.jpg){kind=logo}
Obama’s at it again – promising what he can’t deliver (reducing oil imports by 1/3 in 10 years) while counting on the fact that in 10 years no one will remember this disingenuous promise, or if they do, we will be unable to hold him accountable since he will be out of office (thankfully).
Oh yes, Obama’s third option, which he often uses, is to blame industry by saying or implying that they have not taken advantage of what he (and his bureaucracy) has so kindly given to them. This is especially insulting (telling an industry how to run their business) when Obama has NO business experience (let alone energy experience) and even his administration has very few members who have any business experience.
Clearly, the first thing that any rational human being would do in order to deliver on this promise would to help encourage more oil & gas exploration & production. Yet, he continues to do just the opposite. The most obvious example is that despite stating, several months ago, that he would reopen the Gulf to drilling, the Dept. of Interior has issued only one permit. Furthermore, according to a study of public lands by the Bureau of Land Management, nearly 2/3 of America’s onshore oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves remain inaccessible due to legal restrictions.
In short, contrary to what Obama’s has said about reducing our oil imports, the Obama administration continues to discourage American exploration & drilling. Not only is this making us more dependent on foreign oil & gas, but sadly it is also costing us jobs at a time when we should be trying to create jobs – not shipping them overseas.
Although it is April 1st, this is not a joke.
Walter Curtner
CRBC Issues Chair
Friday, April 15, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Co Budget - is the shortfall a fiction?
From December to March, Colorado’s budget forecast for the general fund increased by over half a billion dollars, substantially shrinking that $1.2 billion budget shortfall we’ve all heard so much about. That’s good news. But here’s the dirty little secret: The budget shortfall is a fiction.
The budget for the current year (2010-11) is $7.1 billion. We’re told that the legislature closed a $350 million shortfall. Yet the budget for 2009-10 was $6.3 billion. That’s an increase of $800 million. The budget forecast for next year as of last December was $7.1 billion, the same as the current year. Does that sound like a $1.2 billion shortfall? And the updated forecast, released yesterday, predicts less than half of that shortfall. Total budget forecast: $7.1 billion, the same amount that predicted the $1.2 billion shortfall. Huh?
Let’s do the math. If the budget in the current year is $7.1 billion, and we anticipate a $600 million shortfall next year, what is the anticipated budget for next year? $6.5 billion, right? Not in the world of government budgetary mathematics.
Now it may be that I don’t understand the budget. As far as I can tell, neither do the legislators. They haven’t been able to explain how the shortfall number is calculated, and have only raised more questions when they tried. I’ve talked to Henry Sobanet, Governor Hickenlooper’s budget director and one of the foremost experts regarding the state budget. He provided far more insight than anyone I’ve talked to about the state budget. Yet he could not explain the budget shortfall in a way that mere mortals could comprehend.
And therein lies the danger. Despite the good news about the budget, the steady drumbeat about the shortfall will continue and get louder. And we’ll be asked to approve new taxes. What do you suppose are the chances that anyone will tell us how they arrived at that number? Don’t you think they should be able to prove the numbers before they ask us to satisfy the rapacious government appetite for that which does not belong to them?
Even if there are real numbers behind what appears to be fiction, shouldn’t we all be on the same page? If “shortfall” means something entirely different to you and me than it does to the general assembly, shouldn’t we reconcile terms before we hand over more money?
Unemployment is at a record high in Colorado. People are struggling to keep food on the table, heat their homes, and put gas in their cars. There are families that can’t afford to pay 30 cents a day to have schools feed breakfast to their children. Raising sales taxes will hurt those families the most.
Raising income taxes will hinder job creation by diverting more money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector.
Brian Vande Krol
The budget for the current year (2010-11) is $7.1 billion. We’re told that the legislature closed a $350 million shortfall. Yet the budget for 2009-10 was $6.3 billion. That’s an increase of $800 million. The budget forecast for next year as of last December was $7.1 billion, the same as the current year. Does that sound like a $1.2 billion shortfall? And the updated forecast, released yesterday, predicts less than half of that shortfall. Total budget forecast: $7.1 billion, the same amount that predicted the $1.2 billion shortfall. Huh?
Let’s do the math. If the budget in the current year is $7.1 billion, and we anticipate a $600 million shortfall next year, what is the anticipated budget for next year? $6.5 billion, right? Not in the world of government budgetary mathematics.
Now it may be that I don’t understand the budget. As far as I can tell, neither do the legislators. They haven’t been able to explain how the shortfall number is calculated, and have only raised more questions when they tried. I’ve talked to Henry Sobanet, Governor Hickenlooper’s budget director and one of the foremost experts regarding the state budget. He provided far more insight than anyone I’ve talked to about the state budget. Yet he could not explain the budget shortfall in a way that mere mortals could comprehend.
And therein lies the danger. Despite the good news about the budget, the steady drumbeat about the shortfall will continue and get louder. And we’ll be asked to approve new taxes. What do you suppose are the chances that anyone will tell us how they arrived at that number? Don’t you think they should be able to prove the numbers before they ask us to satisfy the rapacious government appetite for that which does not belong to them?
Even if there are real numbers behind what appears to be fiction, shouldn’t we all be on the same page? If “shortfall” means something entirely different to you and me than it does to the general assembly, shouldn’t we reconcile terms before we hand over more money?
Unemployment is at a record high in Colorado. People are struggling to keep food on the table, heat their homes, and put gas in their cars. There are families that can’t afford to pay 30 cents a day to have schools feed breakfast to their children. Raising sales taxes will hurt those families the most.
Raising income taxes will hinder job creation by diverting more money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector.
Brian Vande Krol
CO Senate Republicans Budget principles
Senate Republicans believe the following eight budget principles provide a sound basis for a fiscally responsible FY 2011-12 state budget.
* Maintains a reserve of at least 4 percent as recommended by the Governor;
• Budgets to the most conservative General Fund revenue estimate available for FY 2011-12;
• Avoids suspending the $65 million vendor fee that has already cost thousands of jobs;
• Makes structural, long term changes to entitlements, which are increasingly crowding out needed funding for core functions of government such as K-12, higher education, and transportation;
• Consolidates prisons and increase utilization of cheaper private corrections facilities;
• Increases the amount that government workers pay for their retirement as recommended by the Governor;
• Avoids the use of one-time fund sources to prop up General Fund spending that will create a shortfall next year; and
• Is amenable to and supportive of additional structural changes and cuts in spending which will be offered by our caucus in floor amendments.
* Maintains a reserve of at least 4 percent as recommended by the Governor;
• Budgets to the most conservative General Fund revenue estimate available for FY 2011-12;
• Avoids suspending the $65 million vendor fee that has already cost thousands of jobs;
• Makes structural, long term changes to entitlements, which are increasingly crowding out needed funding for core functions of government such as K-12, higher education, and transportation;
• Consolidates prisons and increase utilization of cheaper private corrections facilities;
• Increases the amount that government workers pay for their retirement as recommended by the Governor;
• Avoids the use of one-time fund sources to prop up General Fund spending that will create a shortfall next year; and
• Is amenable to and supportive of additional structural changes and cuts in spending which will be offered by our caucus in floor amendments.
Good news/bad news on taxes - and a correction
The past Saturday, I spoke before the CO Republican State Central Committee and talked about several initiatives to hike taxes by the left-leaning Colorado Center on Law and Policy.
The information I reported was incorrect, as it was already four days old and things had changed. I had not updated my research. I am pleased to report that CCLP has decided not to pursue their tax increase petitions for November. Additionally, the Title Board denied CCLP's proposed initiative to place a sales tax on services.
CCLP's initiatives asked voters to change the current tax code to have an increased rate on individuals and corporations with specific directions for wealth re-distribution. The initiatives varied only slightly but would have raised taxes in Colorado between $1.07B to $1.512B - and mostly on the backs of people already paying in the higher brackets.
In the CCLP initiatives, approximately 60% of Coloradoans would have paid the same or less tax than they currently pay; the other 40% would have carried the burden.
As reported by Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, a CCLP executive said the group couldn't get enough support to pay for the campaign. But, as Hoover wrote, "Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) is still proposing a temporary tax-increase initiative that would ask voters to raise income and sales taxes to generate $1.63 billion over three years"....and "another version that would ask voters to make the tax increases permanent."
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
The information I reported was incorrect, as it was already four days old and things had changed. I had not updated my research. I am pleased to report that CCLP has decided not to pursue their tax increase petitions for November. Additionally, the Title Board denied CCLP's proposed initiative to place a sales tax on services.
CCLP's initiatives asked voters to change the current tax code to have an increased rate on individuals and corporations with specific directions for wealth re-distribution. The initiatives varied only slightly but would have raised taxes in Colorado between $1.07B to $1.512B - and mostly on the backs of people already paying in the higher brackets.
In the CCLP initiatives, approximately 60% of Coloradoans would have paid the same or less tax than they currently pay; the other 40% would have carried the burden.
As reported by Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, a CCLP executive said the group couldn't get enough support to pay for the campaign. But, as Hoover wrote, "Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) is still proposing a temporary tax-increase initiative that would ask voters to raise income and sales taxes to generate $1.63 billion over three years"....and "another version that would ask voters to make the tax increases permanent."
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Vande Krol: Hick's Bottom Up or Upside Down?
Bottom Up or Upside Down, It’s More Government
March 29, 2011
Yesterday I attended the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Initiative. I was disturbed that so many in attendance are "swallowing the kool-aid", believing that government can craft the right program to get the economy moving and put people back to work.
Any attempt by government to incentivize business is a burden that must be borne by taxpayers, and a comparative disadvantage to the businesses that doesn't qualify for the incentives.
The Mayor of Commerce City (Natale) boasted that they appoint a person to help any large business that's moving to their city. That person is the single point of contact between that business and the city, and facilitates their move. But what are the chances that a smaller business would get that same assistance?
The businesses that drive the economy and offer the most employment are the small, less glamorous businesses. One thousand sole proprietors that each hire one person creates more jobs than a relocated company with 500 employees. And the sole proprietor doesn't show up in any statistics. Making it easy for people to start small businesses by removing barriers can have a far greater impact on employment and the creation of wealth.
Natale also wanted protection (tariffs?) for the concrete pipe companies in Commerce City. Apparently there's a move afoot to change regulations to specify plastic pipe instead of concrete in public works projects. This is foolishness all the way around. Protectionism always harms the consumer (the taxpayer in this case). And regulations that specify a particular product (rather than performance criteria) invites more governmental favoritism and corruption.
There were lots of ideas about government programs to educate businesses. Really? Perhaps the people who run the post office, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. can teach us what they know.
