.jpg){kind=logo}
Obama’s at it again – promising what he can’t deliver (reducing oil imports by 1/3 in 10 years) while counting on the fact that in 10 years no one will remember this disingenuous promise, or if they do, we will be unable to hold him accountable since he will be out of office (thankfully).
Oh yes, Obama’s third option, which he often uses, is to blame industry by saying or implying that they have not taken advantage of what he (and his bureaucracy) has so kindly given to them. This is especially insulting (telling an industry how to run their business) when Obama has NO business experience (let alone energy experience) and even his administration has very few members who have any business experience.
Clearly, the first thing that any rational human being would do in order to deliver on this promise would to help encourage more oil & gas exploration & production. Yet, he continues to do just the opposite. The most obvious example is that despite stating, several months ago, that he would reopen the Gulf to drilling, the Dept. of Interior has issued only one permit. Furthermore, according to a study of public lands by the Bureau of Land Management, nearly 2/3 of America’s onshore oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves remain inaccessible due to legal restrictions.
In short, contrary to what Obama’s has said about reducing our oil imports, the Obama administration continues to discourage American exploration & drilling. Not only is this making us more dependent on foreign oil & gas, but sadly it is also costing us jobs at a time when we should be trying to create jobs – not shipping them overseas.
Although it is April 1st, this is not a joke.
Walter Curtner
CRBC Issues Chair
Friday, April 15, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Co Budget - is the shortfall a fiction?
From December to March, Colorado’s budget forecast for the general fund increased by over half a billion dollars, substantially shrinking that $1.2 billion budget shortfall we’ve all heard so much about. That’s good news. But here’s the dirty little secret: The budget shortfall is a fiction.
The budget for the current year (2010-11) is $7.1 billion. We’re told that the legislature closed a $350 million shortfall. Yet the budget for 2009-10 was $6.3 billion. That’s an increase of $800 million. The budget forecast for next year as of last December was $7.1 billion, the same as the current year. Does that sound like a $1.2 billion shortfall? And the updated forecast, released yesterday, predicts less than half of that shortfall. Total budget forecast: $7.1 billion, the same amount that predicted the $1.2 billion shortfall. Huh?
Let’s do the math. If the budget in the current year is $7.1 billion, and we anticipate a $600 million shortfall next year, what is the anticipated budget for next year? $6.5 billion, right? Not in the world of government budgetary mathematics.
Now it may be that I don’t understand the budget. As far as I can tell, neither do the legislators. They haven’t been able to explain how the shortfall number is calculated, and have only raised more questions when they tried. I’ve talked to Henry Sobanet, Governor Hickenlooper’s budget director and one of the foremost experts regarding the state budget. He provided far more insight than anyone I’ve talked to about the state budget. Yet he could not explain the budget shortfall in a way that mere mortals could comprehend.
And therein lies the danger. Despite the good news about the budget, the steady drumbeat about the shortfall will continue and get louder. And we’ll be asked to approve new taxes. What do you suppose are the chances that anyone will tell us how they arrived at that number? Don’t you think they should be able to prove the numbers before they ask us to satisfy the rapacious government appetite for that which does not belong to them?
Even if there are real numbers behind what appears to be fiction, shouldn’t we all be on the same page? If “shortfall” means something entirely different to you and me than it does to the general assembly, shouldn’t we reconcile terms before we hand over more money?
Unemployment is at a record high in Colorado. People are struggling to keep food on the table, heat their homes, and put gas in their cars. There are families that can’t afford to pay 30 cents a day to have schools feed breakfast to their children. Raising sales taxes will hurt those families the most.
Raising income taxes will hinder job creation by diverting more money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector.
Brian Vande Krol
The budget for the current year (2010-11) is $7.1 billion. We’re told that the legislature closed a $350 million shortfall. Yet the budget for 2009-10 was $6.3 billion. That’s an increase of $800 million. The budget forecast for next year as of last December was $7.1 billion, the same as the current year. Does that sound like a $1.2 billion shortfall? And the updated forecast, released yesterday, predicts less than half of that shortfall. Total budget forecast: $7.1 billion, the same amount that predicted the $1.2 billion shortfall. Huh?
