.  Regardless of how in control you feel, you never know who is going to read what you post. [5] => You never know who's looking [post_title] => You never know who's looking [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => you-never-know-whos-looking [post_name] => you-never-know-whos-looking [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-01-20 15:37:04 [post_modified] => 2009-01-20 15:37:04 [16] => 2009-01-20 20:37:04 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-01-20 20:37:04 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/?p=16 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/?p=16 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 17 [ID] => 17 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-01-20 15:36:10 [post_date] => 2009-01-20 15:36:10 [3] => 2009-01-20 20:36:10 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-01-20 20:36:10 [4] => I got an email today reminding me to check my profile on Naymz website.  I'd nearly forgotten about this social networking site for professionals.  Since my Rep. Score is only a 5, I probably ought to do some updating on it.  The interesting thing about this visit to the site though was one of the references to me I found. Apparently a journalist in the UK accidentally came across this site while looking for another Owen Hathaway (who actually turned out to be Owen Hatherley).  From this post, it appears that I am not THE Owen Hathaway. Given the personal reference, I found the article somewhat amusing.  Just to clarify one point though, I don't think her reference to pl------- was directed my way.  Unless you count her use of my name.  Hmm...  I think I'll go get a cup of Starbuck's coffee and ponder this. While Helen DeWitte's reference to my online presence seems fairly innocuous, I'm not real thrilled about seeing that p- word on in a headline next to my name.  That word is a serious charge, and I don't go there.  Once you're out there, though.  Some things are just out of your hands. My discovery is somewhat timely given that next week marks International Data Privacy Day.  This year's focus is on awareness of online safety.  Given the rash of news accounts detailing private information making its way into the wrong hands via postings on social sites like Facebook and MySpace.  The organizers wish to encourage teens to think before they post. I wholeheartedly endorse this effort, to the extent that I am taking part in activities at the University of Denver Law School in support of the cause.   This discovery is a sober reminder though, of how non-deterministic the Internet truly is. [post_content] => I got an email today reminding me to check my profile on Naymz website.  I'd nearly forgotten about this social networking site for professionals.  Since my Rep. Score is only a 5, I probably ought to do some updating on it.  The interesting thing about this visit to the site though was one of the references to me I found. Apparently a journalist in the UK accidentally came across this site while looking for another Owen Hathaway (who actually turned out to be Owen Hatherley).  From this post, it appears that I am not THE Owen Hathaway. Given the personal reference, I found the article somewhat amusing.  Just to clarify one point though, I don't think her reference to pl------- was directed my way.  Unless you count her use of my name.  Hmm...  I think I'll go get a cup of Starbuck's coffee and ponder this. While Helen DeWitte's reference to my online presence seems fairly innocuous, I'm not real thrilled about seeing that p- word on in a headline next to my name.  That word is a serious charge, and I don't go there.  Once you're out there, though.  Some things are just out of your hands. My discovery is somewhat timely given that next week marks International Data Privacy Day.  This year's focus is on awareness of online safety.  Given the rash of news accounts detailing private information making its way into the wrong hands via postings on social sites like Facebook and MySpace.  The organizers wish to encourage teens to think before they post. I wholeheartedly endorse this effort, to the extent that I am taking part in activities at the University of Denver Law School in support of the cause.   This discovery is a sober reminder though, of how non-deterministic the Internet truly is. [5] => You never know who's looking [post_title] => You never know who's looking [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 16-revision [post_name] => 16-revision [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-01-20 15:36:10 [post_modified] => 2009-01-20 15:36:10 [16] => 2009-01-20 20:36:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-01-20 20:36:10 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 16 [post_parent] => 16 [19] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/17 [guid] => http://www.owenhathawayllc.com/blog/archives/17 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 18 [ID] => 18 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-02-28 20:58:18 [post_date] => 2009-02-28 20:58:18 [3] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_date_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [4] => http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/IDTheftEnvScan.pdf http://hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com/2008/10/articles/medical-identity-theft/red-flags-to-help-combat-medical-identity-theft/ [post_content] => http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/IDTheftEnvScan.pdf http://hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com/2008/10/articles/medical-identity-theft/red-flags-to-help-combat-medical-identity-theft/ [5] => FTC "Red Flag" Rules in a Health Care Setting [post_title] => FTC "Red Flag" Rules in a Health Care Setting [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => draft [post_status] => draft [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => [post_name] => [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-02-28 20:58:18 [post_modified] => 2009-02-28 20:58:18 [16] => 2009-03-01 01:58:18 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-01 01:58:18 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=18 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=18 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 19 [ID] => 19 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-02-28 20:57:50 [post_date] => 2009-02-28 20:57:50 [3] => 2009-03-01 01:57:50 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-01 01:57:50 [4] => http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/IDTheftEnvScan.pdf http://hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com/2008/10/articles/medical-identity-theft/red-flags-to-help-combat-medical-identity-theft/ [post_content] => http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/IDTheftEnvScan.pdf