Someone wanted to raise the gas tax to fund transportation. I'm always amazed at the people who believe that if you come up with a new way to tax, it will somehow create new money to be taxed. It's as if the consumers are saving money under their cushions until someone comes up with the right way to pry it out. I like the idea that gas taxes are the best way to ensure that the users of roads are the ones who pay for the roads. But if gas taxes are raised, there must be a commensurate decrease in other taxes, or it will further dampen economic growth.
Someone trotted out the old and common belief that the key to prosperity is to fund higher education. Adams County apparently doesn't have enough college graduates. The belief is that if we have more college graduates sitting around waiting for jobs, companies will relocate here. I would contend that companies will relocate here if they see a comparative business advantage, meaning less government intrusion and taxation and more stability in regulations. Then those businesses will attract the people they need to staff the company. The main reason to improve higher education in Colorado is so that parents don't have to ship their kids out of state to get a good education. That's not a bad thing, but let's be honest about it.
One gentleman thought we should have a government agency that businesses could contact to keep abreast of government changes that might affect them. I said it's a sad day when our business environment is so volatile because of government that we have to have an agency to help us track the changes.
Someone suggested that the Governor should personally know the CEOs of the top 100 Colorado employers. Can you imagine that weekly phone call from Hick to Mr. Big? Do you think either will care that Hick generally cannot help Mr. Big’s company without taking from the taxpayers, or putting competing companies at a comparative disadvantage?
This whole fiasco is a classic example of the grand deceit of those who think they can plan our economy. A room mostly full of government representatives trying to decide how best to "create jobs". Business people attend because "if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". TIFs, programs, agencies, enterprise zones, tariffs, incentives, and on and on.
It all adds up to favoritism for the businesses that government approves, and taxpayers foot the bill. Although everyone acknowledged the need to cut red tape, very few specific ideas came up. It's such a huge task that few know where to begin. Perhaps it’s also because the government representatives in attendance don't experience the red tape problem. Remember that the first red tape Hick cut was for brewers, a problem of which he has first hand knowledge.
Remember what happens when you bend over and grab your ankles - you are Bottom Up. Brian Vande Krol
March 29, 2011
Yesterday I attended the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Initiative. I was disturbed that so many in attendance are "swallowing the kool-aid", believing that government can craft the right program to get the economy moving and put people back to work.
Any attempt by government to incentivize business is a burden that must be borne by taxpayers, and a comparative disadvantage to the businesses that doesn't qualify for the incentives.
The Mayor of Commerce City (Natale) boasted that they appoint a person to help any large business that's moving to their city. That person is the single point of contact between that business and the city, and facilitates their move. But what are the chances that a smaller business would get that same assistance?
The businesses that drive the economy and offer the most employment are the small, less glamorous businesses. One thousand sole proprietors that each hire one person creates more jobs than a relocated company with 500 employees. And the sole proprietor doesn't show up in any statistics. Making it easy for people to start small businesses by removing barriers can have a far greater impact on employment and the creation of wealth.
Natale also wanted protection (tariffs?) for the concrete pipe companies in Commerce City. Apparently there's a move afoot to change regulations to specify plastic pipe instead of concrete in public works projects. This is foolishness all the way around. Protectionism always harms the consumer (the taxpayer in this case). And regulations that specify a particular product (rather than performance criteria) invites more governmental favoritism and corruption.
There were lots of ideas about government programs to educate businesses. Really? Perhaps the people who run the post office, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. can teach us what they know.
Someone wanted to raise the gas tax to fund transportation. I'm always amazed at the people who believe that if you come up with a new way to tax, it will somehow create new money to be taxed. It's as if the consumers are saving money under their cushions until someone comes up with the right way to pry it out. I like the idea that gas taxes are the best way to ensure that the users of roads are the ones who pay for the roads. But if gas taxes are raised, there must be a commensurate decrease in other taxes, or it will further dampen economic growth.
Someone trotted out the old and common belief that the key to prosperity is to fund higher education. Adams County apparently doesn't have enough college graduates. The belief is that if we have more college graduates sitting around waiting for jobs, companies will relocate here. I would contend that companies will relocate here if they see a comparative business advantage, meaning less government intrusion and taxation and more stability in regulations. Then those businesses will attract the people they need to staff the company. The main reason to improve higher education in Colorado is so that parents don't have to ship their kids out of state to get a good education. That's not a bad thing, but let's be honest about it.
One gentleman thought we should have a government agency that businesses could contact to keep abreast of government changes that might affect them. I said it's a sad day when our business environment is so volatile because of government that we have to have an agency to help us track the changes.
Someone suggested that the Governor should personally know the CEOs of the top 100 Colorado employers. Can you imagine that weekly phone call from Hick to Mr. Big? Do you think either will care that Hick generally cannot help Mr. Big’s company without taking from the taxpayers, or putting competing companies at a comparative disadvantage?
This whole fiasco is a classic example of the grand deceit of those who think they can plan our economy. A room mostly full of government representatives trying to decide how best to "create jobs". Business people attend because "if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". TIFs, programs, agencies, enterprise zones, tariffs, incentives, and on and on.
It all adds up to favoritism for the businesses that government approves, and taxpayers foot the bill. Although everyone acknowledged the need to cut red tape, very few specific ideas came up. It's such a huge task that few know where to begin. Perhaps it’s also because the government representatives in attendance don't experience the red tape problem. Remember that the first red tape Hick cut was for brewers, a problem of which he has first hand knowledge.
Remember what happens when you bend over and grab your ankles - you are Bottom Up. Brian Vande Krol
CRBC opposes HB1255 CO Alternative Energy Park Act
March 17, 2011 The Honorable State Representatives State Capitol Building 200 E. Colfax Ave Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: HB 1255, Colorado Alternative Energy Park Act Dear Representative, The Colorado Republican Business Coalition Opposes HB 1255. The wealth of Colorado (or the United States, or individuals) derives from the goods and services we create. To expand that wealth requires more efficient production of those goods and services. Capital and labor that is diverted to less efficient production reduces that wealth. If a particular product is more efficient to produce, entrepreneurs will invest the capital and labor to produce it. (See "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for a more complete discussion.) We know that most forms of alternative energy are less efficient because they cost more than traditional forms of energy, and there would be little demand for it without subsidies and incentives. If it needs a subsidy, it probably doesn't deserve it. There can not be a tax incentive to one industry or company that doesn't cost an equivalent amount to a different industry, company, or taxpayers. The Tax Increment Financing incentives envisioned by this bill will be a relative disadvantage to every business that doesn’t receive similar advantages. Further, but for the tax incentives, tax rates overall could be reduced and citizens would be far better at spending their own money to create economic development than government. Spending tax money in hopes of creating more tax revenue is faulty economics. This government distortion of the free market for energy production diverts labor and capital to inefficient projects, and creates an industry that will be forever dependent on government subsidies. If an alternative energy park is developed and cannot run economically, taxpayers will foot the bill. If it creates more environmental damage than it prevents, Colorado suffers the consequences. If it quickly becomes obsolete when more efficient forms of energy are developed, taxpayers have funded that obsolescent technology. If rail transportation falls into disuse, taxpayers have paid for the improvements to rail systems to accommodate the parks. And the bill depends on the wisdom of government officials to determine the economic and environmental viability of the project. These officials have very little risk, because they are using taxpayer money for these experiments. This is a system that is ripe for political favoritism and abuse. We do not oppose alternative energy. However, as liberty minded business owners and free market advocates, we know that entrepreneurs will develop more alternative energy without government assistance when it becomes efficient to do so. Christine Burtt Chairman CO Republican Business Coalition Brian Vande Krol CRBC Issues Committee www.smallbizgop.com
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Ryan Call Elected State GOP Chair
Earlier today in Castle Rock, the State Central Committee elected Ryan Call to be the new State Chair. Ryan Call will succeed Dick Wadhams as the fundraising and candidate-supporting leader at the state level. Current Jefferson County Republican Chair Don Ytterberg received the State Vice-Chair nod, and Perry Buck, spouse of erstwhile Senate candidate Ken Buck, will the the new State Secretary. Ryan Call previously served as the Denver County GOP Chair as well as the legal counsel for the State GOP. David Carpenter CRBC Board
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
CRBC Chair To Discuss Egypt Trip
UPDATE: Audio links are available for the interview. Links: 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. CRBC Chairman Christine Burtt recently returned from a trip to Egypt where she met political activists who were involved in the recent revolution.
Christine Burtt is in the front row, fourth person from the left, in this picture from her recent trip.
Christine Burtt wrote the following overview of her upcoming interview:
Tomorrow, Thursday, March 24, 10:05 a.m., on Mike Rosen's show at KOA radio 850 AM, I'll be talking with Mike about how a handful of young Egyptians fomented a revolution that took down a powerful and repressive 30-year president, misdirected his security police force of more than 100,000 officers, and have forever transformed the seat of the Arab world. What will happen next in Egypt and what does it mean for America and our interests in the Middle East? Tune in here to listen live. A link to the podcast of the interview will be added when available.
Christine Burtt is in the front row, fourth person from the left, in this picture from her recent trip.
Friday, March 18, 2011
CRBC Legislative Matrix
Do you want to know the bills in the Colorado General Assembly that affect business, but you do not have time to read them? Visit our legislative matrix here (updated weekly) for a list of legislation our legislative affairs committee is following.
And, as always, visit us at http://smallbizgop.com for the latest updates.
And, as always, visit us at http://smallbizgop.com for the latest updates.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
CO Budget Factoids
Debt on Transportation Bonds
The Colorado Department of Transportation currently budgets $168 million annually to service debt on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) issued during the Owens administration. This level of debt service will continue until 2016. These bonds were issued in order to build the I-25 Southeast Corridor through Denver (known as “T-Rex”), including the light rail line running parallel to I-25. The same bonds also financed new transportation construction throughout other areas of the state. In 2017, payments drop to $130 million, the year in which this outstanding debt will be retired.
Medicaid eligibility grew for non-traditional groups.
Medicaid was initially designed to pay for health care for impoverished families, the disabled and the impoverished elderly. Analysis of the Colorado Medicaid caseload composition shows large increases in recent years for “expansion adults” and “other.”
Proponents defined Amendment 23 as being “for the children,” and it increased the education budget each year even when revenues dropped. Political decisions are about making trade-offs. More for education means less for something else. Amendment 23 locks in the rest of the budget as losers to the largest and more powerful entities and lobbying organizations. Do Colorado taxpayers want funding increases to stay on autopilot forever in order to have higher teachers’ salaries and more spending? The legislature could add repeal of Amendment 23 to the November 2012 ballot for voter consideration.
