It seems that the ACLU is really interested in my flippant comments about an ACLUSUX license plate. If you remember I wrote about it at this spot a couple weeks ago.
One of their representatives even wrote me an email to tell me they would defend my right to have such a license plate.
How magnanimous of them.
The Post has picked up the story for further development; probably because the ACLU rep contacted them with notice of their sincere desire to defend my freedom of license plate speech. From the story: "Censorship is censorship, and the ACLU doesn't draw any distinction between speech with which we agree and speech we may not like," spokeswoman Cathryn L. Hazouri said.
I just have to wonder though, if I could fit the 10 Commandments onto a license plate, would the ACLU defend my right to park my car at the state capitol with that plate on it? I suspect the answer is no, as they seem mostly to be interested in defending politically correct or obscene “speech”.
They really should rename themselves the PCACLU.
Showing posts with label Colorado Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado Senate. Show all posts
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
We end the year
The final votes of the year in the Colorado Senate were on increasing capital gains taxes, abolishing the death penalty, and banning cell phone usage in cars.
Hope this changes soon.
Hope this changes soon.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Ref C pickle
In baseball, when a runner is caught between two bases he is said to be in a pickle. He can’t decide what base to run to, and he’s usually caught and tagged out.
The Democrats at the State Capitol are in a bit of a pickle themselves now on the budget.
They really want to raise taxes and fees this year, both to shore up baseline program spending and implement new programs, but they know that if they raise too much revenue, they will trigger a lower TABOR revenue cap in the near future.
The TABOR revenue cap sets the amount of money that the state can keep and spend each year.
When Ref C passed in 2005, one of its provisions eliminated the annual resetting of the TABOR revenue cap. During the Ref C timeout period, a new cap was going to be set at the highest level achieved in that period and then future caps would always grow from that newly established high point. Never declining, or ratcheting down, but always growing at inflation plus growth from the highest point reached during the timeout.
That new high point was achieved in 2007-2008 at $10 billion. This year, 2009-2010, the total projected revenue is estimated to come in at $9.65 billion.
If the Democrats raise too many more fees or taxes this year, and the economy recovers a bit by the start of calendar year 2010, the total revenue collected for this year could exceed that $10 billion from 07-08.
If that happens a new revenue cap will be established and the growth will come from the new cap giving up two years of inflation and population growth from the 07-08 cap.
Confusing? Yes, it is, but here’s what it means in dollars. If the new cap is established this year at the old level plus one dollar, in 2010-2011 the revenue cap (which represents how much the state can keep and spend) will be $10.254 billion. If, instead, the old cap is used, the 2010-2011 revenue cap will be $11.313 billion. So if they increase taxes too much this year, they lose the opportunity to spend an extra $1.1 billion next year!
Now that’s a pickle.
The Democrats at the State Capitol are in a bit of a pickle themselves now on the budget.
They really want to raise taxes and fees this year, both to shore up baseline program spending and implement new programs, but they know that if they raise too much revenue, they will trigger a lower TABOR revenue cap in the near future.
The TABOR revenue cap sets the amount of money that the state can keep and spend each year.
When Ref C passed in 2005, one of its provisions eliminated the annual resetting of the TABOR revenue cap. During the Ref C timeout period, a new cap was going to be set at the highest level achieved in that period and then future caps would always grow from that newly established high point. Never declining, or ratcheting down, but always growing at inflation plus growth from the highest point reached during the timeout.
That new high point was achieved in 2007-2008 at $10 billion. This year, 2009-2010, the total projected revenue is estimated to come in at $9.65 billion.
If the Democrats raise too many more fees or taxes this year, and the economy recovers a bit by the start of calendar year 2010, the total revenue collected for this year could exceed that $10 billion from 07-08.
If that happens a new revenue cap will be established and the growth will come from the new cap giving up two years of inflation and population growth from the 07-08 cap.
Confusing? Yes, it is, but here’s what it means in dollars. If the new cap is established this year at the old level plus one dollar, in 2010-2011 the revenue cap (which represents how much the state can keep and spend) will be $10.254 billion. If, instead, the old cap is used, the 2010-2011 revenue cap will be $11.313 billion. So if they increase taxes too much this year, they lose the opportunity to spend an extra $1.1 billion next year!
Now that’s a pickle.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
cell phone ban
It’s all about liberty and logical thinking.
HB09-1094 would make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving unless you use a hands-free device. It also bans texting while driving and, I suppose, sending emails from your crackberry.
Set aside the texting part – yes, I do it, but only on the mostly deserted highways in Eastern Colorado and sometimes while riding my bike.
