Colorado Small Biz Blog

Obama’s Energy Promise – Phony & Costly

2011-04-15T15:12:00.000-06:00

Obama’s at it again – promising what he can’t deliver (reducing oil imports by 1/3 in 10 years) while counting on the fact that in 10 years no one will remember this disingenuous promise, or if they do, we will be unable to hold him accountable since he will be out of office (thankfully).

Oh yes, Obama’s third option, which he often uses, is to blame industry by saying or implying that they have not taken advantage of what he (and his bureaucracy) has so kindly given to them. This is especially insulting (telling an industry how to run their business) when Obama has NO business experience (let alone energy experience) and even his administration has very few members who have any business experience.

Clearly, the first thing that any rational human being would do in order to deliver on this promise would to help encourage more oil & gas exploration & production. Yet, he continues to do just the opposite. The most obvious example is that despite stating, several months ago, that he would reopen the Gulf to drilling, the Dept. of Interior has issued only one permit. Furthermore, according to a study of public lands by the Bureau of Land Management, nearly 2/3 of America’s onshore oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves remain inaccessible due to legal restrictions.

In short, contrary to what Obama’s has said about reducing our oil imports, the Obama administration continues to discourage American exploration & drilling. Not only is this making us more dependent on foreign oil & gas, but sadly it is also costing us jobs at a time when we should be trying to create jobs – not shipping them overseas.

Although it is April 1st, this is not a joke.

Walter Curtner
CRBC Issues Chair

Co Budget - is the shortfall a fiction?

2011-03-30T21:51:00.004-06:00

From December to March, Colorado’s budget forecast for the general fund increased by over half a billion dollars, substantially shrinking that $1.2 billion budget shortfall we’ve all heard so much about. That’s good news. But here’s the dirty little secret: The budget shortfall is a fiction.

The budget for the current year (2010-11) is $7.1 billion. We’re told that the legislature closed a $350 million shortfall. Yet the budget for 2009-10 was $6.3 billion. That’s an increase of $800 million. The budget forecast for next year as of last December was $7.1 billion, the same as the current year. Does that sound like a $1.2 billion shortfall? And the updated forecast, released yesterday, predicts less than half of that shortfall. Total budget forecast: $7.1 billion, the same amount that predicted the $1.2 billion shortfall. Huh?

Let’s do the math. If the budget in the current year is $7.1 billion, and we anticipate a $600 million shortfall next year, what is the anticipated budget for next year? $6.5 billion, right? Not in the world of government budgetary mathematics.

Now it may be that I don’t understand the budget. As far as I can tell, neither do the legislators. They haven’t been able to explain how the shortfall number is calculated, and have only raised more questions when they tried. I’ve talked to Henry Sobanet, Governor Hickenlooper’s budget director and one of the foremost experts regarding the state budget. He provided far more insight than anyone I’ve talked to about the state budget. Yet he could not explain the budget shortfall in a way that mere mortals could comprehend.

And therein lies the danger. Despite the good news about the budget, the steady drumbeat about the shortfall will continue and get louder. And we’ll be asked to approve new taxes. What do you suppose are the chances that anyone will tell us how they arrived at that number? Don’t you think they should be able to prove the numbers before they ask us to satisfy the rapacious government appetite for that which does not belong to them?

Even if there are real numbers behind what appears to be fiction, shouldn’t we all be on the same page? If “shortfall” means something entirely different to you and me than it does to the general assembly, shouldn’t we reconcile terms before we hand over more money?

Unemployment is at a record high in Colorado. People are struggling to keep food on the table, heat their homes, and put gas in their cars. There are families that can’t afford to pay 30 cents a day to have schools feed breakfast to their children. Raising sales taxes will hurt those families the most.

Raising income taxes will hinder job creation by diverting more money from the productive private sector to the unproductive government sector.

Brian Vande Krol

CO Senate Republicans Budget principles

2011-03-30T21:43:00.002-06:00

Senate Republicans believe the following eight budget principles provide a sound basis for a fiscally responsible FY 2011-12 state budget.

* Maintains a reserve of at least 4 percent as recommended by the Governor;
• Budgets to the most conservative General Fund revenue estimate available for FY 2011-12;
• Avoids suspending the $65 million vendor fee that has already cost thousands of jobs;
• Makes structural, long term changes to entitlements, which are increasingly crowding out needed funding for core functions of government such as K-12, higher education, and transportation;
• Consolidates prisons and increase utilization of cheaper private corrections facilities;
• Increases the amount that government workers pay for their retirement as recommended by the Governor;
• Avoids the use of one-time fund sources to prop up General Fund spending that will create a shortfall next year; and
• Is amenable to and supportive of additional structural changes and cuts in spending which will be offered by our caucus in floor amendments.

Good news/bad news on taxes - and a correction

2011-03-30T21:15:00.007-06:00

The past Saturday, I spoke before the CO Republican State Central Committee and talked about several initiatives to hike taxes by the left-leaning Colorado Center on Law and Policy.

The information I reported was incorrect, as it was already four days old and things had changed. I had not updated my research. I am pleased to report that CCLP has decided not to pursue their tax increase petitions for November. Additionally, the Title Board denied CCLP's proposed initiative to place a sales tax on services.

