Intl. law frowns on Ritter-Gitmo plan

Slight problem with Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to bring the Gitmo detainees to Colorado's SuperMax federal prison complex. It's not only a bad idea that should be opposed on policy grounds -- it would actually violate the Laws of War. References: Channel 7 "Could Gitmo Terror Suspects be coming to Colorado?" ... Denver Post "Ritter favors bringing detainees to Supermax"... Rocky "Lawmakers urge Ritter not to accept Gitmo prisoners."

Now, I was a bit rusty on my Laws of War instruction as the story broke, but when I heard about Ritter's proposal to bring captured enemy combatants to Colorado's civilian prisons, something didn't ring quite true - so I decided to do a bit of research. I didn't have to dig very far (heck, I'm not even a lawyer) to discover the following:

The Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states specifically that combatant prisoners may NOT be held among the general (civilian) prison population. The language of the convention is quite clear: regarding where captured enemy combatants may be held, Article 22 of the conventions states clearly and unequivocally that "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries."

So, when do the impeachment proceedings and war crimes trials begin?

Jihad in Southern Colorado?

Channel 13 in Colorado Springs reported local reacation on the Obama administration possibly relocating Gitmo terrorists to the Supermax prison in Florence.  The reporter interviewed two women that are residents of Florence.  One woman is the local library director and the other apparently was a woman on the street.  Both women expressed complete comfort with the idea and said they believe the facility itself and the staff are quite competent to take on this unique set of inmates.  The news anchor commented that Florence residents are in favor of bringing radical Islamic terrorists to their town because it would create jobs. The question is not whether we can have confidence in Supermax and it's courageous, highly trained personnel.  None of the criminals there have escaped and threatened me or my neighbors, and I don't even worry about that happening.  However,  I am not in favor of bringing terrorists to Colorado or any other location on our mainland. 

Gitmo was put in place to keep such people away from the general population because they pose a serious threat and a clear and present danger.  The people they align with and want them free are also a threat.  While I adamantly disagree with the President's decision to close Gitmo and then toss around several ideas as to where in the United States these criminals will end up, I especially think Colorado is about as poor a choice as could be made. 

Governor Ritter is in favor of bringing the inmates here.  Residents need to consider the fact that the Colorado Springs area has been considered a possible target for terrorism, especially since 9/11.   In addition to Ft. Carson, Cheyenne Mountain AF Station, the Air Force Academy, Peterson AF Base, Schriever AF Base, we have Homeland Security and several large defense contracting firms.  This area could become even more of a target if we house terrorists that no one else on the planet wants.   Our governor should put the safety of our people first, ahead of any political consideration.

Several years ago I was employed at St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City.  We provided medical care to inmates at the various prisons that was outside the capability of the prison healthcare units.  As part of our ongoing training, we were made aware of the fact that violent criminals have families and friends that come in and out of the area to visit inmates.  In addition,  people that have an unfriendly attitude toward a prisoner also come and attempt to enter the prison to visit.  Of course, visitors are screened and may be turned away, but they are in the region, spending time in our communities.   If a very violent inmate required hospitalization or emergency care, extreme safety measures were mobilized to secure the safety of hospital employees and the surrounding neighborhood and community at large.  The possibility of a friend or family member possibly trying to stage an escape during transport or while the patient was receiving medical care was anticipated, with appropriate planning put in place.  If we house radical terrorists in prisons in Southern Colorado, and our new policy dictates that we are more sympathetic toward them, will we not be forced to allow these prisoners to have visitors?  If they ask to have the privilege of visits from families, friends and religious leaders, will we have the ability under new guidelines to deny those privileges?  Given the new policy directives, we will at a minimum allow them to meet with legal counsel.  Would we not also be required to allow them to have visitation rights similar to other inmates?  The question then becomes, do we want the friends and associates of terrorists coming in and out of our state?

Congressman Doug Lamborn has spoken out against this proposal and if you agree that our state should not take on the responsibility and possible additional terror threat, write to President Obama and Governor Ritter, and also write to Congressman Lamborn and others to support their efforts to take this possibility off the table.

 Contrary to the newsclip on News Channel 13, the support expressed by two residents does not amount to a concensus that everyone in the area welcomes the Gitmo Jihadists to our great state.  Having lived in Canon City, I know many people there and in Pueblo who are not in favor.  This is an important debate and our readers that feel strongly one way or another have an opportunity to participate in the discussion.  If our voices aren't heard, they aren't given consideration. 

