two p.m. on that kind of sad news and do we have any amendments to the agenda and we have one guest good evening yes we're glad to have you here with us and propitiously enough the first order on the agenda is standing Levine of the middle sex planning Commission to present the Commission's request that the board appropriate $4,000 from its discretionary fund and FY 19 to pay for consultants for the town plan action possible also Sandy presents the planning Commission's request the $2,000 be added to the planning Commission FY 20 budget to pay for consultants in the town plan action possible Sandy Ron thanks we miss we miss DB on the planning Commission that said the as you know the planning Commission has a town the town of middle sex of the town plan that expired as of town meeting last year and without a complete and up-to-date town plan we can't move forward with grants there are limited opportunities to can't change zoning can't do a number of things I will say that the folks who own Red Hen planetary matters have been very interested in looking at a feasibility study and trying to figure out what they can and cannot do with their property there's other reasons to have a town plan as well so the planning Commission over the last three months or so looked into well can we just you know do a quick brush up and you know we adopt the plan that we have that's not possible since it's expired it's out of date you kind of have to start from scratch there are new provisions that are required to be in the town plan that we don't have so and no matter what you still have to go through what is really a four month process to adopt a plan anyway just after it's all set and done we looked into possibilities to hire some outside consultants to help us get this it's it's a significant undertaking for any one person or a couple people on the Volunteer Commission to do and I will say I know that in previous times when we've hired consultants they've they've you know worked kind of from soup to nuts cost of anywhere from like nine to ten dollars and we usually got grant money to do that we did reach out to four consultants to see if they could help us on an expedited low lower budget faster timeline to get a town plan drafted and put in place in time to apply for the next round of grants which would be next fall September timeframe that would give us about four months to redo the town plan and then four months to go through the process and redoing the town plan we would take what we have currently we would include the input we had from the surveys that were sent around that were available online we would include the input from the what's next to middle sex which was a very you know robust town involvement to to put that together and is a lot of input coming from that we reached out to four folks we received responses from two one came in a little over four thousand dollars one came in a little over eight thousand dollars seemed like the four thousand dollar one was was on track she could get the work done she's a planner and in South Burlington I have her proposal with me okay have a proposal with us the planning commission decided she would be a good person to do this we don't have the money to do this so we're looking to the select for it I don't is there money in the budget now so that we can get this started our plan is to get this drafted and completed by June and then the next piece is to have money in the budget for the following year and that's what would be because I guess the budget doesn't take effect until July so that's that's the second piece of this as well just in full disclosure when I wasn't clear on the process here so when the planning commission reviewed it the planning commission notes say we were we're looking for five thousand dollars in the budget and this is four thousand plus two thousand so so we said for when we approved our budget for next year it was five thousand I don't know what's in the budget for next for next year for the planning commission it was the same as the same every year we want to say to yeah I didn't think it was five that's no I think it's two so if there's already two and then there's no then there would be no change it would be four thousand to be released to be paid before July because the work is going would be completed between now and May for the most part so where's the planning commission on here I know that you've got you know we're going upwards of I don't know 250 to 300 somewhere up in that now we spent a lot of men hours doing the surveying we were going to mail one out that still going to happen planning commission decided last meeting not to send it out it will make it available here in town hall both in terms of timing and wanting to get the the the town plan done and with the roughly May timeframe didn't really allow for sending it out and receiving it back and compiling it we would still make it available and recognize that to 250 or so responses online so just thank you for coming and presenting this to us unfortunately we just finalized our budget last meeting and as far as I know everyone either has been aware or should have been aware that we started working on our budget back in September so hearing from you this evening after we've just finalized our budget unfortunately is a little annoying to me because we go through quite a process to do that now here we are two weeks later being asked to amend our budget and also spend money this year that we may or may not have and it isn't like we all didn't know that this was coming but that said I understand volunteer committees I understand I really do understand all the issues my question is and my concern is in the past when I've reviewed the work done by these outside consultants I've thought to be honest mostly what they provided was fluff not stuff that we couldn't have figured out for ourselves you know boilerplate language fine meets the new rules and regulations fine and maybe we need help understanding what those are but other than that I just wonder exactly what you see us getting for this $6,000 I see us getting a town plan that we can present to voters I know that the planning Commission has been working on a town plan update for the last since I came on the planning Commission which was last spring some time and it hasn't happened and I think they were working on it for some time before that as well because then I mean the other so the second part of that is that if we can't do that mostly ourselves what's going to happen when we turn around next and do an update of the zoning regulations which to me are more complex more confusing more concerning than anything else so anyway so right now there's 2,000 that's not used does that make sense to you that 2,000 has not been spent yet from this question no nothing has been spent and you can't tell what's been spent in the discretionary fund because it's a budgeted number that's put in you just put in a dollar amount but when you have the expense it gets expensed out to whatever the real expense is because you have to show it as whether you put in windows or whether you whatever you did with it so you so the discretionary fund balance never changes it's like you're adding $5,000 as so was that the year and then that all kind well yeah because what it does is adds 5,000 dollars make so far that's exactly why so you'd be looking for another 2,000 essentially between now and July July and then you'd only be getting 2,000 for next year because it's assuming that that didn't change so you're looking for 2,000 really right is that does that make sense mathematically I'm confused thanks I thought it was 4,000 well you we have 2,000 already in there but I'm not sure how I know what's in the budget I honestly don't know and I don't I honestly don't know how I would know even what's available for the Planning Commission I just don't know it's a budgeted item that's in the financials printed in the answer the answer is saying you call the rundown asker that's the answer unless you want to start getting regular copies of the town financials but right here it sounds okay so I mean so the bottom line is I cut I came to you based on the Planning Commission coming and saying this is what we need yeah but then so what that begs the question then is that $2,000 was put in the budget for something and I don't think it was put in for hiring consultants it was 500 for advertising 500 for mail 500 for printing and 500 for consultation so so then nothing's been used is there any anticipation that any of that is that you need any of that $2,000 that you've already got are you saying that I do not know what has been spent well nothing is saying do you anticipate any other besides this not a mailing probably some copies by the time we we have a draft of the town plan and have it available for public hearing and notices that's gonna happen between now and July 1st is it or is it some of that will happen between now and July 1st because we'll have a draft ready and ideally in May so you're playing this you're wanting this fast track so that it would be available if it passed it was passed by the town you would like it on fast track so that you could apply for grants in the fall yes that's what we're aiming for and the grants in the fall would be for similar to what we had applied for this past year a feasibility study to look at improvements in the village that we were turned down for so I'm sorry can you can you tell me the time frame again if you were to get this 4,000 and then another 2,000 is appropriated after July 1st on the next budget you would hope to have an actual vote to the you would have a a town plan that would go to voters when on a special election or something probably yes would have to be a special election but it would be somewhere beach before the fall yes on a town plan okay and then the zoning regs we can't do anything about it the zoning regs until we update it so the question is do we have $2,000 so the answer is yeah we do it's in there it's in there somewhere so between between what the Planning Commission doesn't spend out of its existing 2,000 so let's say they spend 500 on photocopying and whatever else maybe there's $1,500 there so what we're really