CCLP's initiatives asked voters to change the current tax code to have an increased rate on individuals and corporations with specific directions for wealth re-distribution. The initiatives varied only slightly but would have raised taxes in Colorado between $1.07B to $1.512B - and mostly on the backs of people already paying in the higher brackets.

In the CCLP initiatives, approximately 60% of Coloradoans would have paid the same or less tax than they currently pay; the other 40% would have carried the burden.

As reported by Tim Hoover of the Denver Post, a CCLP executive said the group couldn't get enough support to pay for the campaign. But, as Hoover wrote, "Sen. Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) is still proposing a temporary tax-increase initiative that would ask voters to raise income and sales taxes to generate $1.63 billion over three years"....and "another version that would ask voters to make the tax increases permanent."

Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition

Vande Krol: Hick's Bottom Up or Upside Down?

2011-03-29T23:34:00.003-06:00

Bottom Up or Upside Down, It’s More Government
March 29, 2011

Yesterday I attended the Governor’s Bottom-Up Economic Development Initiative. I was disturbed that so many in attendance are "swallowing the kool-aid", believing that government can craft the right program to get the economy moving and put people back to work.

Any attempt by government to incentivize business is a burden that must be borne by taxpayers, and a comparative disadvantage to the businesses that doesn't qualify for the incentives.

The Mayor of Commerce City (Natale) boasted that they appoint a person to help any large business that's moving to their city. That person is the single point of contact between that business and the city, and facilitates their move. But what are the chances that a smaller business would get that same assistance?

The businesses that drive the economy and offer the most employment are the small, less glamorous businesses. One thousand sole proprietors that each hire one person creates more jobs than a relocated company with 500 employees. And the sole proprietor doesn't show up in any statistics. Making it easy for people to start small businesses by removing barriers can have a far greater impact on employment and the creation of wealth.

Natale also wanted protection (tariffs?) for the concrete pipe companies in Commerce City. Apparently there's a move afoot to change regulations to specify plastic pipe instead of concrete in public works projects. This is foolishness all the way around. Protectionism always harms the consumer (the taxpayer in this case). And regulations that specify a particular product (rather than performance criteria) invites more governmental favoritism and corruption.

There were lots of ideas about government programs to educate businesses. Really? Perhaps the people who run the post office, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc. can teach us what they know.

Someone wanted to raise the gas tax to fund transportation. I'm always amazed at the people who believe that if you come up with a new way to tax, it will somehow create new money to be taxed. It's as if the consumers are saving money under their cushions until someone comes up with the right way to pry it out. I like the idea that gas taxes are the best way to ensure that the users of roads are the ones who pay for the roads. But if gas taxes are raised, there must be a commensurate decrease in other taxes, or it will further dampen economic growth.

Someone trotted out the old and common belief that the key to prosperity is to fund higher education. Adams County apparently doesn't have enough college graduates. The belief is that if we have more college graduates sitting around waiting for jobs, companies will relocate here. I would contend that companies will relocate here if they see a comparative business advantage, meaning less government intrusion and taxation and more stability in regulations. Then those businesses will attract the people they need to staff the company. The main reason to improve higher education in Colorado is so that parents don't have to ship their kids out of state to get a good education. That's not a bad thing, but let's be honest about it.

One gentleman thought we should have a government agency that businesses could contact to keep abreast of government changes that might affect them. I said it's a sad day when our business environment is so volatile because of government that we have to have an agency to help us track the changes.

Someone suggested that the Governor should personally know the CEOs of the top 100 Colorado employers. Can you imagine that weekly phone call from Hick to Mr. Big? Do you think either will care that Hick generally cannot help Mr. Big’s company without taking from the taxpayers, or putting competing companies at a comparative disadvantage?

This whole fiasco is a classic example of the grand deceit of those who think they can plan our economy. A room mostly full of government representatives trying to decide how best to "create jobs". Business people attend because "if you aren't at the table, you're on the menu". TIFs, programs, agencies, enterprise zones, tariffs, incentives, and on and on.

It all adds up to favoritism for the businesses that government approves, and taxpayers foot the bill. Although everyone acknowledged the need to cut red tape, very few specific ideas came up. It's such a huge task that few know where to begin. Perhaps it’s also because the government representatives in attendance don't experience the red tape problem. Remember that the first red tape Hick cut was for brewers, a problem of which he has first hand knowledge.

Remember what happens when you bend over and grab your ankles - you are Bottom Up. Brian Vande Krol

