.jpg){kind=logo}
Ken - I hope you sent your monologue about getting money out of politics "For Democrat Eyes Only" (below) to Stryker, Polis, Bridges, Gill, Soros, SEIU, NEA, CEA et al.
Their "blueprint" has turned campaign messaging on its head. The Republicans are just trying to co-opt this new paradigm where puppetmasters craft a candidate's message, regardless of that candidate's vision.
When McCain-Feingold was passed, it started a chain of events that has taken control of message away from candidates. It has led to the nasty, negative and untruthful ads that cover the airways. Democrat sympathizers were particularly virulent this season; they could not run on their policy ideas so the strategy was to tear down their Republican opponents. Some of it was really quite shameful and over-the-top. Voters saw through much of it.
If your solution is to stop corporate donations, then it must also apply to unions. The first step is paycheck protection so that union members proactively direct their dues toward member benefits and the PAC as they choose. Shut down the union's special status in campaign finance, then we can discuss modifications to corporate giving.
If your solution is to make all campaigns subject to public funding, that's just wrong. I pay enough of my tax dollars supporting useless programs and inefficient bureaucrats. The last thing I want to do is give my tax dollars to fund a political campaign of a candidate whom I believe would be wrong for my family's future.
BTW, your assertion that the "Democrats are the party of the people" and the "Republicans are the party of big business" belies either arrogance or ignorance. "The people" understand that it is "business" - and most specifically small business that is the engine of our economy. A political party whose policies hurt business and therefore job creation is ultimately against "the people."
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
www.smallbizgop.com
303.722.9958
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Ken Gordon, former Democrat Senate Majority Leader
www.kengordon.com
Ken@kengordon.com
For Democrat Eyes Only
The polls are just closing and I know no results. I’m hoping for the best, but regardless of tonight’s result I think our party has to engage in serious reform.
For most of the last century the Democrats were the party of the people and the Republicans were the party of big business. The Republican Party started as a movement against slavery, but as it got to be dominant, business took it under its wing and… you know the rest.
I am not anti-business. A strong business community is necessary for our welfare, jobs and prosperity. It is right for government to take business interests into consideration. Business people can and should make individual campaign contributions to candidates who share their values.
Corporations though should not be able to make unlimited campaign expenditures. This money does not come from people making a volitional decision. This money comes from customers across the political spectrum. There is essentially no limit to the money that corporations can put into politics. This money distorts the political system as does the money from other special interests.
It makes us less of a democracy.
As for my party, the Democratic Party, it turned out that we didn’t turn down business money on principle. We just didn’t get any. When the business community decided that it made sense to spend money on both major parties, we took as much as we could get…and it changed us.
It has broken our connection with the people.
It has created a society where almost no one trusts elected officials of either party.
Congressional approval ratings have fallen below 20%. People who are angry at the misuse of power and money don’t become Democrats.
They join the Tea Party.
Money is seductive. It even makes sense for a candidate making a short-term cost-benefit analysis. But hundreds of Democratic candidates making short-term benefit decisions has seriously damaged our brand. If everyone makes decisions for the short-term, in the long-term we are seriously (pick your own verb).
People will reward a party that seriously moves to reduce the influence of money in politics. They will reward a party that is honest and respectful in campaigns.
Many will say that this position is too idealistic. It is not realistic to try to reduce the influence of money in politics, and negative ads work, they will say.
But the way we finance campaigns and their negativity creates a race to the bottom that seriously hurts the system we want to lead.
Negative ads only work if by “work” you mean help to win an election. If you are interested in educating kids, protecting the environment or creating a health care safety net, negative ads do not work, because they create a toxic environment where no one can govern effectively.
If we continue this way we leave the door open for a new movement that will capture the young and the idealistic. It will be powerful, oriented towards the future, and will not be called the Democratic Party.
We can do something about this. Democrats have the right DNA. I propose a conversation.
Please forward to other Democrats.
Sincerely,
Ken Gordon
Former Colorado Senate Majority Leader
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Ken Buck Tells Truth about Bennet's Lies
KEN BUCK ON THE ISSUES
Q: Does Ken want to levy a 23% tax on all goods and services?
A: Ken has never advocated for a 23% tax increase on anything. Ken is the only candidate who has taken a pledge not to increase taxes. This attack is even more outrageous given that Michael Bennet has supported raising taxes 24 times in his brief appointed term, and has refused to give straight answers about a permanent extension of the soon to expire 2001 tax cuts, which will cost Colorado families millions.
Q: Does Ken Buck wants to eliminate the Federal Department of Education?
A: No, but Ken recognizes the importance of local control, and having parents and teachers involved in educational decisions over bureaucrats in Washington D.C. As a nation we need to evaluate the successes and failures and eliminate efforts that are duplicative of what the States are doing.
Q: Will Ken Buck cut or reduce Social Security payments to seniors?
A: Ken believes Social Security is a sacred promise made to our nation’s seniors. He will never reduce the payments allotted for existing retirees and will fight to make the system solvent for future generations.
Q: Does Ken want to do away with Student Loans?
A: Ken is a strong advocate for federally guaranteed student loans; his opposition is to the government takeover of ALL federally guaranteed student loans perpetrated under President Obama. Ken favors a comprehensive approach that includes private banks, which have often offered more favorable rates to students then the government.
Q: Does Ken Buck want to ban birth control?
A: This is a patent falsehood. Ken Buck has never said on any occasion that he wants to ban common forms of birth control.
Q: Is it true that Ken Buck thinks being gay is a choice?
A: Ken’s running for U.S. Senate to fight to get our economy back on track by working to rein in out-of-control federal spending. Democrats and the media have tried to distract from the real issues facing our country. Coloradans care about the economy and jobs. We need to give Washington a reality check. The trillion dollars they’ve wasted of our money must stop. We need to get our economy turned around by generating economic growth.
Ken Buck was the first to successfully prosecute a hate crime and receive a conviction. In 2009, Buck filed first-degree murder and hate-crime charges against Allen Andrade, the Thornton man convicted by a Greeley jury in the brutal beating death last summer of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman.
It was the first successful prosecutions in the nation of a hate-crime laws.
“Initially, I was skeptical about the use of the bias-motivated crimes statute,” Buck wrote in an opinion article in The Denver Post. “Through my exposure to the Zapata case, I was persuaded that these crimes are unique. Bias-motivated crimes are particularly heinous because they target an entire community of people, not just the actual victim.”
DECISIONS AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Q: What did Ken mean when he said that a woman in Weld County had buyer’s remorse?
A: Buck explained with compassion that a jury would not convict because of information the defense would use. He said a jury might interpret her complaint as “buyer’s remorse,” a statement misrepresented by opponents to make it sound as if Buck questioned her motives.
ProgressNow Colorado tracked down and exploited a woman who reported a date rape five years ago. ProgressNow is using the case in a disgusting effort to portray Republican candidate Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney, as a monstrous misogynist who approves of rape.
Date rape convictions are especially unlikely. Typical cases consist of “he said” v. “she said” and not much more. The defendant has the advantage of a presumption of innocence; the victim is burdened with providing proof.
Buck advised her of other legal remedies but warned that they may lead to hurtful defense attacks. To be certain he was making the right call, Buck asked the office of then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, arguably the stateʼs most aggressive sex crimes prosecutor at the time, to review the case. Lacyʼs prosecutors concurred with Buck.
Buck has an impressive list of high-profile rape and date rape convictions. His
Department’s relentless prosecution of rapist Brandon Bradshaw resulted in a
192-year sentence.
Q: Does Ken want to levy a 23% tax on all goods and services?
A: Ken has never advocated for a 23% tax increase on anything. Ken is the only candidate who has taken a pledge not to increase taxes. This attack is even more outrageous given that Michael Bennet has supported raising taxes 24 times in his brief appointed term, and has refused to give straight answers about a permanent extension of the soon to expire 2001 tax cuts, which will cost Colorado families millions.
Q: Does Ken Buck wants to eliminate the Federal Department of Education?
A: No, but Ken recognizes the importance of local control, and having parents and teachers involved in educational decisions over bureaucrats in Washington D.C. As a nation we need to evaluate the successes and failures and eliminate efforts that are duplicative of what the States are doing.
Q: Will Ken Buck cut or reduce Social Security payments to seniors?
A: Ken believes Social Security is a sacred promise made to our nation’s seniors. He will never reduce the payments allotted for existing retirees and will fight to make the system solvent for future generations.
Q: Does Ken want to do away with Student Loans?
A: Ken is a strong advocate for federally guaranteed student loans; his opposition is to the government takeover of ALL federally guaranteed student loans perpetrated under President Obama. Ken favors a comprehensive approach that includes private banks, which have often offered more favorable rates to students then the government.
Q: Does Ken Buck want to ban birth control?
A: This is a patent falsehood. Ken Buck has never said on any occasion that he wants to ban common forms of birth control.
Q: Is it true that Ken Buck thinks being gay is a choice?
A: Ken’s running for U.S. Senate to fight to get our economy back on track by working to rein in out-of-control federal spending. Democrats and the media have tried to distract from the real issues facing our country. Coloradans care about the economy and jobs. We need to give Washington a reality check. The trillion dollars they’ve wasted of our money must stop. We need to get our economy turned around by generating economic growth.
Ken Buck was the first to successfully prosecute a hate crime and receive a conviction. In 2009, Buck filed first-degree murder and hate-crime charges against Allen Andrade, the Thornton man convicted by a Greeley jury in the brutal beating death last summer of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman.
It was the first successful prosecutions in the nation of a hate-crime laws.
“Initially, I was skeptical about the use of the bias-motivated crimes statute,” Buck wrote in an opinion article in The Denver Post. “Through my exposure to the Zapata case, I was persuaded that these crimes are unique. Bias-motivated crimes are particularly heinous because they target an entire community of people, not just the actual victim.”
DECISIONS AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Q: What did Ken mean when he said that a woman in Weld County had buyer’s remorse?
A: Buck explained with compassion that a jury would not convict because of information the defense would use. He said a jury might interpret her complaint as “buyer’s remorse,” a statement misrepresented by opponents to make it sound as if Buck questioned her motives.
ProgressNow Colorado tracked down and exploited a woman who reported a date rape five years ago. ProgressNow is using the case in a disgusting effort to portray Republican candidate Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney, as a monstrous misogynist who approves of rape.
Date rape convictions are especially unlikely. Typical cases consist of “he said” v. “she said” and not much more. The defendant has the advantage of a presumption of innocence; the victim is burdened with providing proof.
Buck advised her of other legal remedies but warned that they may lead to hurtful defense attacks. To be certain he was making the right call, Buck asked the office of then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, arguably the stateʼs most aggressive sex crimes prosecutor at the time, to review the case. Lacyʼs prosecutors concurred with Buck.
Buck has an impressive list of high-profile rape and date rape convictions. His
Department’s relentless prosecution of rapist Brandon Bradshaw resulted in a
192-year sentence.
Why Obamacare Won't Work - An MD's View
ER doc Mike Fallon, candidate for Denver's 1st congressional district, gives a two-part insight into the costs and unintended consequences of this radical take-over of 1/6th of the US economy.
Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPs38FGJwE
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDKSuOe_hqc
Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPs38FGJwE
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDKSuOe_hqc
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Obamacare 1099 rule makes a cheater of every taxpayer
IRS 1099 tyranny
You see, while he was ramming through the health care bill, Harry Reid hid in its 2,500 pages of gibberish a provision requiring all businesses - big, small and even sole proprietorships - to file a 1099 form reporting every purchase of $600 or more from every vendor - including small purchases adding up to $600 or more.
