Colorado Spine: His or Mine?
Well, well. So my former legislative colleague and adversary Andrew Romanoff now styles himself a man of "backbone" in the Democratic Senate primary against Michael Bennet. Interesting since for upwards of 15 years, as Lynn Bartels noted in a Denver Post blog, yours truly has been using the imaginary town of Backbone Colorado USA to symbolize the qualities Americans must uphold if our country is to survive. Given that Andrew, the liberal Democrat, and Andrews, the conservative Republican, agree on little besides our love for the Broncos, one of us must be dealing wooden nickels. Which is it?
Is backbone more truly expressed in the self-reliance, self-restraint, and self-assertiveness that built this free society, and in the rock-ribbed original Constitution that guards our liberties -- or in the manipulation and government dependency exemplified in Romanoff's approach to such issues as health care and energy, facilitated by an invertebrate Constitution easily bent by imperial judges?
I'd love to debate the brainy and likable Romo about this, but he is no doubt busy with other things until the primary in August; perhaps all the way to November; and just possibly for six years of a Senate term after that. As to the latter, I hope not. The wishbone he mistakenly calls spine is already far too prevalent in Washington, DC.
What's Jay Say: BHO's Moral Confusion
There were two revealing stories about President Obama in the same day's paper. In the first, the White House defended its effort to sway Democrat Andrew Romanoff from the U.S. Senate race. His defense was that everybody does it. Doesn't that sound like a response you would get from your teenager? In the second story, Obama objected to the tough immigration law that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed by calling it discriminatory. It does in fact discriminate -- against those who entered our country illegally. Both articles point to the Obama proclivity to call evil good and good evil, as the Bible might put it. (Source: 6/4/10 Denver Post)
What competent President?
Backbone Radio Preview, June 6By Ross Kaminsky
The continuing devastating tragedy of the BP Deepwater Horizon leak is having political consequences nearly as large as its environmental consequences. To be clear, I’m in no way trying to minimize the importance of the damage being done to the Gulf coast. But on our mostly-political show and given that the Backbone Radio crew know a lot more about politics than about environmental science, our focus will be on the former.
The Administration’s response to the disaster has shredded Obama’s reputation for competency. Perhaps more interesting than the outcome is what preceded it: Namely, why did Obama have such a reputation to begin with? And why is his reputation being damaged by events which are essentially out of his control? (Hint: Maybe he didn’t make it sound so out of his control.)
The broad impact on Obama’s political clout is one issue, as is the more specific subject of how the BP disaster is likely to impact American energy policy.
Also weighing on the Administration’s perceived competence (among other things) is the news, finally being covered by the “mainstream” liberal media, that the White House tried to bribe Andrew Romanoff out of the Democratic senate primary race. They seem not to have learned the lessons of Watergate that the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Furthermore, what is implied by their move? Is it that they thought Romanoff would be less of an Obama poodle than Michael “Who?” Bennet despite Romanoff’s running to Bennet’s left? Combined with a similar story from Pennsylvania, the Obama Administration is looking like anything but the “change” they promised.
We’ll discuss these things, as well as the ramifications of the mess made by Israel when they boarded boats in an “aid” flotilla from Turkey to the Gaza Strip. Is this galvanizing world opinion against Israel? And how much of the freedom to verbally attack which politicians and anti-Semites from Saudi Arabia to Brussels to the UN feel has been caused by Barack Obama’s embarrassingly poor treatment of Israel and its leaders?
Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.
If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE. I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me, via phone at 303 696 1971, e-mail at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.
During the seven o’clock hour, we’ll have this month’s installment of John Andrews’ Freedom University series. This month’s topic: Bad teachers beware! Colorado now has a law that ties teacher tenure to student performance -- finally. Parents, employers, citizens, and taxpayers can applaud the tenure reform on one hand, and ask on the other hand why it wasn’t done long ago. Public education is the most expensive item in our state and local budgets, and we’re not getting our money’s worth. Maybe this new approach is a step toward real value in the classroom at long last. John Andrews will explore what it means tonight at 7:00 pm on 710 KNUS in Denver with "Tough Love for Teachers," the latest in our monthly series of one-hour specials called Freedom University. Please be listening.
Again, contact info for the show: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.
Billion reasons to distrust Colo. Dems
Four years ago, Colorado voters decided to trust Democrats with complete control of state government - the governor's mansion and large majorities in the legislature. As voters consider their choices for 2010, they might be surprised by how little governing Democrats have trusted voters in those four years.
Since 2007, Gov. Bill Ritter and the Democrat legislature have increased property taxes by more than $160 million a year, raised vehicle license "fees" by $250 million, instituted new hospital patient "fees" that will cost $600 million, and imposed some $180 million in new sales and use taxes.
All told, Ritter and the legislature have managed to increase the cost of taxes and fees by $1.19 billion and, miraculously, not once triggered Colorado's constitutional requirement that taxes can be raised only by a vote of the people.
In 2007, Democrats changed the school finance act to force most school districts to collect more property tax revenues, thereby reducing what the state spends on K-12 education. Previously, even many Democrats acknowledged that such a change must be presented to the voters.
This time, however, Democrats commandeered the political will to pass such a law and constructed a legal argument which, although rejected by a lower court, ultimately prevailed in the Colorado Supreme Court. As a result, Coloradans will pay an extra $160 million for property taxes this year alone - and more than $1 billion over six years.
Thus emboldened, the 2009 legislature smashed another of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights' (TABOR) prohibitions by eliminating the general fund spending limit without a public vote. Although Colorado Revised Statutes specifically referred to this provision as a "limitation" on the general fund, Democrats and their attorneys argued that it was instead an "allocation strategy" and, therefore, not subject to TABOR's prohibition against weakening spending limits without a public vote.
In its ruling on the 2007 property tax hike, the supreme court also signaled lawmakers that other taxes could be raised, under the guise of eliminating tax exemptions, so long as they didn't exceed TABOR revenue limit. To Democrats, suddenly everything that wasn't already taxed was merely "exempted" and a target to be taxed. So in the middle of a recession, they raised taxes on Colorado families and businesses by $180 million over two years.
However, the greatest deception is the onslaught of taxes masquerading as fees. Generally, taxes - which, according to the constitution, can't be raised without voter approval - are collected broadly and can be spent for any purpose. Fees, however, were generally understood to cover the cost of a regulatory function or of administration (e.g., licensing or registration) for which the fee is assessed.
Democrats made no pretense that the largest of their fee increases merely cover administrative expenses. Ritter suggested that the primary criterion necessary for a tax to be considered a fee is a "direct relationship" between the payer of the fee and a government activity funded by the fee.
Under this construction, it seems obvious that a new "fee" on gasoline could be imposed without a public vote so long as revenues are dedicated exclusively to highway construction or repair.
The most egregious fee - a $600 million tax on hospital services - is assessed on "outpatient and inpatient services" and ultimately paid by patients or their insurers, who receive no direct benefit in return. Ironically, Democrats dubbed this legislation, the "Health Care Affordability Act."
Together these two fees when fully implemented are projected to raise a combined $850 million a year. With fees of this magnitude, voters may never again be asked to approve a genuine tax.
Democrat candidate for governor John Hickenlooper recently said, "I think if you put issues before the public, they'll decide if it's a worthwhile investment."
That's not the way Democrats have governed for the past four years. So why should Colorado voters trust Democrats when Democrats clearly don't trust voters?