CRBC opposes HB1255 CO Alternative Energy Park Act

2011-03-29T23:30:00.002-06:00

March 17, 2011 The Honorable State Representatives State Capitol Building 200 E. Colfax Ave Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: HB 1255, Colorado Alternative Energy Park Act Dear Representative, The Colorado Republican Business Coalition Opposes HB 1255. The wealth of Colorado (or the United States, or individuals) derives from the goods and services we create. To expand that wealth requires more efficient production of those goods and services. Capital and labor that is diverted to less efficient production reduces that wealth. If a particular product is more efficient to produce, entrepreneurs will invest the capital and labor to produce it. (See "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt for a more complete discussion.) We know that most forms of alternative energy are less efficient because they cost more than traditional forms of energy, and there would be little demand for it without subsidies and incentives. If it needs a subsidy, it probably doesn't deserve it. There can not be a tax incentive to one industry or company that doesn't cost an equivalent amount to a different industry, company, or taxpayers. The Tax Increment Financing incentives envisioned by this bill will be a relative disadvantage to every business that doesn’t receive similar advantages. Further, but for the tax incentives, tax rates overall could be reduced and citizens would be far better at spending their own money to create economic development than government. Spending tax money in hopes of creating more tax revenue is faulty economics. This government distortion of the free market for energy production diverts labor and capital to inefficient projects, and creates an industry that will be forever dependent on government subsidies. If an alternative energy park is developed and cannot run economically, taxpayers will foot the bill. If it creates more environmental damage than it prevents, Colorado suffers the consequences. If it quickly becomes obsolete when more efficient forms of energy are developed, taxpayers have funded that obsolescent technology. If rail transportation falls into disuse, taxpayers have paid for the improvements to rail systems to accommodate the parks. And the bill depends on the wisdom of government officials to determine the economic and environmental viability of the project. These officials have very little risk, because they are using taxpayer money for these experiments. This is a system that is ripe for political favoritism and abuse. We do not oppose alternative energy. However, as liberty minded business owners and free market advocates, we know that entrepreneurs will develop more alternative energy without government assistance when it becomes efficient to do so. Christine Burtt Chairman CO Republican Business Coalition Brian Vande Krol CRBC Issues Committee www.smallbizgop.com

Ryan Call Elected State GOP Chair

2011-03-26T18:55:00.009-06:00

Earlier today in Castle Rock, the State Central Committee elected Ryan Call to be the new State Chair. Ryan Call will succeed Dick Wadhams as the fundraising and candidate-supporting leader at the state level. Current Jefferson County Republican Chair Don Ytterberg received the State Vice-Chair nod, and Perry Buck, spouse of erstwhile Senate candidate Ken Buck, will the the new State Secretary. Ryan Call previously served as the Denver County GOP Chair as well as the legal counsel for the State GOP. David Carpenter CRBC Board

CRBC Chair To Discuss Egypt Trip

2011-03-23T14:54:00.011-06:00

UPDATE: Audio links are available for the interview. Links: 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. CRBC Chairman Christine Burtt recently returned from a trip to Egypt where she met political activists who were involved in the recent revolution.

Christine Burtt wrote the following overview of her upcoming interview:

Tomorrow, Thursday, March 24, 10:05 a.m., on Mike Rosen's show at KOA radio 850 AM, I'll be talking with Mike about how a handful of young Egyptians fomented a revolution that took down a powerful and repressive 30-year president, misdirected his security police force of more than 100,000 officers, and have forever transformed the seat of the Arab world. What will happen next in Egypt and what does it mean for America and our interests in the Middle East? Tune in here to listen live. A link to the podcast of the interview will be added when available.

Christine Burtt is in the front row, fourth person from the left, in this picture from her recent trip.

CRBC Legislative Matrix

2011-03-18T09:43:00.002-06:00

Do you want to know the bills in the Colorado General Assembly that affect business, but you do not have time to read them? Visit our legislative matrix here (updated weekly) for a list of legislation our legislative affairs committee is following.

And, as always, visit us at http://smallbizgop.com for the latest updates.

CO Budget Factoids

2011-03-16T19:53:00.005-06:00

Debt on Transportation Bonds
The Colorado Department of Transportation currently budgets $168 million annually to service debt on Tax Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) issued during the Owens administration. This level of debt service will continue until 2016. These bonds were issued in order to build the I-25 Southeast Corridor through Denver (known as “T-Rex”), including the light rail line running parallel to I-25. The same bonds also financed new transportation construction throughout other areas of the state. In 2017, payments drop to $130 million, the year in which this outstanding debt will be retired.

Medicaid eligibility grew for non-traditional groups.
Medicaid was initially designed to pay for health care for impoverished families, the disabled and the impoverished elderly. Analysis of the Colorado Medicaid caseload composition shows large increases in recent years for “expansion adults” and “other.”

Proponents defined Amendment 23 as being “for the children,” and it increased the education budget each year even when revenues dropped. Political decisions are about making trade-offs. More for education means less for something else. Amendment 23 locks in the rest of the budget as losers to the largest and more powerful entities and lobbying organizations. Do Colorado taxpayers want funding increases to stay on autopilot forever in order to have higher teachers’ salaries and more spending? The legislature could add repeal of Amendment 23 to the November 2012 ballot for voter consideration.

For more information see: http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget/

Legislators Respond on Biz Personal Property Tax, Health Insurance Reform, and CO Healthcare Cooperative

2011-03-16T19:03:00.014-06:00

RE: SB26 Sen. Cheri Jahn (D-Jeffco)is against the Business Personal Property Tax but won't vote to repeal because education and local government are a higher priority.
CRBC supported SB26. Bill Status: Killed in Senate Finance Committee

"Each year I served in the House this issue came up. We managed to extend the exemption my last year to another 30,000 small businesses. I agree this is a tax that is just wrong but looking at the fiscal note it is very difficult to vote yes on something that is wiping out millions from our schools, which is on top of the $265 million they got hit with last year. Education is KEY to strong economic development and I can't justify another hit of $9.7 million in the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

Besides impacts to the schools, the fiscal impact to our local governments is huge, losing $24.2 million per year. This would be really bad timing to local districts that are already facing enormous funding cuts not only through state cuts but federal as well.