For more information see: http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget/
The Colorado Department of Transportation currently budgets $168 million annually to service debt on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) issued during the Owens administration. This level of debt service will continue until 2016. These bonds were issued in order to build the I-25 Southeast Corridor through Denver (known as “T-Rex”), including the light rail line running parallel to I-25. The same bonds also financed new transportation construction throughout other areas of the state. In 2017, payments drop to $130 million, the year in which this outstanding debt will be retired.
Medicaid eligibility grew for non-traditional groups.
Medicaid was initially designed to pay for health care for impoverished families, the disabled and the impoverished elderly. Analysis of the Colorado Medicaid caseload composition shows large increases in recent years for “expansion adults” and “other.”
Proponents defined Amendment 23 as being “for the children,” and it increased the education budget each year even when revenues dropped. Political decisions are about making trade-offs. More for education means less for something else. Amendment 23 locks in the rest of the budget as losers to the largest and more powerful entities and lobbying organizations. Do Colorado taxpayers want funding increases to stay on autopilot forever in order to have higher teachers’ salaries and more spending? The legislature could add repeal of Amendment 23 to the November 2012 ballot for voter consideration.
For more information see: http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget/
Legislators Respond on Biz Personal Property Tax, Health Insurance Reform, and CO Healthcare Cooperative
RE: SB26 Sen. Cheri Jahn (D-Jeffco)is against the Business Personal Property Tax but won't vote to repeal because education and local government are a higher priority.
CRBC supported SB26. Bill Status: Killed in Senate Finance Committee
"Each year I served in the House this issue came up. We managed to extend the exemption my last year to another 30,000 small businesses. I agree this is a tax that is just wrong but looking at the fiscal note it is very difficult to vote yes on something that is wiping out millions from our schools, which is on top of the $265 million they got hit with last year. Education is KEY to strong economic development and I can't justify another hit of $9.7 million in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.
Besides impacts to the schools, the fiscal impact to our local governments is huge, losing $24.2 million per year. This would be really bad timing to local districts that are already facing enormous funding cuts not only through state cuts but federal as well.
I hope you understand the terrible situation we are in with our budget this year with the cuts we are already making. It has been suggested we may be making cuts to education in the realm of $300 plus millions along with others.
Sincerely,
Cheri Jahn
303-866-4856
RE: SB019 permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
CRBC supports SB019 Bill Status: Passed Senate, laid over daily for second reading in House
Sen Keith King (R-SD12- El Paso) "Christine, thanks for the support of my bill. I appreciate it. It passed the Senate unanimously. Keith"
Sen. Jean White (R-Routt, Grand) agrees: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important bill. I am a yes vote."
Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) agrees: "SB 19 on Small Business Health Care Reimbursement passed the senate with a unanimous vote on Feb. 28. The bill has now been assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee."
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
CRBC opposes SB168 Bill Status: Scheduled for Senate Second Reading March 18
Sen Nancy Spence (R-SD27, Centennial) "I think there is no doubt that the R's in the senate will oppose SB168. I'm not sure what the D's will do with the bill - I suspect there will be a few who will oppose it."
Sen. Keith King (R-SD8,El Paso)"We can not afford this bill. I do not support it."
Sen Mark Scheffel(R-SD04,Douglas Cty) "This bill is scheduled to have its second reading in the Senate on 18 March. Senator Scheffel will keep these concerns in mind as the bill progress in the legislative process; we appreciate your input."
Sen. Edie Hudak (D-SD19, Westminster) "I would like to take a moment to explain to you what SB 168 does and why I am supporting this legislation.
SB 168 allows the Legislature the ability to have a consultant determine what the costs would be for Colorado to establish a CONSUMER-owned and -operated Health Care Cooperative. While the panel to direct this process would be appointed by the Governor, House, and Senate, the plan the consultant would analyze would focus on a cooperative owned and operated by the people of Colorado and managed by a member-appointed board. The government would have nothing to do with running health care in Colorado.The Cooperative would provide everyone in Colorado direct access to better health care and lower costs. I believe that it could help businesses in the state by stabilizing costs to provide health care benefits to employees. Reductions in costs for businesses could translate to businesses being able to hire more workers, expand their businesses, or provide more or better benefits.
The private health care industry would not be dismantled by this plan. In fact, providers would be given more freedom to innovate around service delivery and consumers would have more choice in health care.
As you know, health care costs are escalating. Additionally, national reform has not adequately addressed cost control. As a legislator, I think Colorado is in a unique position to innovate health care delivery in our state. We have many excellent examples of such systems throughout our state that we can build upon and many nationally recognized leaders in our state that we can call upon to help us. If the consultant finds that our Colorado plan - owned and operated by the people of Colorado - would improve safety, access, and quality while reducing costs, the Legislature would refer the idea to the ballot. It would ONLY be implemented if the people of Colorado agreed and voted it into law.
In these tough economic times, we need to see how we can ensure the health of our population while controlling spending. Whatever ideas we develop would not be implemented until the people in our state voted to implement it. I think we should build on our reputation for innovation and try to develop our own plan. That's what SB 168 will allow us to do. I hope you can support this effort."
Editor's note: "owned and operated by the people" is by definition a public system - not a private system.
CRBC supported SB26. Bill Status: Killed in Senate Finance Committee
"Each year I served in the House this issue came up. We managed to extend the exemption my last year to another 30,000 small businesses. I agree this is a tax that is just wrong but looking at the fiscal note it is very difficult to vote yes on something that is wiping out millions from our schools, which is on top of the $265 million they got hit with last year. Education is KEY to strong economic development and I can't justify another hit of $9.7 million in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.
Besides impacts to the schools, the fiscal impact to our local governments is huge, losing $24.2 million per year. This would be really bad timing to local districts that are already facing enormous funding cuts not only through state cuts but federal as well.
I hope you understand the terrible situation we are in with our budget this year with the cuts we are already making. It has been suggested we may be making cuts to education in the realm of $300 plus millions along with others.
Sincerely,
Cheri Jahn
303-866-4856
RE: SB019 permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
CRBC supports SB019 Bill Status: Passed Senate, laid over daily for second reading in House
Sen Keith King (R-SD12- El Paso) "Christine, thanks for the support of my bill. I appreciate it. It passed the Senate unanimously. Keith"
Sen. Jean White (R-Routt, Grand) agrees: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important bill. I am a yes vote."
Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) agrees: "SB 19 on Small Business Health Care Reimbursement passed the senate with a unanimous vote on Feb. 28. The bill has now been assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee."
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
CRBC opposes SB168 Bill Status: Scheduled for Senate Second Reading March 18
Sen Nancy Spence (R-SD27, Centennial) "I think there is no doubt that the R's in the senate will oppose SB168. I'm not sure what the D's will do with the bill - I suspect there will be a few who will oppose it."
Sen. Keith King (R-SD8,El Paso)"We can not afford this bill. I do not support it."
Sen Mark Scheffel(R-SD04,Douglas Cty) "This bill is scheduled to have its second reading in the Senate on 18 March. Senator Scheffel will keep these concerns in mind as the bill progress in the legislative process; we appreciate your input."
Sen. Edie Hudak (D-SD19, Westminster) "I would like to take a moment to explain to you what SB 168 does and why I am supporting this legislation.
SB 168 allows the Legislature the ability to have a consultant determine what the costs would be for Colorado to establish a CONSUMER-owned and -operated Health Care Cooperative. While the panel to direct this process would be appointed by the Governor, House, and Senate, the plan the consultant would analyze would focus on a cooperative owned and operated by the people of Colorado and managed by a member-appointed board. The government would have nothing to do with running health care in Colorado.The Cooperative would provide everyone in Colorado direct access to better health care and lower costs. I believe that it could help businesses in the state by stabilizing costs to provide health care benefits to employees. Reductions in costs for businesses could translate to businesses being able to hire more workers, expand their businesses, or provide more or better benefits.
The private health care industry would not be dismantled by this plan. In fact, providers would be given more freedom to innovate around service delivery and consumers would have more choice in health care.
As you know, health care costs are escalating. Additionally, national reform has not adequately addressed cost control. As a legislator, I think Colorado is in a unique position to innovate health care delivery in our state. We have many excellent examples of such systems throughout our state that we can build upon and many nationally recognized leaders in our state that we can call upon to help us. If the consultant finds that our Colorado plan - owned and operated by the people of Colorado - would improve safety, access, and quality while reducing costs, the Legislature would refer the idea to the ballot. It would ONLY be implemented if the people of Colorado agreed and voted it into law.
In these tough economic times, we need to see how we can ensure the health of our population while controlling spending. Whatever ideas we develop would not be implemented until the people in our state voted to implement it. I think we should build on our reputation for innovation and try to develop our own plan. That's what SB 168 will allow us to do. I hope you can support this effort."
Editor's note: "owned and operated by the people" is by definition a public system - not a private system.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Review of Coal-to-Gas Legislation A Positive Step
When I read this past week in the Denver Post that the coal industry lobbyists were asking for a review of last year’s legislation that required conversion of Colorado coal plants to natural gas, it lifted my spirits. The government is way too involved in forcing “green” energy moves in an industry that should be adjusting to economic realities on its own and on a less than crisis-oriented atmosphere so popular with the Obama EPA administration. The government should not be picking winners and losers in any industry and should allow market and economic forces to make improvements naturally.
As an example, this morning I saw a large UPS truck in our office complex with the letters on its side “powered by natural gas.” This is a logical transitional energy movement particularly from expensive oil to currently abundant (in the U.S.) and cheaper natural gas. According to Natural Gas entrepreneur and cheerleader T. Boone Pickens, it’s a lot cheaper to get eight million trucks in the U.S. on natural gas than on batteries by converting existing trucks and building new trucks to run on natural gas. Another major move would be for the conversion of most homes in the northeast United States from heating oil to natural gas heating. Both of these would reduce our importation of expensive oil.
However, we should not legislate away economical use of coal of which we have a great abundance of in the U.S. and for which conversion from coal to lower-cost cleaner fuels is now possible. China is taking and utilizing all the coal it can get its hands on from Canada and other countries to fuel its economic growth. In the U.S. we should continue to use coal and seek the continued technological improvement of our cheaper and abundant coal-based fuels.
Joseph Chavez, Attorney.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Small Business opposes single payer healthcare for Colorado - Vote NO on SB11-168
March 4, 2011
The Honorable State Senators
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
Dear Senator,
On behalf of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) I urge you to vote NO on SB11-168 when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote.
The ultimate end of this bill is the creation of a single payer health care cooperative. The first two sentences of the Bill Summary states, “The bill creates the Colorado health care authority. Its mission is to design the Colorado health care cooperative to be the benefits administrator and payer for health care services.”