This is complete insanity. I own a small research-and-development business with 15 employees. We make hundreds of purchases in the $600 range each year. We would need to file several hundred of those 1099s. Big corporations would need to file millions of them. Furthermore, vendors such as hardware stores will need to keep track of all their sales to each of their customers - tens of thousands for a typical big store - in order to provide an accurate 1099 totaling the purchases of each and every customer who is, or might be, a small business. These forms would have to be reconciled with the records of each business, or the IRS would have grounds to accuse one or the other of a discrepancy.
This bill will not bring the federal government any tax revenue. Rather, by adding to the overhead of companies big and small, it will take away from their bottom line and reduce the taxes they are able to pay accordingly. In my case, I will have to hire a person for $50,000 per year to do nothing but try to obtain and verify the information of such forms. That will cost the federal government $12,000 in lost taxes.
If I were a smaller company, however, say with four employees, I could not afford to do that and so would have to either go out of business (thus costing the feds a great deal of tax revenue) or operate illegally and live in fear of prosecution. As for the hardware store, the owner will have to hire a platoon of clerks, which either will reduce his profits and the taxes he pays or force him to increase his sales prices, which will cut into the taxable income of all of his business customers.
But it gets worse. Because there is no fundamental difference between a sole proprietorship and any private person, there is no reason why this provision, if accepted, should not be applied to every taxpayer.
Consider: Do you know how much you spent at your local grocery store last year? Certainly more than $600. But how much exactly? What, you don't know? You will need to know, or under this law, you would commit tax fraud by failing to report accurately the exact amount you spent at every store, hotel, gas station, airline, etc., at which you spent $600 over the course of the year. You would need to get a 1099 from each of them to include in your tax return. If you failed to do so, you could be subject to prosecution. And if you somehow do get all your forms in correctly, you still will be subject to endless arbitrary audits and harassment because you will never be able to prove the accuracy of your submittal to the Internal Revenue Service. Is this the kind of nation we want to live in?
Nearly every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare - including Sen. Bennett. Mr. Reid's 1099 tyranny law is not a small matter. It is a very big deal. Passed through fraud, it is much worse than the publicly debated provisions in the rest of the health care bill or the failure to repeal the George W. Bush tax cuts. The nation is being threatened with a totalitarian tax nightmare. It will not only destroy businesses coast to coast, it will endanger the freedom of every citizen.
Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil" (Prometheus Books, 2007).
You see, while he was ramming through the health care bill, Harry Reid hid in its 2,500 pages of gibberish a provision requiring all businesses - big, small and even sole proprietorships - to file a 1099 form reporting every purchase of $600 or more from every vendor - including small purchases adding up to $600 or more.
This is complete insanity. I own a small research-and-development business with 15 employees. We make hundreds of purchases in the $600 range each year. We would need to file several hundred of those 1099s. Big corporations would need to file millions of them. Furthermore, vendors such as hardware stores will need to keep track of all their sales to each of their customers - tens of thousands for a typical big store - in order to provide an accurate 1099 totaling the purchases of each and every customer who is, or might be, a small business. These forms would have to be reconciled with the records of each business, or the IRS would have grounds to accuse one or the other of a discrepancy.
This bill will not bring the federal government any tax revenue. Rather, by adding to the overhead of companies big and small, it will take away from their bottom line and reduce the taxes they are able to pay accordingly. In my case, I will have to hire a person for $50,000 per year to do nothing but try to obtain and verify the information of such forms. That will cost the federal government $12,000 in lost taxes.
If I were a smaller company, however, say with four employees, I could not afford to do that and so would have to either go out of business (thus costing the feds a great deal of tax revenue) or operate illegally and live in fear of prosecution. As for the hardware store, the owner will have to hire a platoon of clerks, which either will reduce his profits and the taxes he pays or force him to increase his sales prices, which will cut into the taxable income of all of his business customers.
But it gets worse. Because there is no fundamental difference between a sole proprietorship and any private person, there is no reason why this provision, if accepted, should not be applied to every taxpayer.
Consider: Do you know how much you spent at your local grocery store last year? Certainly more than $600. But how much exactly? What, you don't know? You will need to know, or under this law, you would commit tax fraud by failing to report accurately the exact amount you spent at every store, hotel, gas station, airline, etc., at which you spent $600 over the course of the year. You would need to get a 1099 from each of them to include in your tax return. If you failed to do so, you could be subject to prosecution. And if you somehow do get all your forms in correctly, you still will be subject to endless arbitrary audits and harassment because you will never be able to prove the accuracy of your submittal to the Internal Revenue Service. Is this the kind of nation we want to live in?
Nearly every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare - including Sen. Bennett. Mr. Reid's 1099 tyranny law is not a small matter. It is a very big deal. Passed through fraud, it is much worse than the publicly debated provisions in the rest of the health care bill or the failure to repeal the George W. Bush tax cuts. The nation is being threatened with a totalitarian tax nightmare. It will not only destroy businesses coast to coast, it will endanger the freedom of every citizen.
Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil" (Prometheus Books, 2007).
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
HB1408 opens door to gerrymander legislative districts
Anything Goes
That, apparently, is the philosophy behind the Democrats’ bill, HB-1408, for eviscerating the rules concerning Congressional redistricting. Next year, after the 2010 Census and elections, Colorado will, like every other state, draw new congressional district boundaries. In the past, with one notable exception I’ll discuss below, there have been certain statutory rules governing the drawing of those boundaries, describing what criteria the courts may or may not take into consideration. The Democrats’ bill would seek to repeal all of these statutory guidelines and replace them with..nothing.
In general courts could not use “non-neutral” factors such as ”political party registration, political party election performance, and other factors that invite the court to speculate about the outcome of an election.”
Here are the “neutral” factors that courts could use, according to the relevant statute:
(I)First, a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts, justifying each variance, no matter how small, as required by the constitution of the United States. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts shall not overlap.
(II)Second, compliance with the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, in particular 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973;
(III)Third, except when necessary to comply with subparagraph (I) or (II) of this paragraph (b), political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns shall be preserved intact and shall not be fragmented or dispersed across district lines. When applying this criterion, preservation of the most populous counties, cities, and towns shall take precedence. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in districts shall be as prescribed by law.
(IV)Fourth, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district whenever possible. Traditional communities of interest in Colorado include the western slope and the eastern plains.
(V)Fifth, each congressional district shall be as compact in area as possible, and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible; and
(VI)Sixth, disruption of prior district lines shall be minimized.
Presumably, the Voting Rights Act would continue to apply, and despite the failure to capitalize “Constitution,” one assumes that the Democrats don’t want to introduce wild disparities in district populations. The courts will still be bound by federal law in drawing federal districts. Those details aside, there are good, longstanding reasons for all of these exclusions and inclusions.
The absence of the additional restrictions would open the door to the sort of gerrymandering that characterizes Illinois.
It also makes intuitive sense that cities and towns should have the same Congressional representation, where possible. In fact, they are merely a subset of (IV): communities of interest. It makes sense that interests, rather than parties, should be represented is legislatures. Citizens have interests. They may be economic, ethnic, cultural, or social, but citizens are far more likely to think about them on a daily basis than they are to think about their party affiliation, if any. Political parties may or may not be an expression of those interests, but are, at best, a secondary overlay on top of them. If this weren’t true, “Unaffiliated” wouldn’t be our largest party non-identification in Colorado.
This may be a perfectly logical choice, for a party that sees interests as tools of political power, rather than parties as expressions of coalitions of interests, but I doubt that most people think that way.
But aside from the philosophy involved, it’s important not to lose sight of the mechanics. Redistricting in Colorado is done by a tripartate commission from each of the branches of the government. Two each (one from each party) from the House and Senate, three appointed by the Governor, and the last four appointed by Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. If the commission can’t reach agreement, the District Court can impose a solution, as happened in 2002, when it adopted the Democratic plan for Colorado’s new 7th Congressional district. Interestingly, the court specifically included “competitiveness” in its ruling, despite a specific statutory injunction against using party registration as a criterion. This bill aims to remove even that potential legal obstacle.
HB-1408 is directed to the courts, not the commission, implicitly anticipating gridlock there. If this weren’t the case, the bill would remove any guidelines from the commission, as well. I don’t think it goes too far to suggest that the strategy here is to repeat 2002, obstructing a solution and then getting the courts to adopt a partisan plan.
CORRECTION: I am reminded by Matt Arnold that the reapportionment commission only applies to state legislative districts. Congressional districts are redrawn by the General Assembly alone, without the governor or the courts. Of course, this increases the chances for gridlock, but it also means that the composition of the Supreme Court will be less important in this regard, should this pass. Similarly, it means that the composition of the legislature will be far, far more important.
Reposted with permission from author Jonathan Sharf
http://www.jsharf.com/view/?p=446
That, apparently, is the philosophy behind the Democrats’ bill, HB-1408, for eviscerating the rules concerning Congressional redistricting. Next year, after the 2010 Census and elections, Colorado will, like every other state, draw new congressional district boundaries. In the past, with one notable exception I’ll discuss below, there have been certain statutory rules governing the drawing of those boundaries, describing what criteria the courts may or may not take into consideration. The Democrats’ bill would seek to repeal all of these statutory guidelines and replace them with..nothing.
In general courts could not use “non-neutral” factors such as ”political party registration, political party election performance, and other factors that invite the court to speculate about the outcome of an election.”
Here are the “neutral” factors that courts could use, according to the relevant statute:
(I)First, a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts, justifying each variance, no matter how small, as required by the constitution of the United States. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts shall not overlap.
(II)Second, compliance with the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, in particular 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973;
(III)Third, except when necessary to comply with subparagraph (I) or (II) of this paragraph (b), political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns shall be preserved intact and shall not be fragmented or dispersed across district lines. When applying this criterion, preservation of the most populous counties, cities, and towns shall take precedence. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in districts shall be as prescribed by law.
(IV)Fourth, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district whenever possible. Traditional communities of interest in Colorado include the western slope and the eastern plains.
(V)Fifth, each congressional district shall be as compact in area as possible, and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible; and
(VI)Sixth, disruption of prior district lines shall be minimized.
Presumably, the Voting Rights Act would continue to apply, and despite the failure to capitalize “Constitution,” one assumes that the Democrats don’t want to introduce wild disparities in district populations. The courts will still be bound by federal law in drawing federal districts. Those details aside, there are good, longstanding reasons for all of these exclusions and inclusions.
The absence of the additional restrictions would open the door to the sort of gerrymandering that characterizes Illinois.
It also makes intuitive sense that cities and towns should have the same Congressional representation, where possible. In fact, they are merely a subset of (IV): communities of interest. It makes sense that interests, rather than parties, should be represented is legislatures. Citizens have interests. They may be economic, ethnic, cultural, or social, but citizens are far more likely to think about them on a daily basis than they are to think about their party affiliation, if any. Political parties may or may not be an expression of those interests, but are, at best, a secondary overlay on top of them. If this weren’t true, “Unaffiliated” wouldn’t be our largest party non-identification in Colorado.
This may be a perfectly logical choice, for a party that sees interests as tools of political power, rather than parties as expressions of coalitions of interests, but I doubt that most people think that way.
But aside from the philosophy involved, it’s important not to lose sight of the mechanics. Redistricting in Colorado is done by a tripartate commission from each of the branches of the government. Two each (one from each party) from the House and Senate, three appointed by the Governor, and the last four appointed by Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. If the commission can’t reach agreement, the District Court can impose a solution, as happened in 2002, when it adopted the Democratic plan for Colorado’s new 7th Congressional district. Interestingly, the court specifically included “competitiveness” in its ruling, despite a specific statutory injunction against using party registration as a criterion. This bill aims to remove even that potential legal obstacle.
HB-1408 is directed to the courts, not the commission, implicitly anticipating gridlock there. If this weren’t the case, the bill would remove any guidelines from the commission, as well. I don’t think it goes too far to suggest that the strategy here is to repeat 2002, obstructing a solution and then getting the courts to adopt a partisan plan.