I hope you understand the terrible situation we are in with our budget this year with the cuts we are already making. It has been suggested we may be making cuts to education in the realm of $300 plus millions along with others.

Sincerely,
Cheri Jahn
303-866-4856

RE: SB019 permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.

CRBC supports SB019 Bill Status: Passed Senate, laid over daily for second reading in House

Sen Keith King (R-SD12- El Paso) "Christine, thanks for the support of my bill. I appreciate it. It passed the Senate unanimously. Keith"

Sen. Jean White (R-Routt, Grand) agrees: "Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important bill. I am a yes vote."

Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial) agrees: "SB 19 on Small Business Health Care Reimbursement passed the senate with a unanimous vote on Feb. 28. The bill has now been assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee."

Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative
CRBC opposes SB168 Bill Status: Scheduled for Senate Second Reading March 18

Sen Nancy Spence (R-SD27, Centennial) "I think there is no doubt that the R's in the senate will oppose SB168. I'm not sure what the D's will do with the bill - I suspect there will be a few who will oppose it."

Sen. Keith King (R-SD8,El Paso)"We can not afford this bill. I do not support it."

Sen Mark Scheffel(R-SD04,Douglas Cty) "This bill is scheduled to have its second reading in the Senate on 18 March. Senator Scheffel will keep these concerns in mind as the bill progress in the legislative process; we appreciate your input."

Sen. Edie Hudak (D-SD19, Westminster) "I would like to take a moment to explain to you what SB 168 does and why I am supporting this legislation.

SB 168 allows the Legislature the ability to have a consultant determine what the costs would be for Colorado to establish a CONSUMER-owned and -operated Health Care Cooperative. While the panel to direct this process would be appointed by the Governor, House, and Senate, the plan the consultant would analyze would focus on a cooperative owned and operated by the people of Colorado and managed by a member-appointed board. The government would have nothing to do with running health care in Colorado.The Cooperative would provide everyone in Colorado direct access to better health care and lower costs. I believe that it could help businesses in the state by stabilizing costs to provide health care benefits to employees. Reductions in costs for businesses could translate to businesses being able to hire more workers, expand their businesses, or provide more or better benefits.

The private health care industry would not be dismantled by this plan. In fact, providers would be given more freedom to innovate around service delivery and consumers would have more choice in health care.

As you know, health care costs are escalating. Additionally, national reform has not adequately addressed cost control. As a legislator, I think Colorado is in a unique position to innovate health care delivery in our state. We have many excellent examples of such systems throughout our state that we can build upon and many nationally recognized leaders in our state that we can call upon to help us. If the consultant finds that our Colorado plan - owned and operated by the people of Colorado - would improve safety, access, and quality while reducing costs, the Legislature would refer the idea to the ballot. It would ONLY be implemented if the people of Colorado agreed and voted it into law.

In these tough economic times, we need to see how we can ensure the health of our population while controlling spending. Whatever ideas we develop would not be implemented until the people in our state voted to implement it. I think we should build on our reputation for innovation and try to develop our own plan. That's what SB 168 will allow us to do. I hope you can support this effort."

Editor's note: "owned and operated by the people" is by definition a public system - not a private system.

Review of Coal-to-Gas Legislation A Positive Step

2011-03-07T13:09:00.000-07:00

When I read this past week in the Denver Post that the coal industry lobbyists were asking for a review of last year’s legislation that required conversion of Colorado coal plants to natural gas, it lifted my spirits. The government is way too involved in forcing “green” energy moves in an industry that should be adjusting to economic realities on its own and on a less than crisis-oriented atmosphere so popular with the Obama EPA administration. The government should not be picking winners and losers in any industry and should allow market and economic forces to make improvements naturally.

As an example, this morning I saw a large UPS truck in our office complex with the letters on its side “powered by natural gas.” This is a logical transitional energy movement particularly from expensive oil to currently abundant (in the U.S.) and cheaper natural gas. According to Natural Gas entrepreneur and cheerleader T. Boone Pickens, it’s a lot cheaper to get eight million trucks in the U.S. on natural gas than on batteries by converting existing trucks and building new trucks to run on natural gas. Another major move would be for the conversion of most homes in the northeast United States from heating oil to natural gas heating. Both of these would reduce our importation of expensive oil.

However, we should not legislate away economical use of coal of which we have a great abundance of in the U.S. and for which conversion from coal to lower-cost cleaner fuels is now possible. China is taking and utilizing all the coal it can get its hands on from Canada and other countries to fuel its economic growth. In the U.S. we should continue to use coal and seek the continued technological improvement of our cheaper and abundant coal-based fuels.

Joseph Chavez, Attorney.

Small Business opposes single payer healthcare for Colorado - Vote NO on SB11-168

2011-03-06T20:25:00.003-07:00

March 4, 2011

The Honorable State Senators

Re: SB11-168 Colorado Healthcare Cooperative

Dear Senator,

On behalf of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) I urge you to vote NO on SB11-168 when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote.

The ultimate end of this bill is the creation of a single payer health care cooperative. The first two sentences of the Bill Summary states, “The bill creates the Colorado health care authority. Its mission is to design the Colorado health care cooperative to be the benefits administrator and payer for health care services.”

