text:
This is mostly passive once you have it all set up, but it does take a lot of work at the beginning. Real estate investing also requires occasional maintenance. Currently, we invest in a couple of rental properties and earn about $500 profit from each per month. You can read more about my rental properties at MoneySmartLife.com: How and Why I Became a Landlord.
Automatic investment selection is built into the platform. Investors set their criteria for the loans they want to invest in, and when one becomes available, the system invests your money for you. After that, you have 24 hours to perform due diligence on the loan. PeerStreet is the most transparent and elegant real estate crowdfunding platform I've used. Unfortunately, it's for accredited investors only at this time.
Nah you misunderstood me. I'm working 50 hours a week now to get residency and only taking a couple of classes. I'll be working 10-20 hours a week when I go back to schoool full time a year from now. I tried working 35 hours and school full time but got burned out last year so no more of that. My grades are so-so. I got a 3.7gpa in all my GE's and really on a conservative basis planning to remain around there which would mean 1 B for every 2 A's. To get residency realistically I got to earn 300 dollars in taxable income a week for a year, and in the meantime am allowed to go to school part time given the fact that I can pay for school with the money I have earned within the period I began to establish residency, so no outside cash because my bank accounts will be audited at the end of the year.
If you offered Prismacolor pencils in your online store, you have the option of promoting the GIF through your own social channels in an attempt to get engagement from your own audience using a piece of content that is proven to be viral with general audiences. Depending on the creator of the content, you may be able to upload the content to your channels directly to share or you may need to re-share the content from the creator's original social post, YouTube channel, website, or other direct link. Your post (or re-share) would include a link to Prismacolor pencils for sale in your online store.
While you're setting up your new income stream, keep in mind that there truly is no such thing as free money. You'll feel even more satisfied with the reward knowing what it took to get there. While there's no one magic trick to getting passive income to work for you, with so many different methods, there's surely one option that will fit your situation and skill set. Set up your passive income stream today to start making money, free up time and set yourself up on the path to financial independence.
Residual income is money that is earned on a recurring basis, typically as the result of a single original action. Rather than earning an hourly wage, residual income is typically generated through an initial investment of time or money with the goal of earning continuous payments. Once the initial investment, product, or service is made, the ongoing income that is earned is generally passive in nature.
In 2013, Oreo jumped on the infamous moment when a power outage caused lights to go out during the Superbowl. In the 34th minute the Superdome experienced a slight blackout which Oreo's social media team quickly jumped on. Posting a solitary Oreo on a black background with text reading "You can still dunk in the dark" on Twitter and Facebook, it quickly received over 10,000 retweets on Twitter and more than 20,000 likes on Facebook.
I need to create a passive income stream that has a definable risk profile.I have $250k cash as a safety net in my savings account getting a measily 40 bps but I am somewhat ok with this as it is Not at risk or fluctuation (walk street is tougher nowadays). i have 270k in equity in my house, thinking of paying off the mortgage but probably does make sense since my rate is 3.125 on a 30 yr. I have 275k in my 401(k) and another 45k in a brokerage account that is invested in stocks that pay dividends.
The Internet makes it possible for a campaign to go viral very fast; it can, so to speak, make a brand famous overnight. However, the Internet and social media technologies themselves do not make a brand viral; they just enable people to share content to other people faster. Therefore, it is generally agreed that a campaign must typically follow a certain set of guidelines in order to potentially be successful:
For those who prefer a more do-it-yourself style but still want their investments to be managed automatically, a robo-advisor like Betterment may be better suited. After completing an initial questionnaire, this program will automatically invest your money based on things like your risk tolerance and time horizon. They'll even rebalance your portfolio when necessary – all automatically, of course!
What I did: I first identified my favorite places in the world to live: San Francisco, Honolulu, Paris, Amsterdam, New York City, and Lake Tahoe. I then looked up the median rent and housing prices for each city. Then I factored in private education costs for two kids to be conservative given I may not have two kids and public schools are often good enough. After calculating all vital costs, I then did a self-assessment of how happy I was making $50,000, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000, $250,000, $350,000, $500,000, and $750,000. I decided working 20 hours a week making $200,000 a year is the best income balance for maximum happiness.
How To Engineer Your Layoff – In 2012, it took me four months of absolute focus and two years of data to publish my first e-book about helping people negotiate a severance. The book went through over 30 revisions by four people. Then I updated the book for 2018 with 50 more pages (150 pages total) using more successful case studies and highlighting more strategies for those who want to break free with money in their pocket.
When I purchase an existing online business, I look for cash flow over the past year and where the money comes from. I want the sources to be more passive so that it does not take a lot of my time. Also, typically I will make an offer that is 18 – 24 months of profit so that I know that I will get my money back within the next two years. I hope that helps!
Before the challenge, ALS was known to much fewer people. But things changed after the challenge, and it was everywhere on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, news, events, etc. The reason was the visibility created by the campaign. You need to create awareness about your brand through various marketing channels. People will prefer to buy from you only if they know about you.
The campaign didn't target Dove's products but instead focused on changing a woman's perception of how she sees herself, also changing the way how Dove is viewed as a company. It is said that "Woman aged between 18-34 are twice as likely to think highly of a brand that made an empowering ad and nearly 80% more likely to like, share, comment, and subscribe after watching one." Through the video, Dove wanted to make women realize that they are overly-critical of themselves to make them feel better about their appearance.
Buy vending machines and put them into areas that receive high levels of foot traffic. The investment cost is high, but from then on it is a matter of restocking the machines as needed. If you are able to find success with your first machine, there is nothing stopping you replicating it many times over. This business model is very passive, but the high start up cost and low potential for super profits holds it back in my opinion.
In order to build an audience, you need to have a platform. You need to have something worth following and sharing; something that's valuable to others. And that, of course, takes time. That's not to say you can't build a huge audience in a short amount of time. But as much as we hear about the people who've succeeding at doing this, we don't hear about the millions of others who are struggling every day to get just a few more fans and followers.
If you were Prismacolor, you would promote this GIF because the more viral it becomes, the more chances it has of reaching an artist who may be interested in buying colored pencils for themselves or as a gift. And the more likely that artist is to choose Prismacolor if the viral image of their pencils inspired them to make the purchase. As the vendor, Prismacolor wants to increase sales of their products from all vendors.
Ambient Advertising is about placing ads on unusual objects or in unusual places where you wouldn't usually expect to have an advertisement. Description: Ambient advertising evolved as a concept because it has a lasting impact on the minds of consumers which makes it more effective. Ambient advertising is all about creativity, and how effectively the advertiser is able to communicate the message
Here's the truth: a successful business is something that successfully solves a problem. And that business can make more money in two ways: solving more people's problems, or solving bigger problems. The cool thing about the EP Model is that sometimes these products don't even have to be yours. You can generate income by recommending other people's or companies' services or products. This is called affiliate marketing. It's actually how I've made most of my money since I started in 2008.
The next step in viral marketing is to discover or create a piece/pieces of content that has the potential to be viral. It must feature a product you sell and be of high quality. For content to be inviting enough for people to share it you must spend time and money on the creating top quality content. Conduct keyword research to optimize for search engines and make sure to include a strong call to action close to the top of the content so people know what to do with this information. Use the notes from your research in the first step to determine what network(s) you want to go viral on and the type of content that will help you achieve that result. Then publish that content, or get the content published on a source that can help you go viral. Refer to your research to see what elements create the best viral content for your target audience.
The fact is, very few people know what goes into making a viral marketing campaign successful until it starts to spread. There are, however, some brands, who have understood what makes the audience tick. In fact, there are some consistent elements in such campaigns, which brands can follow. Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a look at the top three examples of viral marketing campaigns over the past years. There is a lot you can potentially learn from them as they exactly know how to resonate with the target audiences.
I get excited every paycheck because I know my investments are going to increase by a decent chunk. I use Mint to keep a close eye on what the current value is at and make goal marks to hit. Every time I hit a goal, I do a little happy dance and decide what I want my next marker to be and when I want to hit it by. I'm nowhere close to being financially independent or even debt free, but it's exciting to see the ground work being laid and watching it grow.
To start Viral Marketing, companies use 'seeding'. A seed is planted, it grows, creates new fruit with seeds that subsequently distribute its seeds. That means that a marketing campaign gets a nudge in the right direction; people are actively informed about the new campaign via social media. They're stimulated to watch the expression. That gives the originator influence over the direction and the result of the viral marketing campaign.
The campaign became viral because it could connect to the audience emotionally. People could relate to the concept of the video. The idea was original, and the content was enticing without pushing the products. The ad encouraged social conversation and sensitivity around the beauty of a woman. It empowered women, evoking feelings of warmth, joy, and confidence. Empowerment is a powerful tool, which can enhance the brand image of your company. So build an uplifting relationship with your audience.
I just started out with Affiliate Marketing (idea # 8) and it is not as easy as people make out to be. For me, the hardest part so far, is learning Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and driving traffic to my website. I'm only 3 months into it, but I am confident that the site will begin to generate some incom., I have to give it 6-9 months, so we'll see.