CORRECTION: I am reminded by Matt Arnold that the reapportionment commission only applies to state legislative districts. Congressional districts are redrawn by the General Assembly alone, without the governor or the courts. Of course, this increases the chances for gridlock, but it also means that the composition of the Supreme Court will be less important in this regard, should this pass. Similarly, it means that the composition of the legislature will be far, far more important.
Reposted with permission from author Jonathan Sharf
http://www.jsharf.com/view/?p=446
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Three Kinds Of Folks...
1) Those that MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.
2) Those that WATCH THINGS HAPPEN.
3 Those that ask, "WHAT HAPPENED"?
[Paraphrase of a Jim Rohn quote.]
The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." They are among those that made things happen. Members of the CRBC fall into the “make things happen” category as well.
Thanks to all of the CRBCers who put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for Colorado's small businesses, for liberty, and for the constitutional values that made America great.
Now, back to making things happen.
It seems the Dems are working overtime in Colorado and in the US Congress to make things happen that not only do not support small businesses, liberty, and constitutional values but directly contradict and contravene them...you know what those issues are. We recognize that a passion for change that ranges from misguided to unconstitutional to downright puerile motivates their actions.
Here’s the pitch…
The small part of my life, fortune, and sacred honor that I dedicate to making things happen through the CRBC is co-chairing, with Roberta Bourn, the Small Donor Committee.
It is imperative—absolutely imperative—that the Small Donor Committee succeed in raising a great deal of money this year so CRBC can support candidates that will overthrow the insane legislation that is being proposed and passed both in Colorado and in DC.
The Small Donor Committee won't ask you for your life or your sacred honor. However, we sure would like $50.00 of your fortune [that's the most we can accept from an individual]. That’s one way CRBC can make things happen for candidates that need a little help getting over a hump or responding to some insanity from the leftists later this year when a conservative candidate may win an election because of CRBC’s contribution and begin to restore the Constitutional values that make America and Colorado great—or lose in the absence of it and allow the leftist elite to continue their rampage through out rights..
Make your checks payable to the CRBC Small Donor Committee. Today! Thanks...jr
2) Those that WATCH THINGS HAPPEN.
3 Those that ask, "WHAT HAPPENED"?
[Paraphrase of a Jim Rohn quote.]
The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." They are among those that made things happen. Members of the CRBC fall into the “make things happen” category as well.
Thanks to all of the CRBCers who put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for Colorado's small businesses, for liberty, and for the constitutional values that made America great.
Now, back to making things happen.
It seems the Dems are working overtime in Colorado and in the US Congress to make things happen that not only do not support small businesses, liberty, and constitutional values but directly contradict and contravene them...you know what those issues are. We recognize that a passion for change that ranges from misguided to unconstitutional to downright puerile motivates their actions.
Here’s the pitch…
The small part of my life, fortune, and sacred honor that I dedicate to making things happen through the CRBC is co-chairing, with Roberta Bourn, the Small Donor Committee.
It is imperative—absolutely imperative—that the Small Donor Committee succeed in raising a great deal of money this year so CRBC can support candidates that will overthrow the insane legislation that is being proposed and passed both in Colorado and in DC.
The Small Donor Committee won't ask you for your life or your sacred honor. However, we sure would like $50.00 of your fortune [that's the most we can accept from an individual]. That’s one way CRBC can make things happen for candidates that need a little help getting over a hump or responding to some insanity from the leftists later this year when a conservative candidate may win an election because of CRBC’s contribution and begin to restore the Constitutional values that make America and Colorado great—or lose in the absence of it and allow the leftist elite to continue their rampage through out rights..
Make your checks payable to the CRBC Small Donor Committee. Today! Thanks...jr
Legislative Update April 1, 2010 - NO JOKE!
After passing the arbitrary tax hikes of Ritter’s “Dirty Dozen”, Nanny Statist Democrats in Colorado are now focused on other ways to hurt business and job creation. See the CRBC Legislative Matrix for the names of legislators to contact on the bills. Here’s the latest:
Energy
HB1001 – (Max Tyler D-Golden/Schwartz D –Snowmass Village) Requires public utilities to supply 30% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. This is the most stringent standard in America and will increase the cost of energy for business and residences. Energy from wind and solar are almost impossible to store so traditional sources will still be required. Status: Signed by Gov. Ritter.
HB1365 –Utilities Convert Coal To Natural Gas (Judy Solano D-Brighton/Bruce Whitehead D-Hesperas) Once again, government picks winners and losers. Effectively shuts down two coal-fired power plants and switches Xcel Energy’s fuel source to natural gas. An amendment that would have allowed natural gas to compete with low-emitting fuel technologies was killed in committee. An amendment passed that delays utility rate increases until after the 2012 elections. Status: 4/1/2010 Passed after 3rd reading in Senate, with Republicans Josh Penry, Ken Kester and Greg Brophy voting yes. Ritter will sign soon.
Private Property Rights
SB185 Residential Warrant of Habitability (Brandon Shaffer D-Longmont/Mike Merrifield D-CO Springs) Makes it easier for tenants to sue a landlord by removing the requirement for a tenant to provide written notice prior to a breach of the warranty, and it modifies the standard of condition that would constitute a breach. Additionally, it creates a right of action for tenants, including disciplinary action and treble damages. This bill will lead to an increase in rental housing costs, as well as limit the building of new properties, due to possible litigation. Status: 03/29/2010 Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 04/12/2010
HB 1017, Voluntary Agreements Affecting Rent on Private Residential Property (Dan Kagan D-Denver /Betty Boyd D-) This bill alters current state law, which prohibits counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance that would allow rent control on private residential property. This opens the door for any remodeling, construction or new development project — regardless of size or scope — to be subject to such requirements – such as ADA compliance - and would decrease investment in rental housing. Status: Passed House, 4/1/2010 passed 2nd reading in Senate with amendments
HB 1107 Urban Renewal Area Ag Lands (Randy Fischer D-Ft Collins /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill restricts the inclusion of agricultural lands within urban renewal areas and outlines procedures for county assessors when classifying agricultural land for property tax purposes. It damages the prospects of additional job growth in the clean tech industry sector, which often has a sizeable manufacturing component and requires large parcels of land adjacent to rail lines. Status: Passed House, passed Senate; laid over daily for House to consider Senate amendments
Workers Comp
HB1356 Workers' Comp Policyholder Protection Act 2010 (Su Ryden D-Aurora/ Lois Tochtrop D-Thornton) A deal to extort up to $330M from Pinnacol Assurance in exchange for near autonomy has collapsed. The mutual assurance company insures almost 50% of Colorado companies and is owned by the policyholders. But, Pinnacol receives tax breaks as the “insurer of last resort” and has been financially profitable since being managed as a private company. Legislators expect that an audit of Pinnacol in June will give the State more leverage to demand a higher payoff. Status: Introduced in House; assigned to Business & Labor
HB1012 Limit Surveillance Workers’ Comp Claims (Sal Pace D-Pueblo/Morgan Carroll D - Aurora) is another bill aimed to hurt Pinnacol and small businesses. This bill restricts a company’s ability to see if an employee’s workers comp claim of injury is valid with commonly used fraud-detection procedures. Status: 03/31/2010 Senate Committee on Judiciary Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
Higher costs to business
HB 1263 Limit Income Tax Benefit for Comp Paid (Jack Pommer D- Boulder /Betty Boyd D-Lakewood) Increases the state income tax on individual total compensation above $250,000 and limits the deductibility of income above that amount for corporations. Company must pay taxes on an amount over $250,000 rather than deducting it as an operating expense. (The federal level is $1million.) This bill creates a disincentive for businesses to locate a national HQ here and create high-paying jobs. Sports teams, airlines, hospitals, telecom companies etc. will see their expenses rise – all passed to consumers, or they’ll move to a more business friendly state. Status: Introduced in House, assigned to Finance Committee
HB 1269 Workplace Fairness Civil Remedies Act (Claire Levy D- Boulder /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill significantly increases the damages in state employment discrimination lawsuits by adding, for the first time, pain-and-suffering penalties, punitive damage, attorney’s fees and other remedies already available under federal law. Duplicating expanded lawsuit remedies for large businesses already available under federal law is unnecessary and will permit plaintiffs to “forum shop.” Status: House Committee on Judiciary Referred Amended to Appropriations
Some Good Bills
HB1160 – (Amy Stephens R-CO Springs; Joe Rice D- Littleton/Shawn Mitchell R-Broomfield) Allows insurance companies to provide incentives such as reduced policy premiums or co-payments to companies that offer wellness programs. Status: Passed House, assigned to Senate Com on Business Labor Tech
SB 112 (Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Keeps workers compensation insurance rates down by allowing businesses to take advantage of cost savings through highly successful deductible programs. It provides businesses with access to important rate setting data, which can be used to appeal their own insurance rates. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.
SB 116 Public Contracting Jobs Protection Act ((Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Requires public entities to reimburse contractor for costs incurred from additional work until an agreement can be reached between the two parties. Current practices require contractors to pay upfront labor and materials costs for any additional work until a change order agreement can be reached, which can take months. SB 116 will ensure contractors are paid on a timely basis for change directive work, creating a great stimulus for the Colorado economy and keeping Colorado workers employed. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.
Posted by Christine Burtt, Chairman, CO Republican Business Coalition smallbizgop@comcast.net
Energy
HB1001 – (Max Tyler D-Golden/Schwartz D –Snowmass Village) Requires public utilities to supply 30% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. This is the most stringent standard in America and will increase the cost of energy for business and residences. Energy from wind and solar are almost impossible to store so traditional sources will still be required. Status: Signed by Gov. Ritter.
HB1365 –Utilities Convert Coal To Natural Gas (Judy Solano D-Brighton/Bruce Whitehead D-Hesperas) Once again, government picks winners and losers. Effectively shuts down two coal-fired power plants and switches Xcel Energy’s fuel source to natural gas. An amendment that would have allowed natural gas to compete with low-emitting fuel technologies was killed in committee. An amendment passed that delays utility rate increases until after the 2012 elections. Status: 4/1/2010 Passed after 3rd reading in Senate, with Republicans Josh Penry, Ken Kester and Greg Brophy voting yes. Ritter will sign soon.