Let’s do the math. If the budget in the current year is $7.1 billion, and we anticipate a $600 million shortfall next year, what is the anticipated budget for next year? $6.5 billion, right? Not in the world of government budgetary mathematics.
Now it may be that I don’t understand the budget. As far as I can tell, neither do the legislators. They haven’t been able to explain how the shortfall number is calculated, and have only raised more questions when they tried. I’ve talked to Henry Sobanet, Governor Hickenlooper’s budget director and one of the foremost experts regarding the state budget. He provided far more insight than anyone I’ve talked to about the state budget. Yet he could not explain the budget shortfall in a way that mere mortals could comprehend.
And therein lies the danger. Despite the good news about the budget, the steady drumbeat about the shortfall will continue and get louder. And we’ll be asked to approve new taxes. What do you suppose are the chances that anyone will tell us how they arrived at that number? Don’t you think they should be able to prove the numbers before they ask us to satisfy the rapacious government appetite for that which does not belong to them?
Even if there are real numbers behind what appears to be fiction, shouldn’t we all be on the same page? If “shortfall” means something entirely different to you and me than it does to the general assembly, shouldn’t we reconcile terms before we hand over more money?
Unemployment is at a record high in Colorado. People are struggling to keep food on the table, heat their homes, and put gas in their cars. There are families that can’t afford to pay 30 cents a day to have schools feed breakfast to their children. Raising sales taxes will hurt those families the most.
Raising income taxes will hinder job creation by diverting more money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector.
Brian Vande Krol
CO Senate Republicans Budget principles
Senate Republicans believe the following eight budget principles provide a sound basis for a fiscally responsible FY 2011-12 state budget.
* Maintains a reserve of at least 4 percent as recommended by the Governor;
• Budgets to the most conservative General Fund revenue estimate available for FY 2011-12;
• Avoids suspending the $65 million vendor fee that has already cost thousands of jobs;
• Makes structural, long term changes to entitlements, which are increasingly crowding out needed funding for core functions of government such as K-12, higher education, and transportation;
• Consolidates prisons and increase utilization of cheaper private corrections facilities;
• Increases the amount that government workers pay for their retirement as recommended by the Governor;
• Avoids the use of one-time fund sources to prop up General Fund spending that will create a shortfall next year; and
• Is amenable to and supportive of additional structural changes and cuts in spending which will be offered by our caucus in floor amendments.
* Maintains a reserve of at least 4 percent as recommended by the Governor;
• Budgets to the most conservative General Fund revenue estimate available for FY 2011-12;
• Avoids suspending the $65 million vendor fee that has already cost thousands of jobs;
• Makes structural, long term changes to entitlements, which are increasingly crowding out needed funding for core functions of government such as K-12, higher education, and transportation;
• Consolidates prisons and increase utilization of cheaper private corrections facilities;
• Increases the amount that government workers pay for their retirement as recommended by the Governor;
• Avoids the use of one-time fund sources to prop up General Fund spending that will create a shortfall next year; and
• Is amenable to and supportive of additional structural changes and cuts in spending which will be offered by our caucus in floor amendments.
Good news/bad news on taxes - and a correction
The past Saturday, I spoke before the CO Republican State Central Committee and talked about several initiatives to hike taxes by the left-leaning Colorado Center on Law and Policy.
The information I reported was incorrect, as it was already four days old and things had changed. I had not updated my research. I am pleased to report that CCLP has decided not to pursue their tax increase petitions for November. Additionally, the Title Board denied CCLP's proposed initiative to place a sales tax on services.
CCLP's initiatives asked voters to change the current tax code to have an increased rate on individuals and corporations with specific directions for wealth re-distribution. The initiatives varied only slightly but would have raised taxes in Colorado between $1.07B to $1.512B - and mostly on the backs of people already paying in the higher brackets.