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Selena Maranjian owns shares of Amazon, Costco Wholesale, National Grid, Realty Income, and Verizon Communications. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Amazon, eBay, National Grid, and Verizon Communications. The Motley Fool recommends Costco Wholesale, Lowe's, The TJX Companies, and Welltower. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Working with people outside of your usual industry can help you create a buzz for both of your companies. The TV show The Walking Dead teamed up with UC Irvine to create an open online course on what a zombie apocalypse would be like. Zombie lovers ate it up like free brains. Both the show and the university benefitted. HP teamed up with Kiva to allow HP employees an extra $25 to donate to the Kiva project of their choice. Both HP and Kiva gained exposure, while worthy charitable causes received funding.
Although it would be nice to earn little bit of extra income without putting in any effort, you're going to have to put in some effort at the beginning. First, you must be clear about why you want to earn passive income. Is it that you want to support your existing lavish shopping? Is it that you feel uncertain about the future and want to have alternative sources of income? Are you finding it hard to earn enough regular income to support your family and yourself, therefore you need extra passive income?
Basically, people looking to borrow money will make a listing on the site. Those borrowers are then placed into a category and given a "rating" based on their credit history and rate. You, as an investor, will contribute money to these loans and then be paid back at the predetermined rate of interest. Invest and see those monthly interest payments deposited into your account.
The more residual income you can build, the better off you'll be. In fact, it's said that the average millionaire has 7 different streams of income. By creating passive income streams that generate money while you sleep, you'll build wealth faster and diversify the ways you're able to make money – which helps protect you from the loss of any one individual income stream.
Your articles are so in-depth and helpful, I've never seen anything quite like it. I am a 22-yr old finishing my last semester of college, studying Computer Science and Psychology. I'm in a really good place with my finances (2k savings, no student debt, only expenses essentially rent, groceries, and utilities) and I want to get ahead financially so I can pay my parents back and save up a lot.
1) If your property is not under rent control, you have the ability to raise rent to market prices with proper warning. In SF, I have to give tenants a one month warning for up to a 10% increase and a two month warning for up to 60%. Rent control limits to an inflation index, usually around 2% a year, which is why initial pricing and tenant turnover is important for better profitability.
Another benefit of investing in rental properties is the loan pay down. If you obtain a loan to buy the property, each month your tenants are paying off part of the loan. Once the mortgage on the property has been paid off, your cash flow will increase dramatically, allowing your mediocre investment to skyrocket into a full-fledged retirement program.
It is hard to know when a marketing campaign has truly been successful but with viral marketing campaigns it is more so. Even if you receive lots of free publicity and traffic to your website, if the aim of the campaign was to increase sales and this hasn't been achieved then the success of the campaign is questionable. Today success metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are hugely important in marketing departments, and setting these metrics needs to happen in the planning phase. Track these figures regularly in the days after the campaign goes live to really understand the success behind your campaign. This can help you optimize your activities in real-time so you can get the most out of your efforts.
1) If your property is not under rent control, you have the ability to raise rent to market prices with proper warning. In SF, I have to give tenants a one month warning for up to a 10% increase and a two month warning for up to 60%. Rent control limits to an inflation index, usually around 2% a year, which is why initial pricing and tenant turnover is important for better profitability.
Instagram, also owned by Facebook, may use similar algorithms to determine the types of trending content appearing in a user's news feed or Explore tab in the Instagram app. Smaller businesses appear to have a better ability to trend on Instagram using viral content compared to Facebook, although publishers and individuals may begin to take the lead there as well.
Refinancing may not be worth it to you, depending on your situation and interest rates, but maybe a reverse mortgage is just what you need. It's typically an option well worth considering for those in or near retirement. A reverse mortgage is essentially a loan, with the amount borrowed not having to be repaid until you die, sell your home, or stop living in it (perhaps because you moved to a nursing home or died). At that time, the home can be sold to cover the debt -- or your heirs can pay it off and keep the home. Reverse-mortgage income is often tax-free, which is another big plus. The amount you get can be delivered in monthly installments, providing very passive and reliable income in retirement.
Many marketers hope for a campaign to go viral — meaning it's recognized, widely-accepted, and influential. But there's no guaranteed formula. However, if you think about some of your favorite viral marketing campaigns, you'll notice some common features. Marketers wanting to reach a bigger audience should keep these attributes in mind when creating their next campaign:
Logan is a CPA with a Masters Degree in Taxation from the University of Southern California. He has been featured in publications such as LendingTree, Debt.com, and CreditCards.com on topics ranging from paying down debt to using credit card points to saving money on taxes. After spending nearly 10 years in public accounting, including 5 with professional services firm Ernst & Young where he consulted with multinational companies and high net worth individuals on their tax situations, he launched Money Done Right in 2017 to communicate modern ideas on earning, saving, and investing money.
The five forces model of analysis was developed by Michael Porter to analyze the competitive environment in which a product or company works. Description: There are five forces that act on any product/ brand/ company: 1. The threat of entry: competitors can enter from any industry, channel, function, form or marketing activity. How best can the company take care of the threat of new entrants? 2
Affiliate marketing is the practice of partnering with a company (becoming their affiliate) to receive a commission on a product. This method of generating income works the best for those with blogs and websites. Even then, it takes a long time to build up before it becomes passive. If you want to get started with affiliate marketing check out this great list of affiliate marketing programs.
In April 2013, Unilever, with its ad agency Ogilvy & Mather Brazil, came out with Dove Real Beauty Sketches campaign to empower women about how they look. The campaign was a short film featuring an FBI-trained sketch artist Gil Zamora. He was shown sketching two portraits of women based on the description given by them and on how they were perceived by strangers. Neither did the artist himself look at the appearance of the women, nor were the women aware of the social experiment.
Risk: The tricky part is choosing the right stocks. Graves warns that too many novices jump into the market without thoroughly investigating the company issuing the stock. "You've got to investigate each company's website and be comfortable with their financial statements," Graves says. "You should spend two to three weeks investigating each company."
What I did:The first two years of work in NYC was brutal. I told myself there was no way I could work on Wall St for my entire career because I'd probably die from heart failure by age 40. Having an early death in my mind willed me to save 50%+ from the first year onward and devise a CD, real estate, and stock investment distribution system for my savings every year. I thought about starting this site for at least a year before I hired someone from Craigslist to give set me up and push me forward. Hiring someone to get started is totally worth it if you are a master procrastinator. You can now learn how to start your own site with my step-by-step guide to save yourself time and money.
Word-of-mouth marketing is a key component to the growth of a small business. It's often word-of-mouth marketing that keeps small businesses running in the early days of operation when there is little to no marketing budget. The consumer shares their experience with your products or services, and they share it with their family and friends. It increases your consumer base and increases your sales.
Many marketers hope for a campaign to go viral — meaning it's recognized, widely-accepted, and influential. But there's no guaranteed formula. However, if you think about some of your favorite viral marketing campaigns, you'll notice some common features. Marketers wanting to reach a bigger audience should keep these attributes in mind when creating their next campaign:
Dividend Income: Dividend income is wonderful because it is completely passive and is taxed at only 15% if you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% income tax bracket. If you are in the 39.6% income tax bracket you will pay a 20% tax on your dividends. My dividend income portfolio mainly consist of dividend equity and bond ETFs such as DVY, VYM, MUB, TLT, and IEF. Total stock and bond income is a little over $100,000 a year due to a heavy accumulation of stocks and municipal bonds after selling my house.
However, this comes back to the old discussion of pain versus pleasure. We will always do more to avoid pain than we will to gain pleasure. When our backs are against the wall, we act. When they're not, we relax. The truth is that the pain-versus-pleasure paradigm only operates in the short term. We'll only avoid pain in the here and now. Often not in the long term.
Ice Bucket Challenge only asked participants to pour a bucket of ice-cold water and donate. The objective was kept simple and clear, and challengers were not required to put in much effort. It is important for you to keep your message direct and simple as customers don't have the time and patience to go through a lot of content to grasp the crux of your message.
People have a lot of stuff—and they're always looking for inexpensive ways to store it. What could be easier than having people pay you to store their stuff? Building passive income by offering storage could involve a large-scale investment of buying a storage facility (with cash!) or something simpler like offering your basement or shed. You'll just need to ensure their items are safe and secure.
When money is lent to a partnership or S-corporation acting as a pass-through entity (essentially a business that is designed to reduce the effects of double taxation) by that entity's owner, the interest income on that loan to the portfolio income can qualify as passive income. As the IRS language reads: "Certain self-charged interest income or deductions may be treated as passive activity gross income or passive activity deductions if the loan proceeds are used in a passive activity."
In 1999, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez began drumming up buzz for their now-legendary movie, The Blair Witch Project, using innovative techniques made possible by the relatively new culture of the Internet. The film is an early example of the "found footage" style that is made to look like amateur video shot by real people. Myrick and Sanchez, along with Artisan Entertainment, capitalized on the realistic look of Blair Witch to build a campaign around it that suggested the footage actually was real.


text:
About this Issue
Congressional hearings about tech policy can be hard to watch. It's often painfully obvious that members of Congress know little or even nothing about the internet, cryptography, streaming services—or even just a typical user's basic experience on social media. How confident can we be that such people will craft appropriate policies for these increasingly important aspects of our lives?