Since the cooperative would be positioned to be the sole payer in Colorado for health, dental, vision, hearing, Medicare, Medicaid and workers compensation medical services, it would have the following effects:
The Honorable State Senators
Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
Dear Senator,
On behalf of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) I urge you to vote NO on SB11-168 when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote.
The ultimate end of this bill is the creation of a single payer health care cooperative. The first two sentences of the Bill Summary states, “The bill creates the Colorado health care authority. Its mission is to design the Colorado health care cooperative to be the benefits administrator and payer for health care services.”
Since the cooperative would be positioned to be the sole payer in Colorado for health, dental, vision, hearing, Medicare, Medicaid and workers compensation medical services, it would have the following effects:
- Destroy the private medical, dental, vision and workers compensation market in Colorao
- Result in the loss of 25,000+ health insurance based jobs in Colorado
- Precipitate the loss of $200 million of health insurance premium taxes paid to Colorado each year by commercial insurers
- Cause some of the best and brightest doctors to leave Colorado rather than have their fees dictated by a monolithic government plan
- Limit consumer choice by forcing everyone into a one size fits all plan
- Require an 8.1% increase in the state income tax and a 6% employer payroll tax (based on the Governor’s 208 Commission actuarial studies)
Respectfully,
Christine Burtt, Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
CRBC strongly supports Senate Bill 11-019
March 4, 2011
The Honorable State Senators
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax Ave
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: SB11-019 Small Employer Health Insurance Payments
Dear Senator,
The Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) strongly supports SB11-019, permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
With the steady rise of the cost of health insurance plans along with other pressures causing margins to shrink in the past few years, many small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance plans for their employees.
To continue to prohibit small businesses from reimbursing their employees for some or all of the cost of health insurance premiums that employees pay directly, fails to help alleviate the unemployment problem, and is simply unfair for both the employees and the employers.
Respectfully,
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
The Honorable State Senators
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax Ave
Denver, Colorado 80203
Re: SB11-019 Small Employer Health Insurance Payments
Dear Senator,
The Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) strongly supports SB11-019, permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.
With the steady rise of the cost of health insurance plans along with other pressures causing margins to shrink in the past few years, many small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance plans for their employees.
To continue to prohibit small businesses from reimbursing their employees for some or all of the cost of health insurance premiums that employees pay directly, fails to help alleviate the unemployment problem, and is simply unfair for both the employees and the employers.
Respectfully,
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Colorado Republican Business Coalition Monthly Luncheon
- How can we put more working capital into the hands of small business contractors instead of sitting in government bank accounts?
- What is the Republican short-term and long-term strategy for filling the State's $1.1B shortfall?
- What are Republicans doing to protect our electoral process?
Frank McNu
lty (R- HD43 Highlands Ranch) is Speaker of the House, vice-chairman of Legislative Council, and vice-chairman of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council.In 2006, Frank was first elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives. He advocates for limited government, fiscal responsibility, common sense water policies and for mandatory minimum sentences for violent sex offenses against children. Frank introduced and passed legislation that allows members of our active duty military and members of our National Guard to attend college in Colorado for in-state tuition rates. He advocates for making the development of hydro-electricity in Colorado a priority as a necessary component of our overall energy portfolio.
Frank is an attorney by trade and earned his JD from the University of Denver College of Law. He served in the Bill Owens administration as Assistant Director for Water with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources where he was responsible for developing statewide water policies.
Rep. Kevin Priola (R- HD30- Adams County) is Speaker Pro Tempore; a member of the Economic and Business Development, Legislative Council; and Transportation committees.Kevin's business background includes Priola Greenhouses and CAP Property Management. Kevin graduated from the University of Colorado Business School with an major in finance and minor in economics. Through community organizations, he helps meet local and international needs and continues to give active support to the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 2010 Representative Priola received the Greenco Legislator of the Year for his work on green industry issues at the Capitol. He and his wife Michelle are parents of three young children.
Friday, March 18, 2011
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Brooklyn's Restaurant
9th & Auraria Pkwy, across from Pepsi Center,
$1 parking Lot A - tell attendant you're going to Brooklyn's
Member: $17; non-members $20; elected officials and students $15
Menu choices.
RSVP: repgop@gmail.com (not required, but appreciated)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
HB1222 Gives Voters Right to Retain PUC Commissioners - or not
LEGISLATIVE ALERT: Committee hearing Wed. Feb. 23, 3 p.m. on HB11-1222, which will give citizens the right to vote on retaining members of the Public Utilities Commission.
Should three appointed people have the total authority to regulate all fixed and transportation utilities in Colorado without any accountability to the voters?If your business, your fixed income, or your employment prospects are limited because of the effects of the increased costs of electricity and natural gas for example, your testimony at the Transportation Committee hearing on HB1222 will be most valuable.
Currently, the three members of the public utilities commission (PUC) are appointed to 4-year terms by the governor with the consent of the senate. HB11-1222 will:
· Shorten terms from four years to two years.
· Make PUC members subject to a retention vote by the citizens for additional terms.
· Limits to 2 the total number of terms that a member is permitted to serve.
· Clarifies that the governor may only appoint PUC members if a vacancy exists.
The original intent of the Public Utilities Commission was to serve as a watchdog over the cost of utility services for consumers. Fixed utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include electric power utilities, natural gas utilities, and intrastate natural gas. Transportation utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include railroads, taxis, limousines, shuttles, charters, and sightseeing carriers, pipelines, district heating utilities, drinking water utilities, and telecommunications utilities.
Over the years, the PUC has re-written its charter to give the unelected members more power.
The current three commissioners (and their term expiration dates), Chairman Ron Binz (Jan 2011), Jim Tarpey (Jan 2013), and Matt Baker (Jan 2012) were all appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Last legislative session, the Commissioners lobbied for HB1365 and HB1001, two bills that raised energy costs while cutting supply. And in November, after two and half years through the process, Baker and Tarpey endorsed an administrative law judge's decision to deny 150 taxi drivers the right to provide service in Denver because of the commissioners' concerns for "oversupply and destructive competition" to spare existing cab companies any competition.
Should three appointed people have the total authority to regulate all fixed and transportation utilities in Colorado without any accountability to the voters?If your business, your fixed income, or your employment prospects are limited because of the effects of the increased costs of electricity and natural gas for example, your testimony at the Transportation Committee hearing on HB1222 will be most valuable.
Currently, the three members of the public utilities commission (PUC) are appointed to 4-year terms by the governor with the consent of the senate. HB11-1222 will:
· Shorten terms from four years to two years.
· Make PUC members subject to a retention vote by the citizens for additional terms.
· Limits to 2 the total number of terms that a member is permitted to serve.
· Clarifies that the governor may only appoint PUC members if a vacancy exists.
The original intent of the Public Utilities Commission was to serve as a watchdog over the cost of utility services for consumers. Fixed utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include electric power utilities, natural gas utilities, and intrastate natural gas. Transportation utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include railroads, taxis, limousines, shuttles, charters, and sightseeing carriers, pipelines, district heating utilities, drinking water utilities, and telecommunications utilities.
Over the years, the PUC has re-written its charter to give the unelected members more power.
The current three commissioners (and their term expiration dates), Chairman Ron Binz (Jan 2011), Jim Tarpey (Jan 2013), and Matt Baker (Jan 2012) were all appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Last legislative session, the Commissioners lobbied for HB1365 and HB1001, two bills that raised energy costs while cutting supply. And in November, after two and half years through the process, Baker and Tarpey endorsed an administrative law judge's decision to deny 150 taxi drivers the right to provide service in Denver because of the commissioners' concerns for "oversupply and destructive competition" to spare existing cab companies any competition.
Monday, February 21, 2011
What Should We Look For In A Republican State Chairman?
The qualifications and characteristics that we should look for in a State Republican Chairman discussed here have been gathered from speaking with former State Chairmen and various Party leaders. These are not necessarily the views of CRBC or its board of directors. However, CRBC has provided this posting on its blog as a starting point for discussion among Republicans and party supporters that may be helpful in choosing a State Chairman.
There are at least four areas to consider as if we were interviewing a contender for the top executive and leadership position of any organization; namely, Knowledge, Vision and Focus, Experience, and Personal abilities and character.
Knowledge
We are looking for someone that understands the structure and processes of the party the mechanics of how it works, how decisions are made, how candidates are selected, the caucus system, state conventions, bylaws and the party rules. The successful applicant should have knowledge of Campaign Finance Law and how it applies specifically to both national and state candidates. The applicant must understand the appropriate role of the Party to promote party image, seek candidates and promote candidate campaigns; while acknowledging that each candidate must rise to the occasion and take responsibility for the success of their own campaign.
The applicant should have adequate knowledge of "new media" sufficient to oversee the selection of new media personnel or contract support in what has proven to be a key to successful races in the two recent elections. A knowledge of"old media" is also important particularly in press releases where the State Chairman has an opportunity to exercise a "bully pulpit" and not only articulate a Party position but also educate the general public on Republican principles as they apply to the issue at hand.
Vision and Focus
Colorado has proven time and again that national and state-wide races can only be won by drawing unaffiliated voters to the Republican ticket. This makes sense since the voters are divided roughly 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican and 1/3 Unaffiliated. The State Chairman must recognize this reality and also have a big-picture state-wide vision that acknowledges many differing points of view without getting stuck on details but allowing those expressing themselves to feel they do have a place in the party. The Chairman should have a focus on the unaffiliated that attracts both the fringe moderate Republican, and the Tea Party person both of which may even be disenchanted with the Party in recent history.
The focus required is needed to attract unaffiliated voters to voting for the Republican. The successful Chairman needs to chart a plan to identify the segments of the unaffiliated such as Hispanic voters, suburban women, uninvolved small business I people, elderly, etc. and a program to attract their unaffiliated votes. Of course, the party must also get the base Republican voters out and build with additional unaffiliated voters.
It would be preferable that the Chairman and the party leaders and legislators in general would focus their campaigns and their rhetoric on the core Republican values of individual rights and economic freedoms, limited government, low taxes and spending, and protection of free enterprise market system and give lower priority to the so-called "social issues" that most likely have no chance of passing a Democrat-dominated legislature as is now being demonstrated in the current 2011 legislative session.
Yet there are many Republican supporters that would like to see a Chairman that might champion the social issues. A stubborn rigid conservative party Chairman "with blinders on" may make many in our party feel good with strong language on social issues; but Republicans may end up losing the political races that are needed to turn the state and the , nation in the right course on the most important priorities.