In the CCLP initiatives, approximately 60% of Coloradoans would have paid the same or less tax than they currently pay; the other 40% would have carried the burden.
As reported by Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, a CCLP executive said the group couldn't get enough support to pay for the campaign. But, as Hoover wrote, "Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) is still proposing a temporary tax-increase initiative that would ask voters to raise income and sales taxes to generate $1.63 billion over three years"....and "another version that would ask voters to make the tax increases permanent."
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
The information I reported was incorrect, as it was already four days old and things had changed. I had not updated my research. I am pleased to report that CCLP has decided not to pursue their tax increase petitions for November. Additionally, the Title Board denied CCLP's proposed initiative to place a sales tax on services.
CCLP's initiatives asked voters to change the current tax code to have an increased rate on individuals and corporations with specific directions for wealth re-distribution. The initiatives varied only slightly but would have raised taxes in Colorado between $1.07B to $1.512B - and mostly on the backs of people already paying in the higher brackets.
In the CCLP initiatives, approximately 60% of Coloradoans would have paid the same or less tax than they currently pay; the other 40% would have carried the burden.
As reported by Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, a CCLP executive said the group couldn't get enough support to pay for the campaign. But, as Hoover wrote, "Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) is still proposing a temporary tax-increase initiative that would ask voters to raise income and sales taxes to generate $1.63 billion over three years"....and "another version that would ask voters to make the tax increases permanent."
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Vande Krol: Hick's Bottom Up or Upside Down?
Bottom Up or Upside Down, It’s More Government
March 29, 2011
Yesterday I attended the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Initiative. I was disturbed that so many in attendance are "swallowing the kool-aid", believing that government can craft the right program to get the economy moving and put people back to work.
Any attempt by government to incentivize business is a burden that must be borne by taxpayers, and a comparative disadvantage to the businesses that doesn't qualify for the incentives.
The Mayor of Commerce City (Natale) boasted that they appoint a person to help any large business that's moving to their city. That person is the single point of contact between that business and the city, and facilitates their move. But what are the chances that a smaller business would get that same assistance?
The businesses that drive the economy and offer the most employment are the small, less glamorous businesses. One thousand sole proprietors that each hire one person creates more jobs than a relocated company with 500 employees. And the sole proprietor doesn't show up in any statistics. Making it easy for people to start small businesses by removing barriers can have a far greater impact on employment and the creation of wealth.
Natale also wanted protection (tariffs?) for the concrete pipe companies in Commerce City. Apparently there's a move afoot to change regulations to specify plastic pipe instead of concrete in public works projects. This is foolishness all the way around. Protectionism always harms the consumer (the taxpayer in this case). And regulations that specify a particular product (rather than performance criteria) invites more governmental favoritism and corruption.
There were lots of ideas about government programs to educate businesses. Really? Perhaps the people who run the post office, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. can teach us what they know.
Someone wanted to raise the gas tax to fund transportation. I'm always amazed at the people who believe that if you come up with a new way to tax, it will somehow create new money to be taxed. It's as if the consumers are saving money under their cushions until someone comes up with the right way to pry it out. I like the idea that gas taxes are the best way to ensure that the users of roads are the ones who pay for the roads. But if gas taxes are raised, there must be a commensurate decrease in other taxes, or it will further dampen economic growth.
Someone trotted out the old and common belief that the key to prosperity is to fund higher education. Adams County apparently doesn't have enough college graduates. The belief is that if we have more college graduates sitting around waiting for jobs, companies will relocate here. I would contend that companies will relocate here if they see a comparative business advantage, meaning less government intrusion and taxation and more stability in regulations. Then those businesses will attract the people they need to staff the company. The main reason to improve higher education in Colorado is so that parents don't have to ship their kids out of state to get a good education. That's not a bad thing, but let's be honest about it.
One gentleman thought we should have a government agency that businesses could contact to keep abreast of government changes that might affect them. I said it's a sad day when our business environment is so volatile because of government that we have to have an agency to help us track the changes.