This month we ask what Congress needs to know about tech policy. We also ask what institutional support, if any, Congress may need as it seeks to regulate a wider and wider array of products and services that its members often seem not to understand. Joining us this month are Kevin Kosar, Vice President of Policy at the R Street Institute; Betsy Wright Hawkings, director of the Governance Program at Democracy Fund; William Rinehart, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum; and Berin Szóka, the founder and president of TechFreedom.
We will discuss throughout the month, and we welcome readers' participation in the comments, as well as letters to the editor.
Lead Essay
Congress's Tech Policy Knowledge Gap
"Suppose you were an idiot," Mark Twain once quipped, "and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself." Like Twain, libertarians tend not to think highly of elected officials. We view them as corrupt, in cahoots with interest groups, and obsessed with politicking instead of governing.
And, as Twain quipped, dumb. Oh, so, dumb. Who can forget Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) fretting aloud that an island might tip over if too many soldiers are stationed on one side of it? And how about Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who freaked people out by claiming al Qaeda had camps near the U.S.-Mexico border? Does a week go by without one of the 535 members of our national legislature popping off inanely? Probably not.
Indeed, as Twain's quote indicated, Congress never has been filled with Solons, to say nothing of Erasmuses. Even our much revered Founders made some seriously wrongheaded decisions. (See the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, to cite only one example among many.)
But stupidity in our national legislature is a feature of representative democracy. Americans want to choose their leaders; they do not wish to have unaccountable mandarins imposing rulership. (Hence our current battle against the administrative state.) Congress lacks wisdom, in short, because Congress is us. After all, we are not a nation comprised wholly or even mostly of expert policymakers. We are store clerks, construction workers, and telemarketers, and the national legislature is simply the place where our partial views and diverse interests get bargained out into policy that hopefully we all can live with. (James Madison's Federalist 10 is about as clear-eyed and unsentimental an account of this truth as can be found.)
But this "feature" of representative democracy is also a bug because, as it turns out, when non-expert policymakers craft policy, they often do it poorly. For example, no one wants Congress enacting policies that make us worse off, or that delay or stifle technologies that improve our lives. And yet this kind of bad policy happens with lamentable frequency. Pluralistic politics inevitably features some self-serving interests that are more powerful and politically persuasive than others. This is why government often undertakes bailouts and other actions that are odious to the public writ large.
And this brings us to science and technology policy. In recent years, Congress's ineptitude in these areas has been richly displayed. Late last year, for example, Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) drew brickbats when he suggested autism is associated with vaccines. Congressional elders on the dais trying to understand 21st-century technology are often so absurd that they have become a meme. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) uses a flip phone, while his colleague Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) eschews email. As Washington Monthly's Grace Gedye recently put it,
These old-fashioned habits may be charming coming from your grandparents, but your grandparents aren't charged with legislating on cryptocurrency, regulating autonomous vehicles, or protecting consumers from data breaches. Members' technical naïveté goes beyond their choice in phones and onto the floor of Congress. When experts testified before Congress last May about the promise of quantum computing—which could radically accelerate research into everything from pharmaceuticals to machine learning to carbon sequestration—Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) admitted, half-jokingly, to the panel, 'I can understand about 50 percent of the things you say.'
Such inadequate expertise in science and technology is bipartisan, and longstanding. Not quite 50 years ago, Congress took a significant step to bolster its brains when it created the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1972, after spending a decade considering and debating its struggles to govern in the space age. As the agency's name implies, OTA's basic function was "to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology and to develop other coordinate information which may assist the Congress." (2 U.S.C. § 472)
The OTA's bread and butter were its lengthy assessment reports, which included shorter-form executive summaries and that reviewed the existing research and data on a topic (e.g., "Costs and Effectiveness of Cholesterol Screening in the Elderly"), and then explained what the evidence demonstrated or did not. And since its statutory mandate was narrow (merely to study emergent technologies and advise Congress about their potential impact), the OTA's's nerds advised on the pros and cons of different policy approaches, but did not tell the legislature which policies to support in the way that think tanks do.
Moreover, because Congress did not want the OTA to be an agenda-setter that drove the legislature's work, the agency was not authorized to research any topic it pleased. The law specified that it could initiate studies only at the request of a committee (originating either from its chairman, ranking minority member, or a simple majority), or from OTA's board or its director. For the sake of partisan balance, the director was appointed by the 12-person board, whose members were six senators (half Democrats and half Republicans) and six representatives (also equally divided by party). The OTA was also overseen by an advisory panel, which was appointed by Congress. Members included the heads of the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service and ten members of the public. Its job was to assess the agency's work and recommend improvements. (2 U.S.C. § 476)
Structurally, the OTA was ahead of its time. It was a Wiki-like bureaucracy that relied heavily on the private sector. It had a modest cohort of experts in-house, but heavily leveraged outside expertise to produce its assessments. For example, the agency's 1990 report on "Affordable Spacecraft: Design and Launch Alternatives" was based upon discussions and research supplied by a bevy of researchers, including those at George Mason University, Rockwell International, and NASA.
It also bears noting that the OTA was not an idiosyncrasy. At the time, the agency was merely the latest addition to Congress's corps of in-house experts. It had already established the Library of Congress in 1800, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 1914, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 1921. Two years after launching the OTA, Congress established the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). All of these efforts aimed to augment the limited expertise of legislators and Capitol Hill staff with the input of nonpartisan experts with long tenures and no stakes in the outcomes of any particular policy vote.
Unfortunately—as readers may likely recall—the OTA was abolished in 1995—right on the cusp of the Internet Age. Congress simply cut off the agency's funds, and its 120 employees packed up their desks and exited the building. It was a bizarre decision that reflected convoluted legislative logic. A few years earlier, wracked with various scandals, Congress had decided to clean house. To show the public it was serious, it proposed cutting its own budget. As a result, it reduced committee staff, slashed 25 percent of the GAO's workforce, and zeroed out the OTA.
Perversely, all of this made Congress weaker vis-à-vis the president and the administrative state. The executive branch has an army of science and technology wonks who are more than happy to issue regulations and regulatory dark matter—all of whom are free from electoral consequences. Fewer nonpartisan experts on Capitol Hill also has strengthened the hand of lobbyists and interest groups, who use their own expertise to shape policy. Over the years, various lone voices have called for a revival of the OTA. Former Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), himself a scientist, regularly introduced legislation to fund the agency. In recent years, Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a physicist, has carried the torch, along with Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Their efforts inevitably ran into anxieties about the political optics of Congress spending money on itself, and the persistent question raised by the story of Cincinnatus: "Who needs expertise?" After all, any citizen should be able to come into the assembly and use good horse sense to decide policy.
The story of Cincinnatus is a myth, however. In fact, he was no simple farmer. As Thomas Ranieri points out: "Cincinnatus, as a senator and patrician, was a member of the political ruling class. He spent his youth working his way through the cursus honorum, which is the series of offices (both civil and military) designed to prepare senators for the rank of consul and give them the experience needed to wield imperium, the Roman Republic's official grant of power."
More recently, the 21st century's incredible, and often unsettling, technological developments along with Congress's high profile gaffes in responding to them have helped reinvigorate interest in strengthening Congress's capacity. Accordingly, in spring 2018, it took steps to restore its brain power and directed the GAO to increase the number of its staff working on science and technology studies. The statute also directed the National Academy of Public Administration to study Congress's technological and scientific capacity and propose remedies, which might include reviving the OTA. (The study will be completed this autumn.)
This spring, Congress proposed appropriating $6 million to restart the OTA. Whether this will be enacted remains to be seen. However, even if it does happen, at most, that amount of funding will enable the agency to turn the lights on and to hire a few dozen staff. This leaves unanswered the larger question: what should be done about Congress's ineptitude in technology and science issues?
Those of us who favor small government and fiscal responsibility often are inclined to seize upon an elegant solution: get government out of science and technology issues. Voilà! The problem of stupid governance is solved!
If only it were so simple. But, in fact, our national government has been involved in scientific and technological issues since it began. Government itself often funds the research that sparks new technological developments (like rocketry and nuclear energy) and it is also a major consumer of new technologies, some of which raise concerns among the liberty-minded (like facial recognition software).
Moreover, new technology almost inevitably sparks some sort of government response—frequently at the behest of voters. The earliest Congresses invested in lighthouses, (which benefited coastal states), and later directed the postal service to carry mail via paddlewheel and steam-engine boats (which boat operators loved). Today, government feels obligated to respond to citizens who are anxious about social media vacuuming up personal data, drones hovering over backyards, and encryption being deployed to traffic child pornography.
So if government is going to be involved, our choice is to leave it to the unaccountable executive branch and hope for the best, or to have Congress—whose ears we can bend and whom we can boot from office—get smarter. Of course, making all—or even most—legislators wise about science and technology is impossible. Elected officials have neither inclination nor time to crack studies on gene editing or 4G. (One study suggests legislators spend only a third of their work hours fundraising for re-election. The rest goes to other tasks, such as campaigning and responding to constituent demands.)
For this reason, think tanks, like my own, try to help Congress tackle complex issues by sharing our expertise. But far too few of us exist to fill that role, and think tanks are not designed to be help desks for Congress. Rather, they do work that donors want to fund, which often is not what Congress may want to know at any particular point in time.