The banning of cell phone usage is an affront in three ways.
It’s folly to pass a bill that will be summarily ignored by a vast majority of the citizens of the state. Come on, be honest, you will still talk on your phone. And 99% of the time, or more, you will do it responsibly. Liberty cannot be surrendered without careful consideration. Society must benefit greatly from the surrender of liberty and in this case society doesn’t, so it is just an unwanted and unnecessary infringement.
As drafted, it actually makes us less safe. If you agree with the studies that say distracted driving is dangerous, and that using cell phones in particular is bad, you have to also admit that the conversation is the distraction. That’s what those studies show, that the conversation is the distraction. The conversation will be LONGER if you are speaking with a hands-free device than it will be if you are forced to hold the handset to your ear for the whole time. Think about it. For me, having my Bluetooth on makes speaking easy; I will hardly talk on the phone without it, but with it, I can go on for a long time. The longer the conversation means the distraction of the conversation will be longer too, increasing what risk there is.
It’s unnecessary. There are already plenty of laws that can be invoked to address careless or reckless driving (before someone gets hurt) and to affix blame after the accident. Singling out one type of distraction, cell phones, over all the others, food, kids, scenery, etc. is just a bad idea.
The question is, will the Senate pass the bill on emotion (someone died) or defeat the bill on logic?
HB09-1094 would make it illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving unless you use a hands-free device. It also bans texting while driving and, I suppose, sending emails from your crackberry.
Set aside the texting part – yes, I do it, but only on the mostly deserted highways in Eastern Colorado and sometimes while riding my bike.
The banning of cell phone usage is an affront in three ways.
It’s folly to pass a bill that will be summarily ignored by a vast majority of the citizens of the state. Come on, be honest, you will still talk on your phone. And 99% of the time, or more, you will do it responsibly. Liberty cannot be surrendered without careful consideration. Society must benefit greatly from the surrender of liberty and in this case society doesn’t, so it is just an unwanted and unnecessary infringement.
As drafted, it actually makes us less safe. If you agree with the studies that say distracted driving is dangerous, and that using cell phones in particular is bad, you have to also admit that the conversation is the distraction. That’s what those studies show, that the conversation is the distraction. The conversation will be LONGER if you are speaking with a hands-free device than it will be if you are forced to hold the handset to your ear for the whole time. Think about it. For me, having my Bluetooth on makes speaking easy; I will hardly talk on the phone without it, but with it, I can go on for a long time. The longer the conversation means the distraction of the conversation will be longer too, increasing what risk there is.
It’s unnecessary. There are already plenty of laws that can be invoked to address careless or reckless driving (before someone gets hurt) and to affix blame after the accident. Singling out one type of distraction, cell phones, over all the others, food, kids, scenery, etc. is just a bad idea.
The question is, will the Senate pass the bill on emotion (someone died) or defeat the bill on logic?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Freight Law Improvement
Finally.
After almost seven years in the legislature, I’m about to pass a bill that implements about half of what I tried to do in 2003.
It’s related to trucking and really benefits farmers and ranchers.
Back in ’03 when I was a freshman in the House, I introduced a bill that sought to modernize freight rules in Colorado, allowing multiple axle combinations and harvest permits for agriculture. I had cut corn in Nebraska and knew that their freight laws were better than ours.
It seemed like a great idea to me, but the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) hated it.
The reason why they didn’t like the idea boils down to, in my opinion: they don’t like to be told what to do. No, really, that’s it. And if you think they are bad, you should take on the Division of Wildlife – now those guys are serious about their bureaucracy.
HB09-1318 by Sonnenberg, Brophy and Shaffer will allow people to haul divisible loads, like corn, wheat or cattle, that weigh more than what is currently legal if they get a permit and stay off of certain bridges. It also allows triple axle trailers to be used for these same “harvest” permits.
The bill makes it cheaper to haul products in Colorado. On a farm, ranch or feedlot, that could mean the difference between profitability and losses.
Score one for the good guys.
After almost seven years in the legislature, I’m about to pass a bill that implements about half of what I tried to do in 2003.
It’s related to trucking and really benefits farmers and ranchers.
Back in ’03 when I was a freshman in the House, I introduced a bill that sought to modernize freight rules in Colorado, allowing multiple axle combinations and harvest permits for agriculture. I had cut corn in Nebraska and knew that their freight laws were better than ours.
It seemed like a great idea to me, but the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) hated it.
The reason why they didn’t like the idea boils down to, in my opinion: they don’t like to be told what to do. No, really, that’s it. And if you think they are bad, you should take on the Division of Wildlife – now those guys are serious about their bureaucracy.