Someone suggested that the Governor should personally know the CEOs of the top 100 Colorado employers. Can you imagine that weekly phone call from Hick to Mr. Big? Do you think either will care that Hick generally cannot help Mr. Big’s company without taking from the taxpayers, or putting competing companies at a comparative disadvantage?
This whole fiasco is a classic example of the grand deceit of those who think they can plan our economy. A room mostly full of government representatives trying to decide how best to "create jobs". Business people attend because "if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". TIFs, programs, agencies, enterprise zones, tariffs, incentives, and on and on.
It all adds up to favoritism for the businesses that government approves, and taxpayers foot the bill. Although everyone acknowledged the need to cut red tape, very few specific ideas came up. It's such a huge task that few know where to begin. Perhaps it’s also because the government representatives in attendance don't experience the red tape problem. Remember that the first red tape Hick cut was for brewers, a problem of which he has first hand knowledge.
Remember what happens when you bend over and grab your ankles - you are Bottom Up. Brian Vande Krol
March 29, 2011
Yesterday I attended the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Initiative. I was disturbed that so many in attendance are "swallowing the kool-aid", believing that government can craft the right program to get the economy moving and put people back to work.
Any attempt by government to incentivize business is a burden that must be borne by taxpayers, and a comparative disadvantage to the businesses that doesn't qualify for the incentives.
The Mayor of Commerce City (Natale) boasted that they appoint a person to help any large business that's moving to their city. That person is the single point of contact between that business and the city, and facilitates their move. But what are the chances that a smaller business would get that same assistance?
The businesses that drive the economy and offer the most employment are the small, less glamorous businesses. One thousand sole proprietors that each hire one person creates more jobs than a relocated company with 500 employees. And the sole proprietor doesn't show up in any statistics. Making it easy for people to start small businesses by removing barriers can have a far greater impact on employment and the creation of wealth.
Natale also wanted protection (tariffs?) for the concrete pipe companies in Commerce City. Apparently there's a move afoot to change regulations to specify plastic pipe instead of concrete in public works projects. This is foolishness all the way around. Protectionism always harms the consumer (the taxpayer in this case). And regulations that specify a particular product (rather than performance criteria) invites more governmental favoritism and corruption.
There were lots of ideas about government programs to educate businesses. Really? Perhaps the people who run the post office, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. can teach us what they know.
Someone wanted to raise the gas tax to fund transportation. I'm always amazed at the people who believe that if you come up with a new way to tax, it will somehow create new money to be taxed. It's as if the consumers are saving money under their cushions until someone comes up with the right way to pry it out. I like the idea that gas taxes are the best way to ensure that the users of roads are the ones who pay for the roads. But if gas taxes are raised, there must be a commensurate decrease in other taxes, or it will further dampen economic growth.
Someone trotted out the old and common belief that the key to prosperity is to fund higher education. Adams County apparently doesn't have enough college graduates. The belief is that if we have more college graduates sitting around waiting for jobs, companies will relocate here. I would contend that companies will relocate here if they see a comparative business advantage, meaning less government intrusion and taxation and more stability in regulations. Then those businesses will attract the people they need to staff the company. The main reason to improve higher education in Colorado is so that parents don't have to ship their kids out of state to get a good education. That's not a bad thing, but let's be honest about it.
One gentleman thought we should have a government agency that businesses could contact to keep abreast of government changes that might affect them. I said it's a sad day when our business environment is so volatile because of government that we have to have an agency to help us track the changes.
Someone suggested that the Governor should personally know the CEOs of the top 100 Colorado employers. Can you imagine that weekly phone call from Hick to Mr. Big? Do you think either will care that Hick generally cannot help Mr. Big’s company without taking from the taxpayers, or putting competing companies at a comparative disadvantage?
This whole fiasco is a classic example of the grand deceit of those who think they can plan our economy. A room mostly full of government representatives trying to decide how best to "create jobs". Business people attend because "if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". TIFs, programs, agencies, enterprise zones, tariffs, incentives, and on and on.