Since the cooperative would be positioned to be the sole payer in Colorado for health, dental, vision, hearing, Medicare, Medicaid and workers compensation medical services, it would have the following effects:

Destroy the private medical, dental, vision and workers compensation market in Colorao
Result in the loss of 25,000+ health insurance based jobs in Colorado
Precipitate the loss of $200 million of health insurance premium taxes paid to Colorado each year by commercial insurers
Cause some of the best and brightest doctors to leave Colorado rather than have their fees dictated by a monolithic government plan
Limit consumer choice by forcing everyone into a one size fits all plan
Require an 8.1% increase in the state income tax and a 6% employer payroll tax (based on the Governor’s 208 Commission actuarial studies)

Respectfully,

Christine Burtt, Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition

CRBC strongly supports Senate Bill 11-019

2011-03-06T20:15:00.002-07:00

March 4, 2011

The Honorable State Senators
State Capitol Building
200 E. Colfax Ave
Denver, Colorado 80203

Re: SB11-019 Small Employer Health Insurance Payments

Dear Senator,

The Colorado Republican Business Coalition (“CRBC”) strongly supports SB11-019, permitting employers with less than fifty employees to reimburse their employees for some or all of health insurance premiums paid.

With the steady rise of the cost of health insurance plans along with other pressures causing margins to shrink in the past few years, many small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance plans for their employees.

To continue to prohibit small businesses from reimbursing their employees for some or all of the cost of health insurance premiums that employees pay directly, fails to help alleviate the unemployment problem, and is simply unfair for both the employees and the employers.

Respectfully,
Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition

Colorado Republican Business Coalition Monthly Luncheon

2011-03-05T08:29:00.006-07:00

How can we put more working capital into the hands of small business contractors instead of sitting in government bank accounts?
What is the Republican short-term and long-term strategy for filling the State's $1.1B shortfall?
What are Republicans doing to protect our electoral process?

Rep. Frank McNulty, Speaker of the House, and Rep. Kevin Priola, Speaker Pro Tem, will answer these and other questions at our next meeting Friday, March 18, 2011, at Brooklyns.

Frank McNulty (R- HD43 Highlands Ranch) is Speaker of the House, vice-chairman of Legislative Council, and vice-chairman of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council.

In 2006, Frank was first elected to the Colorado State House of Representatives. He advocates for limited government, fiscal responsibility, common sense water policies and for mandatory minimum sentences for violent sex offenses against children. Frank introduced and passed legislation that allows members of our active duty military and members of our National Guard to attend college in Colorado for in-state tuition rates. He advocates for making the development of hydro-electricity in Colorado a priority as a necessary component of our overall energy portfolio.

Frank is an attorney by trade and earned his JD from the University of Denver College of Law. He served in the Bill Owens administration as Assistant Director for Water with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources where he was responsible for developing statewide water policies.

Rep. Kevin Priola (R- HD30- Adams County) is Speaker Pro Tempore; a member of the Economic and Business Development, Legislative Council; and Transportation committees.

Kevin's business background includes Priola Greenhouses and CAP Property Management. Kevin graduated from the University of Colorado Business School with an major in finance and minor in economics. Through community organizations, he helps meet local and international needs and continues to give active support to the University of Colorado at Boulder. In 2010 Representative Priola received the Greenco Legislator of the Year for his work on green industry issues at the Capitol. He and his wife Michelle are parents of three young children.

Friday, March 18, 2011
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Brooklyn's Restaurant
9th & Auraria Pkwy, across from Pepsi Center,
$1 parking Lot A - tell attendant you're going to Brooklyn's
Member: $17; non-members $20; elected officials and students $15
Menu choices.
RSVP: repgop@gmail.com (not required, but appreciated)

HB1222 Gives Voters Right to Retain PUC Commissioners - or not

2011-02-23T22:16:00.003-07:00

LEGISLATIVE ALERT: Committee hearing Wed. Feb. 23, 3 p.m. on HB11-1222, which will give citizens the right to vote on retaining members of the Public Utilities Commission.

Should three appointed people have the total authority to regulate all fixed and transportation utilities in Colorado without any accountability to the voters?If your business, your fixed income, or your employment prospects are limited because of the effects of the increased costs of electricity and natural gas for example, your testimony at the Transportation Committee hearing on HB1222 will be most valuable.

Currently, the three members of the public utilities commission (PUC) are appointed to 4-year terms by the governor with the consent of the senate. HB11-1222 will:

· Shorten terms from four years to two years.

· Make PUC members subject to a retention vote by the citizens for additional terms.

· Limits to 2 the total number of terms that a member is permitted to serve.

· Clarifies that the governor may only appoint PUC members if a vacancy exists.

The original intent of the Public Utilities Commission was to serve as a watchdog over the cost of utility services for consumers. Fixed utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include electric power utilities, natural gas utilities, and intrastate natural gas. Transportation utilities regulated by the Colorado PUC include railroads, taxis, limousines, shuttles, charters, and sightseeing carriers, pipelines, district heating utilities, drinking water utilities, and telecommunications utilities.

Over the years, the PUC has re-written its charter to give the unelected members more power.

The current three commissioners (and their term expiration dates), Chairman Ron Binz (Jan 2011), Jim Tarpey (Jan 2013), and Matt Baker (Jan 2012) were all appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter.