HB09-1318 by Sonnenberg, Brophy and Shaffer will allow people to haul divisible loads, like corn, wheat or cattle, that weigh more than what is currently legal if they get a permit and stay off of certain bridges. It also allows triple axle trailers to be used for these same “harvest” permits.
The bill makes it cheaper to haul products in Colorado. On a farm, ranch or feedlot, that could mean the difference between profitability and losses.
Score one for the good guys.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Budget Update April 26th, 2009
For the first time since I have been at the Capitol, the General Assembly passed a budget that wasn’t balanced.
It is a work of fiction or prayer and since the folks in charge don’t seem to be the prayerful type if you know what I mean, it must be fiction.
The Pinnacol seizure fell through. There aren’t many significant cuts to anything except higher education, and the budget is still a couple hundred million dollars out of balance.
The plan is to pass a whole passel of bill that raise taxes, institute some transfer gimmicks and use some of the stimulus money to fill in the $200 million gap.
The tax increases, besides the senior homestead property tax exemption, are elimination of sales tax exemptions that are in place for cigarettes and vending machine sales.
The cigarette tax is expected to yield $30 million and the vending machine tax $8.7 million.
I doubt that the cigarette tax increase will result in the full $30 million being collected because the Feds also raised cigarette taxes and they have reached level where people will either cut back or buy on the “gray” market – cigarettes from places with low or no taxes. People make rational choices like that all the time.
The vending machine tax will likely be eaten by the folks who have those machines as it is hard to increase a vending machine coke by three cents, or maybe they will raise the price by a quarter and see if the market will bear it.
No matter what, this saga is far from finished as the fiscal year is just starting. I expect further bad news and our reserves are too low to withstand another $200 million reduction in state revenue.
Can you say special session?
It is a work of fiction or prayer and since the folks in charge don’t seem to be the prayerful type if you know what I mean, it must be fiction.
The Pinnacol seizure fell through. There aren’t many significant cuts to anything except higher education, and the budget is still a couple hundred million dollars out of balance.
The plan is to pass a whole passel of bill that raise taxes, institute some transfer gimmicks and use some of the stimulus money to fill in the $200 million gap.
The tax increases, besides the senior homestead property tax exemption, are elimination of sales tax exemptions that are in place for cigarettes and vending machine sales.
The cigarette tax is expected to yield $30 million and the vending machine tax $8.7 million.
I doubt that the cigarette tax increase will result in the full $30 million being collected because the Feds also raised cigarette taxes and they have reached level where people will either cut back or buy on the “gray” market – cigarettes from places with low or no taxes. People make rational choices like that all the time.
The vending machine tax will likely be eaten by the folks who have those machines as it is hard to increase a vending machine coke by three cents, or maybe they will raise the price by a quarter and see if the market will bear it.
No matter what, this saga is far from finished as the fiscal year is just starting. I expect further bad news and our reserves are too low to withstand another $200 million reduction in state revenue.
Can you say special session?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Second Amendment advance
A small step forward for the Second Amendment.
HB09-1180, if passed, will simply allow a person who has a conceal carry weapons permit (CCW) to skip the, so-called, instant background check when he or she decides to buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer.
Think of it as getting pre-approval.
The rigorous background check that a CCW permit applicant goes through by far exceeds what happens with the current “instant” check. You submit your fingerprints and wait for six to twelve weeks while your background is thoroughly explored.
As a side bar, the whole process is offensive to me. When has limiting the constitutionally protected right of a law abiding citizen ever kept a criminal from doing something evil? Can you imagine the howling if any other God-given and constitutionally protected right was so limited by government? Try making a newspaper editor, reporter or publisher pass a background check before distribution. That would go over really well.
I always put “instant” in quotes because the current system used in Colorado for background checks is anything but instant. In some cases the wait for approval has exceeded 24 hours! In a lot of cases, the wait extends to four hours or more. That is completely unacceptable and this bill will help significantly in reducing those waits by allowing some people to get approved in advance.
I also think it will encourage more people to apply for a CCW permit. And I think that will make criminals think more than twice about some of their activities in Colorado.
All in all, it’s good for law-abiding citizens and good for our state.
HB09-1180, if passed, will simply allow a person who has a conceal carry weapons permit (CCW) to skip the, so-called, instant background check when he or she decides to buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer.
Think of it as getting pre-approval.
The rigorous background check that a CCW permit applicant goes through by far exceeds what happens with the current “instant” check. You submit your fingerprints and wait for six to twelve weeks while your background is thoroughly explored.