http://hipaahealthlaw.foxrothschild.com/2008/10/articles/medical-identity-theft/red-flags-to-help-combat-medical-identity-theft/ [5] => FTC "Red Flag" Rules in a Health Care Setting [post_title] => FTC "Red Flag" Rules in a Health Care Setting [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 18-revision [post_name] => 18-revision [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-02-28 20:57:50 [post_modified] => 2009-02-28 20:57:50 [16] => 2009-03-01 01:57:50 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-01 01:57:50 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 18 [post_parent] => 18 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/19 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/19 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 20 [ID] => 20 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => new-media-accountability-on-why-everyones-words-really-matter [post_name] => new-media-accountability-on-why-everyones-words-really-matter [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:22:21 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:22:21 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:22:21 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:22:21 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=20 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=20 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 25 [ID] => 25 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:01:42 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:01:42 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:01:42 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:01:42 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-5 [post_name] => 20-revision-5 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:01:42 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:01:42 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:01:42 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:01:42 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/25 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/25 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 21 [ID] => 21 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 14:55:19 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 14:55:19 [3] => 2009-03-15 19:55:19 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:55:19 [4] => Our new President told us (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President told us (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision [post_name] => 20-revision [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 14:55:19 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 14:55:19 [16] => 2009-03-15 19:55:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:55:19 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/21 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/21 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 22 [ID] => 22 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 14:56:19 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 14:56:19 [3] => 2009-03-15 19:56:19 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:56:19 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-2 [post_name] => 20-revision-2 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 14:56:19 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 14:56:19 [16] => 2009-03-15 19:56:19 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:56:19 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/22 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/22 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 24 [ID] => 24 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 14:58:44 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 14:58:44 [3] => 2009-03-15 19:58:44 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:58:44 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-4 [post_name] => 20-revision-4 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 14:58:44 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 14:58:44 [16] => 2009-03-15 19:58:44 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:58:44 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/24 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/24 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 23 [ID] => 23 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 14:56:27 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 14:56:27 [3] => 2009-03-15 19:56:27 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:56:27 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter.  I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet.  Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007.  As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words.  The standards by which I made my observations still hold.  The NBER apparently chose to apply a new definition to the word "recession." An issue that hits closer to home, I see a similar newspeak process happening in the public debate on spending limits in Colorado.  Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the dialog has become a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review.  In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year.  The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution.  TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval."  The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009.  Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion.  True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow.  This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent."  Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it.  Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question.  Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another.  Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Point 1: Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228.  But is it really a "legal opinion?"  What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper?  Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law.  But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion."  While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search.  The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera.  So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?"  Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Point 2: Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR.  As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.  Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct.  Money is appropriated to be spent.  By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird.   Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations.  More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words.  Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change.  Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is.  Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-3 [post_name] => 20-revision-3 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 14:56:27 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 14:56:27 [16] => 2009-03-15 19:56:27 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 19:56:27 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/23 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/23 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 26 [ID] => 26 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:05:22 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:05:22 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:05:22 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:05:22 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-6 [post_name] => 20-revision-6 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:05:22 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:05:22 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:05:22 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:05:22 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/26 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/26 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 27 [ID] => 27 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:23:25 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:23:25 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:23:25 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:23:25 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-autosave [post_name] => 20-autosave [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:23:25 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:23:25 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:23:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:23:25 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/27 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/27 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 28 [ID] => 28 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I cound find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems sematically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR requirements can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors that the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people thing the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-7 [post_name] => 20-revision-7 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:05:37 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:05:37 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/28 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/28 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 29 [ID] => 29 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:19:08 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:19:08 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:19:08 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:19:08 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [post_title] => New Media Accountability: On Why Everyone's Words Really Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-8 [post_name] => 20-revision-8 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:19:08 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:19:08 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:19:08 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:19:08 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/29 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/29 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 30 [ID] => 30 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:19:29 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:19:29 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:19:29 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:19:29 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-9 [post_name] => 20-revision-9 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:19:29 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:19:29 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:19:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:19:29 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/30 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/30 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 31 [ID] => 31 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:20:32 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:20:32 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:20:32 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:20:32 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-10 [post_name] => 20-revision-10 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:20:32 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:20:32 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:20:32 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:20:32 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/31 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/31 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 32 [ID] => 32 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:21:28 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:21:28 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:21:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:21:28 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding the 1991 limitation requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-11 [post_name] => 20-revision-11 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:21:28 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:21:28 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:21:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:21:28 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/32 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/32 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 33 [ID] => 33 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2009-03-15 15:21:57 [post_date] => 2009-03-15 15:21:57 [3] => 2009-03-15 20:21:57 [post_date_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:21:57 [4] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [post_content] => Our new President (or was it Deval Patrick, I can't remember) told us last summer that words matter. I agree. Last summer, I posted an update on why I thought we weren't in a recession yet. Since that post, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession officially started in Q4 2007. As a person who believes in personal accountability and standing on principal, I stand by my earlier words. The standards by which I made my observations still hold. The NBER apparently chose to apply a different definition to the word "recession" than the one I was taught in Economics 101. Newspeak happens outside of Washington too.  