Others feel that the time is ripe for our most conservative efforts and that eventually they will prevail. History has not proven that to be the case in Colorado and Republicans appear to continue repeating the same mistakes with each election cycle on key races by remaining divided on their favorite issue rather than uniting on the key core principles common to all Republicans. The Chairman should have vision, focus and leadership abilities to help unite Republicans of all stripes.
Experience
The chairman should have experience recruiting candidates that reflect the core Republican principles of the party and that have the communication skills to relate to voters those ideals at the level of the voters is very valuable.
The chairman should have experience in past political campaigns in Colorado e.g. as a campaign manager, as a candidate, as a treasurer or other key campaign position. Significant similar experience in other states should also count.
The chairman should have experience with fund raising making the case for contributions from major donors and also experience with small donor campaigns.
The chairman should have experience interfacing with different factions within the party and experience with Republican county organizations throughout the state.
A past history of involvement and participation in Republican activities, programs, and efforts over a significant period of time is valuable. Presence in Colorado for a number of years may be viewed as more favorable than a relative newcomer to the state.
Personal Abilities and Character
The chairman should be politically savvy regarding various political developments as they occur and having the flexibility to deal with the unexpected.
Integrity is important. The chairman must be thoughtful about forming convictions and then defending them when challenged, rather than waffling back and forth or back-peddling; no shady deals; be upfront and honest. There is particular abhorrence to a Republican campaigning on core and non-core Republican values, but then governing or acting in the opposite direction once in power; and that consistency of speech and action should be sought in the State Chairman as well as candidates for public office.
The chairman must be proud of the superiority of American culture ingrained in the constitutional system, individual freedom and American free enterprise system that does not exist abroad to the same degree.
The position requires exceptional communication skills i.e. the ability to explain anything to people at their level of understanding, including what the role of the State Chairman should be. The chairman needs the ability to develop and nurture relationships with key supporters and donors toward common goals.
The chairman should have organizational skills to motivate people and provide leadership on major initiatives. Provide not only political leadership but have the ability to put in place administrative oversight including proceedings minutes and financial reports at the appropriate levels of the party.
If the State Chairman is to be compensated as a full-time Chief Executive of the Party, be willing to accept a modest base salary and have sufficient confidence to be compensated on a performance incentive basis as is done in a business, for example, on set goals for an elected Republican governor, U.S. Senators, U.S. House of Representatives; state governmental officers, and control of legislative houses.
Conclusion
It is apparent that if we could find such a Chairman, the Chairman could also walk on water; we know that's not possible, but we should try to get as close as we can anyway.
Joseph Chavez, former Treasurer, Colorado Republicans
There are at least four areas to consider as if we were interviewing a contender for the top executive and leadership position of any organization; namely, Knowledge, Vision and Focus, Experience, and Personal abilities and character.
Knowledge
We are looking for someone that understands the structure and processes of the party the mechanics of how it works, how decisions are made, how candidates are selected, the caucus system, state conventions, bylaws and the party rules. The successful applicant should have knowledge of Campaign Finance Law and how it applies specifically to both national and state candidates. The applicant must understand the appropriate role of the Party to promote party image, seek candidates and promote candidate campaigns; while acknowledging that each candidate must rise to the occasion and take responsibility for the success of their own campaign.
The applicant should have adequate knowledge of "new media" sufficient to oversee the selection of new media personnel or contract support in what has proven to be a key to successful races in the two recent elections. A knowledge of"old media" is also important particularly in press releases where the State Chairman has an opportunity to exercise a "bully pulpit" and not only articulate a Party position but also educate the general public on Republican principles as they apply to the issue at hand.
Vision and Focus
Colorado has proven time and again that national and state-wide races can only be won by drawing unaffiliated voters to the Republican ticket. This makes sense since the voters are divided roughly 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican and 1/3 Unaffiliated. The State Chairman must recognize this reality and also have a big-picture state-wide vision that acknowledges many differing points of view without getting stuck on details but allowing those expressing themselves to feel they do have a place in the party. The Chairman should have a focus on the unaffiliated that attracts both the fringe moderate Republican, and the Tea Party person both of which may even be disenchanted with the Party in recent history.
The focus required is needed to attract unaffiliated voters to voting for the Republican. The successful Chairman needs to chart a plan to identify the segments of the unaffiliated such as Hispanic voters, suburban women, uninvolved small business I people, elderly, etc. and a program to attract their unaffiliated votes. Of course, the party must also get the base Republican voters out and build with additional unaffiliated voters.
It would be preferable that the Chairman and the party leaders and legislators in general would focus their campaigns and their rhetoric on the core Republican values of individual rights and economic freedoms, limited government, low taxes and spending, and protection of free enterprise market system and give lower priority to the so-called "social issues" that most likely have no chance of passing a Democrat-dominated legislature as is now being demonstrated in the current 2011 legislative session.
Yet there are many Republican supporters that would like to see a Chairman that might champion the social issues. A stubborn rigid conservative party Chairman "with blinders on" may make many in our party feel good with strong language on social issues; but Republicans may end up losing the political races that are needed to turn the state and the , nation in the right course on the most important priorities.
Others feel that the time is ripe for our most conservative efforts and that eventually they will prevail. History has not proven that to be the case in Colorado and Republicans appear to continue repeating the same mistakes with each election cycle on key races by remaining divided on their favorite issue rather than uniting on the key core principles common to all Republicans. The Chairman should have vision, focus and leadership abilities to help unite Republicans of all stripes.
Experience
The chairman should have experience recruiting candidates that reflect the core Republican principles of the party and that have the communication skills to relate to voters those ideals at the level of the voters is very valuable.
The chairman should have experience in past political campaigns in Colorado e.g. as a campaign manager, as a candidate, as a treasurer or other key campaign position. Significant similar experience in other states should also count.
The chairman should have experience with fund raising making the case for contributions from major donors and also experience with small donor campaigns.
The chairman should have experience interfacing with different factions within the party and experience with Republican county organizations throughout the state.
A past history of involvement and participation in Republican activities, programs, and efforts over a significant period of time is valuable. Presence in Colorado for a number of years may be viewed as more favorable than a relative newcomer to the state.
Personal Abilities and Character
The chairman should be politically savvy regarding various political developments as they occur and having the flexibility to deal with the unexpected.
Integrity is important. The chairman must be thoughtful about forming convictions and then defending them when challenged, rather than waffling back and forth or back-peddling; no shady deals; be upfront and honest. There is particular abhorrence to a Republican campaigning on core and non-core Republican values, but then governing or acting in the opposite direction once in power; and that consistency of speech and action should be sought in the State Chairman as well as candidates for public office.
The chairman must be proud of the superiority of American culture ingrained in the constitutional system, individual freedom and American free enterprise system that does not exist abroad to the same degree.
The position requires exceptional communication skills i.e. the ability to explain anything to people at their level of understanding, including what the role of the State Chairman should be. The chairman needs the ability to develop and nurture relationships with key supporters and donors toward common goals.
The chairman should have organizational skills to motivate people and provide leadership on major initiatives. Provide not only political leadership but have the ability to put in place administrative oversight including proceedings minutes and financial reports at the appropriate levels of the party.
If the State Chairman is to be compensated as a full-time Chief Executive of the Party, be willing to accept a modest base salary and have sufficient confidence to be compensated on a performance incentive basis as is done in a business, for example, on set goals for an elected Republican governor, U.S. Senators, U.S. House of Representatives; state governmental officers, and control of legislative houses.
Conclusion
It is apparent that if we could find such a Chairman, the Chairman could also walk on water; we know that's not possible, but we should try to get as close as we can anyway.
Joseph Chavez, former Treasurer, Colorado Republicans
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Democrat's Pay-As-You Go Budget Bill is Deceptive
Fortunately, HB11-1052, sponsored by Rep. Dickie Hullinghorst (D- HD10 Boulder) and Sen. John Morse (D - SD11El Paso Cty)was PI'd (postponed indefinitely) in the Finance Committee.
HB1052 treats any bill that results in a “decrease in revenue” as if the money belongs to the State in the first place.
Colorado is already required to balance its budget. This bill is a superfluous measure that defeats any attempt by the legislature to prioritize spending, because each measure considered would receive the immediate attention and priority. Colorado deserves better than “budgeting at the margins”.
State revenue is dynamic. Under this bill, tax proposals will be viewed as static equations, without considering the unseen consequences. Tax rate decreases that might stimulate economic activity would not be allowed without a corresponding spending decrease. In our current budget crisis, we can not afford to ignore tax policies that will create jobs and economic growth simply because an offset is required.
Finally, we must oppose the underlying false premise that money belongs to the state, and that a tax rate decrease is an expense to the state. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights establishes that taxes first belong to people and businesses, and the legislature is required to ask permission of the people of Colorado to increase taxes.
Removing a tax exemption is a tax increase, and this bill is a cynical attempt to undermine the rights of Coloradans to repeal the unconstitutional removal of tax exemptions perpetrated by the 2010 Legislature.
Brian Vande Krol, Member, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee
HB1052 treats any bill that results in a “decrease in revenue” as if the money belongs to the State in the first place.
Colorado is already required to balance its budget. This bill is a superfluous measure that defeats any attempt by the legislature to prioritize spending, because each measure considered would receive the immediate attention and priority. Colorado deserves better than “budgeting at the margins”.
State revenue is dynamic. Under this bill, tax proposals will be viewed as static equations, without considering the unseen consequences. Tax rate decreases that might stimulate economic activity would not be allowed without a corresponding spending decrease. In our current budget crisis, we can not afford to ignore tax policies that will create jobs and economic growth simply because an offset is required.
Finally, we must oppose the underlying false premise that money belongs to the state, and that a tax rate decrease is an expense to the state. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights establishes that taxes first belong to people and businesses, and the legislature is required to ask permission of the people of Colorado to increase taxes.
Removing a tax exemption is a tax increase, and this bill is a cynical attempt to undermine the rights of Coloradans to repeal the unconstitutional removal of tax exemptions perpetrated by the 2010 Legislature.
Brian Vande Krol, Member, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee
So-called "Consumer Protection Act" Increases Punitive Regulations; Gives More Power to Unaccountable Bureaucrats
SB11-068 by Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-SD29 Arapahoe Cty) and Rep. Judy Solano (D-HD31 Adams Cty) has passed out of the Judiciary Committe and is awaiting Second Reading in the Senate. Contact your State Senator about SB068.
In this time of economic uncertainty, our legislature should be focused on creating a more hospitable environment for businesses. No government stimulus program can result in net job growth – it is only private businesses that can create the job growth necessary to restore Colorado’s faltering economy.
Senate Bill 068 creates more economic uncertainty. This bill will expand the current list of 36 enumerated deceptive trade practices to an unlimited list, defined by a partisan officeholder. Under current statute, the courts can provide remedies for unlisted unfair trade practices. There is no reason to expand the already unwieldy list.