Private Property Rights
SB185 Residential Warrant of Habitability (Brandon Shaffer D-Longmont/Mike Merrifield D-CO Springs) Makes it easier for tenants to sue a landlord by removing the requirement for a tenant to provide written notice prior to a breach of the warranty, and it modifies the standard of condition that would constitute a breach. Additionally, it creates a right of action for tenants, including disciplinary action and treble damages. This bill will lead to an increase in rental housing costs, as well as limit the building of new properties, due to possible litigation. Status: 03/29/2010 Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 04/12/2010
HB 1017, Voluntary Agreements Affecting Rent on Private Residential Property (Dan Kagan D-Denver /Betty Boyd D-) This bill alters current state law, which prohibits counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance that would allow rent control on private residential property. This opens the door for any remodeling, construction or new development project — regardless of size or scope — to be subject to such requirements – such as ADA compliance - and would decrease investment in rental housing. Status: Passed House, 4/1/2010 passed 2nd reading in Senate with amendments
HB 1107 Urban Renewal Area Ag Lands (Randy Fischer D-Ft Collins /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill restricts the inclusion of agricultural lands within urban renewal areas and outlines procedures for county assessors when classifying agricultural land for property tax purposes. It damages the prospects of additional job growth in the clean tech industry sector, which often has a sizeable manufacturing component and requires large parcels of land adjacent to rail lines. Status: Passed House, passed Senate; laid over daily for House to consider Senate amendments
Workers Comp
HB1356 Workers' Comp Policyholder Protection Act 2010 (Su Ryden D-Aurora/ Lois Tochtrop D-Thornton) A deal to extort up to $330M from Pinnacol Assurance in exchange for near autonomy has collapsed. The mutual assurance company insures almost 50% of Colorado companies and is owned by the policyholders. But, Pinnacol receives tax breaks as the “insurer of last resort” and has been financially profitable since being managed as a private company. Legislators expect that an audit of Pinnacol in June will give the State more leverage to demand a higher payoff. Status: Introduced in House; assigned to Business & Labor
HB1012 Limit Surveillance Workers’ Comp Claims (Sal Pace D-Pueblo/Morgan Carroll D - Aurora) is another bill aimed to hurt Pinnacol and small businesses. This bill restricts a company’s ability to see if an employee’s workers comp claim of injury is valid with commonly used fraud-detection procedures. Status: 03/31/2010 Senate Committee on Judiciary Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only
Higher costs to business
HB 1263 Limit Income Tax Benefit for Comp Paid (Jack Pommer D- Boulder /Betty Boyd D-Lakewood) Increases the state income tax on individual total compensation above $250,000 and limits the deductibility of income above that amount for corporations. Company must pay taxes on an amount over $250,000 rather than deducting it as an operating expense. (The federal level is $1million.) This bill creates a disincentive for businesses to locate a national HQ here and create high-paying jobs. Sports teams, airlines, hospitals, telecom companies etc. will see their expenses rise – all passed to consumers, or they’ll move to a more business friendly state. Status: Introduced in House, assigned to Finance Committee
HB 1269 Workplace Fairness Civil Remedies Act (Claire Levy D- Boulder /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill significantly increases the damages in state employment discrimination lawsuits by adding, for the first time, pain-and-suffering penalties, punitive damage, attorney’s fees and other remedies already available under federal law. Duplicating expanded lawsuit remedies for large businesses already available under federal law is unnecessary and will permit plaintiffs to “forum shop.” Status: House Committee on Judiciary Referred Amended to Appropriations
Some Good Bills
HB1160 – (Amy Stephens R-CO Springs; Joe Rice D- Littleton/Shawn Mitchell R-Broomfield) Allows insurance companies to provide incentives such as reduced policy premiums or co-payments to companies that offer wellness programs. Status: Passed House, assigned to Senate Com on Business Labor Tech
SB 112 (Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Keeps workers compensation insurance rates down by allowing businesses to take advantage of cost savings through highly successful deductible programs. It provides businesses with access to important rate setting data, which can be used to appeal their own insurance rates. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.
SB 116 Public Contracting Jobs Protection Act ((Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Requires public entities to reimburse contractor for costs incurred from additional work until an agreement can be reached between the two parties. Current practices require contractors to pay upfront labor and materials costs for any additional work until a change order agreement can be reached, which can take months. SB 116 will ensure contractors are paid on a timely basis for change directive work, creating a great stimulus for the Colorado economy and keeping Colorado workers employed. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.
Posted by Christine Burtt, Chairman, CO Republican Business Coalition smallbizgop@comcast.net
Monday, March 15, 2010
CO DEMS show anti-business bias
Democrats Gone Wild: Speaker Carroll follows Dem spokesman Jack Pommer down the anti-business rabbit hole. As reported in the Denver Business Journal, House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, "Because life under the Dome is sometimes divorced from reality, the business community has always said that no matter what we do, we’re going to lose jobs. I’m just not going to engage in those debates with them because it’s like the boy who cried wolf."
Carroll is divorced from reality. "Accusing the business community of 'crying wolf' over job losses is a huge insult to the hundreds of Amazon affiliates laid off because of the new Internet tax or the thousands of steel workers whose jobs have been put in jeopardy because of the new energy tax," said Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas.
Business owners repeatedly testified before members of the legislature saying that a series of Democrat proposed tax increases would kill jobs. Pepsi officials, for example, told lawmakers a new soda tax will put at risk as many as 800 jobs. A new tax hike on candy will target 150 workers at Grand Junction confectioner Enstrom’s, and the more than $3.3 million the company spends each year with more than 300 Colorado vendors. Democrats ignored the warnings and passed over $300 million of tax increases.
During floor debate about the tax increases, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, accused business of not caring about Colorado. Neil Westergaard, editor of the Denver Business Journal, responded by calling Pommer the "most clueless lawmaker" and accused him of being the "torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last." ColoradoSenateNews.com
Carroll is divorced from reality. "Accusing the business community of 'crying wolf' over job losses is a huge insult to the hundreds of Amazon affiliates laid off because of the new Internet tax or the thousands of steel workers whose jobs have been put in jeopardy because of the new energy tax," said Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas.
Business owners repeatedly testified before members of the legislature saying that a series of Democrat proposed tax increases would kill jobs. Pepsi officials, for example, told lawmakers a new soda tax will put at risk as many as 800 jobs. A new tax hike on candy will target 150 workers at Grand Junction confectioner Enstrom’s, and the more than $3.3 million the company spends each year with more than 300 Colorado vendors. Democrats ignored the warnings and passed over $300 million of tax increases.
During floor debate about the tax increases, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, accused business of not caring about Colorado. Neil Westergaard, editor of the Denver Business Journal, responded by calling Pommer the "most clueless lawmaker" and accused him of being the "torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last." ColoradoSenateNews.com
Sunday, March 14, 2010
DEMS add mandates and increase hlth care ins costs
HB1021 by Sen. Joyce Foster D-Denver and Sen. Betty Boyd D-Lakewood
Status: awaiting final Senate vote before signing by Governor
By mandating insurance companies to cover reproductive services and contraception in all small group and individual plans, Democrats are effectively making coverage more expensive for everyone.
Mandates require insurers to pay for reproductive care consumers previously funded out of their own pocket.
Another consequence of increasing price is that healthy individuals, often young people with low salaries, drop coverage. Ironically, those are the exact people the system needs to offset the cost of covering people who are not healthy. This creates a downward spiral in which costs increase further and fewer individuals are covered.
Status: awaiting final Senate vote before signing by Governor
By mandating insurance companies to cover reproductive services and contraception in all small group and individual plans, Democrats are effectively making coverage more expensive for everyone.
Mandates require insurers to pay for reproductive care consumers previously funded out of their own pocket.
Another consequence of increasing price is that healthy individuals, often young people with low salaries, drop coverage. Ironically, those are the exact people the system needs to offset the cost of covering people who are not healthy. This creates a downward spiral in which costs increase further and fewer individuals are covered.
Limiting Growth - Initiation Ties Construction to Prior Water use
Stop Growth In CO by Limiting New Residential Housing Along the Front Range
The initiative assumes that water is a finite resource. We've seen how well artificial restrictions on growth work; witness the high cost of housing inside the Boulder "green belt" and the sprawl, traffic and congestion outside the arbitrary no-growth zone.
A proposed Colorado ballot initiative in the works would limit the amount of water made available for "newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units" along the Front Range and would prohibit cities and counties from issuing building permits that would cause those caps to be exceeded.
The cap provides:
Beginning in 2011, the amount of water available annually for newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units for the cities and counties or counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld shall not exceed one percent of the total water used for privately owned residential purposes annually averaged over the previous ten years in such cities and counties or counties.
Each local government and any part of such, whether statutory or home rule, shall allot building permits so that housing growth does not exceed the limitation on water use cumulatively for such city or county in a calendar year.
The initiative assumes that water is a finite resource. We've seen how well artificial restrictions on growth work; witness the high cost of housing inside the Boulder "green belt" and the sprawl, traffic and congestion outside the arbitrary no-growth zone.
A proposed Colorado ballot initiative in the works would limit the amount of water made available for "newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units" along the Front Range and would prohibit cities and counties from issuing building permits that would cause those caps to be exceeded.
The cap provides:
Beginning in 2011, the amount of water available annually for newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units for the cities and counties or counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld shall not exceed one percent of the total water used for privately owned residential purposes annually averaged over the previous ten years in such cities and counties or counties.
Each local government and any part of such, whether statutory or home rule, shall allot building permits so that housing growth does not exceed the limitation on water use cumulatively for such city or county in a calendar year.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
CRBC Legislative Update - the first seven weeks (only- gasp!)
In a ram-and-jam style that would make Nancy Pelosi proud, Governor Ritter and his Democrat-controlled Legislature seem intent on driving business away from Colorado and crippling the ones that stay.
Not yet half-way through the session and there have been a barrage of bills to increase taxes, neatly circumventing TABOR by a single statement in a Court decision that opined that repealing tax exemptions were not really tax increases and therefore not subject to a TABOR vote of the citizens. (Ritter's "Dirty Dozen" HB1189-1198)
Other highlights:
Attempts that may be likened to mob extortion by the State to wrest more control or pay-offs from Pinnacol Assurance, the private sector funded workers comp insurance program. (HB1009; HB1012)
We got more than half a loaf in reforming PERA, but the structural problem still exists: why should public sector employees and spouse enjoy a generous Defined Benefit after retirement at age 60 until they die, when the best a private sector worker can hope for is a Defined Contribution to his or her retirement plan and a pathetic return on their confiscated Social Security payment? (SB001)
In a cynical move to offset the job-killing effect of Ritter’s Dirty Dozen and other State regulations to stifle business, an income tax credit of $4,000 to re-hire employees you couldn’t afford to keep in 2009. (SB133)
“Economic Justice” A limit on tax deductibility for salary and compensation in excess of $250,000. The Federal cap is $1M. It’s basically a message to business: don’t bring your national HQ to CO, and we don’t want successful small businesses either. (HB1263)
More “economic justice” – Rather than layoff employees, cut back their hours and then have each one file for unemployment insurance commensurate to their lost wages. That way, the State can redistribute the pain of the recession to the businesses that still have customers and are keeping their heads above water. (SB28)
DOA: Republican bills that are bonafide solutions to healthcare costs and accessibility – a moratorium on adding to Colorado’s 51 mandates and selling insurance across state lines. (HB1154; HB1163)
Also DOA: Republican bills to stop the madness of continual personal property tax by a pilot program to reimburse counties that stop receiving monies from personal property tax on items that are fully depreciated (SB085) and by creating a system that stops taxing fully depreciated items over a 13-year timeframe. (SB086)
Efforts to get some justice for the 39 Colorado auto dealerships that were arbitrarily shutdown when Government Motors took control of the company and the Chrysler bondholders saw decades of securities law turned on its head. (HB1049)
Nanny Statism at its finest: a proposed ban and severe penalties for those who manufacture or sell cosmetics, shampoos, sun screen, deodorant or any other product you put on or near your body that may have any of 700 trace elements that might cause cancer. (HB1248)
Read blog comments for more info on specific bills. The hits just keep coming! Stay tuned.
