(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(D) Julie Gonzales
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
40%
20%
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Hetal Doshi
50%
40%↓
30%
(D) Jeff Bridges
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
50%↑
40%↓
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Wanda James
(D) Milat Kiros
80%
20%
10%↓
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Alex Kelloff
(R) H. Scheppelman
60%↓
40%↓
30%↑
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) E. Laubacher
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
30%↑
20%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
55%↓
45%↑
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Shannon Bird
(D) Manny Rutinel
45%↓
30%
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(This is objectively cool – promoted by Colorado Pols) KOA’s Steffan Tubbs has become the leading media voice in Colorado for U.S. troops. Other local media figures cover the military, including Denver Post photographer Craig Walker, who won a Pulitzer in 2012, but Tubbs gives military personnel regular coverage, in different media platforms, and he […]
In an article Tuesday, The Denver Post described the gun safety debate in the State House this way: Monday's discussion in the House, while far shorter than the 12-hour debate Friday, was distinguished by speeches that quoted "Hamlet," invoked images of Japanese internment camps and cited the example of Mahatma Gandhi — in this case […]
If you listened Tuesday to KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado (560 AM), you got to hear Republican State Sen. Scott Renfroe say that all potential gun-control legislation is so “crazy” and “un-American” that he won’t compromise on it at all, even though he later said Republicans always want to reach across the aisle.
Un-American? You’d think Renfroe was talking about an effort to wipe out the constitutional right to bear arms.
But no. He was referring to bills affecting “high capacity magazines, a “waiting period of up to 30 days to buy a gun,” “private sales,” and an unspecified “list of things we’ve heard as potential bills.”
Renfroe said he’d kill all gun-control legislation, if he had his way.
Renfroe: You know, the NRA has been at the table making compromises. So, unfortunately, we don’t put the best people forward from the Republican Party to stand for liberty, either. And we need to do a better job at that. And this issue is going to be at the forefront, and I’d rather try to kill everything we have and move forward, as opposed to rely on the next generation of elected officials to fix something that we do now.
Renfroe won’t compromise on gun legislation at all, but that didn’t stop him from saying later on the same radio show that Republicans are always ready to compromise.
Bemoaning potential Democratic opposition to his bill regarding photo radar and photo enforcement, Renfroe said Republicans are the ones who “always try and reach across the aisle.”
You’d think the good folks at Grassroots Radio Colorado, even if they don’t always do their homework before their show, would call out a guest when he completely contradicts himself during the course of one short interview.
“Do I really need to spell this out for you?” is traditionally a rhetorical question.
But, when the subject at hand is American Muslims’ votes, the GOP consistently answers, “Yes.” Whether Republicans are inviting internationally infamous Islamophobes to speak at the Western Conservative Summit, or turning a deaf ear when voters reject Islamophobic GOP incumbents, they simply don’t seem to see any reason to mend fences or bury hatchets. In 2012, 85% of Muslim votes went to President Obama, a statistic Republican commentators prefer to use in their attacks on the President, rather than as the wake-up call it should be to their party.
A coalition of American Muslim organizations has formed to send a message directly to the GOP, starting with a full-page ad in the conservative Washington Times, spelling it out for Republicans.
According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (in a press release received by email):
That open letter to the GOP states in part:
“We are writing to offer an open invitation to reassess your party’s current relationship with American Muslims. As with other demographics, American Muslim support for Republicans has dropped precipitously in recent years. This shift away from the GOP is not set in stone, but its future direction is dependent on choices your party makes.”
In other words: Put Islamophobes in the corner, or face a future where Muslims are permanently stationed outside your “big tent,” voting consistently for Democrats.
Washington Post, defeated presidential candidate Mitt Romney goes all Scooby Doo villain:
Mitt Romney is blaming his loss in the presidential election on “Obamacare” and other “gifts” he says President Obama handed out to African Americans, Hispanics and other core supporters, according to news reports Wednesday.
The defeated Republican candidate told donors in a conference call that Obama targeted those demographics, along with young voters and women, through programs such as health-care reform and “amnesty” for children of illegal immigrants, according to articles posted online by the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Both papers appeared to have listened to the call or obtained at least partial transcripts.
In explaining his overwhelming electoral college defeat last week, Romney said Obama followed what he called the “old playbook” of seeking votes from specific interest groups, “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” the New York Times said. “In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” he added, according to the paper.
