As Americans went deeper into debt with President Obama's so-called stimulus package, Colorado legislators did their best to keep pace with their liberal congressional counterparts' reckless spending binge.
In fact, this past week in the Colorado Legislature will be remembered by me as the "Great Raid". Collectively, the senate voted to sweep more than $200 million of cash funds --collected through fees for SPECIFIC programs -- into the state's general budget. In short, those fees were treated like taxes -- and yet voters in the state were not asked for permission to raise taxes (which is how those fees, because of the raid, function) as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights requires.
This means that businesses, for example, which have paid millions into special funds for injured worker programs, will be forced to repay those funds again for the same service they were promised. It's double, and in some cases, triple taxation for the same service.
SB 208 and SB 212 were the main culprits of the chicanery. You can see my comments about them in the Denver Post here and on ColoradoSenatenews.com here and in the Rocky Mountain News here.
All this spending was just to get this year's (08/09) budget to work. Although, I use the term "work" loosely. After all, this budget is more than 4% larger than the previous year's budget. That's something you don't hear a lot about amidst the clamor that "we're making huge cuts". We're spending more, not less, than the previous year. I'm not sure how that is a cut.
We also put off making payments we owe to firefighters and police pensions. It's our version of printing money. We'll pay later what we should buck up and pay today. So we pass a bigger obligation along to our kids. I voted against this maneuver in appropriations and will do so again on the final vote. Delaying hard choices won't make them go away.
In other action:
Dems kill plan to produce new Colorado energy (HB 1268)
Colorado's economy, like any economy, is linked to having enough energy to move the gears of commerce. In fact, by 2025, Colorado must produce an additional 4,900 megawatts of power -- which is roughly equal to building seven more large coal fired plants like the Comanche plant near Pueblo, which is scheduled to come on line later this fall. Solar and wind power may be part of the mix of the future, but they cannot affordably produce the kind of power we need. And besides, both wind and solar power plants require natural gas fired power plants as backup, since neither of them produce power on demand. They only work when the sun's shining or the wind's blowing. And storing electricity is incredibly problematic and ineffective at best right now.
The bill also created incentives for converting landfill to clean electricity through Geo Plasma and related technologies, and for siting solar arrays (called Bright Felds) on reclaimed landfills unsuitable for other forms of construction. It created a streamlined process for siting nuclear plants in cities or counties that wanted to build one. It added hydro power to the state's renewable energy portfolio, and directed the government to streamline its transmission line building.
With little explanation, the bill was killed on a party line vote. The most politically problematic portion of the bill -- the nuclear siting component -- could have been easily taken out of the bill through amendment. This was truly a pathetic display of partisanship at the expense of Coloradans who expect solutions to our serious energy production challenges.
School District Spending Transparency (SB 57)
We finally got Sen. Harvey's bill requiring full transparency for school district spending out of the senate yesterday. Now it begins a rocky ride in the much less predictable House of Representatives. Coloradosenatenews.com wrote about it here. It was astonishing to see Sen. Evie Hudak shill for the status quo and try to gut the bill through amendment and fight it until the bitter end. Facethestate.com added a little levity to the matter with a cartoon here .
Morgan County Lincoln Day Dinner
Monday evening I joined Rep. Cory Gardner and Sens. Greg Brophy and Josh Penry for the Morgan County Lincoln Day Dinner. It is good to hear what voters in other parts of the state are talking about, and to introduce myself to them as one of the GOP's senate leaders. It was a long drive in Farmer Greg's Prius.
Conifer Town Hall Meeting
Wednesday night I shared with about 150 Conifer area residents about the status of my wildfire legislation. For those of you who live in wild land urban interface areas, you already know how much work there is to do to protect homes and centers of commerce out in the woods. For those of you who do not, suffice to say, it's a big issue requiring local, state, and federal attention.
One catastrophic wildfire could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, damage watersheds, transmission lines, cut off commerce, destroy homes and communities (that provide tax revenue to counties such as Jefferson), and of course, it could cost lives. The best bet is to reduce the fuel loads in the forest, knock down the barriers to getting commercially viable wood products taken from hazard areas to the market, and create innovative ways to keep volunteer firefighters (who are the backbone of timber country responders) in the fire service.
A big fight about government spending
Our state government can only grow so fast, thanks to a mechanism known as the 6% limit. Essentially, what this means is that as soon as the general assembly takes in 6% above last year's budget, money begins to flow to transportation projects. It's a way to keep a real check on government growth, and to make sure that we invest on highway spending rather than on creating new entitlement programs. Highway and bridge building and maintenance are, after all, core functions of government. The 6% limit is not a perfect solution, but then what government system is or could be? But it does protect the taxpayers by slowing government growth. I bring it up because you may have heard about a dust-up over the issue. Republican budget committee member, Don Marostica, is working on a bill to gut the limit. Obviously, this caused a ruckus. I think it's a bad idea. Here's what I said as reported by KWGN here.
