Keep State Spending Limit, Limit In-State Tuition to LEGAL Residents, Cut Taxes, and Mitigate Wildfire Risks

This week we debated two major bills in the senate: one to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and one to get rid of a longstanding government spending limitation.

Both of them ignore either our state constitution or federal law. Obviously, I am opposed to both.

Ronald Reagan’s reminder that as a nation of laws, we have an obligation to follow them would be a well-timed admonition to my Democratic colleagues about now:

“We have the means to change the laws we find unjust or onerous. We cannot, as citizens, pick and choose the laws we will or will not obey.”

Maybe he was thinking of Colorado. Consider the case of two bad bills before us now:

In-state tuition for illegal immigrants – SB 170:

America is the most compassionate nation in history when it comes to reaching across seas and land borders to help others. Our value of promoting human dignity comes from within and is seen in our generous treatment of those living among us illegally.

To some however, that is not enough. I say to them, our compassion should begin extending also to the American citizens whose aspirations are stalled or slowed in order to pay for services and benefits to those who are here illegally.

SB 170 provides in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Colorado. This ill-conceived policy has a host of problems associated with it, any one of which would provide ample grounds for working against it.

But let’s start with the fact that it is a clear violation of federal law. The landmark 1996 law known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (8 U.S.C. § 1623), reads in relevant part as follows:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

In other words, if Colorado offers in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, it must offer the same benefit to any other person present in the entire United States. Obviously, if this bill passes, a lawsuit will be waiting in the wings by groups of students who will want the same benefit and who will have standing to sue.

In any case, it’s hard to imagine a more clear violation of federal law.

What made the bill all the more insulting was the fact that Democrats had intended on amending the bill to include veterans in Colorado who had not yet become residents… basically using veterans as pawns in their game. I commented about it here.

Democrats also pushed through a bill that violates the Colorado Constitution. I wrote about it last week, but here’s a more thorough examination.

Repeal Budget Protecting Spending Limitation -- SB 228

Colorado taxpayers have had a spending limitation in place in state government for nearly two decades now. Put simply, the provision (known as Arvescoug-Bird or simply “the 6% limit”) states that spending in the budget can’t grow more than 6% above the previous year’s spending. Because of inflation, this could easily happen, and we could have runaway spending like California did. But in Colorado, when spending hits a hit 6% increase amount, we then shift remaining funds to road building and other capital construction projects (i.e., building on college campuses), so that we’re not just growing new social programs.

Now, let me add to this, and hang on, it gets a little complicated. When the Taxpayers Bill of Rights was adopted shortly after the spending limit, it stated that limits on spending could only be weakened with voter approval. Thus, the 6% limit was frozen into the constitution of the state. To change that you need more than a roomful of liberal senators, you need a vote of the people. But, you are not getting a vote. I expect this to wind up in court.

We staged a 14 hour floor fight in an effort to stop the bill. Read about it here. After about ten hours of deliberations, the Majority party through what we saw as an abusive use of the rules, called for an end to the debate that was certain to go well into the next day, if not more.

If you want to help get this bill killed, the action is now in the house, and with the Governor. You can write to house members and contact the Governor, and ask him to veto this bill if it does reach his desk.

A couple positive notes:

Tax cut bill, alive and waiting for its second hearing – SB 37 Kopp/McNulty

My tax cut bill saving Colorado businesses (and by extension, consumers) $20-$25 million per year, is still awaiting its second hearing in the appropriations committee. It’s an important bill as it will eliminate one of the legislature’s piggy banks at the capitol that gets raided when the budget is stretched thin. In short, it cuts the amount of taxes businesses pay for two obsolete workers compensation programs and essentially gives the legislature an exit strategy so we don’t keep relying on a tax that should have been repealed several years ago.

Intergovernmental fire agreement bill advances – HB 1162 Gerou/Kopp

This bill requires cities, like Denver, which own overcrowded timber-covered lands in other counties, like Jeffco, to work together to mitigate fire risks to mountain communities.

There is nothing in current law that my constituents in places like the Conifer area can appeal to when it comes to impressing upon Denver their need to be good neighbors. I am hopeful this bill will help protect homeowners whose homes are located near some of these wild tracts of land. It passed the full senate on second reading today, meaning the final vote will be Monday or Tuesday. It should pass with flying colors. It will then go back to the house for their approval of my amendment to the bill, then to the Governor’s desk.