The Los Angeles Times quotes Romney directly:
“With regards to African American voters, ‘Obamacare’ was a huge plus – and was highly motivational to African American voters. You can imagine for somebody making $25-, or $30-, or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare – particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 a family, in perpetuity, I mean this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus.”
Pivoting to immigration, Romney said the Obama campaign’s efforts to paint him as “anti-immigrant” had been effective and that the administration’s promise to offer what he called “amnesty” to the children of undocumented immigrants had helped turn out Latino voters in record numbers.
“With regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for the children of illegals – the so-called Dream Act kids – was a huge plus for that voting group,” he said. “On the negative side, of course, they always characterized us as being anti-immigrant, being tough on illegal immigration, and so forth, so that was very effective with that group.”
Back in September, the presidential race was upended by the release of a secretly-recorded video of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney disparaging roughly 47% of the nation as voters who “believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” And you’ll recall Romney spent the rest of the campaign, a few hiccups aside, trying unsuccessfully to live those disastrous remarks down.
Well folks, the campaign is over, and Romney just confirmed he felt that way all along.
As The Hill reports, Republicans with a future are throwing Romney under the wheels:
A former surrogate for Mitt Romney’s campaign called the former GOP nominee “absolutely wrong” in blaming his recent election loss on President Obama giving “gifts” to black, Hispanic and young voters…
“I absolutely reject that notion,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said Wednesday on a conference call with donors, according to the Los Angeles Times. “I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party. And that has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election…”
“We have got to stop dividing the American voters,” he said. [Pols emphasis]
That’s as damning an indictment of the GOP in 2012 as any Democrat could offer. We’ll take Bobby Jindal at his word about where he wants his party to go, but must take issue with the claim that Romney doesn’t represent “where we are as a party.” As in today.
Because for the present, Romney most certainly does.
. . . UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Winter 2012 issue of the American Bar Association Journal of Labor and Employment Law includes an article titled: “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege: Does State Law Facilitate or Block Recent Efforts to Cut the Pension Benefits of Public Servants?” The article’s author is Eric Madiar J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law, currently Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton.
(Note: This ABA Journal article was written prior to the recent Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that Colorado PERA pension COLA benefits are indeed contractual obligations of Colorado PERA and Colorado PERA-affiliated employers.)
Below I provide excerpts from the article of relevance to the 2010 breach of PERA pension contracts by the Colorado General Assembly, (and of course, some of my own observations relating to the excerpted material.)
IN SB 10-001, THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTED TO USE MARKET VOLATILITY TO JUSTIFY THE BREACH OF PENSION CONTRACTS.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“Rahm Emanuel’s statement after the 2008 election aptly described the current climate: ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste . . . [because it] provides the opportunity . . . to do things that you could not do before.’ Thus, for proponents of pension reform the window of opportunity is open.”
(My comment: It is uncanny how closely these remarks from Rahm Emanuel in 2008 track the comments of SB 10-001 co-prime sponsor Josh Penry in 2009 [they both like the word “window.”]
The Penry “Can’t Miss This Window” comments:
“Senator Josh Penry, in a videotaped discussion with Representative Mike May, [videocenter. denverpost.com] said ‘we can’t, can’t miss this window.’ And, . . . we have an opportunity to pass something that Republicans have long advocated, a significant increase in retirement age, which the PERA Board embraced, reigning in the cost of living increases . . .”
“Penry went on to say, ‘I think it is important to pass something because if you lose actuarial necessity, as you know, it becomes extremely difficult to increase retirement age. You cannot change course and this year, when PERA’s investment numbers come out, their investment returns . . . numbers are going to be significant, like double, 15-16% investment return. So that could change the specter of actuarial necessity. We gotta’ do it this year or else these other structural changes won’t be possible.”)
Link to Penry comments:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/Cli…
SB 10-001 WAS SIMPLY ABOUT TAKING MONEY, THE LAW WAS IGNORED.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“Second, a legal calculus does not motivate changes portrayed as ‘pension reform.’ Rather, as Eden Martin of Chicago’s Commercial Club candidly explained ‘[this is] not about the law at all, it’s about the politics and arm-wrestling over money.'”
“These two points are significant because they frame our larger discussion of whether the law provides states with a means to achieve a particular political objective: the unilateral reduction of public pension benefits to avoid painful tax increases, service cuts, or both. In Illinois, the answer is unequivocally ‘no'”.