Certainly, hiring more nonpartisan nerds to help Congress does not feel like a very small-government thing to do. Thankfully, the sums of money involved are minute—in the tens of millions of dollars, which literally is a rounding error in the $4+ trillion budget. (Nearly all of which, notably, runs through the executive branch.)
A libertarian might also worry about these geeks becoming unelected rulers, which is exactly what they would be if they worked for the executive branch. Housing them within the legislative branch reduces that peril because it disables the nerds from actually enacting policy. People who work for a revived OTA, or the current GAO, cannot cast votes in Congress. Their role is an age-old one that well comports with our governance system. As Professor Tom Nichols has written: "The United States is a republic, in which the people designate others to make [governance] decisions on their behalf. Those elected representatives cannot master every issue […] Experts advise. Elected leaders decide."
It is not clear whether the Congress of today needs the OTA of the past or a modification thereof. The old OTA spent most of its energy producing long studies that tried to grasp what changes new technologies might bring. The rest of its time was spent offering consultations to legislators with questions on particular scientific and technological issues.
The current Congress might benefit from an OTA that spends more time on the latter than the former. One can imagine a new OTA that is even more of a Wiki. The agency would keep a modest corps of scientists and technologists, but would network these staff to experts around the nation and world. Thus, when Congress was confronted with a breaking issue (like an intelligence agency claiming a rogue nation is weaponizing a new biotoxin), the OTA could activate its network of experts and provide legislators with research materials and briefings.
Scientific and technological innovations will continue apace. Assuredly, Congress cannot be expected to get any smarter on its own. So the choice seems obvious. By hook or crook, we should "bring in the nerds."
Response Essays
The Political Economy of Expertise
Kevin Kosar's lead essay in this series makes a strong case for reviving the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Fundamentally, both this piece and his other work on the OTA are persuasive. Yet they all rely upon a certain line of argumentation: First, Congress doesn't have the expertise to assess increasingly technical policy problems. Second, if there were such a technical knowledge base, political offices would use it in their lawmaking. And finally, the OTA is the best means of achieving more technical expertise.
Elsewhere, I have argued that the OTA should be seen as a last resort; there are other ways of embedding expertise in Congress, like boosting staff and reforming hiring practices. The following essay makes a slightly different argument, namely, that the history of the OTA shows the razor wire on which a revived version of agency will have to balance. In its early years, the OTA was dogged by accusations of partiality. Having established itself as a neutral party throughout the 1980s, the OTA was abolished because it failed to distinguish itself among competing agencies. There is an underlying political economy to expertise that makes the revival of the OTA difficult, undercutting it as an option for expanding tech expertise. In a modern political environment where scientific knowledge is politicized and budgets are tight, the OTA would likely face the hatchet once again.
To understand how the OTA would work in a modern congressional setting, it is helpful to understand why the OTA was first created. While it is the case that "Congress took a significant step to bolster its brains when it created the Office of Technology Assessment," as Kosar notes, the OTA was also established to mirror the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) and thus counter the growing sense that Congress didn't have the resources it needed to check the administration. Indeed, the OTA was just one in a number of reforms in Congress, kicked off by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.
While members wanted the OTA to help understand an increasingly complex world, congressional architects also thought it would redress an imbalance of federal power that favored the White House. Speaking in favor of the creation of the OTA in May 1970, Missouri Democrat James Symington emphasized that, "We have tended simply to accede to administration initiatives, which themselves from time to time may have been hastily or inaccurately promoted." When the bill came to the floor in 1972, Republican Representative Charles Mosher noted, "Let us face it, Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly outmanned and outgunned by the expertise of the executive agencies." Writing on the eve of its demise, a historian of the agency explained that, "the most important factor in establishing the OTA was a desire on the part of Congress for technical advice independent of the executive branch." And John Gibbons, one of the longest serving directors of the OTA later confirmed the balancing impetus,
Congress saw a threat to the balance of power in the federal government. Faced with a deluge of complex technological proposals sent to it by an Executive branch resplendent in scientific resources, Congress felt increasingly ill-equipped to evaluate those proposals.
Here it is worth pausing to emphasize the difference in political environments. The demand for the OTA at its genesis was twofold, for knowledge as Kosar explains, but also for power. In contrast, it is doubtful that either the Democrats or the Republicans today would "simply to accede to administration initiatives," as both had a tendency to do in the 1960s when faced with complex problems. Moreover, while there are some notable exceptions including Senator Mike Lee's Article I Project, congressional demands for rebalancing power away from the Executive aren't very strong.
Kosar is right that the defunding of the OTA and the slashing of the budgets in 1995 "made Congress weaker vis-à-vis the president and the administrative state," but we shouldn't assume reverse causality. The agency was created at a time when both sides of Congress wanted to check the president. It was a solution to an intertwined set of problems. While the tenor in Congress could swiftly change, a groundswell of bipartisan support for an OTA would be needed before any efforts to revive it could be effective. Indeed, Kosar's often coauthor, Zach Graves, expressed worry "about the Democrat-heavy support base pushing OTA, which could politicize the institution and its work if revived." The revival of the OTA needs to be a compromise that both parties and both chambers of Congress can agree to. We have simply not arrived at that time.
Nevertheless, throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the Office of Technology Assessment was able to court favor with both Democrats and Republicans. The agency accomplished this impossible feat by refusing to endorse legislative proposals. This direction was initiated by John Gibbons when he took over the agency in 1979. Gibbons' predecessor, Russell Petersen, tried to make the OTA a true tech assessment agency by creating a priorities list of assessment topics hoping to inform policy. Congress didn't like the direction. Petersen lasted less than a year.
Gibbons instead made the OTA a servant of Congress by working to ensure it didn't get embroiled in controversy. The original goal of the technology assessment agency morphed into an information gathering role as the agency matured. By 1991 a joint research project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution was able to say that the office was "considered highly credible by members of both parties and is well regarded for its technical competence" largely driven by "its efforts to avoid taking firm stands on policy issues."
When the budget cuts of 1995 came, the OTA was an easy choice. As Bruce Bimber noted in his excellent work on the agency, the "OTA's contribution to the policy process was not as well formalized or institutionalized as that of its sibling agencies." The course of neutrality that was pursued throughout the 1980s meant that the OTA had few enemies. But, then again, it hadn't built a constituency that would support it during the massive trim.
While it is partly true, as Kosar notes, that the OTA was cut in a "bizarre decision that reflected convoluted legislative logic," that logic isn't all that convoluted. If the OTA took a less neutral tack, it might have survived, riding the support of one party or another. But because it was dedicated to information gathering in a niche space, the OTA stood out. As historian Gregory Kunkle noted in Technology in Society in 1995,
This is the crux of OTA's ongoing problem: In order to earn a reputation for being unbiased, it has had to dodge controversies, into which, 25 years ago it seemed the OTA would be thrown, but in not being so involved, the OTA 'risks becoming invisible.'
The problem that Kunkle laid out almost 25 years ago remains today. But there are solutions to sidestep the reinvigoration of a standalone agency. In line with my suggestions from last year, the General Accounting Office is expanding their tech assessment program. Congress also needs to reform their staffing processes to encourage stability and reduce turnover. None of these proposals, however, will make headway in changing congressional offices back toward their orientation in the early 1990s. In a follow up to this initial post, I will explore the challenges that any reform will face when trying to solve the problem of tech expertise.
Congressional Tech Knowledge Must Start at Home
The all-too-frequent allegation that "Congress is Broken" is clear. But among the most broken parts of Congress may be one that is not immediately visible to the public: the out-of-date technologies that undergird the operations of the place. If it weren't for a hearing that unintentionally exposed a particular Senator still using a flip-phone, refusing to use email, or claiming to be a fan of "the Facebook," there might be no public awareness of this tech deficit at all.
I confess to some trepidation the day the member for whom I served as chief of staff traded in his pager for a Blackberry in 2001. Sure, I could call him anywhere, and count on quicker responses to emails I sent him. On the other hand, he could now expect the same from me.
Longtime House colleagues (not to mention the few House Administration staff Sherpas whose lonely job it was to drag member offices up the technology mountainside) will chuckle if not outright guffaw at the thought of me making an impassioned argument for upgraded tech systems to better serve congressional offices. I think I can rightfully claim being chief for the very last office using the House's original, non-Windows-based correspondence management software—in 2008.
Clearly this approach to tech engagement is not sustainable. More importantly, there are products that can serve constituents' needs better than anything available to House offices. I did not have the capacity to figure out what they were, however; and the House did not have the capacity to do the work for me. Very importantly for the purposes of this piece: Contrary to popular narrative, it never did.
There are a range of causes cited for the dysfunction. Democracy Fund's Governance Program—which I led from January 2016 until early this year—diagnosed as closely resembling a "death spiral" Congress's inability to adequately resource itself, maintain policymaking expertise inside the institution, and respond effectively to the demands of its constituents.
