Printed on 6/28/10
Earlier this year three more of my bills and one resolution were passed. These bills dealt with telemedicine for Medicaid mental health services, ensuring that courts take into account the adjudication of a sexual predator in another state when determining child custody issues, providing employers information about the Federal E-verify system, and reaffirming the right of parents to teach their children at home without any teacher license requirement.
Despite the successes I had with many of my bills, the general trend this year was not a good direction. Many of the bills eroded the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of Colorado. When principles of good government were threatened, I argued against those measures.
SB 200 adds sexual orientation to the list of groups covered under civil rights legislation. An example given in the debate: a wedding photographer, to conduct business in Colorado, will not be able to decline to shoot a "wedding" on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple. This is just the latest example of identity politics forcing their agenda into public policy.
The legislature put the state in about a billion dollars of debt. SB 206 authorized loans of about $400,000,000 for a new building for the Colorado Supreme Court (replacing the building we built for them thirty years ago.) SB 233 then gave our state colleges and universities the authority to borrow another $400,000,000! These two bills will take over a billion dollars to repay. Neither of these measures will ask the people for a vote to authorize these loans, which the constitution clearly requires.
In the final meeting of the State Affairs committee I helped defeat HCR 1014. This was the ballot question that would have permanently ended TABOR refunds and put state government on an even bigger spending spree than they currently enjoy. Speaker Romanoff's HJR 1014 would have mandated that all TABOR refunds for the tax payers be put in the State Education Fund. This scheme allows the General Assembly to replace money that they are constitutionally obligated to give to K-12 education with money taken from all future TABOR refund checks. HJR 1014 was nothing more than Referendum C on steroids, a permanent tax increase disguised by words about education revealing nothing more than a legislature incapable of controlling it's impulse to spend the people's money.
But wait, there's more... Speaker Romanoff is now trying to put this on the ballot through an initiative petition. Stay tuned, it may be back.
This legislature spent too much, saved very little and grew government as fast and as big as they possibly could. They authorized over 1300 new state employees with a record budget of over $19 billion. Many fees were put on automatic pilot, with individual departments given the authority to raise them whenever they want.
New regulations were created for private colleges, massage therapists, compost (I am not making this stuff up), prohibiting motorized vehicles on most back country roads and too many other regulations to list here.
At least we finally ended the session early - a full day before the deadline. Finally this legislative session will not be able to create any more taxes, fees, or regulations for Colorado's citizens and businesses. Nor will it be setting any more policies that assume the whole "global warming" debate is a settled issue and consequently demands we shut off our energy development, drive up energy costs even higher and eventually cripple our economy in deference to this yet to be proven theory.
There will also not be any more measures that redefine the family or replace the family with more government programs or strip away any more of the few remaining public policies that still support the notion of a free society.
When our unalienable rights of life and liberty are honored individual citizens are understood to be responsible for themselves, parents take the primary authority to raise their own children as they see best and businesses are able to thrive in a competitive, free market. In 2008 the Colorado General Assembly did not give much credence to these ideals, but I assure you, if the voters of House District 49 continue to give me the honor and responsibility, I will continue to work for these principles of good government in our state legislature.
Back to Top
On Monday, April 28, Senate Bill 186 was debated and voted on by the Colorado House. The bill creates a specialty license plate honoring the "Carbon Fund" that is being promoted by the Governor's Energy Office. Here are the comments I gave during that debate. (I have edited this written version to make it read more clearly.)
Renewable energy cannot and will not provide all of our energy needs, but I am convinced that it will fill growing part of our energy future. The public policy we are shaping today should recognize that fact and encourage the proper development of renewable energy technologies and resources.
This bill that establishes a "Carbon Fund" license plate, however, has some fatal flaws and I urge its rejection.
First, this is a significant change in the use of specialty license plates. Specialty plates have not been controversial political statements. We have, up to this point, only authorized non-controversial subjects on license plates. With SB 186 license plates become political bumper stickers.
I do not entirely oppose making political statements on license plates, but we must understand that with SB 186 we are now headed down the road of endorsing, in essence, political bumper stickers. I do not agree with this particular bumper sticker, but I can think of several I might like to see on Colorado license plates.
Specialty license plates could be called the ultimate sound byte. A small logo and maybe a brief phrase is all that can be put on a plate, but the plate receives considerable exposure and being an official Colorado license plate it carries an implicit endorsement by the state.
So, what are we endorsing with SB 186?