As a side bar, the whole process is offensive to me. When has limiting the constitutionally protected right of a law abiding citizen ever kept a criminal from doing something evil? Can you imagine the howling if any other God-given and constitutionally protected right was so limited by government? Try making a newspaper editor, reporter or publisher pass a background check before distribution. That would go over really well.
I always put “instant” in quotes because the current system used in Colorado for background checks is anything but instant. In some cases the wait for approval has exceeded 24 hours! In a lot of cases, the wait extends to four hours or more. That is completely unacceptable and this bill will help significantly in reducing those waits by allowing some people to get approved in advance.
I also think it will encourage more people to apply for a CCW permit. And I think that will make criminals think more than twice about some of their activities in Colorado.
All in all, it’s good for law-abiding citizens and good for our state.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
DPSRS-PERA merger
There is a bill going through the legislature this year that will force the Denver Public School Retirement System (DPSRS) to merge with Colorado’s Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA).
In the past, the legislation that has been passed just encouraged the two groups to merge. The last such legislation passed in 2008, but the two entities couldn’t come to an agreement on a merger, so this year the legislation just directs them to merge and designs the merger.
I guess the Colorado General Assembly knows best.
The hearing for the bill came through Finance Committee, lasted three hours, and had no testimony against the bill.
As a side bar, it is not at all uncommon for bills in finance to only have testimony in favor. A study a few years ago found that 95% of those testifying in Finance supported the bills. I think that’s a classic example of concentrated vs diffused interests. The concentrated interests always show up, after all, that’s how they get paid.
The fix is in on the bill and it is going to pass, but I voted against it.
I am positive that before ten more years go by, the taxpayers of the State of Colorado are going to have to pick up the tab for the unfunded liability that DPSRS has. It may not even be that long. The liability that the state already has for PERA is bad enough; adding to it is folly.
The other significant attraction for DPSRS is the ability to shift the blame for any future benefit cuts to those dirty rascals at the Capitol. It became apparent during the testimony that this is a significant benefit being sought by the folks from DPS. They know that benefits will have to be cut; they want to be able to blame someone else for it. “There are strength in numbers,” one witness said during testimony. I guess so.
At some point the Piper is going to have to be paid for these defined benefit retirement plans. Guess who gets to pay the Piper?
For the record, I signed up under the defined contribution plan that the State offers.
In the past, the legislation that has been passed just encouraged the two groups to merge. The last such legislation passed in 2008, but the two entities couldn’t come to an agreement on a merger, so this year the legislation just directs them to merge and designs the merger.
I guess the Colorado General Assembly knows best.
The hearing for the bill came through Finance Committee, lasted three hours, and had no testimony against the bill.
As a side bar, it is not at all uncommon for bills in finance to only have testimony in favor. A study a few years ago found that 95% of those testifying in Finance supported the bills. I think that’s a classic example of concentrated vs diffused interests. The concentrated interests always show up, after all, that’s how they get paid.
The fix is in on the bill and it is going to pass, but I voted against it.
I am positive that before ten more years go by, the taxpayers of the State of Colorado are going to have to pick up the tab for the unfunded liability that DPSRS has. It may not even be that long. The liability that the state already has for PERA is bad enough; adding to it is folly.
The other significant attraction for DPSRS is the ability to shift the blame for any future benefit cuts to those dirty rascals at the Capitol. It became apparent during the testimony that this is a significant benefit being sought by the folks from DPS. They know that benefits will have to be cut; they want to be able to blame someone else for it. “There are strength in numbers,” one witness said during testimony. I guess so.
At some point the Piper is going to have to be paid for these defined benefit retirement plans. Guess who gets to pay the Piper?
For the record, I signed up under the defined contribution plan that the State offers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Budget - my prediction
Now that the budget has passed the Senate, I’m going to make a prediction for how this will come to a conclusion.
I don’t think that the Democrats are going to be willing to use their Supreme Court “hall pass” to thwart the Constitution again so soon. It’s a pretty big risk and four of the seven justices are up for retention vote in 2010; even they have to be aware of that fact.
The Pinnacol raid will turn into a loan. It’s really the only way to ensure that the Democrats can actually get their hands on the cash for sure this year. The Democrats will pay back the loan through increased taxes – the Supreme Court gave them the green light in the mil levy freeze case to take away any tax credit on the books.
So let’s take a look at where they can go to get the money:
food bought at the grocery stores
cigarette sales
agriculture equipment sales
Internet access
newspapers
livestock sales
The list goes on and on. In total, there are 81 different tax exemptions or credits that the majority party can go after totaling almost $2 billion.