talking about is $2,500 and $2,000 next year my thing on that would be we just increased in our budget which we finalized the selectments discretionary account we can find that $2,000 somewhere I am against just on principle amending the budget not that we can't do it right we work so hard to get it approved and done in a timely manner to open it back up and then I'm it's not that I'm concerned so much about this but then what happens when somebody else comes along and they said well you open it up for the Planning Commission why can't you thought about yeah so I just think it's a matter of principle for that amount of money we'll find it somewhere and we might want to the question is do we jigger around the budget numbers not changing the budget amount but put an additional 2,000 in the Planning Commission for next year and have our discretionary account be 8,000 I guess that's what I would do that sure yeah you only love you only want a bottom line you know so I just because of the issue of tracking in the discretionary account I want to be very careful how we handle that money so by putting the money in the Planning Commission then we're going to see I would say no let's keep it the way it is and if we have to take it from the discretionary because we're probably not going to get a full 2,000 anyway I mean they haven't used this is for sort of just stuff that they haven't used anyway and then we can use it on consultants they're going to use it on no I know I know but I'm saying for the next 2,000 that you're going to use on the consultants well the problem with that is that's when we're going to get into mailings and I mean they are going to have some expenses that I don't know I'm happy to do whatever it's not a big deal anywhere the other I just somehow and we're not going to figure it out tonight we've got to figure out a better way to track what's in that discretionary account because otherwise it's just like I guess if you you were going to do that I'd rather do I think I'd rather do 2,500 more to the Planning Commission and 7,500 in that fund however that being said because I think if there are some good points to this fast tracking this a little bit however the Planning Commission had worked pretty hard on getting some information together and Sandy was a part of it to do a survey and to not do that survey at all I think is a grievous error that was there was a lot of man hours put in that and I would like to see more emphasis on I don't care how it's done but I think it needs more emphasis needs to be put more on that survey because we were going trying to get 50% and that way you really got the pulse of the town of what they want not necessarily what that consultant is seeing now I realize the consultant is getting information from meetings from the sled board from the Planning Commission and from the survey but I think that we need to get all of the responses in that we possibly can in that time frame did we already we did administer part of the survey didn't it was done it was done by Survey Monkey was online it went pretty well but we didn't get what did we get for a response right we got 250 responses so that is out of nine well you don't count kids how many adults are there in middle sex okay so that is that is sort of ironically a typical town meeting turnout yeah that's about what I'm not as it said that's right for 15%. The more the more information you get from the more people you get on there the more you really feel the pulse of the town what they want and not necessarily we're saying from a few that you know we want you know 40 gas stations in town and and the town doesn't want it you know so is the survey set up that so that people can't take it again if we put back online I suppose and put back in there well I'm just wondering like I mean my concern would be it's the same people answering the survey again because I wouldn't remember that I had taken the survey I mean my suggest no I mean I think I took it but like if I I know that when I go take some things it'll say thanks you've already done this survey but that's because it's linked to my email and so I mean what I'm proposing is that you could do something like a town meeting if it's a pretty long survey wasn't it you do it by paper or you do it by paper but my concern is that people have already done it and you don't want the same people answering hopefully people are gonna do that I mean I don't see that I don't see that I mean you might not that much fun doing that survey right yeah but I'm just saying I wouldn't have remembered that I took the survey and so maybe we should have you see the memory care people would you have remembered that you took the survey I remember I took the survey I do remember the survey I think the point of of maximizing the survey is a good point but what we really need to talk about tonight is the is the money and I guess I don't really care if we if we move that money around between discretionary or not I just the other reason for doing that is then we're gonna remember what we did not that we might not remember but you never know so by having the money in there we'll say yep we took it out of the discretionary we put it in the planning commission and they've got their money for next year and in terms of this year's money what would happen Sandy is hypothetically you would overspend your budget but we have agreed that that is okay and we will take it out of my budget like we always do thank you no more winter sand it's tough because you know we real we account for every dollar it's not like we have a lot of a lot of fluff so it's so it's tough but we'll we'll deal with that we've got we've got broad shoulders so I don't think with that we're not amending the budget so I don't think we need a motion we're not doing anything now except giving the planning commission the okay I guess maybe we should we need something in the minutes about that so why don't we make a motion I'll make a motion that we're going to allow the planning commission to have a deficit in their budget and move 2000 to their account to pay for the consultant to pay 4,000 for the consultant so you're talking about the current budget the current budget 19 yeah 19 okay and then how much that deficit of how much 2000 yeah so you're saying they're not going to spend have any other money to spend on anything they're going to have zero dollars we shouldn't give them five hundred dollars I would say 2,500 we'll let you have 500 to pay for consultants to pay for thank you any further discussion should the motion say something about the next part of it that's right okay so the motion just says you're gonna allow the planning commission to have a deficit of $2,500 and fiscal year 19 to pay for consultants period did nothing about that the select board will cover it or nothing just really like that I mean of course we're gonna what else do we do okay okay okay so it's been moved and seconded any further discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed okay Sandy thank you thank you thanks who contracts with the consultant how does that work for the town I think in the past I believe what we've done is authorize the planning commission to enter into a contract I think it was I think it was signed by the treasure or the cheerless like yeah in terms of negotiating the contract but yes and then that sounds right to me so you guys would negotiate the contract come to us and say here's what we've here's what we've done here's what it is that's fine okay you're good thank you oh and now the exciting part of the meeting the select board report for 10 meetings do you not have to address the second the second part yeah you don't know can I get a clarification on that so you just moving $2,500 under the consultation or are you I mean when you say you're moving it so that for the next year they had $2,000 in there so what do you want they're budget number for next year staying the same that was this year next year next year what we're saying is we understand that they're going to spend another $2,000 and presumably it's coming out of our discretionary count and then we can decide which we didn't decide whether to move that money or in the final budget not changing the bottom line putting $2,000 into the planning commission and take them out of discretionary just so we can track it which I guess is what I would prefer to do yeah without a motion okay I don't just a flat yeah yes because this year we'll have to move $2,500 which is the motion was well it wasn't really that motion but that's what right yeah so that would give you just put it all in the consulting what so that would give what? $2,500? You're good? You're good. Thank you, Sandy. Thanks. Thank you. Select or report. Oh, that's off. I'm looking here. I got it. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. This looks like the same thing you sent to us, Sarah. I think it is. It is. Is I supposed to do something different? No. Does that come into play yet? Does anybody know? What? Our emergency towing policy? Has not to my knowledge or information. Today might be the day. I've never seen so many cars. I pulled six out of the ditch. Really? Over the weekend. Yeah. Reminded me of all times with you, Liz. God, I wasn't there. I thought they were checking their email or something. How she got on the wrong side of the road and got off the ditch. I don't know. Well, I had a good one because I had our neighbor's driveway by the pond there. Yes. Somebody was stuck coming out of there. They had a pickup truck attached to that and he was stuck. So I've got a cable stretched straight across the road. I've got people up and down the road. I got somebody up there like this. He's going like this. Car goes right around and heads right for my cable, which was stretched right across the road. Fortunately, they got stopped, but it wouldn't have been pretty if they know. That's a great business card, isn't it? Yeah. I love that business card. Are you also doing a dedication? We haven't done a dedication to the past two town reports, so we're not doing them. So do we want to say anything about this year's budget? We do. Normally we do. And that's what I normally, I put in my name to refer to the select board to report. Last year, Phil wrote it. That was great. I remember that. I think we should. And you know the high points are, I don't know if any of you have been following the who doing more town about highway crew compensation.  