In-state tuition for illegal immigrants (SB 170)
This bill still has not come to education committee, or to the appropriations committee where I serve, or the whole senate. When it does come up for a vote, I will of course vote no, and fight against it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Capitol Update for Feb 13
A few highlights of the week...
My $25 million tax cut bill PASSES out of committee (SB 37)
My bill cutting taxes on Colorado businesses (and by extension, Colorado consumers) won initial passage on Monday. Because of a bill-saving amendment I ran, it cuts about $20-25 million worth of taxes (that’s down from the mid 30’s as originally projected). See the Rocky Mountain News article for a pretty good description here.
School Transparency Win (SB 57)
The other big taxpayer win of the week requires school district financial transparency. SB 57 by Sens Harvey, Kopp, et al and Rep. Stephens, requires school districts to post their income and expenses on line in a searchable format.
After a lengthy floor fight on Friday the 13th, we finally fixed the bill after education committee members had gutted it to turn it in to little more than a request the state was making.
I ran an amendment that provided school district’s an extra year to comply, which takes the financial cost argument off the table. This will give them time to set new policies and procedures relating to how their financial data is recorded (i.e. they will need to begin eliminating things like codes and acronyms that the public wouldn't understand. In other words, districts can plan for phasing in compliance over the course of the next 18 months. I assume they will be able to fully absorb the costs of simply posting on their websites a monthly balance sheet in every day English, by making use of the extra time this amendment gives them.).
See the Rocky Mountain News Editorial here and the Colorado Senate News article here.
Convert State Vehicle Fleet to Natural Gas (SB 92)
My senate bill 92, converting the state vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles passed the full senate on second reading on Friday the 13th. It will require the state - to the extent it makes fiscal sense - to begin converting new fleet vehicles to run on safe, clean CNG.
Three major considerations:
1) Natural gas is cheap and abundant right here in Colorado. This move should save our state fleet managers money over the long haul. Studies also show that Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles last longer, providing another built in financial incentive.
2) Using CNG vehicles allows us to use a fuel source that is not subject to the whims of Hugo Chavez and other hostile dictators. As such, it allows us to take a tangible step toward energy independence. Indeed, most of our energy dependency is owing to the fact that we have a high importation rate of crude oil to fuel our nation's transportation activities.
3) There are real clean air benefits to using CNG. Natural gas-powered vehicles emit fewer pollutants. It’s so clean, in fact, that the EPA provided a grant to a Texas school district so they could purchase CNG school buses in a “non-attainment” area (that is, an area where the air quality is poor).
For more on this bill, see ColoradoSenateNews here.
Illegal Immigrant In-State Tuition (SB 170)
As you can imagine, there is a big fight brewing on this bill -- and there should be. You will know from my past legislative actions that I will fight the bill, as will the entire GOP caucus. I’ll keep you up to date as it moves through the process.
US Senate Vacancy Elections (SB 152)
My push to reform our US Senate vacancy procedures failed on a party line vote Wednesday night.
I argued for passage using Federalist Papers 62, 63, 64. Here, the framers made their case for why the senate was structured the way it was. Principally, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, were keenly aware that a key feature of the senate was that it build a stability factor into the federal government. This was accomplished in part by electing older legislators. And senators were also given longer, staggered terms for this reason.
And critically, the founders wanted the senate to be filled by members who had been recognized by the “collective capacity” of the people of the various states. They didn't envision an appointed class of leaders. The people, after all, elected legislators who in turn used their best judgment to elect senators -- who, in their collective judgment, could be trusted with the nation’s most important business, such as providing advice and consent on treaties, for example.
History and common sense demonstrates that the stability factor in the body is reduced when appointed senators, who do not have the stature of having being vetted by their state’s voters, serve in office. For one thing, odds are against appointed senators wining their election if/when they do go before the voters. Probably this can be attrituted to the fact that in those cases people feel that they were left out of a very important decision in the first place. This situation in essence creates a sort of revolving door -- albeit a limited one -- in the senate.
Revolving doors on senate seats would have been anathema to the founders for it chips away at the overall stability of the body – and this was truly one of the central concerns the framers outlined in the Federalist Papers regarding their rationale for the way they created the senate.
Since the 17th amendment to the constitution passed (1913) however, vacancies are filled in Colorado through appointment by a single person -- not the collective judgment of a legislature or that of the populace.
Consider this: the Governor of Colorado cannot even appoint a member of a college board without going through the senate for confirmation. My bill would have required a special election to be held -- same as we do with Congressional vacancies.
Since the 17th amendment was ratified and we began electing senators through a popular vote of the people, there is no good reason to treat senate vacancies differently than house vacancies whose members are also popularly elected.
Indeed, one person appointments risk nepotism and cronyism, as seen from both parties in recent years. And now, four of the members of world’s most powerful deliberative body have gotten there in the last few weeks through one-person appointments.
But, for all my hot air, the bill still lost! Two of those voting NO agreed with the policy change, they said, but thought it would turn into a critique of Governor Ritter’s appointment of [a talented, but collectively unjudged] Michael Bennet.