” . . . the article concludes with a prediction that courts in Colorado . . . are likely to invalidate pension reform efforts . . .”
“Most states follow the contractual approach based on court decisions or specific constitutional or statutory provisions.”
“One issue common to all reform efforts is whether those reforms violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution or its state equivalent. This issue is paramount because pension benefits are essential components of compensation and largely determine whether public servants and their dependents may live with a modicum of economic independence upon retirement.”
“On its face, the (Contract) Clause provides in absolute terms that ‘No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contract.'”
U.S. SUPREME COURT: STATE ATTEMPTS TO BREACH THEIR OWN CONTRACTS, IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST, RECEIVE VERY LITTLE DEFERENCE.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“In 1977, however, the (U.S.) Supreme Court clarified that state attempts to impair their own contracts, ESPECIALLY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, were subject to greater scrutiny and very little deference because the STATE’S SELF-INTEREST IS AT STAKE. As the court bluntly stated:
A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised. If a state could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all . . . Thus, a state cannot refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to spend the money to promote the public good rather than the private welfare of its creditors.”
(My comment: Precisely.)
A STATE’S IMPAIRMENT OF ITS OWN CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IS UNREASONABLE.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“An impairment is unreasonable if it targets a known problem that existed at the time of contract formation UNLESS THAT PROBLEM HAS CHANGED IN KIND, not merely in degree. Impairment is permitted only if there are no less drastic alternatives available for safeguarding
the important public purpose.”
(My comment: Colorado PERA has always been well
aware of the “problem” of dips in securities markets. Colorado PERA employs investment professionals who have made a life-long study of market volatility. Having testified before legislative committees for years regarding potential pension reform measures to address the bursting of the “dot-com” bubble in 2001 it is not reasonably possible for Colorado PERA officials to claim ignorance of the “problem” of market volatility. The problem grew a bit larger in 2009, but it did not change “in kind.”
Less drastic alternatives? Here at saveperacola.com dozens of “less drastic” alternatives to the breach of public pension contracts are on the record.
Finally, it should be noted that PERA pension contracts are formed every day of the year under any vesting scenario that PERA might espouse . . . each day many PERA members reach five-year vested status and many PERA members retire.)
THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY FUND THE PERA PENSION.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“(The Colorado case also raises) . . . the question whether cutting benefits is a reasonable and necessary means to protect the pension system when, for decades, the state failed properly to fund the system.”
(My comment: It is satisfying to have the Colorado General Assembly’s habitual failure to meet its obligations to the PERA pension published in a law journal of the American Bar Association. The entire American legal community should be made aware of the negligence of the Colorado General Assembly.
As we have seen, the Colorado General Assembly has skipped $4.3 billion in annual required contributions to the PERA pension fund [as identified by PERA’s actuaries] in just the last decade. News accounts from the 1990s reveal that the General Assembly also traditionally underfunded the pension during that decade. As we have seen, it has been PERA Board policy in the past to underfund the pension [90 percent ceiling on AFR.] Moreover, [and incredibly] members of the Colorado Legislature have, in the past, criticized the PERA pension as “overfunded” when its actuarial funded ratio was at 87 percent.
To wit, in 1985 Colorado PERA’s Field Education Services Division Director Dennis Gatlin stated that: “PERA’s funding ratio was at 87 percent, and legislators claimed that the association was ‘too well-funded.’ In 1970, the ratio was 54 percent, he added. According to Gatlin, PERA has been overfunded, when its assets equaled more than its liabilities, only twice in its 73-year [My comment: now 81-year] history, in 1999 and 2000.”
Here’s a link to Dennis Gatlin’s comments in the Silver and Gold Record:
https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages…
“The Colorado Supreme Court in the McPhail case . . . observed that ‘a cardinal principle of justice and fair dealings between government and man, [is that] the parties shall know prior to entering into a business relationship the conditions which shall govern that relationship.'”
When all of this is taken into consideration, how is it possible that the Colorado General Assembly might consider its breach of pension contracts in SB 10-001 to be in any way “reasonable”?)
CHANGING THE GROUND RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME IS NOT CONSONANT WITH AMERICAN TRADITIONS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“The (Colorado) retirees sued under the Contract Clause of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to retain the higher COLA rate that was in place when they retired or became eligible to retire. Colorado case law appeared to support their position.”