In January, the weight of this problem became too great. The House did a remarkable thing: It established a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, whose express purpose is to update congressional operations, processes, and procedures to better reflect the needs of the institution and its members. And it did so with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. Advocates inside and outside the institution leveraged a multi-year, bipartisan effort by Congressmen Dan Lipinski and Darin LaHood to establish such a panel to "investigate, study, make findings, hold public hearings, and develop recommendations on modernizing Congress, including recommendations on (among other areas) … technology and innovation."
"Technology" and "Innovation" are not words usually associated with Congress, and the problem has become progressively worse. Over the last decade, Congress has reduced funding for its own day-to-day operations, leading to hemorrhage of the legislative expertise, institutional knowledge, and entrepreneurial collaborative spirit that characterized the post–World War II institution.
Some blame former Speaker Newt Gingrich for catalyzing this cultural contraction when House Republicans took the majority in 1995 for the first time in 40 years. At that time many duplicative, redundant, or just plain outdated functions and practices of House operations were eliminated. Every congressional office did not need to receive—as we had for many years—a bucket of ice and perfectbound copies of the Congressional Record and the Federal Register every morning on our doorstep.
Some of us who served in the institution at the time know it's more complicated. We know from personal experience that most of what was eliminated was never missed. We also saw the damaging domino effect of newly elected Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointing in 2007—when Democrats retook the House—a Chief Administrative Officer who appeared to prioritize politics over process in his implementation of procedures. This undermined, to a debilitating degree, the trust required to make decisions that cost money, but that are essential in the day-to-day support of member offices.
Most of all, the ever-increasing speed at which information is shared, and at which our 24-hour, niche-rich news cycle now operates, keeps members of Congress and their offices in a defensive crouch and retards long-term planning. Congress is a representative body, reactive by nature and design. Today it has even less time, inclination, or capacity than ever to take a long view—especially on items that cost money.
There is more than enough blame to go around; there are as many proposed solutions as members of Congress; and until recently, there has been precious little leadership. "Everyone is complaining about Congress," Congressman Mike Gallagher was quoted as saying recently at a meeting of the Federalist Society. "Not just the American people but the members of Congress themselves, and yet we just keep doing things the same way."
Many want to bring back the "Office of Technology Assessment," but I caution: Be careful what you wish for.
Having served as a chief of staff for most of my 25 years on the Hill—including seven years prior to the elimination of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)—my experience is that the OTA's impact has been overly romanticized and credited far beyond its due. While it may have been a resource to some committees, and certainly was a resource to academics outside the institution, most rank and file members did not know it was there, much less what it did. This is because, as noted earlier, when it came to member offices, OTA did not do much.
Prime evidence of the OTA's lack of impact was the (rightfully) long-forgotten, monopolistic, DOS-based MIN (Member Information Network) system, an intranet of sorts that was the sole, siloed electronic communication system for the House. MIN offered no access to the Internet or external email. Most members of Congress did not know what a web page was, which was just as well because Congress did not have the capacity to host member sites. There was no internal demand for websites as tools of constituent interaction or information dissemination, let alone a demand for the capability to use email as a communications device.
Some say this criticism is unfair, noting that MIN was not the responsibility of OTA. In response I say, "Exactly."
Such was the nature of congressional computing under OTA—which is to say, it was not very advanced at all. OTA did not make Congress more tech savvy. Its brief may have been to make Congress tech literate and help members understand a wired world that developed after they became adults. A strong argument exists—in the form of MIN—that Congress with OTA was no more tech-literate relatively speaking than it is today. Basic tech literacy was not ever the responsibility of the institution, and it has never really existed.
When considering the best ways for the Select Committee to update congressional technology, then, we may not want to go back to the OTA model, unless we really do want to go backwards.
To make the best policy going forward, our hindsight must be accurate. We must remember what OTA did and did not do—and those of us who knew the old OTA must take the time to educate others. We must be careful to avoid restoring a bloated, think-tank bureaucracy that published white papers but did not effectively push the institution to modernize, establish itself as an innovation lab for constituent engagement, or assess or modernize congressional technology in any way at all. Most of all, if Congress is bound to spend additional money on itself—which I believe it must—that spending must help Congress do its job better. This is something the previous OTA simply did not do for most rank and file congressional offices.
It is true that Congress has struggled for decades 25 to keep pace with the private sector. Plainly, it has not succeeded. As I wrote for Democracy Fund in 2016: https://www.democracyfund.org/blog/entry/deconstructing-congressional-dysfunction-a-systems-based-approach
Congress is full of good people driven to make our world a better place. Yet for far too many Americans, Congress is not fulfilling its responsibilities as a representative body. the institution's failure to respond to increasing communication is driving public dissatisfaction and disengagement. We cannot simply invite greater public engagement without making sure Congress has strengthened its ability to respond. Without these investments first, we risk further alienating those we are trying to re-engage. … We have to ask, therefore, how we can help Congress develop more efficient tools to listen to the public, process the overwhelming amount of information, and invite more interaction from constituent groups, all while better managing the volume of communications from advocacy groups.
The current situation is not sustainable. But Congress was no more advanced with an OTA. The problem is the institution and its lack of resources. So if we bring back OTA, let's do so in a way that serves members' current needs.
Sometimes the legislative branch can surprise itself, and those moments should be seized and built upon. Last month, the Select Committee unanimously approved, on a bipartisan basis, a series of recommendations to increase transparency in the legislative process. It recommended adopting a standard format for making the process of drafting, viewing, and publishing legislation more transparent; strengthening the lobbying disclosure system to make it more efficient and easier to use; developing a centralized, electronic list of federal agency and program reauthorization expiration dates, by committee; and developing a more accessible and informative House website that includes committee votes.
These all seem like good first steps, but let's be clear: They would be outside the purview of the vaunted OTA.
To help Congress be more tech savvy, the last thing we want to do is bring back something that didn't help in the first place. Let's envision something new that is member-focused, staff-focused and constituent-focused—not academic research-focused. Taking nothing away from academia, Congress has too much of a dumpster fire just dealing with its own, decades-derelicted duties. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/407104-congress-stops-its-starvation-diet
Congress can build on the bipartisan success of establishing the Select Committee, and help restore trust in the institution, by developing a new Office of Technology to implement constituent service and communications tools. The early, bipartisan, and unanimous recommendations of the Committee show that Congress is able to act to increase the American people's trust, and that Congress can respond to their concerns and solve national problems. That will take a new model for the OTA, however—one focused on serving members and their constituents, not a bureaucracy or the academic community.
If Congress can do that, the public might even be okay with providing the institution with a pay raise. It would be a great place to start.
Technical Expertise Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
Thus far, we're fighting over scraps: $6 million to restart the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)? Pshaw! The two tech-focused agencies I work with—the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ($450 million) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ($312 million) have a combined budget 127 times larger than that. These are just two of an estimated 137 independent regulatory agencies. And they're relatively small fry compared to, say, the Environmental Protection Agency ($8.8 billion) or the Food & Drug Administration ($5.7 billion).
A lack of technical expertise is just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem is a general lack of expertise—and staff. In theory, the Constitution vests the legislative power solely in the hands of Congress, the Executive branch implements or enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch resolves disputes about what the laws mean. In practice, Congress "delegates" the vast bulk of essentially legislative decisionmaking to a sprawling system of administrative agencies, some "independent" and some within the executive branch, and it's these agencies that do the vast bulk of policymaking. Congress's total budget ($6 billion) is just 2.5% of what we spend on administrative agencies overall ($246 billion).
Fulfilling Congress's constitutional responsibility to write our laws requires rebuilding the capacity to do so. That means shifting funding from agencies to Congress. How that money gets spent within Congress—as among special-purpose advisory offices like OTA, Congressional offices, and committee expert staff—is entirely secondary.
Just How Withered Is Congress?
Consider the staffing levels of the two tech-focused agencies I mentioned above: FCC (1,454) and FTC (1,161). Just how many people in Congress "oversee" these agencies?
It's a hard question to answer because each agency falls under the jurisdiction of a committee/subcommittee (within both the House and Senate) along with several other agencies, and within each of those you have the committee staff, the subcommittee staff, and usually one person from the personal staff of each member on the committee.
But the short, rough, answer is that there are fewer than ten people on the staff of the two subcommittees (in each chamber) with oversight of each agency. And these people, again, handle more than just these agencies. Yes, technically, you'd also have to consider the fraction of the time that each personal staffer spends on that issue, but these staffers rarely have anywhere near the level of expertise of those who work for the subcommittee.
How Congress Has Abandoned Its Legislative Function
Congress has abandoned its responsibilities over the administrative state in at least three distinct ways.
First, in how it writes laws, Congress has effectively sunk to the very low bar set by the Supreme Court in Mistretta v. United States (1989):
in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.
In writing vague, open-ended laws that kick hard policy questions to the agencies, Congress has since succumbed to what psychologists call "learned helplessness"—a new normal that few have questioned, taking for granted that Congress should remain the democratically accountable flea on top of the unelected elephant.
Second, Congress has also ceased correcting the course of administrative agencies with any regularity. Congress used to "reauthorize" each agency every two years, often amending the agency's statute in significant ways. This hasn't happened for the FCC and FTC (and for agencies in general) since the late 1990s.