It all adds up to favoritism for the businesses that government approves, and taxpayers foot the bill. Although everyone acknowledged the need to cut red tape, very few specific ideas came up. It's such a huge task that few know where to begin. Perhaps it’s also because the government representatives in attendance don't experience the red tape problem. Remember that the first red tape Hick cut was for brewers, a problem of which he has first hand knowledge.
Remember what happens when you bend over and grab your ankles - you are Bottom Up. Brian Vande Krol
CRBC opposes HB1255 CO Alternative Energy Park Act
March 17, 2011 The Honorable State Representatives State Capitol Building 200 E. Colfax Ave Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: HB 1255, Colorado Alternative Energy Park Act Dear Representative, The Colorado Republican Business Coalition Opposes HB 1255. The wealth of Colorado (or the United States, or individuals) derives from the goods and services we create. To expand that wealth requires more efficient production of those goods and services. Capital and labor that is diverted to less efficient production reduces that wealth. If a particular product is more efficient to produce, entrepreneurs will invest the capital and labor to produce it. (See "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for a more complete discussion.) We know that most forms of alternative energy are less efficient because they cost more than traditional forms of energy, and there would be little demand for it without subsidies and incentives. If it needs a subsidy, it probably doesn't deserve it. There can not be a tax incentive to one industry or company that doesn't cost an equivalent amount to a different industry, company, or taxpayers. The Tax Increment Financing incentives envisioned by this bill will be a relative disadvantage to every business that doesn’t receive similar advantages. Further, but for the tax incentives, tax rates overall could be reduced and citizens would be far better at spending their own money to create economic development than government. Spending tax money in hopes of creating more tax revenue is faulty economics. This government distortion of the free market for energy production diverts labor and capital to inefficient projects, and creates an industry that will be forever dependent on government subsidies. If an alternative energy park is developed and cannot run economically, taxpayers will foot the bill. If it creates more environmental damage than it prevents, Colorado suffers the consequences. If it quickly becomes obsolete when more efficient forms of energy are developed, taxpayers have funded that obsolescent technology. If rail transportation falls into disuse, taxpayers have paid for the improvements to rail systems to accommodate the parks. And the bill depends on the wisdom of government officials to determine the economic and environmental viability of the project. These officials have very little risk, because they are using taxpayer money for these experiments. This is a system that is ripe for political favoritism and abuse. We do not oppose alternative energy. However, as liberty minded business owners and free market advocates, we know that entrepreneurs will develop more alternative energy without government assistance when it becomes efficient to do so. Christine Burtt Chairman CO Republican Business Coalition Brian Vande Krol CRBC Issues Committee www.smallbizgop.com
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Ryan Call Elected State GOP Chair
Earlier today in Castle Rock, the State Central Committee elected Ryan Call to be the new State Chair. Ryan Call will succeed Dick Wadhams as the fundraising and candidate-supporting leader at the state level. Current Jefferson County Republican Chair Don Ytterberg received the State Vice-Chair nod, and Perry Buck, spouse of erstwhile Senate candidate Ken Buck, will the the new State Secretary. Ryan Call previously served as the Denver County GOP Chair as well as the legal counsel for the State GOP. David Carpenter CRBC Board
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
CRBC Chair To Discuss Egypt Trip
UPDATE: Audio links are available for the interview. Links: 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. CRBC Chairman Christine Burtt recently returned from a trip to Egypt where she met political activists who were involved in the recent revolution.
Christine Burtt is in the front row, fourth person from the left, in this picture from her recent trip.
Christine Burtt wrote the following overview of her upcoming interview:
Tomorrow, Thursday, March 24, 10:05 a.m., on Mike Rosen's show at KOA radio 850 AM, I'll be talking with Mike about how a handful of young Egyptians fomented a revolution that took down a powerful and repressive 30-year president, misdirected his security police force of more than 100,000 officers, and have forever transformed the seat of the Arab world. What will happen next in Egypt and what does it mean for America and our interests in the Middle East? Tune in here to listen live. A link to the podcast of the interview will be added when available.
Christine Burtt is in the front row, fourth person from the left, in this picture from her recent trip.