AFP holds line in '09 for Colo. taxpayer

I listened to Gov. Bill Ritter's State of the State speech with anticipation the other day, and we have reason to be concerned. According to the Governor, we need to "invest...despite these tough economic times", and get rid of spending and tax limitations which the Taxpayers Bill of Rights [TABOR] has effectively secured. Ritter wants to extend the spending increases of Referendum C from 2005 and continue seeking changes in TABOR's limitations on taxing and spending. Here’s a quote from his speech:

"As I’ve said before, a budget is a moral document that should reflect our values. . . . There is also an opportunity here – a chance to address TABOR and the constitutional and statutory straitjacket that makes modern, sensible and value-based budgeting an impossibility."

The Governor, though, has left some questions unasked in this statement. Whose values determine what a “sensible” budget is? I know for most Colorado families, a sensible budget is the smallest one possible where they can meet their monthly needs. If their income suddenly decreases or they can't keep up with their credit card payments. Something has to give. They are forced to cut back their spending. Is this the value-based approach to budgeting the Governor finds “sensible”? Or is the “straightjacket” of TABOR, as he implies, keeping him from spending more of our money.

He argues that we have many challenges ahead, but he proposes get rid of TABOR to deal with them. He hopes to remove TABOR's restraints so that he can build a "modern" (read: bloated) government. It seems to be a pattern we are following all over the country: in times of crisis, turn to government for help. Of course, Colorado is faring much better than other states like California which are begging the Congress to bail them out. And TABOR has played a big part in keeping us from going into the tank like they have when huge budgets meet decreasing tax revenues in these tough times.

Americans for Prosperity is going to continue the fight to make this case publicly with your help. When citizens come out in a show of force like they did for us last year, it sends a message to our politicians that we Coloradans will not accept an ever increasing government.

What is a modern budget, Governor Ritter? Does that include ever increasing spending and expanding government services? Or are there some limits to the amount of government we need? Governor Ritter said that when he and other Governors met with Senator Obama in November, the President-elect said, “. . . it would take courage and a strong federal-state partnership to get America back on the path to long-term prosperity.” When has a federal-state government partnership ever made us more prosperous? Does government bring prosperity or do the people and their spirit of ingenuity? These are the questions advocates of government action never seem to ask.

Our left-leaning Congress and State General Assembly will attempt to push the limits expanding government’s role in our economy. Unfortunately, that's what Republicans did when they had the Congress and paid the price at the ballot box. You can be assured that we will oppose any changes to TABOR and any further expansion of government spending beyond the limits imposed by TABOR whether proposed by Republicans or Democrats. But we will need your help to put pressure on our elected representatives to hold the line on spending.

First of all, AFP is hoping for the grassroots army which came out last year to our Hot Air Balloon and Town Hall events to come out again this year to State House rallies and Town Hall events as we force our elected officials to see that Coloradans do not support expanded government.

I am asking for your help if we are going to be successful at stopping the Governor’s and the legislature’s efforts to eliminate TABOR. If TABOR goes down, it would give them the ammunition they need to increase spending and taxes to pay for their pet projects without the “hassle” of obtaining a vote of the people. Please support Americans for Prosperity so we can remain an active, effective force for less government in Colorado.

Last year, Coloradans defeated five measures which would have increased taxes and government spending by nearly $350 million. There is a force of people in Colorado like you who believe in free markets and responsible government.

I look forward to working with you as we continue to hold the line on TABOR and take a strong stand for our rights as citizens of Colorado.

Jim Pfaff is Colorado director for Americans for Prosperity. See www.afphq.org.

Budget test finds Ritter wanting

Colorado faces a $630 million budget shortfall and stark options now that half the fiscal year is past and so much money is already spent. Balancing a budget during a recession is a difficult, thankless job. But balancing this year's budget didn't need to be this hard if only the leaders at the Capitol had learned from the last recession - or listened to those who experienced it.

Last spring as the economic storm clouds gathered, Gov. Bill Ritter and legislative leaders had opportunities to take precautions.