So they punted on a big – not in terms of frequency, but in terms of impact -- policy problem that needs fixing. Read about it on Coloradosenatenews here.
My $25 million tax cut bill PASSES out of committee (SB 37)
My bill cutting taxes on Colorado businesses (and by extension, Colorado consumers) won initial passage on Monday. Because of a bill-saving amendment I ran, it cuts about $20-25 million worth of taxes (that’s down from the mid 30’s as originally projected). See the Rocky Mountain News article for a pretty good description here.
School Transparency Win (SB 57)
The other big taxpayer win of the week requires school district financial transparency. SB 57 by Sens Harvey, Kopp, et al and Rep. Stephens, requires school districts to post their income and expenses on line in a searchable format.
After a lengthy floor fight on Friday the 13th, we finally fixed the bill after education committee members had gutted it to turn it in to little more than a request the state was making.
I ran an amendment that provided school district’s an extra year to comply, which takes the financial cost argument off the table. This will give them time to set new policies and procedures relating to how their financial data is recorded (i.e. they will need to begin eliminating things like codes and acronyms that the public wouldn't understand. In other words, districts can plan for phasing in compliance over the course of the next 18 months. I assume they will be able to fully absorb the costs of simply posting on their websites a monthly balance sheet in every day English, by making use of the extra time this amendment gives them.).
See the Rocky Mountain News Editorial here and the Colorado Senate News article here.
Convert State Vehicle Fleet to Natural Gas (SB 92)
My senate bill 92, converting the state vehicle fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles passed the full senate on second reading on Friday the 13th. It will require the state - to the extent it makes fiscal sense - to begin converting new fleet vehicles to run on safe, clean CNG.
Three major considerations:
1) Natural gas is cheap and abundant right here in Colorado. This move should save our state fleet managers money over the long haul. Studies also show that Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles last longer, providing another built in financial incentive.
2) Using CNG vehicles allows us to use a fuel source that is not subject to the whims of Hugo Chavez and other hostile dictators. As such, it allows us to take a tangible step toward energy independence. Indeed, most of our energy dependency is owing to the fact that we have a high importation rate of crude oil to fuel our nation's transportation activities.
3) There are real clean air benefits to using CNG. Natural gas-powered vehicles emit fewer pollutants. It’s so clean, in fact, that the EPA provided a grant to a Texas school district so they could purchase CNG school buses in a “non-attainment” area (that is, an area where the air quality is poor).
For more on this bill, see ColoradoSenateNews here.
Illegal Immigrant In-State Tuition (SB 170)
As you can imagine, there is a big fight brewing on this bill -- and there should be. You will know from my past legislative actions that I will fight the bill, as will the entire GOP caucus. I’ll keep you up to date as it moves through the process.
US Senate Vacancy Elections (SB 152)
My push to reform our US Senate vacancy procedures failed on a party line vote Wednesday night.
I argued for passage using Federalist Papers 62, 63, 64. Here, the framers made their case for why the senate was structured the way it was. Principally, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, were keenly aware that a key feature of the senate was that it build a stability factor into the federal government. This was accomplished in part by electing older legislators. And senators were also given longer, staggered terms for this reason.
And critically, the founders wanted the senate to be filled by members who had been recognized by the “collective capacity” of the people of the various states. They didn't envision an appointed class of leaders. The people, after all, elected legislators who in turn used their best judgment to elect senators -- who, in their collective judgment, could be trusted with the nation’s most important business, such as providing advice and consent on treaties, for example.
History and common sense demonstrates that the stability factor in the body is reduced when appointed senators, who do not have the stature of having being vetted by their state’s voters, serve in office. For one thing, odds are against appointed senators wining their election if/when they do go before the voters. Probably this can be attrituted to the fact that in those cases people feel that they were left out of a very important decision in the first place. This situation in essence creates a sort of revolving door -- albeit a limited one -- in the senate.
Revolving doors on senate seats would have been anathema to the founders for it chips away at the overall stability of the body – and this was truly one of the central concerns the framers outlined in the Federalist Papers regarding their rationale for the way they created the senate.
Since the 17th amendment to the constitution passed (1913) however, vacancies are filled in Colorado through appointment by a single person -- not the collective judgment of a legislature or that of the populace.
Consider this: the Governor of Colorado cannot even appoint a member of a college board without going through the senate for confirmation. My bill would have required a special election to be held -- same as we do with Congressional vacancies.
Since the 17th amendment was ratified and we began electing senators through a popular vote of the people, there is no good reason to treat senate vacancies differently than house vacancies whose members are also popularly elected.
Indeed, one person appointments risk nepotism and cronyism, as seen from both parties in recent years. And now, four of the members of world’s most powerful deliberative body have gotten there in the last few weeks through one-person appointments.
But, for all my hot air, the bill still lost! Two of those voting NO agreed with the policy change, they said, but thought it would turn into a critique of Governor Ritter’s appointment of [a talented, but collectively unjudged] Michael Bennet.
So they punted on a big – not in terms of frequency, but in terms of impact -- policy problem that needs fixing. Read about it on Coloradosenatenews here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