Friday, March 18, 2011
CRBC Legislative Matrix
Do you want to know the bills in the Colorado General Assembly that affect business, but you do not have time to read them? Visit our legislative matrix here (updated weekly) for a list of legislation our legislative affairs committee is following.
And, as always, visit us at http://smallbizgop.com for the latest updates.
And, as always, visit us at http://smallbizgop.com for the latest updates.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
CO Budget Factoids
Debt on Transportation Bonds
The Colorado Department of Transportation currently budgets $168 million annually to service debt on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) issued during the Owens administration. This level of debt service will continue until 2016. These bonds were issued in order to build the I-25 Southeast Corridor through Denver (known as “T-Rex”), including the light rail line running parallel to I-25. The same bonds also financed new transportation construction throughout other areas of the state. In 2017, payments drop to $130 million, the year in which this outstanding debt will be retired.
Medicaid eligibility grew for non-traditional groups.
Medicaid was initially designed to pay for health care for impoverished families, the disabled and the impoverished elderly. Analysis of the Colorado Medicaid caseload composition shows large increases in recent years for “expansion adults” and “other.”
Proponents defined Amendment 23 as being “for the children,” and it increased the education budget each year even when revenues dropped. Political decisions are about making trade-offs. More for education means less for something else. Amendment 23 locks in the rest of the budget as losers to the largest and more powerful entities and lobbying organizations. Do Colorado taxpayers want funding increases to stay on autopilot forever in order to have higher teachers’ salaries and more spending? The legislature could add repeal of Amendment 23 to the November 2012 ballot for voter consideration.
For more information see: http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget/
The Colorado Department of Transportation currently budgets $168 million annually to service debt on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) issued during the Owens administration. This level of debt service will continue until 2016. These bonds were issued in order to build the I-25 Southeast Corridor through Denver (known as “T-Rex”), including the light rail line running parallel to I-25. The same bonds also financed new transportation construction throughout other areas of the state. In 2017, payments drop to $130 million, the year in which this outstanding debt will be retired.
Medicaid eligibility grew for non-traditional groups.
Medicaid was initially designed to pay for health care for impoverished families, the disabled and the impoverished elderly. Analysis of the Colorado Medicaid caseload composition shows large increases in recent years for “expansion adults” and “other.”
Proponents defined Amendment 23 as being “for the children,” and it increased the education budget each year even when revenues dropped. Political decisions are about making trade-offs. More for education means less for something else. Amendment 23 locks in the rest of the budget as losers to the largest and more powerful entities and lobbying organizations. Do Colorado taxpayers want funding increases to stay on autopilot forever in order to have higher teachers’ salaries and more spending? The legislature could add repeal of Amendment 23 to the November 2012 ballot for voter consideration.
For more information see: http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget/
Legislators Respond on Biz Personal Property Tax, Health Insurance Reform, and CO Healthcare Cooperative
RE: SB26 Sen. Cheri Jahn (D-Jeffco)is against the Business Personal Property Tax but won't vote to repeal because education and local government are a higher priority.
CRBC supported SB26. Bill Status: Killed in Senate Finance Committee
"Each year I served in the House this issue came up. We managed to extend the exemption my last year to another 30,000 small businesses. I agree this is a tax that is just wrong but looking at the fiscal note it is very difficult to vote yes on something that is wiping out millions from our schools, which is on top of the $265 million they got hit with last year. Education is KEY to strong economic development and I can't justify another hit of $9.7 million in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.
Besides impacts to the schools, the fiscal impact to our local governments is huge, losing $24.2 million per year. This would be really bad timing to local districts that are already facing enormous funding cuts not only through state cuts but federal as well.
I hope you understand the terrible situation we are in with our budget this year with the cuts we are already making. It has been suggested we may be making cuts to education in the realm of $300 plus millions along with others.