It promotes the governor's Carbon Fund. The problem is, this assumes that we need and endorse a "Carbon Fund" on the presumption that carbon is the big problem which must be conquered.
I question this wisdom.
For carbon to be the problem we must assume that:
1. Global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It also assumes that this warming trend is not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.
2. This global warming is due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises less than four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "green house" gasses that is carbon dioxide.
3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.
4. We are capable of stopping global warming by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?
The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output will severely compromise worldwide economic prosperity. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations will find their very lives in jeopardy. Basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing will inevitably be less than what they could be without the strangle-hold of "carbon-lite" regulations.
As I stated earlier, I am all for developing renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in reaction to unproven theories.
A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy this political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts are clearly understood.
Back to Top
I applaud Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden for having the courage to express his opinions on the Sheriff's official website.
It is good that Sheriff Alderden is willing to publicly stand for what he believes to be true. This is not only his First Amendment right, it is essential that the people of Larimer County have a clear picture of the values and priorities of their elected sheriff.
It is also entirely appropriate for him to post his opinion on his official, county-provided website. The website is there to provide information for the people. What information is more appropriate than a straightforward presentation of our elected sheriff's views and values?
Unfortunately, some have suggested that it is somehow not right for elected officials to be allowed to post their opinions on government sponsored websites. Posting information, clearly presented as personal opinion, is not a violation of public trust, nor does it drive up the cost of the website. If there is any cost that can be attributed to the taxpayer it is more than made up for through the benefit of greater transparency with our elected officials.
I suspect the concern might not so much be that he gave his opinion, but that it was in the eyes of some a politically-incorrect opinion when he called into question the county commission's decision to give medical benefits to domestic partners of county employees. Many of us are troubled by this far-reaching decision. Kudos to Jim for taking on this and other hot topics.
I again commend Sheriff Alderden for publicly giving us his opinions and concerns on the official Larimer County website. We need more of this refreshing candor and less fear and concern that our opinions are not appropriate for public distribution.
Back to Top
Transportation is, in my opinion, a high priority for state government. It is also apparent to all who use our roads, bridges and highways that we should do better.
The question is how. Do we increase taxes or increase the priority for transportation spending?
The governor is talking about a $100 car tax. He is calling it a fee, so the people won't be allowed to vote on it, but regardless of what he calls it, it will be a heavy tax on many families who cannot afford it.
There is a better way. Control our spending, find more cost effective ways to conduct the rest of state government and direct more of our $18 billion dollar budget to transportation.
That is why I ran bills this year to find efficiencies in Medicaid and education funding. Unfortunately this year's legislature rejected both bills. Later this session I will be joining Senator McElhany and Representative May in sponsoring a bill that increases the transportation funding priority for sales tax revenues related to auto product sales.
If the legislature would get serious about controlling spending and give transportation a higher priority we could fix our roads and bridges.
In any event I will not support a car tax. It would not fix the problem, it would feed the spending problem we have yet to come to terms with.
Back to Top
The educational tax credit bill I am carried this year (HB 1081) was heard in the Finance committee on Wednesday afternoon, January 30. It would have created a $1000 property tax credit for families whose children move from a public to a privately funded education system, created a tax credit for contributions to educational scholarship organizations and set up a fund that would eventually provide property tax credits for families whose children are already in a privately funded educational system.
The fund for property tax credits for contributions to educational scholarship organizations and the fund for property tax credits for students already in privately funded educational systems (private schools and home based educational programs) would get $500 each for every public school student who claims the $1000 credit for moving to a non-publicly funded system.
It is designed to be a cash positive program for the state because the General Fund would only be liable for $2000 per year for each student who moves from a public to private system, saving state and local government several thousand dollars each year for each student. Since the average per pupil cost for public school is over $6000 per year and capitol expenses are several thousand dollars on top of that, the actual cost per pupil for our public school system is closer to $10,000 each year. HB 1081 reduces that liability for government funding to $2000 for each student who moves from a public to a private system.
HB 1081 would have been a public policy that affirmed the positive role privately funded educational systems play in educating students in Colorado.
HB 1081 would also have stretched our public education dollars further, promoted private educational systems and empowered parents to direct the education of their children.
The House Finance committee killed the bill with no Democrats supporting the measure.
Back to Top
The 2008 election will be a significant decision for our nation and our state. Its outcome will shape our future in many ways. We cannot afford to get it wrong.