Here in Colorado, it thrives in the public debate on Constitutional spending limitations. Rather than a discourse covering the merits and demerits of the proposal to eliminate the Arveschoug-Bird provision of Colorado law, the Democrat-run Legislature engaged in a battle over the meaning of words. For folks unfamiliar with the issue, here's a quick review. In 1991, the Colorado legislature passed a law (named 'Arveshoug-Bird' for its sponsors Steven Arveschoug [R, Pueblo] and Michael Bird [R, Co. Springs]) limiting the growth of state "appropriations" to 6% year over year. The following year, Colorado voters added the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) to the Colorado Constitution. TABOR, among other things, requires that "[o]ther limits on [spending] may be weakened only by future voter approval." The legislature has operated since 1992 with the understanding Arveschoug-Bird requires voter approval to change. Fast forward to 2009. Democrats have now taken control of the General Assembly and the Governor's mansion. True to the stereotype, legislators with D's on their jerseys are now searching for ways to spend more money than the old rules allow. This search found new life when Jean Dubofsky published an opinion holding that the limits were not a limit on "how much" was spent, which requires voter approval to weaken, but rather a limit on "how money is spent." Since Dubofsky is a former Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, those who wish to eliminate the limitation haled her opinion as a new "legal opinion" which supported the Assembly's ability to statutorily repeal it. Thus was born Colorado S.B. 228. Whether the spending goals represent good policy is one question. Whether the legislature can avoid the limits without violating the Colorado Constitution is another. Without taking a position (you can make up your own mind by reading this, this, this, and this), I am fascinated by the way the media and the measure's sponsors have framed the debate to support their position. Jean Dubofsky's "legal opinion" enables S.B. 228. But is it really a "legal opinion?" What if Dubofsky's writing were only an op-ed piece in a small Colorado newspaper? Justice Dubofsky's written opinions while on the Colorado Supreme Court certainly carry the force of law. But would her writings as a private citizen (read: no longer a judge) carry the same weight? I can't seem to find the "legal opinion." While I admit I'm no professional yet, I do have two years of law school experience to inform my search. The only writing of Dubofsky's I could find was her piece in the Boulder Daily Camera. So is any "opinion" written by a lawyer and former judge a "legal opinion?" Historically, only opinions written in an official capacity count. Whatever the legal weight of her opinion, Dubofsky's argument boils down to a distinction between the word "appropriation" as used in A-B and "spending limit" as used in TABOR. As defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, to appropriate means either: 1) To set apart for a specific use; or 2) To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission. Contrast this with to spend, which means "to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of." In terms of the legislative process, Dubofsky's position seems semantically correct. Money is appropriated to be spent. By separating the words, TABOR voter-approval requirement can be removed from Arveshoug-Bird. Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. As I have been advised by many law professors, the lawyer's stock in trade is words. Those who feel artificially constrained by the Colorado Constitution use words to effect their vision of change. Unfortunately, this tactic focuses not substantial debate of the proposal's merits but on what amounts to a fight over what the meaning of "is" is. Small wonder most normal people think the best place to collect lawyers is the bottom of the ocean. [5] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [post_title] => Why Everyone's Words Matter [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [post_excerpt] => Viewed more broadly, spending necessarily follows from appropriations. More appropriations means more spending, and TABOR's provision that "[i]ts preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government" should control. [8] => inherit [post_status] => inherit [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => 20-revision-12 [post_name] => 20-revision-12 [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2009-03-15 15:21:57 [post_modified] => 2009-03-15 15:21:57 [16] => 2009-03-15 20:21:57 [post_modified_gmt] => 2009-03-15 20:21:57 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 20 [post_parent] => 20 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/33 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/33 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => revision [post_type] => revision [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 34 [ID] => 34 [1] => 2 [post_author] => 2 [2] => 2010-04-24 10:21:53 [post_date] => 2010-04-24 10:21:53 [3] => 2010-04-24 16:21:53 [post_date_gmt] => 2010-04-24 16:21:53 [4] => Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; 'Tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. W. Shakespeare, Othello Act III, Scene 4. [post_content] => Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; 'Tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed. W. Shakespeare, Othello Act III, Scene 4. [5] => What's in a name? [post_title] => What's in a name? [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => publish [post_status] => publish [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => whats-in-a-name [post_name] => whats-in-a-name [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2010-04-24 10:21:53 [post_modified] => 2010-04-24 10:21:53 [16] => 2010-04-24 16:21:53 [post_modified_gmt] => 2010-04-24 16:21:53 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/34 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/archives/34 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )

Array ( [0] => 37 [ID] => 37 [1] => 1 [post_author] => 1 [2] => 2015-11-26 09:30:54 [post_date] => 2015-11-26 09:30:54 [3] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_date_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [4] => [post_content] => [5] => Auto Draft [post_title] => Auto Draft [6] => 0 [post_category] => 0 [7] => [post_excerpt] => [8] => auto-draft [post_status] => auto-draft [9] => open [comment_status] => open [10] => open [ping_status] => open [11] => [post_password] => [12] => [post_name] => [13] => [to_ping] => [14] => [pinged] => [15] => 2015-11-26 09:30:54 [post_modified] => 2015-11-26 09:30:54 [16] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 0000-00-00 00:00:00 [17] => [post_content_filtered] => [18] => 0 [post_parent] => 0 [19] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=37 [guid] => http://www.owenhathaway.com/blog/?p=37 [20] => 0 [menu_order] => 0 [21] => post [post_type] => post [22] => [post_mime_type] => [23] => 0 [comment_count] => 0 )