” . . . a 2002 Colorado Supreme Court decision may have indirectly modified it (McPhail.) In Estate of DeWitt, the court held that the Contract Clause of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions only protects a contract affording a plaintiff ‘a vested right.'”
(My comment: As we know, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently found that Colorado PERA retirees do have a vested right to their PERA pension COLA benefits. Colorado Court of Appeals: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive [indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy] of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.”)
“The deferred compensation analogy (construal of public pension benefits as ‘deferred compensation’) exists as a means to achieve a specific objective. That objective was best explained long ago: ‘Whether it be in the field of sports or in the halls of the legislature it is not consonant with American traditions of fairness and justice to change the ground rules in the middle of the game, [Hickey v. Pittsburgh Pension Board, 1954; accord Colorado Supreme Court, Police Pension and Relief Board v. Bills, 1961.])”
THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY USED THE PERA PENSION AS A “CREDIT CARD” TO AVOID TAX INCREASES. THE MOST RECENT MARKET DOWNTURN WAS “A POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY.”
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
” . . . public employees have diligently and faithfully paid their contributions while their government employers have failed to pay their required share. Indeed, for decades, states have treated pension systems as a credit card to pay for government services and avoid tax increases or service cuts.”
“Public pensions are under siege because the current fiscal climate in most states presents a political opportunity for change. For lawmakers, it is simply politically more palatable unilaterally to cut pension benefits for public employees and retirees than to raise taxes, cut services, or both.”
(My [extended] commentary: The Colorado General Assembly cannot legitimately blame the constitutional TABOR amendment for limiting their revenue and pension funding options. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from referring a constitutional amendment to the people to address PERA pension funding. Why did the General Assembly not take this step before embracing the breach of its contractual pension obligations? This would have demonstrated “good faith.” Nothing prevented the General Assembly from enacting legislation that would properly place the costs of any pension reform measure on PERA-affiliated employers [who are after all contractually obligated to fund pension benefits.] Instead, as the prime sponsor of SB 10-001 has told us, the bill asked these PERA-affiliated employers to pay a mere 10 percent of the costs of the 2010 pension reform. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from exploring options for increased revenues that could be directed toward pension obligations, from sources beyond TABOR’s restrictions. Why did the General Assembly fail to appoint a study committee to explore potential sources of revenue by which it could meet its contractual pension obligations? Instead, the General Assembly abdicated this role to the lobbyists. One should note that a preponderance of PERA-affiliated employers have already exempted themselves from TABOR restrictions through “de-Brucing.” Most PERA-affiliated employers cannot claim that TABOR presented an obstacle to their ability to raise funds. In fact, just a few weeks ago dozens of Colorado governmental entities succeeded in raising new revenues through ballot measures. Nothing has prevented the General Assembly from historically choosing to place expenditures to meet its contractual obligations above its discretionary expenditures. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from retaining all of its revenues, and directing more of these revenues to meet contractual obligations, instead of making annual $100 million discretionary grants for property tax relief. Further, the General Assembly has been under no legal obligation to historically direct $500 million of its revenues to local government public pensions while ignoring its own PERA pension obligations. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from exploring the issuance of pension certificates of participation and taking advantage of historically low interest rates. The General Assembly was under no obligation to enact legislation under Governor Bill Owens slashing its revenue stream. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from asking its own lawyers to provide a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of their pension reform proposal [or did they?] Nothing prevented Governor Ritter and the General Assembly from sending an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of their proposed pension reforms. The Denver Post editorial board encouraged the General Assembly to take this step. Why did the General Assembly ignore this advice? Did the General Assembly simply not want to hear the answer? Or, perhaps it was the lobbyists who did not want to hear the answer?)
COLORADO CASE LAW TAKES A CONTRACTUAL APPROACH TO PUBLIC PENSIONS, THUS, SB 10-001 WILL LIKELY BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:
“The adoption of the contractual approach by Colorado . . . however, make(s) it more likely that pension reform efforts (the COLA provisions of SB 10-001) will be found unconstitutional.”