Here in Colorado the challenge is not only for the candidates who will be chosen but this year our election systems are also under scrutiny.
Due to Congresss Help American Vote Act (HAVA), new voting equipment and registration software HAVA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forced on our state and counties and a resulting lawsuit, the legislature must take action to insure a fair and accurate election in 2008.
In previous elections we have had several choices in how to vote and it has been a reasonably secure system of voting. Mail absetee ballots, early voting and election day voting gave the people of Colorado opportunities to vote in the manner they chose and had the most confidence in.
This current dilema, driven by Federal mandates and the court order that we are now facing is causing some to call for a scraping of our system of general election voting and simply mailing out ballots to everyone weeks before the election.
I share the deep concern of many others that this simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution is an even bigger problem. Shipping out all of the ballots to the last known address of all active registered voters will cast a huge cloud of uncertainty to many citizens of Colorado.
Confidence in the voting process is essential. A sweeping change to an all mail ballot election will strain that confidence too much. We should not play such a risky game.
As the legislature wrestles with the many facets of this situation I will do all I can to preserve a trustworthy voting system that includes the full range of voting options for the 2008 election.
The decisons we will make next November are too important to be compromised by inadequate voting systems in Colorado.
We must get it right.
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
2008 Session
Home / The Issues / Archives
- 2008 Session
- "Carbon Fund" license plates
- Free Speech for the Sheriff
- Car Tax
- Educational Tax Credits
- 2008 Election
2008 Session
In the final days of this year's legislative session several of my bills and resolutions were passed. They included a resolution sent to Congress concerning healthy forests (HJR 1033), a bill setting up a fund for the State Forest Service to fight the bark beetle infestation (HB 1318) and SB 246, opening the way for better discounts for prescription drugs in Colorado. SB 246 completes the work I started last year on modifying the Unfair Trade Practices Act to allow discounting of gas, prescription drugs and other "loss leader" sales.Earlier this year three more of my bills and one resolution were passed. These bills dealt with telemedicine for Medicaid mental health services, ensuring that courts take into account the adjudication of a sexual predator in another state when determining child custody issues, providing employers information about the Federal E-verify system, and reaffirming the right of parents to teach their children at home without any teacher license requirement.
Despite the successes I had with many of my bills, the general trend this year was not a good direction. Many of the bills eroded the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of Colorado. When principles of good government were threatened, I argued against those measures.
SB 200 adds sexual orientation to the list of groups covered under civil rights legislation. An example given in the debate: a wedding photographer, to conduct business in Colorado, will not be able to decline to shoot a "wedding" on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple. This is just the latest example of identity politics forcing their agenda into public policy.
The legislature put the state in about a billion dollars of debt. SB 206 authorized loans of about $400,000,000 for a new building for the Colorado Supreme Court (replacing the building we built for them thirty years ago.) SB 233 then gave our state colleges and universities the authority to borrow another $400,000,000! These two bills will take over a billion dollars to repay. Neither of these measures will ask the people for a vote to authorize these loans, which the constitution clearly requires.
In the final meeting of the State Affairs committee I helped defeat HCR 1014. This was the ballot question that would have permanently ended TABOR refunds and put state government on an even bigger spending spree than they currently enjoy. Speaker Romanoff's HJR 1014 would have mandated that all TABOR refunds for the tax payers be put in the State Education Fund. This scheme allows the General Assembly to replace money that they are constitutionally obligated to give to K-12 education with money taken from all future TABOR refund checks. HJR 1014 was nothing more than Referendum C on steroids, a permanent tax increase disguised by words about education revealing nothing more than a legislature incapable of controlling it's impulse to spend the people's money.
But wait, there's more... Speaker Romanoff is now trying to put this on the ballot through an initiative petition. Stay tuned, it may be back.
This legislature spent too much, saved very little and grew government as fast and as big as they possibly could. They authorized over 1300 new state employees with a record budget of over $19 billion. Many fees were put on automatic pilot, with individual departments given the authority to raise them whenever they want.
New regulations were created for private colleges, massage therapists, compost (I am not making this stuff up), prohibiting motorized vehicles on most back country roads and too many other regulations to list here.
At least we finally ended the session early - a full day before the deadline. Finally this legislative session will not be able to create any more taxes, fees, or regulations for Colorado's citizens and businesses. Nor will it be setting any more policies that assume the whole "global warming" debate is a settled issue and consequently demands we shut off our energy development, drive up energy costs even higher and eventually cripple our economy in deference to this yet to be proven theory.