Really? Oh, yeah. Oh, there's been a lot of, it's mostly been in the Waterbury record or whatever it is. It hasn't, I haven't seen anything in the Times-Argus, but there's quite a war going on. Were they asking how much we paid our crew or something? Oh, yeah. They had included in their budget a 2%. Oh, more town, right here. Right here. Yeah. And from memory, they had done a survey which indicated they were way on the lower end of the comparable pay scale, you know, similar to what we were trying to figure out before our two pay raises. And as far as I know, it hasn't been resolved. I mean, there's a lot of yelling and shouting going on. People are trying to quit all the stuff that we were happy to avoid, at least for the time being.  We paid adjustment, not at the increase, but we actually looked at the market. Did we actually do a market analysis or was it more? Yeah, yeah. A real like. We looked at what the surrounding towns were. Okay, so we did it, we did it on our own, but we looked around. Yeah, and I think we also looked at what private companies where there was at the time a couple of companies on. Okay. We hadn't hired a consultant to do that for us. No, no, no. We just centered ourselves. Okay. I think the leak had information. Right. It's out of date now. It's like, it's out of date. Yeah.  The big challenge is that in the construction season, these guys can earn a lot more money working for a contractor. Now it's not a year round job. Doesn't have benefits. Doesn't have retirement. Probably doesn't have, yeah, yeah, yeah.  And on balance, you come out better. Well, that's I tried to make the case to our crew that road crew that that wasn't the case. It wasn't my message wasn't very well received wasn't Steve. They said, but we get paid less. You know, that's what they understand what's in their paycheck of the week. So anyway, if you would, if you would do that, that budget piece, that would be great. And I want to acknowledge that I have done nothing about the food shelf and is it too late? Well, asking and I keep not doing it. Can you get it done by Thursday? Yeah. I'll just look at last year's few emails to me during I can print it out. Or just email. I don't have it. I don't have it. I've got to go back and find for the year ending, right? Or those up to the one tonight? Yeah, I can do that. Yeah, I'll put that right now. Okay, either way, print it or email it to me out of care, whichever. I mean, I just want to be able to go through and look at the, you know, the high points. That's basically all I did last year was look at where the significant changes were. Yeah, that we probably have less drastic changes than we did last year. Well, we had a computer issue. That's really good. That's a big that's the big engine. Well, that was for the expenses for last year. So I'll do something about it represents we're way overspent and all I was saying is we're way we were way overspent last year. But this year, we'll be back more in line where we've been before. And I put that in my notes as far as we were over by 48,766 over budget for last year. And I just put down an unexpected replacement of the town's computer service system and an unanticipated highway department and unanticipated highway department expenses accounting for the majority of the overrun. And then basically the biggest number fell under the construction category. So if anybody wants to know what that was, I really don't know what was in how that got moving. But but that was how I explained the overrun. So is there anything else? This is great, by the way. Thank you. This very well written story. Yeah. Is there anything else? We need to add to this. And I guess what I would my preference would be when you do the report, have the piece about the budget first, not have the throwing up the they're going to start reading about throwing up the roads. Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, but I you edit it however you want. This is supposed to be the 2018 select board report about the year that that's ended. We probably should just put before that just do a 2019 budget explanation from Phil for the select. That's fine.  The action happened in 2018. So we're reporting our budget development, which happened in 2018. Not going to be that. That's why my wife looks at me. I know that a lot approved it in January. You do you tell me what to do. I will just put it there. This the 2000. I'll just have the upcoming budget and then we'll go into the exciting road throwing up part. That's fine. Let's just a little separate one thing to I don't know why I fixate on this, but I do. For some reason, I still am concerned about the fact that in the next year's budget, we have like two fewer truck payments and that sort of skewed things a bit like we're and for a couple of years, we won't have those truck payments that we've always had. We made up for that. I know we did and I don't do we just not remember that you will have it next year. There'll be it'll be back. Okay, we've got payments. Okay, it was just a one year. You know what? I don't know. I don't want to be surprised to mention though, because really, our biggest challenge is going to be replacing that greater greater people that that's coming. I think makes some make some sense. The trucks sort of come and go and right. It all balances out the end. Let me let me I'll draft something and get it around to everybody. So that'd be grateful. Yeah, I mean, if I forgot something, then um, he's doing that film. You can get that done by Thursday thing. Yeah, I want to talk about do we want to talk about our building business. We're happy that we put an additional amount of money in the building fun and anticipation of just a little word. Yeah. Yeah. I think the last time I did it just in bullets and that seemed to work. Yeah. That's fine. Yeah, yeah. See information. Right. Yeah. So we're good. Yeah, we didn't have a question on the budget last year. We almost never do. No. Amazing. Don't jinx us. Don't jinx us. We don't make a motion on that right? We just give it a we just give it a knot. Potties on the case. And you guys did most of the checks. I thought it done for this. You need a motion for this. Okay. Proving the warning. Let's look at it. Wow. Get refresh my memory on who is that are there vacant planning Commission? Yeah, there's everything is vacant except for one seat. Really? Troy and Barry are not running again. But even if they were, they'd still be up for reelection. And then we Theo just turned in his petition for one year of a three year term. That's your old term. So there's five people and Sandy's the only one left? No, Mitch. So it's Mitch. And then the right now Barry and Troy have announced they're not going to run. So those are so if you know anybody would like to run that for that, that's Dick is running for one of those three year positions. Okay. And then there's Sandy is running for the rest of her term, which is two years of a three year term and Steve is running and now, sorry, and Theo is running for the rest of the term that he was appointed to, which was one year over three years. So there's really only possibly one, the one. So there'll be three names on a ballot with four. We'll have to divide it to on the ballot. There'll be one elect one, no more than one for a three year term than elect no more than one for two for a three year than elect no more than two for a three year term. I have to do it on the ballot. Okay, and there's no one on it right now who's not who's staying on it and not having to run again. Like they're not having to put their name on the ballot because they're in the middle of their term. Mitch. Oh, Mitch right. Yeah. Okay. So there's technically, if there's five on the commission, one opening, sort of. Right. You said Theo and Sandy are running right and Barry and Troy are up for reelection, but neither is running. Okay, and what were their terms for your terms just regular straight and dick is running for one of them. Correct. So we got three people running for four positions. We have three people running for four positions. Correct. Sorry, I get presumably so we're going to end up appointing one person. If they get voted in, right? Okay, so it's not as dire as I thought I was thinking about eliminating the trustee of public funds. Yes, that's just a simple majority vote. One is I check with the Secretary of State Office and there's nothing we don't need paper ballots or anything else like that. Okay. Do you want to explain that at how meeting what happened? Sure. Yeah, I thought you did this job. But under Article three, it's still in here. You have to I mean, it's still it's still it's still a position has we're eliminating it in the future. I did. I did. What I said, you guys, I sent it to say voted on it. Right. I added this effective March there 2020. Yeah, that's from the draft that you got you. Thank you. So yeah, that's easier. Then I can play the city of Montpelier in there in their infinite wisdom, which are at least five times our size at least gave a CDHHH $13,000 haircut. A haircut. Wow. 13,000 central for my health and hospice committee, their committee, smart though they are. And I don't know how it was presented by CDHHH in their report. But they had a one time request from an estate, which is going into their endowment. You know, it isn't part of their operating budget. Yeah, but apparently the financial report showed it as part of the operating budget. So it shows they have a huge surplus. So they're a little, they're a little committee said, Well, if they have such a big surplus, we're going to give them a haircut. And they did. And they waited. They waited until three days before the petitions were due to do it. So they knew it would be impossible for them to get 600 signatures. Not very nice. Hopefully we don't do things like that. Our level of little town. Can we go back to the article five, though? That's the four installment. Yeah. Yep. And we're, we feel confident about