Not yet half-way through the session and there have been a barrage of bills to increase taxes, neatly circumventing TABOR by a single statement in a Court decision that opined that repealing tax exemptions were not really tax increases and therefore not subject to a TABOR vote of the citizens. (Ritter's "Dirty Dozen" HB1189-1198)
Other highlights:
Attempts that may be likened to mob extortion by the State to wrest more control or pay-offs from Pinnacol Assurance, the private sector funded workers comp insurance program. (HB1009; HB1012)
We got more than half a loaf in reforming PERA, but the structural problem still exists: why should public sector employees and spouse enjoy a generous Defined Benefit after retirement at age 60 until they die, when the best a private sector worker can hope for is a Defined Contribution to his or her retirement plan and a pathetic return on their confiscated Social Security payment? (SB001)
In a cynical move to offset the job-killing effect of Ritter’s Dirty Dozen and other State regulations to stifle business, an income tax credit of $4,000 to re-hire employees you couldn’t afford to keep in 2009. (SB133)
“Economic Justice” A limit on tax deductibility for salary and compensation in excess of $250,000. The Federal cap is $1M. It’s basically a message to business: don’t bring your national HQ to CO, and we don’t want successful small businesses either. (HB1263)
More “economic justice” – Rather than layoff employees, cut back their hours and then have each one file for unemployment insurance commensurate to their lost wages. That way, the State can redistribute the pain of the recession to the businesses that still have customers and are keeping their heads above water. (SB28)
DOA: Republican bills that are bonafide solutions to healthcare costs and accessibility – a moratorium on adding to Colorado’s 51 mandates and selling insurance across state lines. (HB1154; HB1163)
Also DOA: Republican bills to stop the madness of continual personal property tax by a pilot program to reimburse counties that stop receiving monies from personal property tax on items that are fully depreciated (SB085) and by creating a system that stops taxing fully depreciated items over a 13-year timeframe. (SB086)
Efforts to get some justice for the 39 Colorado auto dealerships that were arbitrarily shutdown when Government Motors took control of the company and the Chrysler bondholders saw decades of securities law turned on its head. (HB1049)
Nanny Statism at its finest: a proposed ban and severe penalties for those who manufacture or sell cosmetics, shampoos, sun screen, deodorant or any other product you put on or near your body that may have any of 700 trace elements that might cause cancer. (HB1248)
Read blog comments for more info on specific bills. The hits just keep coming! Stay tuned.
HB1330 Hlth Claims Database Invades Privacy
HB1330: The All-Payer Database is a Transparency Trojan Horse
Exerpt from March 1, 2010 Opinion Editorial
By Linda Gorman
House Bill 1330 would create an "all-payer health claims database" in Colorado. Bill supporters claim government can reduce health care costs through "transparent public reporting of health care information." In fact, the bill is a transparency Trojan Horse.
It will make your most personal actions transparent to government officials, officials who have no business keeping track of what kind of health care you buy or what you pay for it. The bill authorizes the state to collect information on every health care transaction in the state, including information from private medical records, insurer files, and hospitals.
People who refuse to comply can be fined. There is no limit to the fines that may be assessed. The data that can be requisitioned and stored include individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements. If your teenager filled out the kind of questionnaire that is standard in pediatric practices, it may also contain information on whether you own a firearm, your household's illegal drug use, how well your child does in school, and whether your child or his friends have ever broken the law.
No one can opt out of the database the bill creates,... (which)is to be financed by gifts, grants, and donations from unknown sources with unknown agendas. The design of the database is controlled by an unknown "Administrator" who will decide who your data will be shared with and the form it will take. With no limits on how the data collected can be used to coerce individual behavior, this bill poses a grave threat to both medical privacy and individual liberty.
Linda Gorman directs the Health Care Policy Center at the Independence Institute.
Exerpt from March 1, 2010 Opinion Editorial
By Linda Gorman
House Bill 1330 would create an "all-payer health claims database" in Colorado. Bill supporters claim government can reduce health care costs through "transparent public reporting of health care information." In fact, the bill is a transparency Trojan Horse.
It will make your most personal actions transparent to government officials, officials who have no business keeping track of what kind of health care you buy or what you pay for it. The bill authorizes the state to collect information on every health care transaction in the state, including information from private medical records, insurer files, and hospitals.
People who refuse to comply can be fined. There is no limit to the fines that may be assessed. The data that can be requisitioned and stored include individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements. If your teenager filled out the kind of questionnaire that is standard in pediatric practices, it may also contain information on whether you own a firearm, your household's illegal drug use, how well your child does in school, and whether your child or his friends have ever broken the law.
No one can opt out of the database the bill creates,... (which)is to be financed by gifts, grants, and donations from unknown sources with unknown agendas. The design of the database is controlled by an unknown "Administrator" who will decide who your data will be shared with and the form it will take. With no limits on how the data collected can be used to coerce individual behavior, this bill poses a grave threat to both medical privacy and individual liberty.
Linda Gorman directs the Health Care Policy Center at the Independence Institute.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
PERA Reform - Sort of. SB10-001 by Sen. Brandon Shaffer (D) and Rep. Andy Kerr (D)
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION NECESSARY TO REACH A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FUNDED RATIO WITHIN THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS
Status: 02/23/2010 Governor Action - Signed
SB001 raised the retirement age to 60, decreased the COLA from 3% to 2%, increased the number of years to average highest income from 3 to 4 (for purposes of determining the annual retirement benefit); the employers' (taxpayers) contribution level went up; the employees contribution level stayed the same or dropped; changed the surviving spouse benefit to require a minimum number of years on the job ,and reduced benefits for those who retire before the retirement age.
The plan anticipates a continued high rate of return on PERA investments.
SB001 goes a long way to solve the $30Billion anticipated deficit in the Fund, but the real solution is to restructure the program from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution. The challenge is finding enough money to keep the extraordinary promises made to retirees while allowing younger employees to have a portable, private property right in their retirement account.
At its heart, there is a basic issue of fairness regarding PERA. How much paid retirement do private sector workers owe their public sector-working neighbors? Public sector workers are paid more than private sector workers and Defined Benefit plans in the private sector are virtually non-existent. By 2019, Social Security will only 70% of earned benefits. Why should the full responsibility for retirement benefits fall to entrepreneurs and wage earners?
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION NECESSARY TO REACH A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FUNDED RATIO WITHIN THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS
Status: 02/23/2010 Governor Action - Signed
SB001 raised the retirement age to 60, decreased the COLA from 3% to 2%, increased the number of years to average highest income from 3 to 4 (for purposes of determining the annual retirement benefit); the employers' (taxpayers) contribution level went up; the employees contribution level stayed the same or dropped; changed the surviving spouse benefit to require a minimum number of years on the job ,and reduced benefits for those who retire before the retirement age.
The plan anticipates a continued high rate of return on PERA investments.
SB001 goes a long way to solve the $30Billion anticipated deficit in the Fund, but the real solution is to restructure the program from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution. The challenge is finding enough money to keep the extraordinary promises made to retirees while allowing younger employees to have a portable, private property right in their retirement account.
At its heart, there is a basic issue of fairness regarding PERA. How much paid retirement do private sector workers owe their public sector-working neighbors? Public sector workers are paid more than private sector workers and Defined Benefit plans in the private sector are virtually non-existent. By 2019, Social Security will only 70% of earned benefits. Why should the full responsibility for retirement benefits fall to entrepreneurs and wage earners?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
HB1263 Dems to business: Buzz off
Exerpts from 2/19/2010 Denver Business Journal - by Neil Westergaard
I don’t know whether it’s just the yin and yang of politics or what, but Statehouse Democrats are jumping off a political cliff. They’re squandering their advantage, just like the Republicans did by carrying out radical agendas.
They’re handing the majority back to the Republicans in a stunning case of political hari-kari, alienating the very constituency that put them in control for the first time in four decades: political moderates and independents, many of them in business.
What else explains going after business with such a vengeance this session? Why else would you go out of your way to prop up organized labor even as its membership dwindles nationwide?
What’s the rationale for engaging in this victim-led, symbolic populist revolt against anybody who’s ever been successful in business?
This past week, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who gets my vote as the most clueless lawmaker up there today, introduced legislation barring businesses from deducting more than $250,000 in individual salaries as a business expense. Pommer has been the Democrats’ torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last.
Pommer’s salary bill is aimed at executives, of course, a flash point for ignorant people who rationalize their lack of success on assorted “fat cats” and “bigwigs.” This is class warfare, folks.
Not to be outdone, even by himself, Pommer declared on the House floor that “businesses don’t care about Colorado.” A few members of his own party winced.
If Pommer’s salary bill passes, there won’t be another economic development deal in Colorado — ever. No company of any size will want to do business in this state. The eco-devo agencies might as well pack up and go home. File for unemployment. Game over.
I don’t know whether it’s just the yin and yang of politics or what, but Statehouse Democrats are jumping off a political cliff. They’re squandering their advantage, just like the Republicans did by carrying out radical agendas.
They’re handing the majority back to the Republicans in a stunning case of political hari-kari, alienating the very constituency that put them in control for the first time in four decades: political moderates and independents, many of them in business.
What else explains going after business with such a vengeance this session? Why else would you go out of your way to prop up organized labor even as its membership dwindles nationwide?
What’s the rationale for engaging in this victim-led, symbolic populist revolt against anybody who’s ever been successful in business?
This past week, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who gets my vote as the most clueless lawmaker up there today, introduced legislation barring businesses from deducting more than $250,000 in individual salaries as a business expense. Pommer has been the Democrats’ torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last.
Pommer’s salary bill is aimed at executives, of course, a flash point for ignorant people who rationalize their lack of success on assorted “fat cats” and “bigwigs.” This is class warfare, folks.
Not to be outdone, even by himself, Pommer declared on the House floor that “businesses don’t care about Colorado.” A few members of his own party winced.
If Pommer’s salary bill passes, there won’t be another economic development deal in Colorado — ever. No company of any size will want to do business in this state. The eco-devo agencies might as well pack up and go home. File for unemployment. Game over.
HB1049 Protecting the Rights of Car Dealerships
HB1049 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Marsha Looper (R) and Sen. Chris Romer (D) Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
Status: The Bill has already quickly made its way through the House on a 60-5 vote. Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee hearing Monday March 1.
CRBC position: monitor
The origin of the bill comes from the frustration of 39 car dealerships that were terminated in Colorado as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring plans of Chrysler, LLC and GM. Lawmakers and the dealers say now that the two auto manufacturers have partially emerged from bankruptcy, GM is attempting to reopen dealerships in Colorado with new owners, some with out-of-state investors.
Lawmakers have responded with legislation that would require manufacturers to provide dealers with a first right of refusal should the manufacturer decide to reopen a terminated dealership in the same market area. The legislation would also require carmakers to reimburse dealers for facility upgrades that were made in the past five years.
Proponents of the bill point out that taxpayers funded an $82-billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, of which taxpayers are expected to lose $30 billion. GM has launched an estimated $60,000 advertising campaign against the bill.
From a prepared statement from GM: “HB 1049 is a bad bill that will threaten our progress. This legislation will create special rights for underperforming dealerships and micromanage our dealership network to the detriment of taxpayers, our customers and the thousands of well-run dealerships that remain a part of the GM family.”
GM argues that the dealerships that were terminated in Colorado were not profitable and therefore a detriment to the corporation. The company worries that Colorado could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the nation with HB 1049 that could “reverse the progress we’re making inside the company,” said Martin.
But as Melissa Kuipers, vice president of government relations for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, points out, it was Chrysler and GM that fell into bankruptcy, not the dealers themselves. “It is just plain wrong that these out-of-state manufacturers cut 39 hometown dealers during their bankruptcy proceedings, only to then turn around and reallocate those very franchises to new dealers,” said Kuipers. “The local dealers weren’t the ones who were in bankruptcy.”
Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010
denverdailynews.com
Status: The Bill has already quickly made its way through the House on a 60-5 vote. Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee hearing Monday March 1.
CRBC position: monitor
The origin of the bill comes from the frustration of 39 car dealerships that were terminated in Colorado as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring plans of Chrysler, LLC and GM. Lawmakers and the dealers say now that the two auto manufacturers have partially emerged from bankruptcy, GM is attempting to reopen dealerships in Colorado with new owners, some with out-of-state investors.
Lawmakers have responded with legislation that would require manufacturers to provide dealers with a first right of refusal should the manufacturer decide to reopen a terminated dealership in the same market area. The legislation would also require carmakers to reimburse dealers for facility upgrades that were made in the past five years.
Proponents of the bill point out that taxpayers funded an $82-billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, of which taxpayers are expected to lose $30 billion. GM has launched an estimated $60,000 advertising campaign against the bill.