That’s my prediction; we’ll see soon enough if I am right.
I don’t think that the Democrats are going to be willing to use their Supreme Court “hall pass” to thwart the Constitution again so soon. It’s a pretty big risk and four of the seven justices are up for retention vote in 2010; even they have to be aware of that fact.
The Pinnacol raid will turn into a loan. It’s really the only way to ensure that the Democrats can actually get their hands on the cash for sure this year. The Democrats will pay back the loan through increased taxes – the Supreme Court gave them the green light in the mil levy freeze case to take away any tax credit on the books.
So let’s take a look at where they can go to get the money:
food bought at the grocery stores
cigarette sales
agriculture equipment sales
Internet access
newspapers
livestock sales
The list goes on and on. In total, there are 81 different tax exemptions or credits that the majority party can go after totaling almost $2 billion.
That’s my prediction; we’ll see soon enough if I am right.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Technology Gap
We had a bit of a tussle over the use of computers on the floor of the Colorado Senate yesterday.
You can read the Lyn Bartels’ story in the Rocky about it for all the information. But the bottom line is that the Democrats thought we were being fed questions to ask one of their weak members by an outsider. We weren’t; we are capable of thinking on our own.
Either way, I can’t understand why using the tools of modern technology upsets the Democrats in the Senate so much. Do they want us to go back to pencils and paper? I’d hate to do without Google for finding information on the quick and I’d rather search on my computer for a bill than rifle through my file cabinet.
I’m afraid that there is going to be an attempt force us to shut our computers off for the period that we are engaged in third reading and our final votes on bills. I hope not, because the rules are clear, we can have our computers on, but have to disconnect them from the Internet.
Here’s what the rules say:
(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) (2) of this
rule, all wireless electronic devices including, but not limited
to telephone and such other communication devices used for
transmitting and receiving voice or data communications,
including but not limited to electronic mail and text
messaging, shall be rendered inoperable in the Senate
chambers, in the hearings of Senate committees, in Senate
party caucuses, or in any other official meetings of Senate
members held in the Capitol or the Legislative Services
Building.
(2) Laptop or notebook personal computers may be used in the
Senate chambers, in the hearings of Senate committees, in
Senate party caucuses, or in any other official meetings of
Senate members held in the Capitol or the Legislative
Services Building; however, during the third reading of bills
in the Senate chambers, laptop or notebook personal
computers shall be rendered inoperable for the purpose of
transmitting and receiving voice or data communications, including but not limited to electronic mail and text
messaging.
(3) Wireless telephones and audible pagers or similar electronic
devices shall not be used in the Senate chambers or in the
gallery of the Senate chambers.
I certainly hope that we can have a bi-partisan solution to solving the Senate technology gap. We really should do away with these rules and come into the 21st Century.
You can read the Lyn Bartels’ story in the Rocky about it for all the information. But the bottom line is that the Democrats thought we were being fed questions to ask one of their weak members by an outsider. We weren’t; we are capable of thinking on our own.
Either way, I can’t understand why using the tools of modern technology upsets the Democrats in the Senate so much. Do they want us to go back to pencils and paper? I’d hate to do without Google for finding information on the quick and I’d rather search on my computer for a bill than rifle through my file cabinet.
I’m afraid that there is going to be an attempt force us to shut our computers off for the period that we are engaged in third reading and our final votes on bills. I hope not, because the rules are clear, we can have our computers on, but have to disconnect them from the Internet.
Here’s what the rules say:
(b) (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) (2) of this
rule, all wireless electronic devices including, but not limited
to telephone and such other communication devices used for
transmitting and receiving voice or data communications,
including but not limited to electronic mail and text
messaging, shall be rendered inoperable in the Senate
chambers, in the hearings of Senate committees, in Senate
party caucuses, or in any other official meetings of Senate
members held in the Capitol or the Legislative Services
Building.
(2) Laptop or notebook personal computers may be used in the
Senate chambers, in the hearings of Senate committees, in
Senate party caucuses, or in any other official meetings of
Senate members held in the Capitol or the Legislative
Services Building; however, during the third reading of bills
in the Senate chambers, laptop or notebook personal
computers shall be rendered inoperable for the purpose of
transmitting and receiving voice or data communications, including but not limited to electronic mail and text
messaging.
(3) Wireless telephones and audible pagers or similar electronic
devices shall not be used in the Senate chambers or in the
gallery of the Senate chambers.
I certainly hope that we can have a bi-partisan solution to solving the Senate technology gap. We really should do away with these rules and come into the 21st Century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)