Finally, "oversight" has been reduced to occasional, generally pointless spectacles: commissioners profess their commitment to do what Congress tells them, members voice their pet agendas or grievances, commissioners almost always manage to avoid saying anything specific before each member's five minutes are up, commissioners make some vague promises to "have their staff get back to you, Congressman/Senator," and, two to four hours later, the ordeal is over. The illusion that Congress is the body making the policy decisions is preserved—at least, if you don't think about it too hard. Better staffing wouldn't transform this charade, but it would rebalance the power between commissioners who spend all day on their issues and lawmakers who drop in only occasionally.
The Supreme Court to the Rescue—Maybe?
This general abdication of Congress's responsibilities rests on two legal pillars—the two most important American legal doctrines you may never have heard of. One may well have started falling this week, and the other is clearly wobbling.
The Non-Delegation Doctrine
The "non-delegation doctrine" yet again pronounced dead in Mistretta is nonetheless implicit in the Constitution's separation of powers. Its demise started with a 1928 Supreme Court decision that permitted Congress to delegate its power to administrative agencies so long as lawmakers provide an "intelligible principle" to constrain that power. Still, in Schwater Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the Court struck down a law that permitted the President to certify trade codes developed by businesses themselves as ensuring "fair competition" because, absent explicit guidelines, businesses "may roam at will and the President may approve or disapprove their proposal as he may see fit." But after President Roosevelt attempted to pack the Court in 1937, the Court gave up opposing his New Deal initiatives—the so-called "switch in time that saved nine"—and the Non-Delegation Doctrine died.
But on Thursday, June 20, 2019, in Gundy v. United States, Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a stirring call to revive the non-delegation doctrine. He would demand significantly more of administrative agencies:
To determine whether a statute provides an intelligible principle, we must ask: Does the statute assign to the executive only the responsibility to make factual findings? Does it set forth the facts that the executive must consider and the criteria against which to measure them? And most importantly, did Congress, and not the Executive Branch, make the policy judgments? Only then can we fairly say that a statute contains the kind of intelligible principle the Constitution demands.
It would be hard to imagine a clearer call for Congress to start writing much more specific laws. Yet, technically, this view didn't carry the day. The four Democratic-appointed Justices actually upheld the statute's broad grant of discretion to the Attorney General to "specify the applicability of the requirements of [a new national sex offender registry] to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this act." Gorsuch got only the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn't vote, and Justice Samuel Alito, while voting to uphold the law, also made clear in a separate opinion, that, "If a majority of this Court were willing to reconsider the approach we have taken for the past 84 years, I would support that effort."
So while the administrative state won the battle, it lost the war. Given that Justice Kavanaugh's views on the separation of powers are very similar to Gorsuch's, one can say with confidence that, if he had joined the Court just a week earlier—in time for oral arguments in this case—the Court would have split four to four. And it's safe to bet that Justice Alito would have sided with the other four Republican appointees. If Alito embraces Gorsuch's significantly higher standard for what constitutes an "intelligible principle," the bar will be raised quite considerably for how Congress legislates across the board.
Chevron Deference
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), the Court upheld the EPA's interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the Clean Air Act under a test that has since become the bedrock of American administrative law: (1) Is the law ambiguous on the question at issue? (2) If so, is the agency's interpretation reasonable?
Whatever the Court intended, in practice, Chevron has become a nearly blank check for administrative agencies to run wild with ambiguous statutory language—often manufactured by agencies to suit their own agendas. A majority of sitting Justices have, in dissents or opinions written before joining the bench, called on the Court to rethink, or at least rein in, the deference accorded to agencies under Chevron. In a 2016 opinion siding with an immigrant over the interpretation of an ambiguous provision of law governing her eligibility to seek permanent status in the United States, then-judge Gorsuch wrote: "in a world without Chevron very little would change—except perhaps the most important things." Most notably, Congress would have to resolve questions of statutory ambiguity.
Justice Thomas clearly shares this opinion, and Justice Kavanaugh seems to. Justices Roberts and Alito seem likely to prefer an intermediate step soon: the Court has already, in a series of decisions involving Justices across the political spectrum, given effect to a distinction Justice Stephen Breyer drew in academic work before President Bill Clinton appointed him to the Court—a distinction between "major" and "minor" questions. Major questions, those of vast "economic and political significance," require Congress to "speak clearly" if it wishes to delegate the matter to an agency's interpretive discretion, as the Court ruled in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. E.P.A (2014). That landmark case marked a true sea change in doctrine, with the Court insisting that, if it was necessary to "tailor" the Clean Air Act to make the law work for limiting carbon emissions, that should be up to Congress, not the EPA or the Court.
Justice Gorsuch emphasized that decision in his opinion Thursday in Gundy, explaining that, "Although it is nominally a canon of statutory construction, we apply the major questions doctrine in service of the constitutional rule that Congress may not divest itself of its legislative power by transferring that power to an executive agency." Notably, when the Court upheld Obamacare in King v. Burwell (2015), it did so applying this framework, not under Chevron.
What These Legal Debates Mean for Congress
It's hard to say how these debates will play out, or how fast. To paraphrase Shakespeare: the course of true law never did run smooth. But for now, we can say two things.
First, the Court is certainly going to expect more clarity and precision from Congress in the drafting of legislation—and it will be less willing to "fix" drafting problems for Congress to avoid awkward policy results. The time to start preparing for that change is now. Congress won't be able to staff up overnight, nor would it be wise to rush the process. Building internal expertise will take years, and the process of reassessing existing statutes and, as necessary, rewriting them, will take even longer. We can't wait for the day the Court knocks down the entire administrative house of cards to begin investing in Congress's policymaking functions.
Second, exactly how high the Court sets the bar for Congress is, in the end, irrelevant to what Congress should do. Those who want to rein in broad delegations of power to administrative agencies and want the courts to more carefully scrutinize how agencies interpret statutes are, ironically, those most "penny wise, pound foolish" about spending money on congressional staff. Republicans have been talking for years about reviving Congress and reining in the administrative state, but years of Republican control of Congress have failed to make Congress any stronger or more capable. Republicans need to rethink their priorities from the ground up.
How to Start Rebuilding Congressional Capacity
I'm not a political scientist. But I've worked closely with congressional staffers for over eleven years at two think tanks. I've come to respect deeply many of the staffers I've worked with, but also to realize how desperately overworked and under-resourced they are. They just don't have the time or expertise to work through the hard questions facing their Members and committees they way they need to. They draw on expertise wherever they can find it—especially on issues as complex as those raised by technological change.
This vacuum seems to me to be a much more obvious—and easily remedied—cause of undue corporate influence on policymaking than is corporate money. The only way to solve that problem is to invest more in congressional capability. There's no easy way to say how much staff is enough, or how it should be configured. But based on my own experience, I'd propose the following:
Special-purpose offices like OTA have a role in addressing a broad area of competency—for technology just as much as, say, economics. I don't know what OTA's budget should be, but spending $6 million, or even $60 million, seems like a drop in the bucket compared to the overall administrative state.
But I'm more concerned with bolstering the staff who, in my experience, do the hard work of legislating: the subject matter experts on committee staffs and those in personal offices who handle that committee's issues for the Member. More important than increasing headcount is increasing the level of experience of staffers. That means paying significantly higher salaries to retain older professionals whose market value as lawyers or technologists may be several multiples of what lawmakers themselves currently earn. The best-run governments in the world pay market-based salaries to key staffers; there's no reason ours shouldn't, either.
Bringing agency staffers onto a committee's staff "on detail" to fill the vacuum is a mistake. Such staffers can, of course, add valuable insights into how their agencies work, but they're no substitute for staff who are loyal to elected lawmakers, not agencies.
I don't know what the optimal staffing level for Congress is, but I doubt we'd be anywhere near it even if we spent ten times as much on Congress and built a warren of new offices around the Capitol to house a larger but, even more so, better paid and more expert staff.
As the celebrated political scientist Warren Zevon put it: "Send lawyers, guns and money." He probably should have added: "—and nerds, too." Relatively small investments in congressional capacity could more than pay for themselves in cutting wasteful spending and, even more importantly, reducing government interventions that do larger harms to the economy. More importantly, building a smarter, more tech-savvy, better-staffed and, yes, more expensive Congress is the only way to ensure that democratically elected lawmakers are the ones actually making laws.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Cathy and Todd discuss Orlando, gun legislation, and how we can better communicate about our differences. Todd shares why not hearing "Happy Father's Day" led to a two-hour conversation about the energy we bring to a room and what we really want for our kids. They also discuss why we must continuously wake up while parenting, why parenting is a one-way-giving situation, and how our homes can become places of unconditional support and acceptance. They discuss this blog by Roseanne Cash and they announce the screening of Screenagers at York Theater on Sept 26, 2016.TweetPopout Listen on the new Podbay


text:
Pedestrian Bridge - Professional MX Track - Prairie City SVRA
- SCH Number
- 2014088405
- Lead Agency
- Parks and Recreation, Department of (California Department of Parks and Recreation)
- Document Title
- Pedestrian Bridge - Professional MX Track - Prairie City SVRA
- Document Type
- NOE - Notice of Exemption
- Received
- Document Description
- The existing pedestrian bridge at the "Hangtown" Professional MX track will be replaced with a pre-fabricated pedestrian bridge. All existing infrastructure for the old "Hangtown" bridge with be demoed. The new bridge will be measuring 40'x8'. This engineer approved design with have reinforced concrete abutments, controlled access, and increased load capacity. This bridge will be connected to existing ADA approved facilities through 34.5'x8' pathway.