One worthwhile precaution was proposed by Treasurer Cary Kennedy, my erstwhile political foe, and then-Rep. Bernie Buescher. At a time when revenues under Referendum C were surging, their proposal reasonably sought to double the state's reserve fund by saving, rather than spending, some $250 million.

After all, everyone who experienced the austere budgets of 2001-2003 agreed that the state needed a "rainy day fund."

Unfortunately, that proposal died on the altar of the spending lobby.

Then as lawmakers debated the state budget, headlines warned of a looming recession forecast by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Again, prudence dictated that leaders put the brakes on spending money that might never materialize.

Unfortunately, legislators passed and Gov. Ritter signed a budget that spent every "available" dime, making promises that now cannot be kept.

Even more remarkable than the legislature's habitual failure to save is the day-late-and-dollar-short response of Gov. Ritter and his budget office. Upon signing the full-throttle state budget, Ritter said: "This is a budget we should celebrate. This is a budget that is smart, fiscally responsible and effective."

In September, when the legislature's economists sounded warnings about an economic downturn and a budget deficit, Ritter's Office of State Planning and Budget kept whistling a happy tune.

"One of (the forecasts) is pretty significantly wrong," Ritter told the Denver Post, which noted that Ritter "made it clear" that his forecast wasn't wrong.

Ironically, President Bush apparently changed Ritter's mind a few days later by remarking in a televised speech, "the entire economy is in danger." Ritter responded by putting a partial freeze on hiring and new construction and asking his department heads to "identify other money-saving ideas and strategies."

In November, the governor unveiled his budget for the fiscal year starting next July. He called for growing the budget at only 5 percent and setting aside "an unprecedented $77 million" in a new reserve fund.

Again, this was too little, too late.

His "unprecedented" proposal was just one-fourth the size of the earlier Kennedy-Buescher plan ‹ which received no support from Ritter.

The hypocrisy, as surely even Ritter knows, is that the time to save is when revenues are growing - not when they're already in retreat. That's because when revenues are increasing, saving requires simply setting aside a portion of the increase. But when revenues are declining, every dollar saved must be cut from existing programs.

In December, the legislature's economists sounded a full-throated alarm, projecting a $631 million deficit for 2008-09 and revenue growth at less than 1% for next year. This time, Ritter & Co. issued mixed messages.

Ritter said, "We're experiencing a historic and a global economic crisis." But his budget office forecast a mere $70 million deficit.

Two weeks later, Ritter's budget office asked for a mulligan, telling the Post it had "used outdated information" and now forecast a $230 million deficit - still barely one-third that projected by the legislature's economists.

Ritter's budget data isn't the only thing that's outdated. His fiscal strategies amount to closing the barn door after the horses have already left.

It's not as if Ritter is the first governor to experience these challenges. Just seven years ago in the wake of 9/11 and the tech bubble burst, Colorado lawmakers faced similar challenges.

Unfortunately, it seems the only lesson learned by Ritter is to ask taxpayers for more money to spend - but never to save for the next rainy day.

Don't look now, Governor, but it's raining again.

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com.

Hospital fees are the wrong answer

The revelation that Colorado Governor Ritter is conspiring with the Colorado Hospital Association to levy fees on hospitals to fulfill his political campaign promise to deal with the uninsured is a massively badidea. It falls short on three points.

First, there is no proof that hospitals have excess profits. Such fees would be internally cost shifted to patients and represent a hidden and covert tax. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are fixed and insurance companies negotiate discounts. That means only the sick, self-pay patient, who is already billed 27% more than the average would bear the brunt. It's regressive. We are trying to reduce cost shifting, not increase it.

Second, any extraction of additional monies so as to channel it back to pay for the costs of care of the uninsured is inflationary. Health care hyper-inflation is directly related to the steroidal injections of financial subsidies for various "needy" groups. It has distorted and destroyed any semblance of a marketplace in health care.

Finally, either mandates forcing people to buy health insurance or tax-based subsidies avoids the real need in health care reform. We need to re-institute disciplining forces, be-it competition or regulation, take your pick, to reverse the seemingly never-ending upward trend of health care inflation. In a time of recession we need the health care system to become more productive and efficient. Their costs need to decline, not superficially inflate.

The political establishment and the trade association lobby, continually obfuscate and avoid the real need in health care. There is no magic bullet. It is old fashioned efficiency improvement and quality. Maybe we should be consulting Toyota on health care.