From a prepared statement from GM: “HB 1049 is a bad bill that will threaten our progress. This legislation will create special rights for underperforming dealerships and micromanage our dealership network to the detriment of taxpayers, our customers and the thousands of well-run dealerships that remain a part of the GM family.”
GM argues that the dealerships that were terminated in Colorado were not profitable and therefore a detriment to the corporation. The company worries that Colorado could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the nation with HB 1049 that could “reverse the progress we’re making inside the company,” said Martin.
But as Melissa Kuipers, vice president of government relations for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, points out, it was Chrysler and GM that fell into bankruptcy, not the dealers themselves. “It is just plain wrong that these out-of-state manufacturers cut 39 hometown dealers during their bankruptcy proceedings, only to then turn around and reallocate those very franchises to new dealers,” said Kuipers. “The local dealers weren’t the ones who were in bankruptcy.”
Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010
denverdailynews.com
SB133 Tax Credit for Hiring Employees You Can't Afford
SB133 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)
INCOME TAX CREDIT TO INCENTIVIZE COLORADO BUSINESSES TO REHIRE LAID-OFF WORKERS SOONER
Status: 02/16/2010 Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology Refer Amended to Appropriations
CRBC position: oppose
SB 133 is arbitrary in choosing beneficiaries of the incentive without regard to economic benefits to the state. A useful change would be different qualification dates and the directive nature of the re-hiring concept.
First, the bill should apply to any employer hiring back any laid-off worker. Limiting the rehire to a company's own previously laid-off workers has no greater benefit to the state or the UI fund over any employer hiring any Colorado resident.
Secondly, the time frames in the bill are unworkable. Many employees suffered their layoffs prior to 2009 and therefore would be disadvantaged compared to other workers laid off more recently. And employers that tried to carry employees through the holidays would be penalized for their good actions. Also, if the tax credit applies only to the tax year 2011, companies with various fiscal years cannot meet the hiring windows AND show that that employee has remained employed for a full year before they file their taxes.
Also, while many incentives use a simple verification, it would be impossible for an employer to say that they hired back an employee solely for this tax credit. For example, a company can easily say they located or relocated jobs in an enterprise zone due to the incentives offered, but they do not verify that the jobs were created due to the incentive. A company hires employees when there is demand -- not solely based on a tax credit (that at a maximum would be about $4000).
Perry Pearce
Chairman
Colorado Compeitive Council
INCOME TAX CREDIT TO INCENTIVIZE COLORADO BUSINESSES TO REHIRE LAID-OFF WORKERS SOONER
Status: 02/16/2010 Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology Refer Amended to Appropriations
CRBC position: oppose
SB 133 is arbitrary in choosing beneficiaries of the incentive without regard to economic benefits to the state. A useful change would be different qualification dates and the directive nature of the re-hiring concept.
First, the bill should apply to any employer hiring back any laid-off worker. Limiting the rehire to a company's own previously laid-off workers has no greater benefit to the state or the UI fund over any employer hiring any Colorado resident.
Secondly, the time frames in the bill are unworkable. Many employees suffered their layoffs prior to 2009 and therefore would be disadvantaged compared to other workers laid off more recently. And employers that tried to carry employees through the holidays would be penalized for their good actions. Also, if the tax credit applies only to the tax year 2011, companies with various fiscal years cannot meet the hiring windows AND show that that employee has remained employed for a full year before they file their taxes.
Also, while many incentives use a simple verification, it would be impossible for an employer to say that they hired back an employee solely for this tax credit. For example, a company can easily say they located or relocated jobs in an enterprise zone due to the incentives offered, but they do not verify that the jobs were created due to the incentive. A company hires employees when there is demand -- not solely based on a tax credit (that at a maximum would be about $4000).
Perry Pearce
Chairman
Colorado Compeitive Council
HB1248 Nanny State restricts cosmetics, deodorant
HB1248 by Sen. Betty Boyd (D) and Rep. Dianne Primavera (D)
THE "COLORADO SAFE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS ACT" AND PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS CAUSING CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY
Status: 02/03/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary
CRBC: Oppose
The bill proposes to ban products that are legally marketed under FDA regulations. It is grossly overreaching and lacks scientific basis. Shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, sunscreen are just some of the products that may be banned.
The bill prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, regardless of trace amounts. At least 700 substances are included in the list of known or suspected carcinogens.
The bill establishes a process for identifying those chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and health.
"Personal care products", consistent with the definition of "cosmetics" in the federal "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", is defined to include any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing,
beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering a person's appearance. Private citizens may file suit to enforce the act, and penalties to manufacturers and distributors are severe.
Rep. Primavera is a cancer survivor.
ACTION: Contact the members of the House Finance Committee about your experiences with various personal products. If you manufacture or sell such products, explain the process you use to determine their safety.
THE "COLORADO SAFE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS ACT" AND PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS CAUSING CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY
Status: 02/03/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary
CRBC: Oppose
The bill proposes to ban products that are legally marketed under FDA regulations. It is grossly overreaching and lacks scientific basis. Shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, sunscreen are just some of the products that may be banned.
The bill prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, regardless of trace amounts. At least 700 substances are included in the list of known or suspected carcinogens.
The bill establishes a process for identifying those chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and health.
"Personal care products", consistent with the definition of "cosmetics" in the federal "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", is defined to include any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing,
beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering a person's appearance. Private citizens may file suit to enforce the act, and penalties to manufacturers and distributors are severe.
Rep. Primavera is a cancer survivor.
ACTION: Contact the members of the House Finance Committee about your experiences with various personal products. If you manufacture or sell such products, explain the process you use to determine their safety.
SB085 & SB086 Republican Solutions: eliminate double taxation
SB 10-085 & SB10-086 by Sen. Mark Scheffel (R) and Rep. Kevin Priola (R)
Status: Sent to the graveyard of the Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs to be postponed indefinitely
CRBC position: support for both bills
SB085 would have created a pilot program in five counties to reimburse participating counties for lost revenue from private property tax exemptions.
SB086 would have allowed a percentage of fully depreciated personal property to be deducted each year until the property is entirely exempt beginning with the 2023 property tax year.
To never have to stop paying tax on business equipment is just wrong.
Status: Sent to the graveyard of the Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs to be postponed indefinitely
CRBC position: support for both bills
SB085 would have created a pilot program in five counties to reimburse participating counties for lost revenue from private property tax exemptions.
SB086 would have allowed a percentage of fully depreciated personal property to be deducted each year until the property is entirely exempt beginning with the 2023 property tax year.
To never have to stop paying tax on business equipment is just wrong.
HB1163 - Republican Hlthcare Solution - Sell Ins Across State Lines
HB1163 by Rep. Cindy Acree (R) and Sen. Mark Scheffel (R)
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE TO ENTER INTO MULTISTATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING COLORADO CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCTS
A great idea, CRBC supported. Killed in Committee. We thought lowering health care costs through competition was central to Obamacare. Guess that only applies if the "competition" is government-run and taxpayer funded.
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE TO ENTER INTO MULTISTATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING COLORADO CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCTS
A great idea, CRBC supported. Killed in Committee. We thought lowering health care costs through competition was central to Obamacare. Guess that only applies if the "competition" is government-run and taxpayer funded.
SB28 UI Fund is Broke but Dems Want More Benefits
SB28 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLORADO "WORK SHARE PROGRAM" TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS.
Status: 02/26/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: Oppose
The bill proposes to set up a new program under the unemployment system in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to allow employers, in lieu of laying off a percentage of their workers in a unit, to cut back on all workers’ hours by that percentage (between 10% and 40%) and then apply to have those employees file for a proportional amount of unemployment insurance benefits.
This is a new expansion of benefits – currently employers can cut back to 32 hours per week with no benefits allowed.
This proposal goes against a basic premise of the UI system – that workers receiving benefits must be actively looking for work or additional work.
SB 28 sets up a complicated and difficult program that is unmanageable and unverifiable – employers cannot prove that they would have laid off a certain number of workers and cannot give assurances that employees will be returned to full hours in the future, but especially not in the short time-frame given in the bill.
UI Fund Costs – SB 28 will be a further cash flow drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is currently insolvent. Even though employers who choose to utilize the fund will pay a higher experience premium in following years, the fund will bear an immediate cash flow outlay. Also, in order for an employer to realize the equivalent costs savings of layoffs, he/she would have to reduce hours by a greater percentage – thereby impacting the UI fund to a greater degree.
Administrative Costs – administrative cost estimates have varied from an initial $60,000 per year to $486,000 for the initial year to $231,000 for the initial year – but we still do not have a formal fiscal note. We know costs will be high as each plan for each employer must be reviewed and accepted by the Director of CDLE. CDLE says these costs will be covered by the federal government…but that money still is paid employers through our federal unemployment tax (FUTA).
SB10-28 creates an expensive program that few employers could utilize and that will put further drain on the UI fund if they do.
Virginia Morrison Love
Colorado Competitive Council
ACTION: Contact your Senator and explain how adding more cost to a program that is already borrowing between $80M -$100M a month makes no sense.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLORADO "WORK SHARE PROGRAM" TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS.
Status: 02/26/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: Oppose
The bill proposes to set up a new program under the unemployment system in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to allow employers, in lieu of laying off a percentage of their workers in a unit, to cut back on all workers’ hours by that percentage (between 10% and 40%) and then apply to have those employees file for a proportional amount of unemployment insurance benefits.
This is a new expansion of benefits – currently employers can cut back to 32 hours per week with no benefits allowed.
This proposal goes against a basic premise of the UI system – that workers receiving benefits must be actively looking for work or additional work.
SB 28 sets up a complicated and difficult program that is unmanageable and unverifiable – employers cannot prove that they would have laid off a certain number of workers and cannot give assurances that employees will be returned to full hours in the future, but especially not in the short time-frame given in the bill.
UI Fund Costs – SB 28 will be a further cash flow drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is currently insolvent. Even though employers who choose to utilize the fund will pay a higher experience premium in following years, the fund will bear an immediate cash flow outlay. Also, in order for an employer to realize the equivalent costs savings of layoffs, he/she would have to reduce hours by a greater percentage – thereby impacting the UI fund to a greater degree.
Administrative Costs – administrative cost estimates have varied from an initial $60,000 per year to $486,000 for the initial year to $231,000 for the initial year – but we still do not have a formal fiscal note. We know costs will be high as each plan for each employer must be reviewed and accepted by the Director of CDLE. CDLE says these costs will be covered by the federal government…but that money still is paid employers through our federal unemployment tax (FUTA).
SB10-28 creates an expensive program that few employers could utilize and that will put further drain on the UI fund if they do.
Virginia Morrison Love
Colorado Competitive Council
ACTION: Contact your Senator and explain how adding more cost to a program that is already borrowing between $80M -$100M a month makes no sense.
HB1263 Compensation Caps: Tell Business to Leave CO
HB1263 by Rep. Jack Pommer (D) and Sen. Betty Boyd (D)
A LIMIT ON THE STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR COMPENSATION PAID BY A BUSINESS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED
Status: 2/4/2010 Introduced in House; assigned to Finance Committee
CRBC Position: oppose
House Bill 10-1263 would not allow a business to deduct the total amount of salary and other compensation (ie - benefits of any kind such as health care, retirement plan contributions, and all others) paid to any individual in excess of $250,000. It would apply to the tax returns of all businesses which file in Colorado, whether located in Colorado or outside the state, including “C” corporations, “Sub-S’ corporations, Schedule C sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and all other business entities.
This bill, if passed, would actively discourage most businesses from relocating their corporate headquarters to Colorado, and would discourage other high-tech and high paying industries from locating facilities in Colorado. After the Democrat-party-controlled legislature recently passed hundreds of millions of dollars of sales tax increases on Colorado businesses, this bill would further seriously damage Colorado’s reputation as one of the most business friendly states in the country.