Last legislative session, the Commissioners lobbied for HB1365 and HB1001, two bills that raised energy costs while cutting supply. And in November, after two and half years through the process, Baker and Tarpey endorsed an administrative law judge's decision to deny 150 taxi drivers the right to provide service in Denver because of the commissioners' concerns for "oversupply and destructive competition" to spare existing cab companies any competition.

What Should We Look For In A Republican State Chairman?

2011-02-21T09:19:00.007-07:00

The qualifications and characteristics that we should look for in a State Republican Chairman discussed here have been gathered from speaking with former State Chairmen and various Party leaders. These are not necessarily the views of CRBC or its board of directors. However, CRBC has provided this posting on its blog as a starting point for discussion among Republicans and party supporters that may be helpful in choosing a State Chairman.

There are at least four areas to consider as if we were interviewing a contender for the top executive and leadership position of any organization; namely, Knowledge, Vision and Focus, Experience, and Personal abilities and character.

Knowledge

We are looking for someone that understands the structure and processes of the party the mechanics of how it works, how decisions are made, how candidates are selected, the caucus system, state conventions, bylaws and the party rules. The successful applicant should have knowledge of Campaign Finance Law and how it applies specifically to both national and state candidates. The applicant must understand the appropriate role of the Party to promote party image, seek candidates and promote candidate campaigns; while acknowledging that each candidate must rise to the occasion and take responsibility for the success of their own campaign.

The applicant should have adequate knowledge of "new media" sufficient to oversee the selection of new media personnel or contract support in what has proven to be a key to successful races in the two recent elections. A knowledge of"old media" is also important particularly in press releases where the State Chairman has an opportunity to exercise a "bully pulpit" and not only articulate a Party position but also educate the general public on Republican principles as they apply to the issue at hand.

Vision and Focus

Colorado has proven time and again that national and state-wide races can only be won by drawing unaffiliated voters to the Republican ticket. This makes sense since the voters are divided roughly 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican and 1/3 Unaffiliated. The State Chairman must recognize this reality and also have a big-picture state-wide vision that acknowledges many differing points of view without getting stuck on details but allowing those expressing themselves to feel they do have a place in the party. The Chairman should have a focus on the unaffiliated that attracts both the fringe moderate Republican, and the Tea Party person both of which may even be disenchanted with the Party in recent history.

The focus required is needed to attract unaffiliated voters to voting for the Republican. The successful Chairman needs to chart a plan to identify the segments of the unaffiliated such as Hispanic voters, suburban women, uninvolved small business I people, elderly, etc. and a program to attract their unaffiliated votes. Of course, the party must also get the base Republican voters out and build with additional unaffiliated voters.

It would be preferable that the Chairman and the party leaders and legislators in general would focus their campaigns and their rhetoric on the core Republican values of individual rights and economic freedoms, limited government, low taxes and spending, and protection of free enterprise market system and give lower priority to the so-called "social issues" that most likely have no chance of passing a Democrat-dominated legislature as is now being demonstrated in the current 2011 legislative session.

Yet there are many Republican supporters that would like to see a Chairman that might champion the social issues. A stubborn rigid conservative party Chairman "with blinders on" may make many in our party feel good with strong language on social issues; but Republicans may end up losing the political races that are needed to turn the state and the , nation in the right course on the most important priorities.

Others feel that the time is ripe for our most conservative efforts and that eventually they will prevail. History has not proven that to be the case in Colorado and Republicans appear to continue repeating the same mistakes with each election cycle on key races by remaining divided on their favorite issue rather than uniting on the key core principles common to all Republicans. The Chairman should have vision, focus and leadership abilities to help unite Republicans of all stripes.

Experience

The chairman should have experience recruiting candidates that reflect the core Republican principles of the party and that have the communication skills to relate to voters those ideals at the level of the voters is very valuable.

The chairman should have experience in past political campaigns in Colorado e.g. as a campaign manager, as a candidate, as a treasurer or other key campaign position. Significant similar experience in other states should also count.

The chairman should have experience with fund raising making the case for contributions from major donors and also experience with small donor campaigns.

The chairman should have experience interfacing with different factions within the party and experience with Republican county organizations throughout the state.

A past history of involvement and participation in Republican activities, programs, and efforts over a significant period of time is valuable. Presence in Colorado for a number of years may be viewed as more favorable than a relative newcomer to the state.

Personal Abilities and Character

The chairman should be politically savvy regarding various political developments as they occur and having the flexibility to deal with the unexpected.

Integrity is important. The chairman must be thoughtful about forming convictions and then defending them when challenged, rather than waffling back and forth or back-peddling; no shady deals; be upfront and honest. There is particular abhorrence to a Republican campaigning on core and non-core Republican values, but then governing or acting in the opposite direction once in power; and that consistency of speech and action should be sought in the State Chairman as well as candidates for public office.

The chairman must be proud of the superiority of American culture ingrained in the constitutional system, individual freedom and American free enterprise system that does not exist abroad to the same degree.

The position requires exceptional communication skills i.e. the ability to explain anything to people at their level of understanding, including what the role of the State Chairman should be. The chairman needs the ability to develop and nurture relationships with key supporters and donors toward common goals.

The chairman should have organizational skills to motivate people and provide leadership on major initiatives. Provide not only political leadership but have the ability to put in place administrative oversight including proceedings minutes and financial reports at the appropriate levels of the party.