those dates after the conversation we had last meeting in terms of like the double check with Derrinda. Okay. So we think we should say something in the town report about that because this is a new thing. I mean, we can, we can talk about it. You know, there may be, there may be people who stand up and say, you know, I want to amend the article to go back to the two times a year, the way we're doing it. We'll vote on that. But we'll see what happens. I wrote on the ballot this year, town voters are being asked for authorization of property taxes to be paid in four installments rather than two. With the taxpayers in mind the purpose of the change will provide smaller amounts to over a longer period of time. Currently, all taxes must be paid in full by 20 February 20, after which a late penalty is assessed under the proposed article, article five, taxpayers will have until May 20 to have their taxes paid in full. And then I put note that, you know, the interest rates still apply and things like that. I think people will be happy. Okay, thank you. So we've lost a few of our small money list, right? Although today, the Green Mountain Transit called me and asked if they could up their request to about 750 bucks. And I said, no, do that. They said, Well, how about what if we write the select board a letter in June? I said, that's not going to you know, people change things can happen. You know, for for next March, they're apparently just discovered that they are in deep financial. Is that what caused it? Because I hadn't heard they're talking about rate increases, service reductions. Oh, that's what it was. Okay, that makes sense. Apparently, their ridership is way down, which is surprising to me. Apparently, it is. Special articles are down $2,000. Well, in that case, I think your request for petitions has has been a damper because I know that some of these used to be on the major separate articles and they're no longer like the Central Mont basic adult basic ed that used to be a separate article. You know, there were some, they now just said it's easier just to ask for 250. I've been thinking of holding myself out as an independent consultant to get petitions signed. The Nature Center didn't ask the Nature Center. Not either. Well, less than sometimes they make an attempt. But this year, they that's a good one. Yeah, that's a big one that's fallen off. It was crazy here Thursday evening, everybody getting it in by five o'clock. They did. It'll be interesting to see if that passes. Yeah, so a motion to approve the warning. Move. Second, second. Well, you need more time was for you. The capstone didn't put their additional. That's really strange. I actually called I actually contacted. I did I did a two part system I sent out. I sent out a mass email the beginning of December reminding people and then I contacted those people on Thursday who had been sent in anything and said, Do you still want to do something? So they said, No. I know we're looking at sort of looking for bigger increases, like changing the whole model. I'm surprised that they didn't buy that they didn't ask though. It's like they want to say, and we really really just did many times. Yeah, it's just a political thing. But yeah, are you ready to vote? Yes, did we did we moved in second they were waiting for your head nod. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? You have approved. Start the signing process. Yep. Like big paper. Overspending. Does it have to be on that big paper? Well, you know, you want it to be posting it around, you want it to be make sure that everybody can see treasure sport during that report. And we know that the guys asked December said it was the budget number during the budget number was correct, right? I've got to read the articles up again, but I think they're right. I need that pen again, Bill. Is there anything that scares us in this term? Not quite. I'd be interested to know what those items are. Here you go. Is that for you, sir? It's the lucky three. Again. What are we looking at? So what where we spend our money? We spent 64% of our money in half the year. You're always treated with a self-respect. And and we're buying more winter sand, which we'll find out. I was shocked a little winter sand we have. How much did that? Did we measure in per snow, Steve, yesterday on that big storm? How many inches? I don't know. I didn't measure. Did I measure? My neighbors said 20 inches. I had 19 to 20. I didn't. I only had 14. Really? Yeah. Look, if you did it on my car. Might have blown it off. Yeah. If your car would probably get in. Also, I haven't had money. It got so high that it started to fall off. Right. Files would get through the door. I kind of did it with it when it doesn't hit. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But we do have snow banks, though. Oh, yeah, we do. It was a snowy storm. It's for history. I don't like the snow. It's cold. Right? I don't like it. It started with what was something, when all of a sudden, it was exactly the way Roger Hill forecasted it. The snow stopped 20 minutes later. This howling wind comes up the valley. And you just pulled the blankets right over your head, didn't you? I don't think I deserve that. The texts were coming in. There were emergencies everywhere. Oh, the blanket. Goosey, goosey. I was downtown in my truck. I know pulling people out. I know you were there. That I didn't back over somebody when I was thrashing around in downtown Montpelier. So I do have one quick thing for you. And that is that the Welch Park gas account is going to be switched over to the Borns. So you'll, at some point, you'll notice that you'll get a bill for Borns for them. We had a heating failure in the pump house. But fortunately, they found it, put some electric heaters in there, and then they got the gas heater repaired. But that was another close call. I know it's never good news when I start hearing from our fearless leader from Florida. He says, I'm out in the fat, splishing for redfish. What's the temperature up there?  Anyway, so just to be aware. OK, then. January 8, select board minutes. Action likely. Their motion? I'll make that motion. Second. The first and second team going over here. Somebody's got to do it. Any? You just don't give me a chance. OK. Any discussion? It's been moved in second and to approve the minutes of the January 8 meeting. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rescheduling February select board meetings due to February 19 special WCUUSD meeting. You're not on the agenda. You could attend. Yeah, I'm not on the agenda as a public. I'm sorry. Here, could you pass that to Peter? Rescheduling February 6 meeting due to February 19. Yes. So is that meeting on the 19th still on? I don't know. I think it is. I thought it said it wasn't like an email. Yeah.  Or the paper. Everything is just. It's so up in the air. It's so up in the air. So what time is that meeting? 6 PM on the 19th of February, Tuesday. Where? You're 32. You're 32, yeah. So I guess the only question I would have are what's my schedule for us. 26 is the full vacation, and after that is a town meeting. So once again, we have one of those tricky Tuesday issues. This is all. Let's do it earlier. It all feels full. I can't do it on the 19th at all. I have to go participate and set up and everything else like that. And we also have to have a BCA meeting in February in preparation of that meeting and town meeting. What about I can't do a Monday the 20th. I can't Monday the 20th. I mean Wednesday the 20th. No, we have to have that BCA before that meeting. It's the second and the fourth, right? Sort of be the 12th to the 26th. It's the first and the third, remember? First and the third. Oh, that's right, Jesus. So right now, we have it scheduled for the 5th and 19th. So you could maybe schedule it for the 12th and 19th? You could just get away, maybe, well. Could we just do one meeting? Do one meeting in February, because we're going to be meeting doubt. The one on the 5th, yeah. Just do it on the 5th, okay? And we'll have a BCA meeting on the 5th. Then we've got a long gap until 10 meetings. Well, just four weeks. Well, you could know, this is right now, Peter's right, because then town meeting would have been the 5th. So yeah, we've got a problem. I don't know how about the 26th. We can do a meeting on the 5th, and then, oh, I just, so we can do a meeting with the BCA and the select board on the 5th. Right. Yeah, and then do a... And then have a rapid-fire, very efficient select board meeting on the 26th. Right, just assign orders and say goodbye. That'll work for him. Okay, so we're just going to change the 19th to the 26th. So coming up to town meeting, it's not probably not going to be a lot on that agenda anyway. There's not going to be a lot on that agenda. It usually isn't. A lot of times the select board is historically just had one meeting in February. I just hate to go that long without a meeting. Especially since now that we've switched to our schedule, we were, that's the other thing we probably should talk about since we can't have... Yeah, what are we going to do in March? What do we do in March? So we have to have a meeting on the 12th. You have to have an organizational meeting on the 12th, or that week sometime. So what I would recommend is in March, and then going to Colorado somewhere in there, but there's none here yet. I would recommend, Phil, if it could work for you, that we go back to the second and the fourth in March and just meet at 4.30 on the day where you have your conflicting meeting. Oh, we want to have two meetings. In March. In March. The 12th and the 26th. Yeah, because we can't do the first, because it's a town meeting. So you want to have two meetings in March, not counting any plus town meetings. Because that's our organizational meeting. We need to get that out of the way. So the 12th, we'll just do that at 4.30. The rest, the other meeting will be at the regular time. Five o'clock, all right. Wait a minute. Why are we making the 12th at 4.30? Because it's his meeting. And now is it going to be that way forever? No, it's just going to be this for that one day, because we have to meet. Phil meets at the second Tuesday in March with