Further, the bill automatically broadens the scope of harm, regardless of actual harm, by creating an ill-defined “significant public impact”. That determination should be left to courts and is not in keeping with the American tradition of presumption of innocence. It assumes “significant public impact” when none may exist. Current law already provides that evidence of deceptive trade practice is “prima facie evidence of intent to injure competitors…” There is no compelling need to strengthen this provision.
By unnecessarily encouraging lawsuits against businesses, SB 068 creates more economic uncertainty. While promising to “protect consumers”, consumers will be adversely affected by this legislation as business costs increase, economic growth is hindered, and jobs are not created. SB 068 is the exact opposite of economic stimulation.
Walt Curtner, Chairman, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee
In this time of economic uncertainty, our legislature should be focused on creating a more hospitable environment for businesses. No government stimulus program can result in net job growth – it is only private businesses that can create the job growth necessary to restore Colorado’s faltering economy.
Senate Bill 068 creates more economic uncertainty. This bill will expand the current list of 36 enumerated deceptive trade practices to an unlimited list, defined by a partisan officeholder. Under current statute, the courts can provide remedies for unlisted unfair trade practices. There is no reason to expand the already unwieldy list.
Further, the bill automatically broadens the scope of harm, regardless of actual harm, by creating an ill-defined “significant public impact”. That determination should be left to courts and is not in keeping with the American tradition of presumption of innocence. It assumes “significant public impact” when none may exist. Current law already provides that evidence of deceptive trade practice is “prima facie evidence of intent to injure competitors…” There is no compelling need to strengthen this provision.
By unnecessarily encouraging lawsuits against businesses, SB 068 creates more economic uncertainty. While promising to “protect consumers”, consumers will be adversely affected by this legislation as business costs increase, economic growth is hindered, and jobs are not created. SB 068 is the exact opposite of economic stimulation.
Walt Curtner, Chairman, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee
Legislature Forces Alternative Energy Use; Raises Costs on Business & Consumers
CRBC Supports SB071 - Reduce Energy Costs
(This bill was Postponed Indefinitely - PI'd. For more info on bills tracked by the CRBC Legislative Issues Committee, see our Legislative Matrix at www.smallbizgop.com)
The legislature’s priority should be improving Colorado’s economy with the focus on creating jobs. SB071 would do this in several ways.
First, this bill would roll back the requirement that Xcel go from a 10% renewable energy standard up to a 20% standard within five years and up to 30% within ten years; and, it will maintain the current 10% standard for renewable energy. This will significantly slow down the current energy rate increases, which over the last six years have been double the inflation rate (or 21% in the last six years – per a 2/5/11 Denver Post article).
These rate increases (collected by Minnesota-based Xcel) are hurting both Colorado homeowners and businesses. Some Colorado businesses are afraid to expand since energy costs are projected (under current law) “to increase another 20% as new power plants, wind farms and transmission lines are added . . .” (per the Denver Post article).
Second, this bill would help rural customers by restoring the exemption to these renewable standards for utilities serving less than 40,000 customers.
Lastly, this bill would likely prevent further job loses in one of Colorado’s major industries, coal-mining.
(This bill was Postponed Indefinitely - PI'd. For more info on bills tracked by the CRBC Legislative Issues Committee, see our Legislative Matrix at www.smallbizgop.com)
The legislature’s priority should be improving Colorado’s economy with the focus on creating jobs. SB071 would do this in several ways.
First, this bill would roll back the requirement that Xcel go from a 10% renewable energy standard up to a 20% standard within five years and up to 30% within ten years; and, it will maintain the current 10% standard for renewable energy. This will significantly slow down the current energy rate increases, which over the last six years have been double the inflation rate (or 21% in the last six years – per a 2/5/11 Denver Post article).
These rate increases (collected by Minnesota-based Xcel) are hurting both Colorado homeowners and businesses. Some Colorado businesses are afraid to expand since energy costs are projected (under current law) “to increase another 20% as new power plants, wind farms and transmission lines are added . . .” (per the Denver Post article).
Second, this bill would help rural customers by restoring the exemption to these renewable standards for utilities serving less than 40,000 customers.
Lastly, this bill would likely prevent further job loses in one of Colorado’s major industries, coal-mining.
Why Repeal the Hospital Provider Tax
Why I Want to Repeal the Hospital Provider Tax (but called a fee so you couldn't vote on it.)by Rep. Janak Joshi
Jan 17, 2011
The hospital provider fee bill (HB 09-1293)was passed forone main reason--to get money from the federal governmentthat we don't have. Hospitals are being charged a fee for in-patient and out-patient services that is matched with a temporary federal grant.
Then part of the sum total is kept to balance the state budget and the remaining part is distributed unequally among the hospitals.
The reasons for repealing it:
1. Every way you look at it, it is a tax and not afee. Thus, it was passed unconstitutionally.
2. It is nothing more than a redistribution ofincome. Taking money from rich hospitals- with a higher percentage ofinsurance-paying patients and giving to "poor" hospitals with a higher percentage of Medicaid and indigent patients.
3. Hospitals will pass this fee on to insurance companies, which will pass this on to consumers, who will ultimately pay for it.
4. By their own admission, HCPF told the Joint Budget Committee that if repealed, "there would be no immediate general fund impact" until Obama-care is implemented. That by itself is "iffy" at this point.
5. This bill has expanded Medicaid, which is detrimentalto the state budget. The matching federal grant is also ultimately paid for by tax payers. Colorado received less than a dollar for every dollar sent to Washington, so the grant is costing us more. What will happen when the federal matching grant goes away? More taxes?
These are just a few of the talking points but remember one thing: We all are paying for this with money that we don't have.
Jan 17, 2011
The hospital provider fee bill (HB 09-1293)was passed forone main reason--to get money from the federal governmentthat we don't have. Hospitals are being charged a fee for in-patient and out-patient services that is matched with a temporary federal grant.
Then part of the sum total is kept to balance the state budget and the remaining part is distributed unequally among the hospitals.
The reasons for repealing it:
1. Every way you look at it, it is a tax and not afee. Thus, it was passed unconstitutionally.
2. It is nothing more than a redistribution ofincome. Taking money from rich hospitals- with a higher percentage ofinsurance-paying patients and giving to "poor" hospitals with a higher percentage of Medicaid and indigent patients.
3. Hospitals will pass this fee on to insurance companies, which will pass this on to consumers, who will ultimately pay for it.
4. By their own admission, HCPF told the Joint Budget Committee that if repealed, "there would be no immediate general fund impact" until Obama-care is implemented. That by itself is "iffy" at this point.
5. This bill has expanded Medicaid, which is detrimentalto the state budget. The matching federal grant is also ultimately paid for by tax payers. Colorado received less than a dollar for every dollar sent to Washington, so the grant is costing us more. What will happen when the federal matching grant goes away? More taxes?
These are just a few of the talking points but remember one thing: We all are paying for this with money that we don't have.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Friday, February 18: Come To CRBC's Monthly Lunch
Friday, February 18, 2011
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Brooklyn's Restaurant
9th & Auraria Pkwy, across from Pepsi Center,
$1 parking Lot A - tell attendant you're going to Brooklyn's
Member: $17; non-members $20; elected officials and students $15
Menu choices.
RSVP: repgop@gmail.com (not required, but appreciated)
Our featured speakers are as follows:
****************************************************
Amy Oliver Cooke, Independence Institute
Amy Oliver Cooke is the director of the Colorado Transparency Project and founder of Mothers Against Debt (MAD) for the Independence Institute, Colorado's free market, state-based think tank. She has been with II since 2004.
Oliver's primary role is to investigate government spending at all levels and then explain how that spending affects family budgets. Her work on transparency earned h...er an appointment to the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission from House Minority Leader Mike May.
She is also the host of the award winning Amy Oliver Show heard on News Talk 1310 KFKA Monday through Friday from 9 to 11 am. In 2008, the Colorado Broadcasters Association recognized her as the Best News Talk personality in a major market.
Oliver is a regular blog and article contributor. Her article Unabashed Bias exposed how the Denver daily papers campaigned for rather than reported on Colorado's largest tax increase and won her "Best Right-Wing Media Criticism" from the Denver Westword.
Oliver earned a degree in journalism in 1985 from the prestigious University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2003, she earned a graduate degree in American History from the University of Northern Colorado.
*****************************************************
Rep. Keith Swerdfeger
Hon. Keith Swerdfeger won the Pueblo city seat vacated by termed-out Democrat Buffie McFayden. He narrowly lost to her in 2004, but true to his nature, he persisted, this time winning the seat with 63 percent of the vote against Carole Partin.
Swerdfeger is vice-chairman of the House Finance Committee and also serves on the House Economic & Business Development and the Local Government committees.
He is prime sponsor of HB1051, which affirms that DNA samples of felons are never expunged; HB1083, which allows public utilities to consider the use of hydroelectricity and pumped hydroelectricity among alternative energy sources; HB1237, which establishes a fund for National Guard facilities repair and replacement; and SB051, which allows the intercept of a person's gaming winning for the purpose of paying any unpaid debt to the State, typically child support or restitution.
Swerdfeger is a co-founder/owner of K.R. Swerdfeger Construction, Inc. The business began in 1968 and has completed numerous multimillion-dollar projects since its founding. KRSC specializes in infrastructure development, the excavation for and placement of underground utilities, telecommunications construction, golf course development, and state-of-the-art trenchless technologies. He was instrumental to bringing wind-turbine maker Vestas to Pueblo.
Swerdfeger served in multiple positions at the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., or PEDCO. He served as chairman of Pueblo's 2009 United Way campaign. His wife of 45 years, Sharon L. Swerdfeger, is on the foundation board of the Pueblo Community College. The couple has four children and nine grandchildren.
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Brooklyn's Restaurant
9th & Auraria Pkwy, across from Pepsi Center,
$1 parking Lot A - tell attendant you're going to Brooklyn's
Member: $17; non-members $20; elected officials and students $15
Menu choices.
RSVP: repgop@gmail.com (not required, but appreciated)
Our featured speakers are as follows:
**************************
Amy Oliver Cooke, Independence Institute
Amy Oliver Cooke is the director of the Colorado Transparency Project and founder of Mothers Against Debt (MAD) for the Independence Institute, Colorado's free market, state-based think tank. She has been with II since 2004.
Oliver's primary role is to investigate government spending at all levels and then explain how that spending affects family budgets. Her work on transparency earned h...er an appointment to the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission from House Minority Leader Mike May.
