Today's meeting with our congressional delegation and the tenth amendment

Today Colorado's congressional delegation came to the capitol to meet with state legislators. Markey and Salazar were not there. The senators sent representatives from their offices as the senate is in session. These meetings are a good idea. I'd say essential. I hope we do it more, and I told them as much.

I asked them about their thoughts on proposing amendments to the constitution specifically for the purpose of restraining the expansion of federal power as it relates to the role of the states; to restore the proper balance in our federal system. I explained in so many words my view that many citizens feel the role of the states has been undermined by the federal government, and that the tenth amendment is largely being ignored. I pointed out that this has been happening under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

I suggested states are becoming little more than administrative outposts of the federal government. I went on to make the point that this is not the original intent of the founders who designed the federal system to function with more tension between the states and the federal government, each having its own proper roles and proper powers. The state's role is fading and the fed's is growing. This should not be so.

Reps Coffman and Lamborn both indicated that a convention is fraught with risk (they are certainly right about that), but they both supported a balanced budget amendment to the constitution which would be a major step in putting a check on the expansion of Washington's excessive power.

Rep. DeGette took exception to Coffman and Lamborn's excoriation of the big spending spending habits of the federal government. She seemed to indicate that congress' big spending had more to do with the war than on any inherent spending problem congress may have. Uh, OK.

Rep. Polis didn't respond.

Rep. Perlmutter asked for examples of federal power grabs. The chair didn't give me a chance to respond. So I'll be sending Rep. Permutter a letter. It will be lengthy. To his credit, he'll likely read it and respond. To his great discredit, for him to even make this request implies that examples of this are anything less than self-evident to nearly everyone. To me, his request also insinuates that the majority of people actually believe congress is behaving with fiscal restraint. I'm quite certain this is not the case. But, he is a supporter of Obamacare after all.

The end of Welfare Reform as we Know it?

The question comes up because Friday I led a floor fight against SB 68, a bill that eliminates the asset test for a program that provides cash assistance to the needy.

There are two key financial tests that case workers apply when processing an application:

1) How much income do you have?
2) What assets do you have?

Makes sense. Why would we we have a policy of giving taxpayer funded benefits to someone who had a high income or assets they could simply convert to cash and thus take care of their own obligations?

But the bill eliminates this asset test. Colorado will be one of just a handful to make this unwise move.

If there is no asset test, then people who are caught in a cash crunch -- but who have other assets like savings accounts, CDs, RVs, homes, etc. that could be made liquid in order to handle their own obligations -- will be able to access taxpayer provided benefits. The asset test that was eliminated in SB 68 was set at $15,000. Now there is no upper limit on assets at all!

The bill's sponsor told me in Appropriations committee that we should encourage people to keep their savings in place and tap into this (using my words now) "free pot of money." After all, if they had school plans in mind, why should they have to use their money when they could use ours? She explained to me that this is an incentive for people to find work and go to school. Oh really? Isn't the incentive just the opposite?

Anyway, let's all keep something in mind: the government can't give benefits to someone without first taking money from someone else.

Doesn't it make sense, then, to insist that the government should only provide a basic safety net to those are truly unable to do so on their own?

We all have compassion for those who are caught in hard times. Many of us have experienced them ourselves. But maybe you believe, like Reagan did and I do, that our compassion must also extend to the taxpayer who is putting his or her dreams on hold to help pay for things that the government wants to provide for people who are perfectly able to provide for on their own.

In the end, the absolute last thing I want to see come out of this tough economy is a generation of people who learn to be less self reliant, and more dependent upon their government. That's not only not good for people's psyches, it's not good for America.

Nanny Alert

Rep. Kefalas (D-Ft. Collins) and Sen Bacon (D-Ft. Collins) are sponsoring legislation to replace parental decision-making with the prudential wisdom of the state regarding keeping our children safe. Under HB 1147 as introduced, children under 18 would be required to wear a helmet while using any non-motorized wheeled transportation. This could even include your toddler riding in a shopping cart.

But don't worry, parents are given wide discretion. They can choose to let their kids use wagons or trailers (bike trailers?) without helmets as there are never accidents with either of those.

Under the bill, my two-year old, who loves the race car shopping carts at Home Depot, would need a helmet, as it's not pulled, but pushed. No kidding, see the bill language below:

(b) (I) "NONMOTORIZED WHEELED TRANSPORTATION" MEANS ANY
10 VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR USE ON PUBLIC STREETS AND
11 PREMISES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE PROPELLED
12 ENTIRELY OR PARTLY BY HUMAN POWER PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
13 TRANSPORTING ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS AND THAT ROLLS ON WHEELS
14 INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A BICYCLE, SCOOTER, SKATEBOARD, OR
15 IN-LINE SKATES. "NONMOTORIZED WHEELED TRANSPORTATION" DOES NOT
16 INCLUDE A WAGON, A TRAILER, OR ANY OTHER VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT
17 THAT IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO BE TOWED OR PULLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL
18 OR BY ANY OTHER VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

Apparently pulling (except trailers and wagons) is less safe than pushing.

The bill was partially gutted in committee. Now, it just requires the Transportation Department, the Department of Education and the Department of Public Safety to collaborate on a cradle to 12th grade education program to scold kids and parents about helmet use.

Fortunately, their attempts to centrally control the economy by raising taxes and spending more during a recession have proven so successful, that they can now focus the attention of this government on helping you run your household.

SB- 109 Regulation of Physician-Patient Relationship for Medical Marijuana Patients

Last week, the Senate passed Senate Bill 109, to modify medical marijuana dispensary practices and try to align the current marijuana statutes with the state constitution. This bill regulates the practices of physicians in authorizing individuals for medical marijuana. Physicians are required to have an authentic relationship with their patients, possess a record-keeping system for all qualified patients, provide post-care treatment after prescribing medical marijuana, and must have a doctorate of medicine from an accredited medical school. Physicians are prohibited from accepting payment from medical marijuana dispensaries and cannot give a discount for using a particular dispensary. Additionally, Senate Bill 109 increases the qualification requirements for access to medical marijuana by creating a review board, which determines if those under the age of 21 are eligible to register.
This bill is a step in the right direction for controlling the marijuana mess that has gripped Colorado. However, while Senate Bill 109 brings much-needed regulation to the doctor patient relationship, it did not confront the broader range of much needed marijuana regulation that will help to end the flagrant abuse of the Colorado law. Stay tuned…

Ritter's SOS: Partisan, Shrill, Revisionist

The Governor just delivered his final state of the state address. It was at times, surprisingly shrill and partisan. The whole of it had a revisionist undercurrent. One might think he would presage his forthcoming exit from the mansion this year with more grace, modest acknowledgment of the role Republicans have played in driving good state policies, and a more forthright telling of his fabled Colorado Promise.

At roughly the address' midway point, he went out of his way to bash his predecessor's legacy. He went on to cite what he implied has been a far reaching -- but in truth has been a far fetched -- job creation super nova in his energy policy. In this vein, he made no small pretense that he has been a strong friend and ally of the state's oil and gas industry -- even while his drilling rules have clearly reduced the industry's economic incentive for staying in the state to produce more high paying in the first place.

What took the cake though, was that he feigned regard for leaner government! This on the heels of three years of adding thousands of new state employees to the payroll paid for in part by a multitude of slick budgeting gimmicks. And despite the feel good veneer that he was quick to apply over his party's economic mismanagement, many Coloradans watching today haven't forgotten that he and his party drove the steamroller just last year that crushed our state's spending limitation, while at the same time passing last year's wildly unpopular car tax.