the CBI. We were going to go both the second and the fourth Tuesday. Isn't that what you said, Peter? That's what I was suggesting in March, yeah. Right, but we're only going to meet at 4.30. I'll have the second be at 4.30, the second Tuesday. The 12th will be at 4.30, and then the 26th will be at 5. So let's go through this again. OK, so the 19th is going to move to the 26th. Right, at 4.30. All right, we're on that. All of us. No. No, we aren't listening. The 18th will move to 26th at 5, but we're going to keep it short. Yeah, and then we're going to meet on the 12th and 26th, the 12th at 4.30. Right, 12th at 4.30. And the 26th at 5. And 3, 26 at 5. And what are we doing in February again? We're meeting at the 5th, February 5th at 5 o'clock, and there's going to be a BCA meeting. That's normal. That's normal, but we're going to skip over the 19th because there's scheduled school meeting, and we're going to meet on the 26th. We're in abbreviated, just sign orders and do whatever has to be done to the thing. Now, if it turns out that school meeting isn't going to happen, which I would tell you, there's still some chance that that's the case, do we want to go back to the 19th if we have a little time? That's up to you guys. Then I'd have to change my calendar again. That's OK. You won't remember you did it anyway. Yeah, you won't remember you changed your calendar or not. Listen, I have a very busy work schedule, and it's hard for me to keep track of these things. You're the youngster here. You should be the sharpest. I'm not. I'm not, all right? OK. So you're asking me to... Oh, I think that'll work. I think that'll work. Yeah, it'll work. That will go back. That will go back. Well, someone's going to have to tell me. We didn't discuss that all the time. I'm sure by the 5th we'll know whether or not it's going to happen or not. OK. Correspondent? None. None? No, yeah, not, not. Orders are signed. Any other business? What's Mike doing here? I was here to support Sandy. Oh, it's all done. I have mistakenly thought the meeting started at 6. She's all set. We took care of it. So you accomplished your mission, given the work here. But I'm going to pretend that I'm been arrested and hang it out if you don't mind. I did follow up. I will give you an update. We finally met after many months at the emergency management meeting. So we had that last week or something. And it looks like we're going to hopefully finalize by February that this before this full changes with the district that the school will become a shelter of just use. Not anything we should direct cross or anything like that. I said, you know, I think the idea of getting our existing board to approve this before all these changes happen is a good thing. Because God only knows what's going to happen. So the hope is that Chris McVeigh was there, and he's going to take it to the next board meeting. Hopefully there's a few little things to hash out, but that should be passed. And then we're just working on just some of the disinformation about actual specific types of disasters. There's templates that the state has of how to handle specific disasters, like windstorms versus ice storms versus floods versus trained arraignments and all that. So we're working on that. And then what we're sort of hoping to do, too, is go bring that guy back, Jeff, I think his name was, or whatever his name was, from the state that did the Everbridge app for emergency management to get us trained on using that app again and do a more thorough training. That would be a good thing, considering not. I know. I mean, we just haven't gotten around to it. Well, I mean, I felt really bad about Nancy Kennedy, who lives on Three Mile Bridge roads, and she doesn't have a computer, and she doesn't have a cell phone. She just got a straight-up landline. She's getting calls at 3 o'clock in the morning about the Montpelier parking van. Parking van. The phone rings off the hook, or hardly's out of the chest. So that's something that, if she wanted me to come over to her house, I could fix that for her. You could? From her landline? No, it's on the computer. You just pick a different button on the computer. I can help her with that. So all you need to do is tell which hours are called quiet hours. Oh, they did not have that option when I signed her up. I will do that now. Thank you, George. And I will tell you, that was member when they called me. My husband was traveling from out of town. They called me to tell me there was going to be a frost. 3 o'clock in the morning, my husband's traveling. I'm like, there's a frost. Thank you. Well, it's the parking bands in Montpelier that are driving me crazy. Yeah, those are coming there. Those are coming back here. Rapid fire all hours later. So apparently, I also heard this, and I didn't know this. If you respond yes, you won't get the call to your house, too. So if you don't respond yes, I haven't gotten any calls to my house. I get the text, so I don't get the call. I get the text, too. But if you hadn't maybe set up on your home phone, do you have a home phone? Yeah. Anyway, that's what I heard from Paul. What a nut. So I have some news about our town. Do you know who bought Paul Sermonara's house? No. So this is something that is, do you don't, Mr? You don't, really? You're going to love this story. Actually, I think I don't know. Should we adjourn the meeting? Yeah, adjourn the meeting. OK. Is there anything? Stay tuned. Any other business? No. OK. I'm adjourning the meeting at 6.03.


Welcom y troffi TV er is the match preview Everton vs Newcastle United in what is now a huge game. Pan, is it too much to say this is one of Everton's biggest games in recent years? Biggest games since Coventry. I don't think we're quite there, but it feels like a big games thing. There's massive in it. It's just after we win the football game now where we've put ourselves in this position and it's something the players have just got to turn up on Thursday and show commitments and put everything into the game and leave the pitch knowing that they've done everything to try and win the game really because if they don't win the game it is hard to see really how we will come back from it really. Is it too much to say that from your perspective? Or is it still with 11 games to go after this one? I think this one is a huge one for momentum. I think in terms of the crowd and having that belief that we can get out of trouble. I think this one is a huge one because the fixtures coming up don't look too clever. I know we've got to have the other fixtures put in place, but the fixtures just don't look clever at all and this one is that one where you're thinking right. A few weeks ago everyone was like, we should have played this game over Christmas obviously and Dave would have had not hardly any players and obviously that's why we never ended up playing it. But I just think from a momentum we have to get a win because otherwise all those defeats in a row would be one win for Frank LLampard. People would start questioning him. The players would obviously have already been questioned. Obviously we've got a cup game on Sunday but then it's a few weeks and we've got West Ham away. You'd look at that weekend then and go, I think, on the Saturday. Barely play before us. I know Bramford played this weekend down the away line. I just think this is a pivotal game for us because ultimately it's a case of like we have to start winning games. I said this before the Leeds game, we have to start winning games. These are the games we have to win. Newcastle until very recently but below us. And they put a great run together and obviously they've been beaten by Chelsea but they've put a great run together and they've got themselves out of it and they'll stay up comfortably. You have to start winning games and this is a game I just, we've got to win it. A point doesn't do anything for us really. I take that rather than the feat but we've got to win this game. And if we don't I think a lot of people will abandon ship. No, literally abandon ship. I think fans will stop going again. I do think it. I think there's fans who won't be able to go to St Park. They won't be able to live through, take it. I genuinely believe that. And I think this is the one where you're pinning all your hopes on. Because you'll think, a lot of fans will think if we can't beat Newcastle then how are we going to beat Chelsea, Manchester United, all these other teams. And I think a lot of people will just give up after this game if we don't get three points. Steve, we've got to turn the tables on them basically because when we went to Newcastle six weeks ago, five weeks ago, they were still in trouble when they did the bottom three. And that night they were just, the fans were up for it, the players, their players were everywhere in our faces and they bullied us into a victory really, a desire victory for them. If we've got to do the same on Thursday, because even though they're on a great run on the earth, they've won the freedom of mind, I think something like that.  