If the State Chairman is to be compensated as a full-time Chief Executive of the Party, be willing to accept a modest base salary and have sufficient confidence to be compensated on a performance incentive basis as is done in a business, for example, on set goals for an elected Republican governor, U.S. Senators, U.S. House of Representatives; state governmental officers, and control of legislative houses.

Conclusion

It is apparent that if we could find such a Chairman, the Chairman could also walk on water; we know that's not possible, but we should try to get as close as we can anyway.

Joseph Chavez, former Treasurer, Colorado Republicans

Democrat's Pay-As-You Go Budget Bill is Deceptive

2011-02-17T10:58:00.003-07:00

Fortunately, HB11-1052, sponsored by Rep. Dickie Hullinghorst (D- HD10 Boulder) and Sen. John Morse (D - SD11El Paso Cty)was PI'd (postponed indefinitely) in the Finance Committee.

HB1052 treats any bill that results in a “decrease in revenue” as if the money belongs to the State in the first place.

Colorado is already required to balance its budget. This bill is a superfluous measure that defeats any attempt by the legislature to prioritize spending, because each measure considered would receive the immediate attention and priority. Colorado deserves better than “budgeting at the margins”.

State revenue is dynamic. Under this bill, tax proposals will be viewed as static equations, without considering the unseen consequences. Tax rate decreases that might stimulate economic activity would not be allowed without a corresponding spending decrease. In our current budget crisis, we can not afford to ignore tax policies that will create jobs and economic growth simply because an offset is required.

Finally, we must oppose the underlying false premise that money belongs to the state, and that a tax rate decrease is an expense to the state. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights establishes that taxes first belong to people and businesses, and the legislature is required to ask permission of the people of Colorado to increase taxes.

Removing a tax exemption is a tax increase, and this bill is a cynical attempt to undermine the rights of Coloradans to repeal the unconstitutional removal of tax exemptions perpetrated by the 2010 Legislature.

Brian Vande Krol, Member, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee

So-called "Consumer Protection Act" Increases Punitive Regulations; Gives More Power to Unaccountable Bureaucrats

2011-02-17T09:50:00.004-07:00

SB11-068 by Sen. Morgan Carroll (D-SD29 Arapahoe Cty) and Rep. Judy Solano (D-HD31 Adams Cty) has passed out of the Judiciary Committe and is awaiting Second Reading in the Senate. Contact your State Senator about SB068.

In this time of economic uncertainty, our legislature should be focused on creating a more hospitable environment for businesses. No government stimulus program can result in net job growth – it is only private businesses that can create the job growth necessary to restore Colorado’s faltering economy.

Senate Bill 068 creates more economic uncertainty. This bill will expand the current list of 36 enumerated deceptive trade practices to an unlimited list, defined by a partisan officeholder. Under current statute, the courts can provide remedies for unlisted unfair trade practices. There is no reason to expand the already unwieldy list.

Further, the bill automatically broadens the scope of harm, regardless of actual harm, by creating an ill-defined “significant public impact”. That determination should be left to courts and is not in keeping with the American tradition of presumption of innocence. It assumes “significant public impact” when none may exist. Current law already provides that evidence of deceptive trade practice is “prima facie evidence of intent to injure competitors…” There is no compelling need to strengthen this provision.

By unnecessarily encouraging lawsuits against businesses, SB 068 creates more economic uncertainty. While promising to “protect consumers”, consumers will be adversely affected by this legislation as business costs increase, economic growth is hindered, and jobs are not created. SB 068 is the exact opposite of economic stimulation.

Walt Curtner, Chairman, CRBC Legislative Issues Committee

Legislature Forces Alternative Energy Use; Raises Costs on Business & Consumers

2011-02-17T09:41:00.004-07:00

CRBC Supports SB071 - Reduce Energy Costs
(This bill was Postponed Indefinitely - PI'd. For more info on bills tracked by the CRBC Legislative Issues Committee, see our Legislative Matrix at www.smallbizgop.com)

The legislature’s priority should be improving Colorado’s economy with the focus on creating jobs. SB071 would do this in several ways.

First, this bill would roll back the requirement that Xcel go from a 10% renewable energy standard up to a 20% standard within five years and up to 30% within ten years; and, it will maintain the current 10% standard for renewable energy. This will significantly slow down the current energy rate increases, which over the last six years have been double the inflation rate (or 21% in the last six years – per a 2/5/11 Denver Post article).

These rate increases (collected by Minnesota-based Xcel) are hurting both Colorado homeowners and businesses. Some Colorado businesses are afraid to expand since energy costs are projected (under current law) “to increase another 20% as new power plants, wind farms and transmission lines are added . . .” (per the Denver Post article).

Second, this bill would help rural customers by restoring the exemption to these renewable standards for utilities serving less than 40,000 customers.

Lastly, this bill would likely prevent further job loses in one of Colorado’s major industries, coal-mining.

Why Repeal the Hospital Provider Tax

2011-02-17T00:33:00.002-07:00

Why I Want to Repeal the Hospital Provider Tax (but called a fee so you couldn't vote on it.)by Rep. Janak Joshi
Jan 17, 2011

The hospital provider fee bill (HB 09-1293)was passed forone main reason--to get money from the federal governmentthat we don't have. Hospitals are being charged a fee for in-patient and out-patient services that is matched with a temporary federal grant.