Now with HB-1263 the CRBC seriously questions why some members of the Democrat party deem such measures appropriate when the State is now starting to work its way out of a serious economic downturn.
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and 12 other members of the House, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Jefferson County plus 4 other senators. Representative Pommer is infamous for his recent comment on the House floor saying that “businesses don’t care about Colorado”. This Bill would seem to strongly indidcate that Rep. Pommer feels likewise about businesses.
HB1263 complicates CO income tax law by creating a significant difference between CO and Federal income tax law (with a limit of $1 million deductibility on compensation). It imposes an unusual and unnecessary cost on businesses in Colorado.
ACTION: Contact your representative and explain to them how socialist mandates discourage business, which decreases revenue and taxes available to pay for public sector programs.
A LIMIT ON THE STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR COMPENSATION PAID BY A BUSINESS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED
Status: 2/4/2010 Introduced in House; assigned to Finance Committee
CRBC Position: oppose
House Bill 10-1263 would not allow a business to deduct the total amount of salary and other compensation (ie - benefits of any kind such as health care, retirement plan contributions, and all others) paid to any individual in excess of $250,000. It would apply to the tax returns of all businesses which file in Colorado, whether located in Colorado or outside the state, including “C” corporations, “Sub-S’ corporations, Schedule C sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and all other business entities.
This bill, if passed, would actively discourage most businesses from relocating their corporate headquarters to Colorado, and would discourage other high-tech and high paying industries from locating facilities in Colorado. After the Democrat-party-controlled legislature recently passed hundreds of millions of dollars of sales tax increases on Colorado businesses, this bill would further seriously damage Colorado’s reputation as one of the most business friendly states in the country.
Now with HB-1263 the CRBC seriously questions why some members of the Democrat party deem such measures appropriate when the State is now starting to work its way out of a serious economic downturn.
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and 12 other members of the House, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Jefferson County plus 4 other senators. Representative Pommer is infamous for his recent comment on the House floor saying that “businesses don’t care about Colorado”. This Bill would seem to strongly indidcate that Rep. Pommer feels likewise about businesses.
HB1263 complicates CO income tax law by creating a significant difference between CO and Federal income tax law (with a limit of $1 million deductibility on compensation). It imposes an unusual and unnecessary cost on businesses in Colorado.
ACTION: Contact your representative and explain to them how socialist mandates discourage business, which decreases revenue and taxes available to pay for public sector programs.
HB1193 How to Pay Your Use Tax for Internet Purchases
Most of us are accustomed to receiving a Form 1099 every January from our bank or brokerage firm which reports the amount of interest, dividends, etc. which you were paid during the previous calendar year. You also get similar Forms 1099 or 1098 for multiple other purposes, which you may or may not understand.
Starting in January, 2011 you will begin getting a new one. That “Form XYZ” will be coming from many of the Internet retailers such as Amazon, Overstock.com, etc., and catalog companies such as LandsEnd, Orvis and others.
That Form XYZ will report to you the total dollar amount of items purchased from that retailer during the previous calendar year. It will also remind you that you are required to file a Sales and Use Tax Return with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The same Form XYZ will also be sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Yes, most people don’t have any idea what a Sales and Use Tax Return is – that does not matter. It is your responsibility to find out.) It is safe to assume that eventually the Department of Revenue will start to compare the Forms XYZ received against the Sales and Use Tax Returns filed and start sending out bills to those who did not voluntarily pay. Please contact your tax advisor regarding the filing of that return.
In addition to this new Form XYZ, the retailers will be required to send you a separate letter which will remind you that you are required to file a Colorado Sales and Use Tax Return. (Yes, they are required to nag you twice.)
Finally, the Colorado Department of Revenue is granted the authority to establish rules regarding the specifics relating to the Form XYZ. It is possible that they would require the retailer to provide details for every purchase made, such as the date, amount, “category” (whatever that would mean), and whether or not the purchase is exempt from sales tax (which is impossible for the retailer to determine in the case of many consumer sales).
One best believe that Big Brother IS watching, more closely every day!
Keith Crichton MBA, MT, CPA
Crichton Consulting Services, LLC
Centennial
Starting in January, 2011 you will begin getting a new one. That “Form XYZ” will be coming from many of the Internet retailers such as Amazon, Overstock.com, etc., and catalog companies such as LandsEnd, Orvis and others.
That Form XYZ will report to you the total dollar amount of items purchased from that retailer during the previous calendar year. It will also remind you that you are required to file a Sales and Use Tax Return with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The same Form XYZ will also be sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Yes, most people don’t have any idea what a Sales and Use Tax Return is – that does not matter. It is your responsibility to find out.) It is safe to assume that eventually the Department of Revenue will start to compare the Forms XYZ received against the Sales and Use Tax Returns filed and start sending out bills to those who did not voluntarily pay. Please contact your tax advisor regarding the filing of that return.
In addition to this new Form XYZ, the retailers will be required to send you a separate letter which will remind you that you are required to file a Colorado Sales and Use Tax Return. (Yes, they are required to nag you twice.)
Finally, the Colorado Department of Revenue is granted the authority to establish rules regarding the specifics relating to the Form XYZ. It is possible that they would require the retailer to provide details for every purchase made, such as the date, amount, “category” (whatever that would mean), and whether or not the purchase is exempt from sales tax (which is impossible for the retailer to determine in the case of many consumer sales).
One best believe that Big Brother IS watching, more closely every day!
Keith Crichton MBA, MT, CPA
Crichton Consulting Services, LLC
Centennial
HB1154 Republican Hlthcare solution: moratorium on mandates
HB1154 by Rep. Kathleen Curry (I) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
IMPOSE A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
Status: assigned to Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs; postponed indefinitely
CRBC Position: Support
HB1154 would have created a mandate review process to give legislators unbiased information about the potential cost increases that result from health insurance coverage mandates. There are 51 mandates in Colorado, 1,961 nationwide. Why should a man pay for maternity benefits and a woman pay for PSA exams? Why should a healthy person have to pay for diabetes supplies, substance abuse therapy or psychiatric nursing? Why should a childless person have to pay for well-child care? Why should anyone have to buy more health care insurance than they want or need?
HB1154 would have paved the way for choice and competition, ironically the mantra of the Left.
IMPOSE A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
Status: assigned to Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs; postponed indefinitely
CRBC Position: Support
HB1154 would have created a mandate review process to give legislators unbiased information about the potential cost increases that result from health insurance coverage mandates. There are 51 mandates in Colorado, 1,961 nationwide. Why should a man pay for maternity benefits and a woman pay for PSA exams? Why should a healthy person have to pay for diabetes supplies, substance abuse therapy or psychiatric nursing? Why should a childless person have to pay for well-child care? Why should anyone have to buy more health care insurance than they want or need?
HB1154 would have paved the way for choice and competition, ironically the mantra of the Left.
HB1009 More government interference in Pinnacol
HB1009 by Rep. Joe Miklosa (D) and Sen. Mary Hodge (D)
CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PINNACOL ASSURANCE
Status: 02/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 03/02/2010
Sets up (another) Interim Committee to study PinnacolAssurance, the quasi-public workers comp insurance program, funded by private-sector businesses.
Enlarges the Pinnacol Board of directors by adding an injured worker and the executive directorof the State Dept. of Labor and Employment.
HB1009 would:
CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PINNACOL ASSURANCE
Status: 02/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 03/02/2010
Sets up (another) Interim Committee to study PinnacolAssurance, the quasi-public workers comp insurance program, funded by private-sector businesses.
Enlarges the Pinnacol Board of directors by adding an injured worker and the executive directorof the State Dept. of Labor and Employment.
HB1009 would:
- Inject government interference into a Board that has been highly successful, overseeing rate reductions and policyholder dividends for the last five years;
- Create conflict for certain Board members between their fiduciary responsibility to policyholders and allegiance to their own stakeholders;
- Divide the Board between members who represent all policyholders and those who represent a specific special interest;
- Allow the Legislature to dictate specific Board member requirements for some members, but not others; and
- Add non-management employees to the Board, lowering the level of expertise.
Pinnacol's track record of success, including lowering rates by 42 percent in four years while receiving high marks from customers and covered workers, shows that the Board is effectively managing the company and should not be changed.
ACTION: Before March 2, Contact your Representative and tell them how government interference in the private sector is unnecessary and inefficient. If you are a Pinnacol customer, explain how government interference tends to increase rates.
HB1189-HB1199 Ritter's Dirty Dozen tax bills
Governor Ritter signed nine of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills. One HB1198 was killed in committee when it was discovered it would eliminate Colorado’s Alternative Minimum Tax. The other two HB1197 and HB1200 are still in the works.
These bills are job-killers and show a basic ignorance of Economics 101. If you want less of something, tax it. Raise taxes=increased cost of goods and services, passed onto consumers, who will purchase less in a recession. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it: the economy grows when tax rates are low.
STATUS: The House and Senate both voted on the same day, and Ritter signed them without the usual public ceremony the next day. All are effective March 1, 2010 Passed into law:
HB 1189 “Advertising Tax” Makes direct mail advertising materials subject to state sales tax.
HB 1190 “Energy Tax” Makes all energy that used for processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, building construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses subject to state sales tax.
HB 1191 “Sugar Tax” Makes candy and soft drinks purchased from retailers and vending machines subject to state sales tax. In some cases, the additional tax is more than the profit a vendor earns, as contracts are typically written for several years.
HB 1192 “Software Tax” Classifies software that you download from the Internet and software manually installed on a computer as tangible property so that it can be subject to state sales tax.
HB 1193 “Internet Tax” Makes items from out-of-state retailers purchased online subject to state sales tax.
HB 1194 “Carry-out Tax” Makes "nonessential" articles, containers, plastic spoons, napkins or bags subject to state sales tax. Do you want a bag with those fries?
HB 1195 “Farm Tax”Makes agricultural compounds (insecticides, fungicides, vaccines, hormones, and other animal drugs), bull semen, and pesticides used for agricultural production and caring for livestock subject to state sales tax, driving up food costs. Colorado is now one of only six states to charge farmers and ranchers sales tax for the inputs they use to produce food. The law creates an incentive to purchase pesticides and medicine online or from an out of state retailer. Ag is an industry that can’t pass costs on; we compete in a world market and are price takers. We accept the price offered by the buyer, and when competing farms located in Kansas and Nebraska don’t have the same costs it makes Colorado farmers less competitive and gives them an incentive to not pay these taxes.So what does this new tax mean in human terms? Well, if you are a full time farmer this bill will likely take $2000 to $6000 out of your pocket. That’s a lot of money. Jen Raiffie
HB 1196 “Green Tax” Repeals the tax credit for certain qualifying high mileage vehicles.
HB 1199, "Limit Loss Carry Forward" Temporarily limit the amount of net operating losses companies can carry forward on their taxes.
HB 1197 “Conservation Easement Tax” Reduces deductions for conservation easement donations. STATUS: 02/19/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Finance
HB 1200 the “Enterprise Zone Tax” Limits the amount of the credit that a taxpayer may claim for enterprise zone investments. STATUS: 01/22/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Appropriations
These bills are job-killers and show a basic ignorance of Economics 101. If you want less of something, tax it. Raise taxes=increased cost of goods and services, passed onto consumers, who will purchase less in a recession. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it: the economy grows when tax rates are low.
STATUS: The House and Senate both voted on the same day, and Ritter signed them without the usual public ceremony the next day. All are effective March 1, 2010 Passed into law:
HB 1189 “Advertising Tax” Makes direct mail advertising materials subject to state sales tax.
HB 1190 “Energy Tax” Makes all energy that used for processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, building construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses subject to state sales tax.