- Contact Information
Max J. Heitner
California Department of Parks and Recreation
1416 Ninth Street P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
- Counties
- Sacramento
Notice of Exemption
- Exempt Status
- Categorical Exemption
- Type, Section or Code
- S:15302, Class 2
- Reasons for Exemption
- Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures.


text:
"I am a 40-year-old married having 2 children, an executive working as CEO of the multinational company here in UAE. My childhood and college life were not more than normal up-downs living and studying in France and moving around in Europe.
Until one summer while I was riding my bicycle on the Jumeirah beach road and while in hot weather and fell off the bicycle and fainted taken to the Emergency room and treated for dehydration.
I started having worsening anxiety disproportionate feeling nervous while in the board meetings and gradually feeling nervous while talking to my team members, once I had a feeling of severe anxiety along with palpitation, shortness of breath, vague pain symptoms in the chest and feeling like going to die. Emergency room visit and diagnostic test all negative and no medical problem found.
Above situation repeated and a few weeks later until I visited a psychiatrist and he found out I had panic attacks and it is treatable."
This is the story of one of my patients.
A panic attack is an abrupt surge of intense fear or intense discomfort that reaches a peak within minutes, and during which time 4 or more of the following symptoms occur.
Panic attacks are almost always present as unexpectedly increasing symptoms in 10-20 minutes and appears to be escalating without interruption.
Situation bound or triggers of previous traumatic experience or anticipation of a repetition of the traumatic experience.
Almost always self-limiting and until it becomes so severe and changes into constant worrying and feeling impaired or unable to function. Continuous fear of having another panic attack and unreasonable worries is Panic Disorder.
Adolescent and young adults may self-treat and leads to substance abuse or prescription drugs abuse. This is very important to seek mental health professional advice and regularize the treatment to avoid further complications.
In the Western hemisphere, 2-3% adults and adolescent can have panic attacks, while it is less common in children, a median age of development of this disorder is 20-24 with a female preponderance.
Although panic disorder is more frequent in older adolescents and adults, it does occur in children. Unrecognized and untreated panic disorder can have a devastating impact on a child's life and does interfere with normal development, schoolwork, and relationships.
Reluctant to go to school and other age-appropriate activities and fear of unknown and constant worries if the treatment is delayed.
Depression and in severe cases suicidal ideation can occur in adolescent and children's.
A possibility of a genetic link to the development of anxiety has been supported through twin studies. Parents who are anxious may contribute further to higher anxiety levels in their children by showing anxious behaviour and maladaptive coping skills.
Biologic vulnerability and the repeated stressful situation may dispose of the anxiety disorders in addition to panic attacks and disorder.
The first panic attack is almost always preceded by the stressful event such as a death of a parents or near and dear one, changing new school, and or moving to another country locations etc.
In one small sample, almost 70% of children were recovered from panic disorders while 30% had further complications may be related to delay in seeking treatment.
Educating the children and adults about the recognition of symptoms and seeking help early on, can help avoid complications and better treatment results. Symptoms may present like,
Shortness of breath and palpitation.
Nausea vomiting and or diarrhoea.
Hot or cold feeling.
Feeling urgency in urination.
Feeling choking "lump in the throat".
This is too much for me.
I may die of the attack.
People are watching me, and this is embracing.
It will never end.
Individual and family-based Cognitive behaviour approach and supportive treatment in alliance with the therapist is the mainstay.
However, in severe cases, medication treatment in addition to the above approach may be needed.
Prognosis is fair to good with treatment compliance and alliance with well trained professional.
Should you require additional information or would like to make an appointment with Dr. Tahir, please e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
You might also like
Until Jun 30, 2019
Put Your House in Order
Romantic comedy and apocalyptic thriller
Open Run
From the writer of the acclaimed Ironbound
Open Run
Seize the King
Richard III transformed by Will Power
Unfortunately, we don't have any information about upcoming performances of this show. Maybe we can interest you with something similar from the options below...
Until Jun 30, 2019
Romantic comedy and apocalyptic thriller
Open Run
From the writer of the acclaimed Ironbound
Open Run
Richard III transformed by Will Power
Closed January 22, 2019
Country music's legendary songwriter
Kris Kristofferson has been a fixture of America's cultural landscape since the early 1970s. After leaving the army, Texas-born Kristofferson moved to Nashville to pursue his love of music in 1965, and soon became a prodigious songwriter, penning iconic tunes for the likes of Johnny Cash, Dave Dudley, and most notably, 'Me and Bobby McGee', which was a number one hit for Janis Joplin. From there his star as a recording artist in his own right was on the rise, as was his career in the movies, appearing in a string of classic flicks like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and A Star is Born.
A songwriter of rare perception and humanity, Kristofferson remains as vital a stage presence as ever, with one of music's great back catalogues to call upon. Catch him when he plays in , ,
Performance date: 22 January 2019
Image: Atkinsj
6 reviews, average rating: (4.7 Stars)
A Star Was Born : "The storyteller still charms the house"
I've been listening to his poetic stories since I was a child and they... more
Anonymous: "A Brilliant Writer, An Audience In Synch"
The crowd was with Kris and The Strangers from the minute the concert started!... more
Sound good to you? Share this page on social media and let your friends know about Kris Kristofferson at Balboa Theater.
I want email news and updates for events in my area! Read how we protect your data.
Please note: The term Balboa Theater and/or Kris Kristofferson as well as all associated graphics, logos, and/or other trademarks, tradenames or copyrights are the property of the Balboa Theater and/or Kris Kristofferson and are used herein for factual descriptive purposes only. We are in no way associated with or authorized by the Balboa Theater and/or Kris Kristofferson and neither that entity nor any of its affiliates have licensed or endorsed us to sell tickets, goods and or services in conjunction with their events.


text:
GMP Capital Inc. is exiting the capital markets business, selling its investment banking arm to U.S. brokerage house Stifel Financial Corp. for approximately $70-million in a dramatic shift for what was once one of Canada's most successful independent investment dealers.
In the latest sign of consolidation in financial services, GMP Capital's bankers and traders will join St. Louis-based Stifel, which has built a national U.S. platform by making more than two dozen acquisitions during chief executive officer Ronald Kruszewski's 22 years at the helm.
GMP Capital, founded in 1995 by veteran deal makers, made its name raising money for entrepreneurial businesses such as Research in Motion - now BlackBerry Ltd. - and cannabis, mining, and oil and gas companies in recent years. But, like BlackBerry, the Toronto-based investment bank that once boasted a market value of $2-billion is undergoing a transformation. Its core business will now revolve around its 33-per-cent stake in wealth manager Richardson GMP, which has approximately $30-billion in assets and 170 teams of financial advisers.
Once the Stifel transaction closes, GMP Capital plans to buy the remaining 67 per cent of Richardson GMP from its employees and Winnipeg's Richardson family in a stock swap that will make the Richardson clan the company's largest shareholder. GMP Capital will hold approximately $198million in cash. That capital is earmarked for expanding the wealth management platform by recruiting financial advisers and potentially adding new services such as robo-advisers, specialized lending and asset management.
"This transaction is all about turning the focus onto [Richardson GMP], giving it the oxygen, the focus and the capital it requires to become a really powerful force in the wealth management space in Canada as an independent, non-bank-owned firm," said Sandy Riley, CEO of Richardson Financial Group Ltd. He said Richardson Financial is in favour of swapping its stake in the wealth management company for additional shares in GMP Capital, where the family already holds a 24-per-cent stake.
After the Stifel sale, GMP Capital plans to pay a one-time 27.5cent-a-share special dividend to shareholders.
A handful of GMP Capital veterans are expected to depart when the deal is done, including co-founder and deputy chairman Kevin Sullivan.
GMP Capital has faced years of tumult. A downturn in resource markets, declining trading commissions and a failed expansion strategy knocked the firm's market capitalization down to $150million last week. CEO Harris Fricker said it was "frustration" over a declining stock price and the issue of how to best serve clients that drove a strategic review by the board to conclude with the sale to Stifel.
"In thinking about the industry, you ask: Are you growing or declining in terms of your relevance to clients?" said Mr. Fricker, who plans to move to Stifel with most of GMP Capital's senior executives. He said that to stay relevant to GMP Capital's small to medium-sized corporate customers the firm needed far better access to U.S. capital markets, something it could not build on its own.
"The addition of GMP further enhances our institutional business given its strength in the Canadian markets and within the technology, health care, cannabis and energy verticals," Stifel's Mr.
Kruszewski said.
GMP's stock price jumped 13 per cent on news of the buyout Monday, closing at $2.29 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The company's shareholders and regulators need to approve the transaction, which is expected to close this fall.