There will also not be any more measures that redefine the family or replace the family with more government programs or strip away any more of the few remaining public policies that still support the notion of a free society.
When our unalienable rights of life and liberty are honored individual citizens are understood to be responsible for themselves, parents take the primary authority to raise their own children as they see best and businesses are able to thrive in a competitive, free market. In 2008 the Colorado General Assembly did not give much credence to these ideals, but I assure you, if the voters of House District 49 continue to give me the honor and responsibility, I will continue to work for these principles of good government in our state legislature.
Back to Top
"Carbon Fund" license plates
4/28/08On Monday, April 28, Senate Bill 186 was debated and voted on by the Colorado House. The bill creates a specialty license plate honoring the "Carbon Fund" that is being promoted by the Governor's Energy Office. Here are the comments I gave during that debate. (I have edited this written version to make it read more clearly.)
Renewable energy cannot and will not provide all of our energy needs, but I am convinced that it will fill growing part of our energy future. The public policy we are shaping today should recognize that fact and encourage the proper development of renewable energy technologies and resources.
This bill that establishes a "Carbon Fund" license plate, however, has some fatal flaws and I urge its rejection.
First, this is a significant change in the use of specialty license plates. Specialty plates have not been controversial political statements. We have, up to this point, only authorized non-controversial subjects on license plates. With SB 186 license plates become political bumper stickers.
I do not entirely oppose making political statements on license plates, but we must understand that with SB 186 we are now headed down the road of endorsing, in essence, political bumper stickers. I do not agree with this particular bumper sticker, but I can think of several I might like to see on Colorado license plates.
Specialty license plates could be called the ultimate sound byte. A small logo and maybe a brief phrase is all that can be put on a plate, but the plate receives considerable exposure and being an official Colorado license plate it carries an implicit endorsement by the state.
So, what are we endorsing with SB 186?
It promotes the governor's Carbon Fund. The problem is, this assumes that we need and endorse a "Carbon Fund" on the presumption that carbon is the big problem which must be conquered.
I question this wisdom.
For carbon to be the problem we must assume that:
1. Global warming is an established fact. This means that the earth is now on a certain path of unprecedented, cataclysmic proportions that will make life on this planet nearly impossible. It also assumes that this warming trend is not one of the cycles of warming and cooling which we have observed on our planet for thousands of years.
2. This global warming is due to the effect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide comprises less than four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere. Rather than water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which is from eight to over twenty-five times more abundant than carbon dioxide, the real problem is the tiny fraction of "green house" gasses that is carbon dioxide.
3. The carbon dioxide is anthropogenic: caused by human effort. This carbon dioxide which is proposed to be the problem that must be cured at all costs must have come from man-made sources. If we find that natural sources of carbon dioxide overwhelm the man-made sources, our limiting of anthropogenic carbon dioxide becomes meaningless.
4. We are capable of stopping global warming by restricting anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. What will really happen if we do manage to cut carbon dioxide emissions to a mere fraction of current outputs? Will it reverse any trends that may exist? Or will our best efforts prove futile?
The only thing we can really count on is that this rush to limit carbon dioxide output will severely compromise worldwide economic prosperity. Some who currently live at a subsistence level in developing nations will find their very lives in jeopardy. Basic necessities of food, refrigeration, simple medical care, transportation and housing will inevitably be less than what they could be without the strangle-hold of "carbon-lite" regulations.
As I stated earlier, I am all for developing renewable energy technologies and resources, but not on the backs of the poor and not in reaction to unproven theories.
A compassionate public policy cannot sacrifice the needs of the most needy to satisfy this political agenda. A prudent public policy does not rush to risky solutions before the facts are clearly understood.
Back to Top
Free Speech for the Sheriff
4/21/08I applaud Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden for having the courage to express his opinions on the Sheriff's official website.
It is good that Sheriff Alderden is willing to publicly stand for what he believes to be true. This is not only his First Amendment right, it is essential that the people of Larimer County have a clear picture of the values and priorities of their elected sheriff.
It is also entirely appropriate for him to post his opinion on his official, county-provided website. The website is there to provide information for the people. What information is more appropriate than a straightforward presentation of our elected sheriff's views and values?