HB 1191 “Sugar Tax” Makes candy and soft drinks purchased from retailers and vending machines subject to state sales tax. In some cases, the additional tax is more than the profit a vendor earns, as contracts are typically written for several years.
HB 1192 “Software Tax” Classifies software that you download from the Internet and software manually installed on a computer as tangible property so that it can be subject to state sales tax.
HB 1193 “Internet Tax” Makes items from out-of-state retailers purchased online subject to state sales tax.
HB 1194 “Carry-out Tax” Makes "nonessential" articles, containers, plastic spoons, napkins or bags subject to state sales tax. Do you want a bag with those fries?
HB 1195 “Farm Tax”Makes agricultural compounds (insecticides, fungicides, vaccines, hormones, and other animal drugs), bull semen, and pesticides used for agricultural production and caring for livestock subject to state sales tax, driving up food costs. Colorado is now one of only six states to charge farmers and ranchers sales tax for the inputs they use to produce food. The law creates an incentive to purchase pesticides and medicine online or from an out of state retailer. Ag is an industry that can’t pass costs on; we compete in a world market and are price takers. We accept the price offered by the buyer, and when competing farms located in Kansas and Nebraska don’t have the same costs it makes Colorado farmers less competitive and gives them an incentive to not pay these taxes.So what does this new tax mean in human terms? Well, if you are a full time farmer this bill will likely take $2000 to $6000 out of your pocket. That’s a lot of money. Jen Raiffie
HB 1196 “Green Tax” Repeals the tax credit for certain qualifying high mileage vehicles.
HB 1199, "Limit Loss Carry Forward" Temporarily limit the amount of net operating losses companies can carry forward on their taxes.
HB 1197 “Conservation Easement Tax” Reduces deductions for conservation easement donations. STATUS: 02/19/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Finance
HB 1200 the “Enterprise Zone Tax” Limits the amount of the credit that a taxpayer may claim for enterprise zone investments. STATUS: 01/22/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Appropriations
HB1012 Unintended consequence: more fraud in workers comp claims
HB1012 by Rep. Morgan Carroll (D) and Sen. Louis Pace (D)
CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE OFEMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM.
STATUS: 02/26/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: OPPOSE
This is another assault on PinnacleAssurance, the quasi-private company that is the "insurer of last resort" for Workers Compensation insurance in Colorado. It is funded by the private-sector companies that buy its insurance.
HB1012 Increases the penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws from up to $500 to up to $1,000. Changes the mental state from "willfully" to "knowingly" in the statute that penalizes denying workers' compensation medical benefits, delaying payment of medical benefits for more than 30 days, or stopping payments. Allows the director of the division of workers' compensation or an administrative law judge to apportion the penalties, in whole or part, among the aggrieved party, the medical services provider, and the workers' compensation cash fund.
A Catch-22 and extremely punitive bill for employers. The Bill forbids an employer from verifying if an employee is actually disabled from a work-related incident unless there is some evidence of fraud, which an employer can't find without "surveillance" of some type. The change from "willfully" to "knowingly" not paying or delaying payment to an employee lowers the threshold of when a penalty may be incurred by an employer.
HB1012 would:
CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE OFEMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM.
STATUS: 02/26/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
CRBC Position: OPPOSE
This is another assault on PinnacleAssurance, the quasi-private company that is the "insurer of last resort" for Workers Compensation insurance in Colorado. It is funded by the private-sector companies that buy its insurance.
HB1012 Increases the penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws from up to $500 to up to $1,000. Changes the mental state from "willfully" to "knowingly" in the statute that penalizes denying workers' compensation medical benefits, delaying payment of medical benefits for more than 30 days, or stopping payments. Allows the director of the division of workers' compensation or an administrative law judge to apportion the penalties, in whole or part, among the aggrieved party, the medical services provider, and the workers' compensation cash fund.
A Catch-22 and extremely punitive bill for employers. The Bill forbids an employer from verifying if an employee is actually disabled from a work-related incident unless there is some evidence of fraud, which an employer can't find without "surveillance" of some type. The change from "willfully" to "knowingly" not paying or delaying payment to an employee lowers the threshold of when a penalty may be incurred by an employer.
HB1012 would:
- Drive up premiums for Colorado employers by allowing workers' compensation fraud to go undetected;
- Limit and slow down investigations of fraud, which require a quick response;
- Clog the legal system as other channels for fighting fraud are eliminated;
- Undermine the credibility of legitimate claims of injured workers by driving up costs and allowing fraudulent claimants to receive benefits;
- Negatively impact all workers' comp carriers in Colorado, affecting the state's businesses and workers alike.
ACTION: Contact your Representative about how HB1012 will affect your business.
HB1192 Ritter's Internet Tax hurts small biz
HB1192
CONCERNING THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX OF STANDARDIZED SOFTWARE
Status: Passed and signed by Governor Ritter
One of Ritter's Dirty Dozen, advocates sold this as "fairness" for taxing software that's downloaded on-line, rather than bought in a brick and morter storefront. But ignorance of how business works shows why this bill, like Ritter's other tax increases, is a bad idea.
At the margins – for really large and really small software packages – this bill is a disaster. On the low end, think of a download of small mini-apps: a $.95 ringtone, a $1 MP3 song, a $2 e-book, a $5 upgrade to your GPS. How can you tax those things, and would it even be worth it to try?
There are many other technical issues…SaaS (software-as-a-service). Cloud Computing. Virtualization. Managed Services/Hosting. Object-oriented development. Data center hosting. Disaster recovery and remote/hot site services. Software re-use. Service-oriented architecture. Software toolkits. Telecommuting and virtual workforce. Hosted telecom apps and VoIP services. These are just some delivery methods and technology concepts that are at the leading edge of the technology frontier, and Colorado is at the forefront of these and other innovations. Every one of them has special circumstances that will have to be investigated – and analyzed and unraveled – to comply with HB 1192.
So instead of spending time on productive efforts like innovation and implementation, companies will have to invest significant time in non-productive audits and compliance.uld technology jobs leave the state as a result of HB 1192? Not only is it a definite yes, but you must understand that it is relatively easy to do so. Moving a manufacturing facility is hard. Moving a technology platform is easy. Any sizable company would find it easy – as well as advantageous – to move their technology to Seattle or Omaha or Minneapolis to avoid the brain damage of auditing and accounting for and paying the taxes under HB 1192. Not only would that company’s technology jobs move along with the technology platforms, but the jobs of any outside consulting/ implementation partner would move out of the state as well. And no large or growing company – and definitely no high-tech company – would consider moving into or investing further in Colorado if faced with this imposing and formidable barrier to technology, automation and efficiency.
Additionally, in Colorado and elsewhere, there is a shortage of students entering STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are many formal and informal initiatives aimed at training and re-training both youth and adults to enter or shift to the technology workforce. Several Federal jobs training programs are focusing on these efforts. In addition, information technology is at the core of green/sustainable energy initiatives. HB 1192 runs counter to those efforts, and would undoubtedly stifle future growth of talent here in the state, and cause the loss of federal education and training funds.
And lastly, the ARRA/HITECH act earmarks $19.5 billion in Federal funds for the implementation of IT in healthcare, which has shown to help lower our outrageous healthcare costs, reduce costly medical errors and improve patient outcomes. Providers and other entities are reluctant to adopt automation and technology, primarily because of costs and other barriers. By taxing software, HB 1192 increases those barriers, and would definitely cause the State of Colorado to miss out on some of those federal funds…they would go to other healthcare entities in other states.
Marion Jenkins
QSE Technologies, Inc.
disclaimer: Mr. Jenkins' company will not be directly affected by HB1192. He opposes the Bill because it's generally bad for business.
CONCERNING THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX OF STANDARDIZED SOFTWARE
Status: Passed and signed by Governor Ritter
One of Ritter's Dirty Dozen, advocates sold this as "fairness" for taxing software that's downloaded on-line, rather than bought in a brick and morter storefront. But ignorance of how business works shows why this bill, like Ritter's other tax increases, is a bad idea.
At the margins – for really large and really small software packages – this bill is a disaster. On the low end, think of a download of small mini-apps: a $.95 ringtone, a $1 MP3 song, a $2 e-book, a $5 upgrade to your GPS. How can you tax those things, and would it even be worth it to try?
There are many other technical issues…SaaS (software-as-a-service). Cloud Computing. Virtualization. Managed Services/Hosting. Object-oriented development. Data center hosting. Disaster recovery and remote/hot site services. Software re-use. Service-oriented architecture. Software toolkits. Telecommuting and virtual workforce. Hosted telecom apps and VoIP services. These are just some delivery methods and technology concepts that are at the leading edge of the technology frontier, and Colorado is at the forefront of these and other innovations. Every one of them has special circumstances that will have to be investigated – and analyzed and unraveled – to comply with HB 1192.
So instead of spending time on productive efforts like innovation and implementation, companies will have to invest significant time in non-productive audits and compliance.uld technology jobs leave the state as a result of HB 1192? Not only is it a definite yes, but you must understand that it is relatively easy to do so. Moving a manufacturing facility is hard. Moving a technology platform is easy. Any sizable company would find it easy – as well as advantageous – to move their technology to Seattle or Omaha or Minneapolis to avoid the brain damage of auditing and accounting for and paying the taxes under HB 1192. Not only would that company’s technology jobs move along with the technology platforms, but the jobs of any outside consulting/ implementation partner would move out of the state as well. And no large or growing company – and definitely no high-tech company – would consider moving into or investing further in Colorado if faced with this imposing and formidable barrier to technology, automation and efficiency.
Additionally, in Colorado and elsewhere, there is a shortage of students entering STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are many formal and informal initiatives aimed at training and re-training both youth and adults to enter or shift to the technology workforce. Several Federal jobs training programs are focusing on these efforts. In addition, information technology is at the core of green/sustainable energy initiatives. HB 1192 runs counter to those efforts, and would undoubtedly stifle future growth of talent here in the state, and cause the loss of federal education and training funds.
And lastly, the ARRA/HITECH act earmarks $19.5 billion in Federal funds for the implementation of IT in healthcare, which has shown to help lower our outrageous healthcare costs, reduce costly medical errors and improve patient outcomes. Providers and other entities are reluctant to adopt automation and technology, primarily because of costs and other barriers. By taxing software, HB 1192 increases those barriers, and would definitely cause the State of Colorado to miss out on some of those federal funds…they would go to other healthcare entities in other states.
Marion Jenkins
QSE Technologies, Inc.
disclaimer: Mr. Jenkins' company will not be directly affected by HB1192. He opposes the Bill because it's generally bad for business.
HB1160 Republican HlthCare solution: incentives for wellness programs
HB1160 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Amy Stephens (R) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS TO OFFER
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS
Status: 2/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/8/2010
CRBC Position: Support
The bill could help business owners by slowing the growth of their group medical premiums.
The vote in the House will cause Representatives to publically vote a popular effort to freeze expensive mandates and also to vote against the opportunity for greater choice and lower cost medical plan option for individuals and business.
Voting against HB1160 could provide an election sound bite about Democrat obstruction of popular cost saving measures.
Take Action before March 8: Talk with you Representative about how HB1160 could help your business.
Jim Sugden
Employee Benefit Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ebscolorado.com/
CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS TO OFFER
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS
Status: 2/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/8/2010
CRBC Position: Support
The bill could help business owners by slowing the growth of their group medical premiums.
The vote in the House will cause Representatives to publically vote a popular effort to freeze expensive mandates and also to vote against the opportunity for greater choice and lower cost medical plan option for individuals and business.
Voting against HB1160 could provide an election sound bite about Democrat obstruction of popular cost saving measures.
Take Action before March 8: Talk with you Representative about how HB1160 could help your business.
Jim Sugden
Employee Benefit Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ebscolorado.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)