This game means is more important to us now. The same is when we went there six weeks ago. We were in a dodgy position but the game meant more to them. The shoes on the other foot this time, isn't it? If we've got to try and do the same. Yeah, definitely. And I think, like you said before, these players, again, have proven they can't really do it without us. So we're going to need to again. Even though we always do it, but again, we're just going to have to keep putting our efforts and our love of the club, I suppose, into goodness. And every time we play there because as we've seen it, we can't really count on them away from them because they just go into the shell as they always do. So, yeah, I expect it to be a good atmosphere. Obviously, St Patrick's there. I imagine a lot of people will be out on the beer on Thursday as well. So, yeah, we just got to try and make it as good as it should be. Always bouncing. But we also got to expect something off the team as well. Can't just do it on our own. We need the team to actually follow suit with us as well. Maybe everything should open a free barrel or something. Just get the barrel open and get it free. Not going to be that much of it on the ale, is it? Just let everyone get bladders. Just let everyone get bladders. It'd be a proper laugh. It'll have to go one way or another. And it'll just be a proper laugh. Make it ultimate carnage. Why not? Why not? That's what I say. Yeah, on a Thursday night. It's going to be tough because they are on a good run. We're narrowly beaten by Chelsea at the weekend. We're in a sticky situation, but it's a home game and we have to try. We've got to try and get the three points. By hook or by crook, I don't know. We've got to build. If we're going to stay up, there's got to be some momentum coming from somewhere. Right now, you can't see where that spark's going to happen. Maybe Dominic Albert Llewman will be fit on Thursday and he can get involved. He doesn't like to enter Newcastle in recent times. I think if you look at Newcastle predicaments, they sack Bruce at the right time because they give themselves still enough time to get into it. I didn't think he won. He's faced 10 games. He didn't win his first 10 games. Then he had an international break and he'd come back after the international break. New players, all that. They've gone on. Fair play. I'll be honest, I didn't really think he was up too much as a manager. I'm still not 100% sure he is a very good manager, but he's kind of changed the way he's playing. He was very like 4-3-3, go for it, but yesterday he proved playing 5-4-1, which is very unlike him, really, as well. So he could have learned from his mistakes. Because they stopped losing games, that's why, haven't they? Yeah, exactly. I just think they done the right thing. They got rid of Bruce before it started getting really, really bad. We decided to get rid of Benita. It was probably about 3-4 games too late. They could probably see that if he was going to stay in charge. We were only going one way, but we just had blind parts coming in that position where it's a bit late, isn't it? It's January 31st. He came in February. So first games, like the first games? First games are a bit of a stop-and-start, isn't it, as well, of games and stuff like that as well. Yeah, so hopefully we need to win, mate, yeah, basically on Thursday. It's difficult to do because you're scrapping an arm and you're trying to get things started, but there's dedication having to change the team again for Thursday. Well, there has to be, isn't it, because obviously Kenny will be out and might be an opportunity to bring Dom in. I don't know, it's something... I don't know. Obviously we've got a cup game on Sunday where players can't play.  I've got the likes of Deli Alley and Donnie van der Beek, Alan, D'Corey in there. I've got the full backs to get forward. Got a bit more protection in front of them. Trying to get Deli Alley into the pocket of space behind Dominic Arlen Llewn and do it that way maybe. I don't know, he's tried lots of different things and he hasn't really settled in anything. And I know that's obviously difficult. You might think about bringing Michael Keen back in with Ben Goffrey.  But I suppose it's who's brightened training and who's doing the business, who's looking sharpest, who's going to grab the rest of the season by the scruff of the neck. That's what it is, essentially. Have we got someone in those attacking areas who wants it? I don't know if there is, I don't know if there is. Would you play, Dominic, if he was fifth? Or do you think... I think we're going to have to because I tell you why. I think trying to play football is not... This football team can't play football. So we might be a case of having to just go long to Don and pick up the scraps. Trying to get crosses in the box, trying to find them in space, trying to get Deli Alley into the game by the knockdowns and stuff like that. I just don't think this team's got the confidence to play football and they might have to just go long and be a little bit root one, get the ball down the other end and say to them, you deal with us rather than the other way round. To me, I wouldn't surprise me if he went back to the type of team he picked against Leeds, I don't know. And play, if Dom's fifth, and play with Charles, and off Dominic Arvedon, and go with Greg, Gordon, Alan, and the Corey of Vandabic here. It wouldn't surprise me if he went back to four, four, one, one. Wasn't it? Really, because Richard hasn't played across. I mean, he could easily do that, yeah. Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if he maybe done that and played Michael Encore, even Godfrey at left back. It wouldn't surprise me. It just went solid.  It wouldn't surprise me. Because that's probably the thing about the Leeds game. Probably the best game he's had, and that's the formation he played. Loads of energy in that game, wasn't it? Just no energy in the last couple of games, none at all. Loads of energy in that. People were busting a goat and they got the crowd going and everyone could see that everyone was throwing everything Gary. And that just hasn't been there. Again, they're all asking the crowd to do their part. So, set the tone then, come on, set the tone. If the crowd are not with you, they'll soon be with you. If you are getting on the pitch and you are stopping the crosses and making sure, you know, go back to that Leeds game, the little things like the Charleston Falls in the corner, which we score from, little things like that don't have, make a difference. Stopping the cross is huge for us. Putting blocks in, putting tackles, getting people's faces, all these things that we don't do. You have to do them. Often the category cup final to cup final. What would you do in a cup final then? What would show us what you do in a cup final? Cos I'm not seeing any of that. I didn't see any of that against Wolves. I've seen players going through the motions and when it didn't work, they did the same thing again and again and again, do something different. Break it up. If you have to clock one of their plays, clock one of their plays against Wolves, early on, the Charleston was going through and they just whacked him and made sure he wasn't going through and made sure he told them that's not happening again. That plays don't work. I didn't get booked for that. But that plays don't tend to do little things like that. They don't tend to... No, all the teachers, isn't it? You know, when their player went down three times and we give the ball back, why do we give the ball back?  It was you. We don't do stuff like that. We fall into other clubs' traps, fall into hard traps, set traps for them, get the crowd going. Surely we've got players you know how to energise and everything, crowd. You know, you see when things go against this is a crowd we're up for it.  They don't understand how to play that side of the game. You know what I mean? Eat one, eat one. Crowd a little bit down. Go in on a tackle. We get hard buffet. Crowd get up for it. Sometimes that's what you've got to do. Crowd can always be there for you unless there's a free bar. It's going to be difficult. These are, like I said, the durable. They're difficult to break down. Have a look at the formation. I used to be in the last game. So, you know, the five-four one. And if you go away from home with that, you've got Chris Wood up front. He's obviously a handful. Almaram, Bweg Shard. Of one Shard, you know. They've had long staff in the middle. Breaking style. I don't think they've been playing for ever in the 26th State. And obviously, they've got Bruno Gamerys in there. He's had the depth of the quality to them as well. And the full backs get up and they know their job and they stay with nine or 10 men behind the ball. Make it difficult for you. And that's what's got them points and got them the up with momentum. And that's why they're winning games. Let's have a look at their danger, man. He destroyed us at St James' Park. He's the world's best player when he plays us. I love you. St Maxon, 25 appearances, 22 starts. Five goals, three assists. He's averaging 1.9 shots per game. Yeah.  But he absolutely saw it. He's done it all. I think the thing about him now is they don't rely on him. That's the difference, isn't it? They don't rely on him. He always does well against us. That's why he picked them out. But they don't rely on him now. I think they were originally. They were very rely on him. They've got other players around the pitch and they're the full backs. They're a lot more durable. I think what they've got is they've just seen more... I mean, it's weird for how. They seem just very disciplined. If they can see the goal, they get on with it. And they don't change the way they're playing. We've seen this now. It must be a nightmare coaching them. I've heard Lampard speaker barri. But I mean, if something goes wrong against them, it all goes out the window. You can't play football like that. You've got to have a plan that you stick to. Hello, high wards. If you've got to go behind someone, just mean you have to score two. I look at them yesterday. They've changed their formation for a certain game away from home. A left player's out. They've got some luxury players and put a bit of steel in there, really. We've two defensive sit-in-the-fielders in long staff. The new lad and the two wingers aren't even really wingers. They're more like inside players. And you've got Ben at the back. He's been a good sign. Exactly what they needed, really. We've seen the other day about players that they went and got. Target is a solid player. He'll get forward when he needs to. Even the right back, usually they play that way. If you're right wing back, but they've gone for a more defensive right back. It proves away from home. You can't change your formation. And personal. It doesn't have to be just because he's our best player. He plays away from home. Doesn't work with that football, doesn't it? No, you have to try and put points on the board. Fair play to him. I'll be honest. Under Bruce, they were only going one way. Even on the how, I thought, it doesn't look good. It's good when you've got money. Where it comes from. And you're dissensible with it. One like us. Everton are winless in the last three home games. League games against Newcastle. It was in 2-0 last season, of course. Newcastle have won the last three games against Everton. Last win in four in a row between 89 and 95. Everton have lost the last four Premier League games. You can see nine goals while scoring none. The Toffees lost more consecutively between August and October 2005. They lost six and also didn't score a single goal either. I'm just ashamed to say anything, not so depressing. Everton striker Dominic Alvalunas scored more Premier League goals against Newcastle and he has against any other side in the Premier League with all five of his goals against the Magpies coming in his last five appearances against them. Maybe it is a case of getting back in the side if he's all right. Muscle memory. And maybe he'll become the hero we need in these last 12 games. The Kevin Campbell. The Kevin Campbell type one would be incredible. I'm trying to save us. It looked desperate. We just need to fight for every ball on phase. Every tackle. Yes, it's probably biggest.  