A PDF of the Madiar paper is available on the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures at the following link:
Colorado Democratic CD-3 candidate Sal Pace is out with his third ad this election cycle, another solid brand-building spot featuring a Pueblo (that’s PEE-bluh) steelworker praising Pace’s commitment in the Colorado legislature to “Buy American” preferences for state contracts. As we’ve discussed many times as various forms of local preference have been introduced, the issue […]
Update: I am dismayed to report that a member of this community responded to this post by sending me a PDF file in Arabic and English alleged to be the “Muslim Brotherhood strategy” circa 1991. Whether or not this is an authentic document–I’m in no way enough of an expert to opine on that–the use […]
(I never thought Shawn Mitchell would do something more disgusting than that time he showed his loosey-whities… – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl) Yesterday, President Barack Obama flew to Colorado to comfort the victims of Friday morning’s tragic mass murder in Aurora and their families. At the same time President Obama was getting ready to head out […]
It seems that Mike Coffman of Colorado is doing his best to hand his congressional seat over to the Blue column, but for those not familiar with Mr Coffman, he is not just a dumb birther caught with a live microphone. Mike Coffman was Colorado’s former Secretary of State before running for Congress. And in […]
U.S. Air Force photo/Mike Kaplan Don Branum, public affairs officer for the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, filed this report on President Barack Obama’s commencement address this morning: President Barack Obama called the Air Force Academy’s Class of 2012 exceptional during his commencement address in Falcon Stadium May 23 for the spirit […]
TJ Walker remarks on the statement by Rush Limbaugh about women who take birth control. http://youtu.be/IUv_Laj_ukc
CNN: A relieved Mitt Romney headed back to the campaign trail Wednesday after sweeping crucial primaries in Arizona and his childhood home of Michigan to revitalize his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney needed to win both states, but especially Michigan — where he grew up when his father was governor — to assert […]
From Senator Mark Udall’s press release today–full text after the jump: Today, Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, announced that he has joined Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and a bipartisan group of his colleagues in introducing the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, to clarify that American citizens […]
And it is: “Save a pretzel for the gas jets.” Now if only ColoradoPols would stop “disallowing [my] HTML tag[s],” you dedicated readers could click and take in the message from the governor of Texas yourself. As it is, follow the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
CBS 4 got it up first:
I was surprised to find this out via Facebook! NYPD closes Wall Street and over 5,000 people march and barely a mention from NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC or CNN. WHY? 9 yr. old Sam knows America is corrupt… “They’re just doing the reverse of Robin Hood. They’re stealing from the poor for all their […]
Colorado Public Radio’s “Colorado Matters” aired a great interview yesterday about the impact of 9-11 on Muslim Americans, as part of its thoughtful “Colorado Remembers 9/11” series. Sahar Babak, who was a student at Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, recalls how teachers, who were worried about angry students, suggested that she leave school […]
(Photo added–was there no American maker of little foam gas pumps? – promoted by Colorado Pols) By Matt Garrington Last week, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) wrapped up their tour to push Big Oil’s agenda under the guise of more jobs and lower energy prices in an effort to weaken protections for our air, water, public […]
New polling results from Zogby show that Republicans are not on the side of most Americans when it comes to the debt ceiling debate — no surprise, as previous polling has indicated: A small majority (52%) of likely voters now agree Congress should raise the debt ceiling, which is twice as many who held that […]
UPDATE: Arguing it out with relatives over the 4th of July weekend? Check out this Bell Policy Center report on the Ryan budget plan and its impact on Colorado–forearmed is a debate won. —– You can’t turn on a TV right now in Colorado without seeing the new ad from Karl Rove’s well-funded “Super PAC,” […]
( – promoted by Colorado Pols) Last month, Sarah Palin made a joint appearance in Denver with retired Gen. William Boykin, who believes Islam shouldn’t be given the same first-amendment protections as other religions. Palin came and went, and most major local media didn’t mention Boykin’s anti-Islamic views, which would surely have been reported if […]
Ordinarily, I’d say this isn’t a topic for Colorado Pols, but since Craig Silverman’s opinions about this have made their way here, I feel that it’s worthy of discussion. To recap: Last week, President Obama stated in a speech that Israel / Palestine peace talks need to go forward, with the “1967 borders” as a […]
(Even more apropos today – promoted by Colorado Pols) A wire service article in the print edition of today’s Denver Post informs us that Sarah Palin, in a speech yesterday, slammed the endangered-species act and called for more domestic oil drilling, but there was nothing more about her appearance tonight with Gen. William Boykin (U.S. […]
The LA Times reports on a subject we’ve been discussing repeatedly in this space. Republicans in Congress are pushing their spending cut plans, but non-Tea Party voters aren’t happy about it: As Vice President Joe Biden met with congressional leaders Thursday to try to resolve the impasse over government spending, Republicans were beginning to worry […]
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!