Sincerely,
Cheri Jahn
303-866-4856
RE: SB019 permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
CRBC supports SB019 Bill Status: Passed Senate, laid over daily for second reading in House
Sen Keith King (R-SD12- El Paso) "Christine, thanks for the support of my bill. I appreciate it. It passed the Senate unanimously. Keith"
Sen. Jean White (R-Routt, Grand) agrees: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important bill. I am a yes vote."
Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) agrees: "SB 19 on Small Business Health Care Reimbursement passed the senate with a unanimous vote on Feb. 28. The bill has now been assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee."
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
CRBC opposes SB168 Bill Status: Scheduled for Senate Second Reading March 18
Sen Nancy Spence (R-SD27, Centennial) "I think there is no doubt that the R's in the senate will oppose SB168. I'm not sure what the D's will do with the bill - I suspect there will be a few who will oppose it."
Sen. Keith King (R-SD8,El Paso)"We can not afford this bill. I do not support it."
Sen Mark Scheffel(R-SD04,Douglas Cty) "This bill is scheduled to have its second reading in the Senate on 18 March. Senator Scheffel will keep these concerns in mind as the bill progress in the legislative process; we appreciate your input."
Sen. Edie Hudak (D-SD19, Westminster) "I would like to take a moment to explain to you what SB 168 does and why I am supporting this legislation.
SB 168 allows the Legislature the ability to have a consultant determine what the costs would be for Colorado to establish a CONSUMER-owned and -operated Health Care Cooperative. While the panel to direct this process would be appointed by the Governor, House, and Senate, the plan the consultant would analyze would focus on a cooperative owned and operated by the people of Colorado and managed by a member-appointed board. The government would have nothing to do with running health care in Colorado.The Cooperative would provide everyone in Colorado direct access to better health care and lower costs. I believe that it could help businesses in the state by stabilizing costs to provide health care benefits to employees. Reductions in costs for businesses could translate to businesses being able to hire more workers, expand their businesses, or provide more or better benefits.
The private health care industry would not be dismantled by this plan. In fact, providers would be given more freedom to innovate around service delivery and consumers would have more choice in health care.
As you know, health care costs are escalating. Additionally, national reform has not adequately addressed cost control. As a legislator, I think Colorado is in a unique position to innovate health care delivery in our state. We have many excellent examples of such systems throughout our state that we can build upon and many nationally recognized leaders in our state that we can call upon to help us. If the consultant finds that our Colorado plan - owned and operated by the people of Colorado - would improve safety, access, and quality while reducing costs, the Legislature would refer the idea to the ballot. It would ONLY be implemented if the people of Colorado agreed and voted it into law.
In these tough economic times, we need to see how we can ensure the health of our population while controlling spending. Whatever ideas we develop would not be implemented until the people in our state voted to implement it. I think we should build on our reputation for innovation and try to develop our own plan. That's what SB 168 will allow us to do. I hope you can support this effort."
Editor's note: "owned and operated by the people" is by definition a public system - not a private system.
CRBC supported SB26. Bill Status: Killed in Senate Finance Committee
"Each year I served in the House this issue came up. We managed to extend the exemption my last year to another 30,000 small businesses. I agree this is a tax that is just wrong but looking at the fiscal note it is very difficult to vote yes on something that is wiping out millions from our schools, which is on top of the $265 million they got hit with last year. Education is KEY to strong economic development and I can't justify another hit of $9.7 million in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.
Besides impacts to the schools, the fiscal impact to our local governments is huge, losing $24.2 million per year. This would be really bad timing to local districts that are already facing enormous funding cuts not only through state cuts but federal as well.
I hope you understand the terrible situation we are in with our budget this year with the cuts we are already making. It has been suggested we may be making cuts to education in the realm of $300 plus millions along with others.
Sincerely,
Cheri Jahn
303-866-4856
RE: SB019 permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
CRBC supports SB019 Bill Status: Passed Senate, laid over daily for second reading in House
Sen Keith King (R-SD12- El Paso) "Christine, thanks for the support of my bill. I appreciate it. It passed the Senate unanimously. Keith"
Sen. Jean White (R-Routt, Grand) agrees: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important bill. I am a yes vote."
Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) agrees: "SB 19 on Small Business Health Care Reimbursement passed the senate with a unanimous vote on Feb. 28. The bill has now been assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee."
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
CRBC opposes SB168 Bill Status: Scheduled for Senate Second Reading March 18
Sen Nancy Spence (R-SD27, Centennial) "I think there is no doubt that the R's in the senate will oppose SB168. I'm not sure what the D's will do with the bill - I suspect there will be a few who will oppose it."
Sen. Keith King (R-SD8,El Paso)"We can not afford this bill. I do not support it."
Sen Mark Scheffel(R-SD04,Douglas Cty) "This bill is scheduled to have its second reading in the Senate on 18 March. Senator Scheffel will keep these concerns in mind as the bill progress in the legislative process; we appreciate your input."
Sen. Edie Hudak (D-SD19, Westminster) "I would like to take a moment to explain to you what SB 168 does and why I am supporting this legislation.
SB 168 allows the Legislature the ability to have a consultant determine what the costs would be for Colorado to establish a CONSUMER-owned and -operated Health Care Cooperative. While the panel to direct this process would be appointed by the Governor, House, and Senate, the plan the consultant would analyze would focus on a cooperative owned and operated by the people of Colorado and managed by a member-appointed board. The government would have nothing to do with running health care in Colorado.The Cooperative would provide everyone in Colorado direct access to better health care and lower costs. I believe that it could help businesses in the state by stabilizing costs to provide health care benefits to employees. Reductions in costs for businesses could translate to businesses being able to hire more workers, expand their businesses, or provide more or better benefits.
The private health care industry would not be dismantled by this plan. In fact, providers would be given more freedom to innovate around service delivery and consumers would have more choice in health care.
As you know, health care costs are escalating. Additionally, national reform has not adequately addressed cost control. As a legislator, I think Colorado is in a unique position to innovate health care delivery in our state. We have many excellent examples of such systems throughout our state that we can build upon and many nationally recognized leaders in our state that we can call upon to help us. If the consultant finds that our Colorado plan - owned and operated by the people of Colorado - would improve safety, access, and quality while reducing costs, the Legislature would refer the idea to the ballot. It would ONLY be implemented if the people of Colorado agreed and voted it into law.
In these tough economic times, we need to see how we can ensure the health of our population while controlling spending. Whatever ideas we develop would not be implemented until the people in our state voted to implement it. I think we should build on our reputation for innovation and try to develop our own plan. That's what SB 168 will allow us to do. I hope you can support this effort."
Editor's note: "owned and operated by the people" is by definition a public system - not a private system.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Review of Coal-to-Gas Legislation A Positive Step
When I read this past week in the Denver Post that the coal industry lobbyists were asking for a review of last year’s legislation that required conversion of Colorado coal plants to natural gas, it lifted my spirits. The government is way too involved in forcing “green” energy moves in an industry that should be adjusting to economic realities on its own and on a less than crisis-oriented atmosphere so popular with the Obama EPA administration. The government should not be picking winners and losers in any industry and should allow market and economic forces to make improvements naturally.
As an example, this morning I saw a large UPS truck in our office complex with the letters on its side “powered by natural gas.” This is a logical transitional energy movement particularly from expensive oil to currently abundant (in the U.S.) and cheaper natural gas. According to Natural Gas entrepreneur and cheerleader T. Boone Pickens, it’s a lot cheaper to get eight million trucks in the U.S. on natural gas than on batteries by converting existing trucks and building new trucks to run on natural gas. Another major move would be for the conversion of most homes in the northeast United States from heating oil to natural gas heating. Both of these would reduce our importation of expensive oil.
However, we should not legislate away economical use of coal of which we have a great abundance of in the U.S. and for which conversion from coal to lower-cost cleaner fuels is now possible. China is taking and utilizing all the coal it can get its hands on from Canada and other countries to fuel its economic growth. In the U.S. we should continue to use coal and seek the continued technological improvement of our cheaper and abundant coal-based fuels.
Joseph Chavez, Attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