He didn't exactly get sent off for something like the absolute welly and something like that. He just sees silly fouls really. So I'd like to see who's saying it. I'll just get stuck in for that. Get the car on the side so you'll have a tackle of it. Even if it's on. Start with a high tempo. Any of them just, even if you're not going to get the ball, just take them out if you have to. Start with a high tempo and keep it up. Put them on the back foot like they did to us. You never know what happens then, do you? There you go. That is it for the maths preview. Let us know what you think in the comments section below. Can Everton get the three points against the tough, durable Newcastle United? We need it more than they do. Let us know in the comments. Give the video a thumbs up. Subscribe if you haven't. And if you want more videos, join us on Patreon, the queue. Our code will be on the screen. And there's a link in the description as well. So, there's no excuse not to do it. See you later.


Hello everybody, Stefan Malinu from Free to Main Radio, sitting in for Peter Schiff. Hope you're doing well this fine morning. We are going to be talking about, oh, it's a more exciting topic that it sounds, perhaps, which is the Libertarian Challenge or the Rational Legal Challenges to Obamacare. I am joined by the one and only Stefan Kinsella. Stefan, are you on? Stefan, how are you doing? I'm doing well, how are you doing? I'm doing wonderful. Glad to be here. Well, let me tell you, so looking at this implementation from outside the country is really quite fascinating. I mean, I have all sort of my Libertarian perspectives and so on, but even by government standards, this just seems to be an entirely mad implementation. It's like the plane is leaving the runway and they're still trying to stick on the wings with glue, duct tape and prayer. So what is going on? Why can we expect some significant legal challenges to the implementation of Obamacare? Can you hear? I can hear. Sorry about the technical difficulties. No problem at all. So yeah, what can we expect in terms of legal challenges to the implementation? Why is this thing so chaotic?  One of those was dealt with already in the earlier challenge of the legislation where Supreme Court Justice, Chief Justice Robert, defected and went to the other side and basically said that this power to make people pay a penalty if they don't purchase Obamacare is covered by the taxing power. I think we may have lost him again. Stephen, is Stephie there? I'm here. Can you not hear me? Well, until he comes back, I wanted to mention a few things that I think are particularly exciting about the planet Obamacare. So right now, of course, the focus has been on the website and that is particularly challenging. Of course, the website eventually in some manner or another is going to be fixed and then I guess things are going to move on from there and it will be sort of remembered as a troublesome rollout and so on. But these kinds of things generally will get fixed over time, although there's massive, massive features and functionality in the site that are not there. But the legal complications and challenges still exist. Steph, are we still connected? I'm here now. Sorry about that. So yeah, if we can go on with the legal challenges. Yeah, so the current legal challenge is one brought by Attorney General Oklahoma, Pruitt. And his challenge is that the way the legislation is written, Obamacare set up, it permitted the state to set up these exchanges but it couldn't compel them to do so because of our federalism issues. So it tried to give them an incentive to do that by providing subsidies to people who sign up through the state exchanges and also it penalizes you through the IRS if you don't sign up through the exchanges. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay, and so the law apparently did not provide for any kind of subsidies or even penalties for the federal exchange or sort of a backstop. Well, what's happened is only about 16 of the states have signed on so far. So about 34 states do not have state exchanges. So right now the whole plan is resting upon the federal exchanges. But the IRS is trying to apply the subsidies and the penalties to people through the federal exchanges even though it's not provided for in the face of the legislation. So this lawsuit is trying to say, listen, it's actually illegal for there to be a subsidy or a penalty to people through the federal exchange provision. And if this happens, it could be like a $700 billion hit to the entire program and it could gut it and make Obamacare even less workable than it would have been anyway. Yeah, and I think another challenge that is going to occur is they obviously require what they call the young invincibles and don't we all think we're invincible when we're young? The young invincibles are required to sign up and they're, well, pretty much not because they recognize it's a direct subsidy to the older and the sicker members of society.  So it seems to me that the law as written has provided certain penalties, but those penalties I think are going to have to increase for this thing to remain remotely solvent. What are your thoughts on that? I think they're going to have to increase and they're going to have to increase the subsidies. If you're going to get more and more draconian, obviously, I think the rates are going to start rising because you're basically forcing insurance companies to cover things that they wouldn't have otherwise covered and to cover people with pre-existing conditions. So there's no way that it's going to happen without an increase in rates. And when the rates increase, then people have less of an incentive to even acquire insurance, so you're going to have to increase the penalties to, you know, force people to sign up for it in the first place. Right, and those are two sides of the same coin. I mean, insurance in its most essential form has to be a gamble. It has to be a gamble. You cannot buy fire insurance for your house when it is currently on fire. The whole point is you have to have the veil of ignorance. You have to not know what is going to happen in order for insurance to work. So the idea that you can wait until you get sick to buy insurance is why now everyone has to be forced to buy it. It's one of these classic situations where one set of government rules creates distortions in what's left of the market requiring yet another set, yet another set, yet another set of government rules. The moment you say to people, you can apply for health insurance when you're sick. A lot of people will simply wait until they get sick and then apply for insurance, which means that insurance costs go sky-high. So you then have to start forcing people to join these exchanges simply because you have these coverings. What do you think of that? No, I agree completely, and this shows the problem. What we're really doing here is we have a huge intervention and a big swap of the biggest economy in the world. And it's being done totally by legislated law, which is an arbitrary set of laws, which is why we have the dispute over it. No one really knows exactly what these words mean. It shows the pitfalls of the very idea of making law by legislation. So you and I can discuss forever how would the Supreme Court rule, how would they interpret this provision of this huge 100-page statute of the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare? But the only question is one of grammar, really, or interpretation. What does the word mean? It has nothing to do with justice. We think of courts as doing justice, trying to find the right solution to a dispute between people, trying to do the right thing, trying to have the fair result. So the courts, in the old days, or conceived of, is trying to do justice, trying to find the right result. Courts now don't try to do justice. They just try to interpret words written by congressmen. So it's really just one of lexicography and then a battle over these kinds of issues. So when you have that, there's no way you're going to have a just result. You're just going to have some final result of the way words written on paper by a bunch of politicians are going to be interpreted for the time being. Right, which leads you to all of the problems of unpredictability and randomness and so on. And I think this comes out of a fundamental shift in the law, which I would argue has sort of occurred over the past couple of generations. Before the sort of rise of the welfare state and the nanny state and the welfare warfare state and so on, you basically had a state that sat around and waited for a complaint.  