She is also the host of the award winning Amy Oliver Show heard on News Talk 1310 KFKA Monday through Friday from 9 to 11 am. In 2008, the Colorado Broadcasters Association recognized her as the Best News Talk personality in a major market.
Oliver is a regular blog and article contributor. Her article Unabashed Bias exposed how the Denver daily papers campaigned for rather than reported on Colorado's largest tax increase and won her "Best Right-Wing Media Criticism" from the Denver Westword.
Oliver earned a degree in journalism in 1985 from the prestigious University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2003, she earned a graduate degree in American History from the University of Northern Colorado.
**************************
Rep. Keith Swerdfeger
Hon. Keith Swerdfeger won the Pueblo city seat vacated by termed-out Democrat Buffie McFayden. He narrowly lost to her in 2004, but true to his nature, he persisted, this time winning the seat with 63 percent of the vote against Carole Partin.
Swerdfeger is vice-chairman of the House Finance Committee and also serves on the House Economic & Business Development and the Local Government committees.
He is prime sponsor of HB1051, which affirms that DNA samples of felons are never expunged; HB1083, which allows public utilities to consider the use of hydroelectricity and pumped hydroelectricity among alternative energy sources; HB1237, which establishes a fund for National Guard facilities repair and replacement; and SB051, which allows the intercept of a person's gaming winning for the purpose of paying any unpaid debt to the State, typically child support or restitution.
Swerdfeger is a co-founder/owner of K.R. Swerdfeger Construction, Inc. The business began in 1968 and has completed numerous multimillion-dollar projects since its founding. KRSC specializes in infrastructure development, the excavation for and placement of underground utilities, telecommunications construction, golf course development, and state-of-the-art trenchless technologies. He was instrumental to bringing wind-turbine maker Vestas to Pueblo.
Swerdfeger served in multiple positions at the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., or PEDCO. He served as chairman of Pueblo's 2009 United Way campaign. His wife of 45 years, Sharon L. Swerdfeger, is on the foundation board of the Pueblo Community College. The couple has four children and nine grandchildren.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
HB1149: Verify legal status for employment
HB1149 requires proof of citizenship to receive state or federal benefits in Colorado; requires employers to inspect documents to determine lawful presence in USA before hiring.
Testify at the hearing, or call or email members of the House Committee State, Veterans, and Military Affairs regarding HB1149, Sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree, (R- HD40 Aurora).
CRBC SUPPORTS this bill. www.smallbizgop.com
Hearing Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1:30 p.m. Room 112 State Capitol before the House Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs. It's especially important to contact the Democrat members of the Committee. See contact info below.
Call Cheryl in Rep. Acree's office if you can come to the capitol to testify at 303.866.2944, or send an email to cindy.acree.house@state.co.us
Contact members of the Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs:
Chairman, Rep. Jim Kerr (R HD28 Lakewood) james.kerr.house@state.co.us 303.866.2939
Vice Chairman,Rep. Don Coram (R-HD58 Montrose) don.coram.house@state.co.us 303.866.2955
Rep. Randy Baumgardner (R -HD57 NW counties) baumgardner.house@state.co.us 303.866.2949
Rep. Lois Court (D-HD6 Denver) loiscourt@msn.com 303.355.3546
Rep. Claire Levy (D HD13-Boulder) claire.levy.house@state.co.us 303.866.2578
Rep. Larry Liston (R- HD16 CO Springs) llliston16@q.com 303.866.2965
Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-HD9 Denver)joe@joemiklosi.com 303.866.2910
Rep. Nancy Todd (D - HD41 Aurora) nancy.todd.house@state.co.us 303.866.2919
Rep. Mark Waller (R- HD15 CO Springs)markwaller.law@comcast.net 303.866.5525
Current law requires an agency or political subdivision of the state to verify the lawful presence of each applicant 18 years of age or older for federal public benefits or state or local public benefits. The bill amends that law by requiring the applicant to provide the applicant's social security card for inspection.
Current law requires an applicant to sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident or that he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law and the attestation is subject to the perjury laws. Instead of signing the affidavit, the bill provides that an applicant may submit for inspection a birth certificate or other documents that indicate the applicant's lawful presence in the United States. The bill clarifies that an employer of a newly hired employee must check legally acceptable documents to verify the identity of the employee as well as check the authority of the person to legally work in the United States.
Testify at the hearing, or call or email members of the House Committee State, Veterans, and Military Affairs regarding HB1149, Sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree, (R- HD40 Aurora).
CRBC SUPPORTS this bill. www.smallbizgop.com
Hearing Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1:30 p.m. Room 112 State Capitol before the House Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs. It's especially important to contact the Democrat members of the Committee. See contact info below.
Call Cheryl in Rep. Acree's office if you can come to the capitol to testify at 303.866.2944, or send an email to cindy.acree.house@state.co.us
Contact members of the Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs:
Chairman, Rep. Jim Kerr (R HD28 Lakewood) james.kerr.house@state.co.us 303.866.2939
Vice Chairman,Rep. Don Coram (R-HD58 Montrose) don.coram.house@state.co.us 303.866.2955
Rep. Randy Baumgardner (R -HD57 NW counties) baumgardner.house@state.co.us 303.866.2949
Rep. Lois Court (D-HD6 Denver) loiscourt@msn.com 303.355.3546
Rep. Claire Levy (D HD13-Boulder) claire.levy.house@state.co.us 303.866.2578
Rep. Larry Liston (R- HD16 CO Springs) llliston16@q.com 303.866.2965
Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-HD9 Denver)joe@joemiklosi.com 303.866.2910
Rep. Nancy Todd (D - HD41 Aurora) nancy.todd.house@state.co.us 303.866.2919
Rep. Mark Waller (R- HD15 CO Springs)markwaller.law@comcast.net 303.866.5525
Current law requires an agency or political subdivision of the state to verify the lawful presence of each applicant 18 years of age or older for federal public benefits or state or local public benefits. The bill amends that law by requiring the applicant to provide the applicant's social security card for inspection.
Current law requires an applicant to sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident or that he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law and the attestation is subject to the perjury laws. Instead of signing the affidavit, the bill provides that an applicant may submit for inspection a birth certificate or other documents that indicate the applicant's lawful presence in the United States. The bill clarifies that an employer of a newly hired employee must check legally acceptable documents to verify the identity of the employee as well as check the authority of the person to legally work in the United States.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Dick Wadhams Drops Out
Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams decided to not seek reelection to his post. Chairman since 2007, the party made great gains in the 2010 election taking two (holding a third) executive branch offices and acquiring a 33-32 majority in the Colorado House.
However, the Colorado governor's race was unfortunate for Wadhams. He certainly bears no blame for the assembly and primary victory of Dan Maes, nor the political opportunism of Republican Tom Tancredo making a third party bid with the American Constitution Party.
Dick Wadhams warned of some discord brewing in the party:
Blogger Joshua Sharf has the statement in full.
-David Carpenter
However, the Colorado governor's race was unfortunate for Wadhams. He certainly bears no blame for the assembly and primary victory of Dan Maes, nor the political opportunism of Republican Tom Tancredo making a third party bid with the American Constitution Party.
Dick Wadhams warned of some discord brewing in the party:
I entered this race a few weeks ago looking forward to discussing what we accomplished in 2010 and to the opportunities we have in 2012 to elect a new Republican president; to increase our state House majority and win a state Senate majority; and to reelect our two new members of Congress.Mr. Wadhams was always a good friend to CRBC. He spoke to the group at its monthly luncheons quite regularly as chair.
However, I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.
I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.
Blogger Joshua Sharf has the statement in full.
-David Carpenter
Sunday, February 6, 2011
PERA - Promised retirement benefits are unsustainable
"I think 20 state pension funds will run out of money in the next decade, and that certainly includes Colorado," said CU economics professor Barry Poulson, who tags PERA as being among the shakiest public pension funds in the nation.
"We're one of the worst. We're accumulating unfunded liabilities faster than almost every other state."
The increasing cost of providing benefits to retired employees doesn't just disappear; it gets passed on to member institutions, like local school districts. In this way, it's interesting to see the dots connected between PERA's funding problems and teacher layoffs.
PERA will remain fiscally unsustainable as long as government workers are promised a Defined Benefit rather than a Defined Contribution.
Government worker retirements plans are paid for on the backs of all those who work in the private sector, who now earn on average less than government workers and have a much smaller retirement plan - even with Social Security and their own savings.
It makes you wonder who is working for whom?
Thanks to FaceTheState for liberal use of excerpts.
"We're one of the worst. We're accumulating unfunded liabilities faster than almost every other state."
The increasing cost of providing benefits to retired employees doesn't just disappear; it gets passed on to member institutions, like local school districts. In this way, it's interesting to see the dots connected between PERA's funding problems and teacher layoffs.
PERA will remain fiscally unsustainable as long as government workers are promised a Defined Benefit rather than a Defined Contribution.
Government worker retirements plans are paid for on the backs of all those who work in the private sector, who now earn on average less than government workers and have a much smaller retirement plan - even with Social Security and their own savings.
It makes you wonder who is working for whom?
Thanks to FaceTheState for liberal use of excerpts.
Monday, January 31, 2011
U.S. Debt Repayment Needs Business Plan
Most small businessmen have been told that they must have a business plan to be successful -otherwise if they are successful, chances are it is due to luck. Luck that they are operating in a good market for their product or service; luck perhaps that they have few competitors; luck that their product or service has high "price stability" and they can survive even in a weak market, etc. The kissing cousin in a business is the so-called business model that represents the key elements of a strategy that basically says how that business is going to make a profit. The business plan is the specific actions based on the business model that need to be carried out within a specific plan time period, for example, one year, three years or five years. We don't want to count on luck!
This morning, Stacy Curtin (in Recession Politics), wrote a piece on David Walker, the founder of “Comeback America Initiative," one of the fiscal watchdogs on the U.S. economy and fiscal public policy. The main observation is that although the U.S. President has made reference to the sorry state of the U.S. economy in his State of the Union address, he has failed to lay out a plan to achieve meaningful goals and strategies. I agree.
Although the President formed a bi-partisan commission to explore options and the commission actually developed a number of options, that is not sufficient. As the CEO of the nation, the President must set forth a set of measurable goals and objectives and specific strategies that he plans to undertake to achieve those targets. Otherwise, we as a nation have no way of measuring success or failure; and we as citizens have no way of determining our support or lack of enthusiasm or outright disagreement for the President's aspirations and strategies for the nation.