More than 50 independent Canadian investment dealers have been acquired in the past five years, leaving approximately 160 firms, according to the Investment Industry Association of Canada. Ian Russell, CEO of the IIAC, recently predicted that the continuing downturn in financing activity and rising regulatory costs will reduce the number of domestic dealers to fewer than 100 in the next two years, closing doors to small-cap Canadian companies looking to raise capital.
This is Stifel's second attempt to build a Canadian franchise.
The firm inherited a team with offices in Calgary and Toronto in 2010 when it acquired U.S. rival Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., which previously paid $150million to buy Canadian boutique dealer Westwind Partners. GMP Capital's Mr. Fricker said Stifel brass decided the Westwind team lacked the skills and relationships needed to build a business and shut the operation down in 2013.
Most significant U.S. investment banks already have offices in Canada, and Stifel executives said the domestic market ranks fourth globally in terms of generating investment banking fees, behind only the U.S., China and Britain. Victor Nesi, co-president of Stifle, said acquiring GMP "not only extends Stifel's business into the Canadian markets but will also enhance our offerings to our U.S. and U.K. clients."
Law firm Goodmans LLP advised GMP Capital on the transaction, while Stikeman Elliott LLP, Lazard Canada Inc. and Sheumack & Co. GMC LLC worked with the special committee of GMP Capital directors.


text:
We love this set! These lava bead diffuser bracelets are pretty worn individually or together and a great buy too. Add a drop or two of essential oil to the porous lava beads for lasting aroma.
Take your favorite essential oil to yoga class with you, wear your expandable bracelets on your wrist or ankle. FYI - kids love them as ankle bracelets!
7.5 inches in diameter
Amazonite Stone, Peachy Pink Stone, Rhodochrosite, Tourmalated Quartz, Mixed Stone
Love them!! Gave them as Christmas gifts
Great local Wyoming small business!! ;
They go with everything and do the job they're meant to do.
They are so pretty and comfortable. A very nice way to use your favorite oils!
I love the bracelets. They keep the fragrance of the oils for a long time. I am concerned about the effect of the oils on the stretch elastic over time.
This is a powerful blend for nerve related pain. Made with pure essential oils...
NOTE: CW Function Blend contains Rosehip Seed Oil, no additional carrier oil is needed. It's...
I've sold almost as many jars of Dreamy Sleep Salve as I have All...
More Summer Remedies Inside!
Subscribe to our emails! Learn more, save more!


text:
deck post light cap deck post light solar deck post cap lights solar led low voltage intended for solar deck deck post light led deck post light caps.
solar deck post cap lights home depot,veranda deck post cap light,led deck post light caps,deck post cap solar lights 6x6,composite deck post cap lights,solar deck post light caps,electric deck post cap lights,solar deck post light caps for composite 4 5,deck post cap lights 6x6,deck railing post cap lights low voltage,lowes deck post cap lights.
Related Post
walk in shower fixtures
galvanized iron pipe roughness
level best floor leveler
7 day pill holder
obd11 scan tool
log gun cabinet
best suction handheld vacuum
solder pipe with water in it
12 pack toilet paper
solid wood cube
halloween eyes in trees
skyrocket trees
lowes wall mounted fireplaces electric
pet safe lawn fertilizer
plate wood
lawn drink holder
mattress cover king
candle holder for pillar candles


text:
I need to lose weight fast and free,diet plan to lose weight fast in urdu,list of foods not to eat while on a low-carb diet - You Shoud Know
Losing Belly Fat | 27.09.2014
Top 5 fat burners in south africa
Green tea fat burner reviews 2013
Weight loss pills that actually work uk
Best low carb diet books
Comments to "I need to lose weight fast and free"
BASABELA writes:
Folks's bodies time to "adjust" future and fat loss electromagnetic.
EPPO writes:
"I'm positive most captains would somewhat that the rotation of a planet around the why each artist.
- Login
- Valid XHTML
- WordPress
- Site Map Want to lose weight in first trimester Fun healthy snacks recipes Low carb diet low carb diet Free pure garcinia cambogia extract Reduce fat in arms Low fat foods list snacks How to lose weight on your stomach hips and thighs Easy low carb diet Fat free diet foods Dangerous ingredients in weight loss pills Best exercise to lose belly fat men's health Natural muscle mass.net Fast weight loss pills over the counter Lose weight naturally fast llc port washington Fast fat burning diet Healthy dinner recipes for fat loss Most effective weight loss pills 2015 Healthy meat pie recipe Can running help you lose belly fat fast Healthy diet lose weight fast


text:
EconPapers Home
About EconPapers
Working Papers
Journal Articles
Books and Chapters
Software Components
JEL codes
New Economics Papers
Advanced Search
EconPapers FAQ
Archive maintainers FAQ
Cookies at EconPapers
Format for printing
The RePEc blog
The RePEc plagiarism page
David Masclet (Charles Noussair and
Marie Claire Villeval (
Post-Print from HAL
Experimental studies of social dilemmas have shown that while the existence of a sanctioning institution improves cooperation within groups, it also has a detrimental impact on group earnings in the short-run. Could the introduction of pre-play threats to punish have enough of a beneficial impact on cooperation, while not incurring the cost associated with actual punishment, so that they increase overall welfare ? We report an experiment in which players can issue non-binding threats to punish others based on their contribution levels to a public good. After observing others' actual contributions, they choose their actual punishment level. We find that threats increase the level of contributions significantly. Efficiency is improved, but only in the long run. However, the possibility of sanctioning differences between threatened and actual punishment leads to lower threats, cooperation and welfare, restoring them to levels equal to or below the levels attained in the absence of threats.
Keywords: Threats; cheap talk; sanctions; public good; experiment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00522655
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Published in Working paper GATE 2010-19 ; CIRANO Scientific Publication 2011s-08 ; IZA Discussion paper 5206. 2010
Downloads: (external link)https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00522655/document (application/pdf)
Related works:Journal Article: THREAT AND PUNISHMENT IN PUBLIC GOOD EXPERIMENTS (2013) Working Paper: Threat and Punishment in Public Good Experiments (2013)Working Paper: Threat and Punishment in Public Good Experiments (2011) Working Paper: Threat and Punishment in Public Good Experiments (2010) Working Paper: Threat and punishment in public good experiments (2010)Working Paper: Threat and punishment in public good experiments (2010)Working Paper: Threat and Punishment in Public Good Experiments (2010) This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00522655
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Post-Print from HALBibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD (
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to
EconPapers is hosted by the
Örebro University School of Business.


text:
Ever wonder if it seems like a couple teams are just more brutal than others? Since the start of this season, LIGHT and DARK have lead the division in physical games, fighting each other on open ice and against the boards 4,552 times for the puck. Every time these teams play, the GOHA Medical Crew doubles the staff at the rink knowing it's going to be a busy night!
A Random Hockey Fact from the Global Online Hockey Association


text:
Yoga Astrology Workshops this summer
In the first of 3 Yoga Astrology workshops this summer, Trish Alexander will be exploring the archtypes of Mars & Venus and how the Mars Retrograde may affect us this summer. There will be a yoga practice to help assimilate the information somatically and guided visualisation. Please bring a pen/pencil; notebook; yoga mat and water bottle.
Register by Wednesday 27 June by sending an email to [email protected]
Include your birth date, time & place (all details held in strict confidence).
Payment required in advance to secure your spot.
Space is limited - register today!
Children's Yoga Teacher Training
Join Yoga Academy International founder, Lauren Rudick, in Bermuda for a Children's Yoga Teacher Training. Visit Lucky Elephant Wellness for course details, dates and pricing.
"The World changes when you change your perspective."
So...get upside down and explore inverted yoga postures including Headstand, Forearm Stand, Handstand and Shoulder Stand in this Get Lucky & Learn workshop.
In this workshop you will be progressively guided through preparatory poses, technique, alignment, drills, modifications and variations of these iconic inversions.
No prior experience with inversions is necessary, although we recommend that students have practiced other yoga postures for several months. Seasoned practitioners can use this as a dedicated time to refine their skills and practice variations in their inversions.
Visit Lucky Elephant Wellness for full details
This year we celebrate the 15th anniversary of our annual sunrise yoga event, in honor of the summer solstice. This free community event is hosted at Astwood Park, South Shore, Warwick.
We will begin this year the readings at 6am to open the event, followed by a yoga sequence which will be lead by multiple teachers from our lovely local teaching community.
The physical practice concludes at 8am, at which time we invite participants to stay and join us for a bit of social time connecting with other Bermuda yogis. You are welcome to bring your own breakfast, or even bring items to share with others.
The practice itself will be suitable for ALL LEVELS. You are welcomed as a seasoned practitioner of yoga, or even if it is your very first time!
Dress in comfortable clothing in which you can move with ease. Perhaps bring a layer to wrap in case it is cool. Bring yourself, a bottle of water and your mat (or a towel).
We hope to see you there!
The BYTA team
[email protected]
The BYTA meets twice a year. If you are a certified yoga teacher, or in the process of becoming certified and you'd like to meet other members of the teaching community, we would love for you to join us.
Email [email protected] to request the full meeting agenda, or if you have any other questions.
If you have yet to visit the lovely Spirit House, it is located at 65 Middle Road, Devonshire.
We hope you can make it. See you there!