The government basically sat around the law system, sat around passively waiting for a complaint and then it would attempt to resolve its complaint according to sort of common law traditions and hopefully clear interpretation of legalese in contracts and so on. But it was kind of passive. And now you have these massive proactive social engineering topics. We're going to end poverty among the old. We're going to make the sick well again. And we're going to go forward, stride forward and go in like the Borg, like all of these infinite tentacles of language. And we're going to make the world a better place. The government has become massively proactive. And it seems to me that the law as a reactive thing is small, compact and easy to understand, something that you can fit into your pocket. But the law as a proactive, massive social engineering behemoth seems to be something that can grow literally without limit. Yeah, I think what's happened is the state takes over institutions that are natural and they have their own justification because they serve a purpose in civil society. And the state gradually takes them over and co-ops them for the purpose, like roads and transportation and education and law. And, you know, the things that the government takes over, the state takes over. In fact, the state has taken over the government itself, the governing institutions of society. And they take them over so that over time people identify these institutions with the state. So, for example, if you mention a road now, most people imagine a road built by the state. And that some of them have trouble even imagining non-state built roads. Of course, the government, the state did not come up with roads. And the same thing with law. So, and the government borrows the prestige of these things. So, law had prestige and value in the eyes of the people because it was customary. It was traditional. It arose from voluntary interactions and a private attempt to solve disputes. And when the government takes this over and infiltrates it and makes it institutionalized, starts passing laws and legislation, gradually corrupting the natural private body of law with all these artificial rules passed by congressmen and regulatory agencies and the edicts of executives like the president, they're basically borrowing the prestige of the way law used to work. But over time it becomes apparent to the people that these laws are not just. I don't think most people now think they're doing something immoral if they fail to do exactly the right thing on an income tax return or if they break a speeding law or some other arbitrary immigration type law. They try to comply with it because there's a threat there. But the connection between morality and law is gradually being lost because the government is exercising more and more naked power under the false label of what used to be called law. And that is particularly tragic because people often tend to throw out the baby with the bath order when you have a lot of irrational regulations and controls that people become hostile to or indifferent towards. There tends to be a general disrespect for the law that grows, which is a shame because I mean, I think there are good rules, good laws. I kind of like that thou shall not kill, steal, murder and rape. But I do actually have some problems with this hyper-regulation situation. And now the implementation, even from a cash standpoint, is completely mad. So recently they've said that we can't tell the insurance companies, we can't tell them exactly how much that we need to pay. We can't tell you how much we need to pay you because we can't process the data. So just send us a bill for what you think we might owe you and we'll sort it out later. So from that standpoint, things are getting really, really dicey. And I think it's either going to have to roll back or it's going to be the end of the remnants of the free market in health care. Steph, we're going to have a quick break. If you can stick around afterwards, we're going to talk IP. And if you can stick around even more after that, we'll take some calls. But thanks so much. This is Stefan Molyneux for the Peter Schiff Show. We will be back after the break. The Peter Schiff Show. Pro marks, right? Well, no. Peter Schiff Show. When you're sitting in for Peter Schiff, I have the other Steph. I think there's only two of us in the whole world, Steph and Canceler, a lawyer and a specialist in IP. So we're going to switch gears from Obamacare a little bit and let's talk about Apple and Samsung. Can I tell you how disappointed I was, Steph, when I found out that Samsung had not in fact paid Apple over a billion dollars in nickels? That, to me, was a story that should have been true tragically. It wasn't. But what is going on with these two companies and what are some alternatives to patent trolls, patent wars, and all of the, you know, makes lawyers rich, makes entrepreneurs cry and makes consumers poorer? What's going on with these two companies? What options can we learn and what are some options that we can have instead of the current system? So what's going on is you have these large companies who are taking advantage of the existing patent law system, which is spread around the globe, exists in all the modern industrial countries. And they're using the patent law system for what it was designed for, which was to stop competition. And that's what it does. They have large companies to acquire massive arsenals of patents, which they can use to stop small, upstart competitors from even competing with them. And they can have big wars with the big guys, and they can pay millions and millions of dollars of fees to patent law firms to engage in these little skirmishes and battles. And at the end, they settle, they pay each other a royalty or something like that. They raise prices, they reduce innovation because they don't have to compete anymore because they have a patent that can rely on, and they pass the cost on to the consumers in the form of raised increased prices. And they keep the new entrance out. So basically the patent system creates cartels or oligopolies, where you have a small number of very powerful protected companies behind the big walled garden of patents. So the solution is not what is being proposed in Congress as we speak, which is this innovation bill, the so-called innovation bill, which is aimed at slightly reducing some of the excesses of the patent troll problem. Now, the Apple Samsung, the smart war, the smart phone patent war's problem has got almost nothing to do with patent trolls because most of the players that are suing each other are actually making smart phones. They're actually just trying to protect their own turf. So the patent troll problem would not address this at all. The patent troll problem is just someone who has a patent on a product they don't make or manufacture, and they just go out and they try to collect a little toll from people to keep making this.  Actually, patent trolls, in my view, are not as harmful as the Apple, et cetera, players because these guys want to prevent competition and kill off their big competitors if they can. Patent trolls just want a little, you know, they're like the mafia. They just want a little taste. They're actually a lot less damaging. The current pending legislation is so minor, and yet the patent industry is fighting it so hard, it shows that the prospect of real patent reform is almost zero. The real solution is to just go around the patent system by using 3D printing and encryption and just cheating and piracy. That's really the only way to get around it, to ignore the state and find a way to get around the state. The current bill will only make it slightly harder for so-called trolls to initiate lawsuits in some cases. An analogy would be to the current marijuana, cocaine, drug war that we have in the U.S., a law saying that if you're convicted of cocaine or marijuana offense, we're going to give you a nice, seedy, posturpedic pillow to sleep on in the jail cell. I mean, that's basically what this law would do in the patent term. It would do almost nothing to solve the real problem of patents. Now, most people think when you talk about patents and you say, well, maybe we could find some way around patents and, of course, I love classical music. We actually would not have our classical music tradition if we'd had copyrights and patents back in the day when people were freely adapting each other's people music and so on. We know that actually quite factually because countries where there was no copyright and patent door had by far the greatest proliferation of musicians and have provided really the canon of western classical musical tradition. But when you say about, well, maybe we could have a life without patents and, of course, people immediately say, like they think if the government doesn't build the roads, we're all just going to fall into deep trenches in the ground. People say, well, then there'll be no innovation. How are people going to get paid for their intellectual achievements and inventions and so on? Why would people invest in anything if they couldn't monopolize the products and so on? And I know you've talked about responses to these objections and what would you say to people who would raise that? I mean, some of the typical examples that they have raised in the past and they raise now, like Tang is a good example. They'll say that, you know, NASA and all the billions that the United States invested in the space program, people will say, what did we get out of it? And they'll say, well, we developed Tang for the astronauts to drink in outer space, some kind of sugary powdered orange drink, you know.  Of course, they're not counting the cost of the money that went into that innovation. Could have been spent in the private economy if it had not been taxed away from its owners. Could have been spent on either consumer goods or development or business innovation or other things. So you can never tell what innovation you've lost because of the taxing power of the state and the regulatory power of the state. The idea that we need the government to help us innovate is transparently absurd. The government is good at a couple of things. They're good at finding wicked weapons like the Moab, mother of all bombs or the nuclear bomb, and then using them against innocent people. So the government is good at a couple of things. They're good at destruction and death and misery and propagandizing the population, but I don't know if that's the kind of innovation we want to be in favor of. Yeah, bad or evil is not really the tagline that we want. So there is a challenge which I'd like to get from the listeners if you'd like to call in. You can ask questions as you like. We've got a course going into the second hour. We'll be back at six minutes.