Unfortunately, some have suggested that it is somehow not right for elected officials to be allowed to post their opinions on government sponsored websites. Posting information, clearly presented as personal opinion, is not a violation of public trust, nor does it drive up the cost of the website. If there is any cost that can be attributed to the taxpayer it is more than made up for through the benefit of greater transparency with our elected officials.
I suspect the concern might not so much be that he gave his opinion, but that it was in the eyes of some a politically-incorrect opinion when he called into question the county commission's decision to give medical benefits to domestic partners of county employees. Many of us are troubled by this far-reaching decision. Kudos to Jim for taking on this and other hot topics.
I again commend Sheriff Alderden for publicly giving us his opinions and concerns on the official Larimer County website. We need more of this refreshing candor and less fear and concern that our opinions are not appropriate for public distribution.
Back to Top
Car Tax
2/16/08Transportation is, in my opinion, a high priority for state government. It is also apparent to all who use our roads, bridges and highways that we should do better.
The question is how. Do we increase taxes or increase the priority for transportation spending?
The governor is talking about a $100 car tax. He is calling it a fee, so the people won't be allowed to vote on it, but regardless of what he calls it, it will be a heavy tax on many families who cannot afford it.
There is a better way. Control our spending, find more cost effective ways to conduct the rest of state government and direct more of our $18 billion dollar budget to transportation.
That is why I ran bills this year to find efficiencies in Medicaid and education funding. Unfortunately this year's legislature rejected both bills. Later this session I will be joining Senator McElhany and Representative May in sponsoring a bill that increases the transportation funding priority for sales tax revenues related to auto product sales.
If the legislature would get serious about controlling spending and give transportation a higher priority we could fix our roads and bridges.
In any event I will not support a car tax. It would not fix the problem, it would feed the spending problem we have yet to come to terms with.
Back to Top
Educational Tax Credits
1/30/08The educational tax credit bill I am carried this year (HB 1081) was heard in the Finance committee on Wednesday afternoon, January 30. It would have created a $1000 property tax credit for families whose children move from a public to a privately funded education system, created a tax credit for contributions to educational scholarship organizations and set up a fund that would eventually provide property tax credits for families whose children are already in a privately funded educational system.
The fund for property tax credits for contributions to educational scholarship organizations and the fund for property tax credits for students already in privately funded educational systems (private schools and home based educational programs) would get $500 each for every public school student who claims the $1000 credit for moving to a non-publicly funded system.
It is designed to be a cash positive program for the state because the General Fund would only be liable for $2000 per year for each student who moves from a public to private system, saving state and local government several thousand dollars each year for each student. Since the average per pupil cost for public school is over $6000 per year and capitol expenses are several thousand dollars on top of that, the actual cost per pupil for our public school system is closer to $10,000 each year. HB 1081 reduces that liability for government funding to $2000 for each student who moves from a public to a private system.
HB 1081 would have been a public policy that affirmed the positive role privately funded educational systems play in educating students in Colorado.
HB 1081 would also have stretched our public education dollars further, promoted private educational systems and empowered parents to direct the education of their children.
The House Finance committee killed the bill with no Democrats supporting the measure.
Back to Top
2008 Election
1/15/08The 2008 election will be a significant decision for our nation and our state. Its outcome will shape our future in many ways. We cannot afford to get it wrong.
Here in Colorado the challenge is not only for the candidates who will be chosen but this year our election systems are also under scrutiny.
Due to Congresss Help American Vote Act (HAVA), new voting equipment and registration software HAVA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forced on our state and counties and a resulting lawsuit, the legislature must take action to insure a fair and accurate election in 2008.
In previous elections we have had several choices in how to vote and it has been a reasonably secure system of voting. Mail absetee ballots, early voting and election day voting gave the people of Colorado opportunities to vote in the manner they chose and had the most confidence in.
This current dilema, driven by Federal mandates and the court order that we are now facing is causing some to call for a scraping of our system of general election voting and simply mailing out ballots to everyone weeks before the election.
I share the deep concern of many others that this simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution is an even bigger problem. Shipping out all of the ballots to the last known address of all active registered voters will cast a huge cloud of uncertainty to many citizens of Colorado.
Confidence in the voting process is essential. A sweeping change to an all mail ballot election will strain that confidence too much. We should not play such a risky game.
As the legislature wrestles with the many facets of this situation I will do all I can to preserve a trustworthy voting system that includes the full range of voting options for the 2008 election.
The decisons we will make next November are too important to be compromised by inadequate voting systems in Colorado.
We must get it right.
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