Walker, a former U.S. Comptroller General, is fearful that lacking a specific plan for debt reduction and deficit control, that the U.S. will indeed follow that path of Japan that just had its bond rating reduced by Standard & Poors. Just two years ago, the U.S. debt held by the public was at $6 Trillion, and as of the end of 2010, stands at $9 Trillion, according to Curtin. What few ideas the President briefly mentioned speak of "investments," a political-speak meaning more spending, and cannot be taken as a serious action plan to deal with the U.S. debt. What the public wants is actual results over time. What is the case now are a lack of leadership from the White House and a lack of communication to the public on what the game-plan really is. We don't want to count on political double-talk. We don't want to count on luck for something this important!
--Joseph Chavez, Denver, CO
This morning, Stacy Curtin (in Recession Politics), wrote a piece on David Walker, the founder of “Comeback America Initiative," one of the fiscal watchdogs on the U.S. economy and fiscal public policy. The main observation is that although the U.S. President has made reference to the sorry state of the U.S. economy in his State of the Union address, he has failed to lay out a plan to achieve meaningful goals and strategies. I agree.
Although the President formed a bi-partisan commission to explore options and the commission actually developed a number of options, that is not sufficient. As the CEO of the nation, the President must set forth a set of measurable goals and objectives and specific strategies that he plans to undertake to achieve those targets. Otherwise, we as a nation have no way of measuring success or failure; and we as citizens have no way of determining our support or lack of enthusiasm or outright disagreement for the President's aspirations and strategies for the nation.
Walker, a former U.S. Comptroller General, is fearful that lacking a specific plan for debt reduction and deficit control, that the U.S. will indeed follow that path of Japan that just had its bond rating reduced by Standard & Poors. Just two years ago, the U.S. debt held by the public was at $6 Trillion, and as of the end of 2010, stands at $9 Trillion, according to Curtin. What few ideas the President briefly mentioned speak of "investments," a political-speak meaning more spending, and cannot be taken as a serious action plan to deal with the U.S. debt. What the public wants is actual results over time. What is the case now are a lack of leadership from the White House and a lack of communication to the public on what the game-plan really is. We don't want to count on political double-talk. We don't want to count on luck for something this important!
--Joseph Chavez, Denver, CO
Saturday, January 29, 2011
CRBC Board Plans for 2011
CRBC met January 29 for its annual board planning meeting. In keeping with our frugal nature, we met at our Chairman's home.
Among the topics discussed were as follows:
Chairman Christine Burtt commented, "The CRBC Board is a great group of small business owners and managers. We are all volunteers working hard on your behalf to help small business in Colorado."
--CRBC Board of Directors
Among the topics discussed were as follows:
- Growing our membership
- Influencing legislative action
- Monthly program content
- Small Business Donor Committee fundraising
- New media outreach
- Adding corporate dues structure
Individual membership dues for 2011 continue at the discounted rate of $25. To join or renew, click here.
High priority legislation:
- Structural reform of the Colorado State budget
- Reforming PERA from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution
- Repeal many of Ritter's "Dirty Dozen" especially losing the tax exemption on energy use
- a likely November ballot initiative to put a sales tax on services
Chairman Christine Burtt commented, "The CRBC Board is a great group of small business owners and managers. We are all volunteers working hard on your behalf to help small business in Colorado."
--CRBC Board of Directors
Friday, January 28, 2011
Governor Defends Amazon Tax
Earlier this week Federal Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Colorado's Amazon tax unconstitutional. The tax on Amazon and other online retailers imposed during last-year's session contributed to the shutdown of all Amazon affiliate small businesses throughout the state last March.
Even with the preliminary ruling, the law has a surprising defender: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. The Durango Herald reports (via ColoradoPols):
“They should all pay taxes,” Hickenlooper said. “Is it fair that our local bookstores are being beat up with all these sales over the Internet?”
He thinks the federal government might have to come up with a fair solution.
“I’m not saying we should tax the Internet. I’m just saying that we need a level playing field,” Hickenlooper said.
Governor John Hickenlooper has made overtures to the business community. While certainly more business-friendly than Governor Ritter's administration, Hickenlooper sometimes reveals his pro-tax and protectionist views. However, he is fundamentally correct that federal action is the only recourse for defenders of this law.
The United States Supreme Court has a history of disallowing states to collect sales tax from retailers who do not have a physical presence in that state. The 2010 law not only violated Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) but also is in conflict with case law. The bill tried to put the burden of information collection on the Internet company who the state would require itemized receipts to be mailed to each customer. Rather than comply with this paperwork requirement, Amazon ceased its affiliate program which shut down Colorado small businesses. These affiliates paid income tax on the sales they made, thus depriving Colorado from more tax revenue.
Republicans in Colorado's house will introduce a bill to repeal the Amazon tax in the House soon, but its prospects remain grim with a Democratic-led Senate and a lukewarm governor. In any case, Colorado cannot enforce this tax collection in the near future.
--David Carpenter
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Colorado's 68th General Assembly Commences
The 68th General Assembly began its 120-day session yesterday morning. It was a historic morning for many reasons, not least of which being the most closely divided house in Colorado history.
The atmosphere was one of bipartisanship, pageantry and celebration with legislators and their families (including young children) sitting on the House floor. Chief Justice Michael Bender, prior to swearing in the House members, expressed his appreciation that the event was indoors (a not-so-veiled swipe at Governor John Hickenlooper's outdoor inauguration held the previous day). Outgoing Democrat House Speaker Terrance Carroll passed the gavel to incoming Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty with a gigantic bear hug.
Speaker Frank McNulty furthered the bipartisan atmosphere with his inaugural speech. However, the Speaker did point out the large budgetary problem the Assembly faces and insisted that working families and small businesses be spared the burden of closing the $1 billion gap (as recorded in the House Journal):
The atmosphere was one of bipartisanship, pageantry and celebration with legislators and their families (including young children) sitting on the House floor. Chief Justice Michael Bender, prior to swearing in the House members, expressed his appreciation that the event was indoors (a not-so-veiled swipe at Governor John Hickenlooper's outdoor inauguration held the previous day). Outgoing Democrat House Speaker Terrance Carroll passed the gavel to incoming Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty with a gigantic bear hug.
Speaker Frank McNulty furthered the bipartisan atmosphere with his inaugural speech. However, the Speaker did point out the large budgetary problem the Assembly faces and insisted that working families and small businesses be spared the burden of closing the $1 billion gap (as recorded in the House Journal):
Our state faces an historic budget gap of more than $1 billion. On this, let me be clear. The days of balancing the state budget on the backs of working families and small businesses are over. We cannot treat the state budget differently than families across Colorado treat their own budgets. We have the next 120 days to learn how to do it.The bill for kicking the can down the road has come due. We will not spend what we don't have, and yes, I recognize that this will require the State of Colorado to further tighten its belt. But that same belt tightening has gone on throughout Colorado by working families and small businesses for the past four years. If we refuse to make the tough choices now, these same choices will become more difficult for Colorado to bear down the road. These tough choices will require working in good faith.Governor Hickenlooper; and my friends in the Senate: We stand ready to work with you and make the tough choices. But we must—and we will—adhere to our core principles and to the will of the people of Colorado.
Contrasting Speaker Frank McNulty's bipartisan, pro-business approach, Minority Leader Sal Pace took a partisan, pro-big government approach with a veiled swipe at Republicans.
To neglect programs or slash services without method; to penalize hardworking state workers and teachers to score political points; to demonize people because of their skin color or national origins; and to balance our budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, the sick and the young – these are not acceptable solutions to the people of Colorado. And they should not be acceptable to any of us.If cynicism and fear influence the choices we make in this room over the coming months, then we all have fundamentally failed the people who put us here.In that spirit, I call on all of us in this room to set aside the partisan differences that divided us during the campaign, and to turn down the rhetoric.
Of course, Minority Leader Sal Pace works represents the labor unions and government workers exclusively in the legislature, so he is merely fighting for his constituency. His straw man arguments about the rhetoric (read: anything with which Sal Pace disagrees) effectively poisoned the bipartisan atmosphere and left a sour taste in the mouths of many of the attendees.
--David Carpenter
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Ideas to help small biz
- Repeal HB1190,which eliminates the tax exemption on energy used by businesses. Energy costs are no longer tax deductible. (In what universe is not paying a tax, then having to pay a tax not a tax increase? Only the world of the Colorado Supreme Court that found that elimination of a tax exemption is not a tax subject to a TABOR vote of the citizens.)
- Bring businesses into the regulatory process earlier.
- Fight any initiative that will put a sales tax on services. Ex: the auto mechanic, hair stylist, web designer, gardner, dry cleaner, childcare provider, home health nurse, accountant, attorney, computer tech, house cleaner, plumber, electrician, manicurist, tailor, writer, caterer, event planner, fundraiser, payroll services administrator, etc. etc will have to add and collect tax for their service, and spend the requisite time and effort to pay and report it.
- Change PERA from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution. Stop paying pensions for government workers on the backs of private-sector workers struggling to save for their own retirement.
The effect of just these four changes would dramatically and positively open Colorado's business environment.
Go to www.solutionsforcolorado.com for more ideas or to post your own.
Reining-in regulation
Today, Governor Hickenlooper cited the most pressing need for Colorado is the creation of "jobs!"
Wealth is only created in the private sector, so for jobs that actually contribute to the overall economic health of the state, legislators need to take action to allow the private sector to thrive.
Legislators pass laws, then the various agencies of government write the rules and regulations that often create mischief and mayhem for business. Why? Little to no accountability on the part of bureaucrats who are incentivized to levy fines to fund their department, as opposed to educating businesses to comply with the law.
Too often, regulators fine businesses for not following the "spirit" of the law - an arbitrary definition. Small businesses generally can't afford the legal expense of challenging an agency that fails to write the "letter" of the rules they seek to enforce.
What to do?
See more good ideas and contribute your own at www.solutionsforcolorado.com
Wealth is only created in the private sector, so for jobs that actually contribute to the overall economic health of the state, legislators need to take action to allow the private sector to thrive.
Legislators pass laws, then the various agencies of government write the rules and regulations that often create mischief and mayhem for business. Why? Little to no accountability on the part of bureaucrats who are incentivized to levy fines to fund their department, as opposed to educating businesses to comply with the law.
Too often, regulators fine businesses for not following the "spirit" of the law - an arbitrary definition. Small businesses generally can't afford the legal expense of challenging an agency that fails to write the "letter" of the rules they seek to enforce.
What to do?
- Bring businesses into the regulatory process sooner.
- Open discussion between rule-making agencies and industry representatives to identify the hoped-for outcomes and the unintended consequences of regulations.
- Require a cost/benefit analysis prepared by government agency staff with industry input. If the benefits of a regulation don't outweigh the cost, DON'T DO IT.
- Review the cost/benefit analysis wth public input before it's final.
The likely result?
- Less regulation; less government intervention.
See more good ideas and contribute your own at www.solutionsforcolorado.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)