Then part of the sum total is kept to balance the state budget and the remaining part is distributed unequally among the hospitals.

The reasons for repealing it:
1. Every way you look at it, it is a tax and not afee. Thus, it was passed unconstitutionally.

2. It is nothing more than a redistribution ofincome. Taking money from rich hospitals- with a higher percentage ofinsurance-paying patients and giving to "poor" hospitals with a higher percentage of Medicaid and indigent patients.

3. Hospitals will pass this fee on to insurance companies, which will pass this on to consumers, who will ultimately pay for it.

4. By their own admission, HCPF told the Joint Budget Committee that if repealed, "there would be no immediate general fund impact" until Obama-care is implemented. That by itself is "iffy" at this point.

5. This bill has expanded Medicaid, which is detrimentalto the state budget. The matching federal grant is also ultimately paid for by tax payers. Colorado received less than a dollar for every dollar sent to Washington, so the grant is costing us more. What will happen when the federal matching grant goes away? More taxes?

These are just a few of the talking points but remember one thing: We all are paying for this with money that we don't have.

Friday, February 18: Come To CRBC's Monthly Lunch

2011-02-16T06:44:00.003-07:00

Friday, February 18, 2011
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Brooklyn's Restaurant

9th & Auraria Pkwy, across from Pepsi Center,
$1 parking Lot A - tell attendant you're going to Brooklyn's

Member: $17; non-members $20; elected officials and students $15

Menu choices.

RSVP: repgop@gmail.com (not required, but appreciated)

Our featured speakers are as follows:

****************************************************

Amy Oliver Cooke, Independence Institute

Amy Oliver Cooke is the director of the Colorado Transparency Project and founder of Mothers Against Debt (MAD) for the Independence Institute, Colorado's free market, state-based think tank. She has been with II since 2004.

Oliver's primary role is to investigate government spending at all levels and then explain how that spending affects family budgets. Her work on transparency earned h...er an appointment to the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission from House Minority Leader Mike May.

She is also the host of the award winning Amy Oliver Show heard on News Talk 1310 KFKA Monday through Friday from 9 to 11 am. In 2008, the Colorado Broadcasters Association recognized her as the Best News Talk personality in a major market.

Oliver is a regular blog and article contributor. Her article Unabashed Bias exposed how the Denver daily papers campaigned for rather than reported on Colorado's largest tax increase and won her "Best Right-Wing Media Criticism" from the Denver Westword.

Oliver earned a degree in journalism in 1985 from the prestigious University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2003, she earned a graduate degree in American History from the University of Northern Colorado.

*****************************************************

Rep. Keith Swerdfeger

Hon. Keith Swerdfeger won the Pueblo city seat vacated by termed-out Democrat Buffie McFayden. He narrowly lost to her in 2004, but true to his nature, he persisted, this time winning the seat with 63 percent of the vote against Carole Partin.

Swerdfeger is vice-chairman of the House Finance Committee and also serves on the House Economic & Business Development and the Local Government committees.

He is prime sponsor of HB1051, which affirms that DNA samples of felons are never expunged; HB1083, which allows public utilities to consider the use of hydroelectricity and pumped hydroelectricity among alternative energy sources; HB1237, which establishes a fund for National Guard facilities repair and replacement; and SB051, which allows the intercept of a person's gaming winning for the purpose of paying any unpaid debt to the State, typically child support or restitution.

Swerdfeger is a co-founder/owner of K.R. Swerdfeger Construction, Inc. The business began in 1968 and has completed numerous multimillion-dollar projects since its founding. KRSC specializes in infrastructure development, the excavation for and placement of underground utilities, telecommunications construction, golf course development, and state-of-the-art trenchless technologies. He was instrumental to bringing wind-turbine maker Vestas to Pueblo.

Swerdfeger served in multiple positions at the Pueblo Economic Development Corp., or PEDCO. He served as chairman of Pueblo's 2009 United Way campaign. His wife of 45 years, Sharon L. Swerdfeger, is on the foundation board of the Pueblo Community College. The couple has four children and nine grandchildren.

HB1149: Verify legal status for employment

2011-02-15T07:25:00.000-07:00

HB1149 requires proof of citizenship to receive state or federal benefits in Colorado; requires employers to inspect documents to determine lawful presence in USA before hiring.

Testify at the hearing, or call or email members of the House Committee State, Veterans, and Military Affairs regarding HB1149, Sponsored by Rep. Cindy Acree, (R- HD40 Aurora).

CRBC SUPPORTS this bill. www.smallbizgop.com

Hearing Wednesday, Feb. 16, 1:30 p.m. Room 112 State Capitol before the House Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs. It's especially important to contact the Democrat members of the Committee. See contact info below.
Call Cheryl in Rep. Acree's office if you can come to the capitol to testify at 303.866.2944, or send an email to cindy.acree.house@state.co.us

Contact members of the Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs:

Chairman, Rep. Jim Kerr (R HD28 Lakewood) james.kerr.house@state.co.us 303.866.2939

Vice Chairman,Rep. Don Coram (R-HD58 Montrose) don.coram.house@state.co.us 303.866.2955

Rep. Randy Baumgardner (R -HD57 NW counties) baumgardner.house@state.co.us 303.866.2949

Rep. Lois Court (D-HD6 Denver) loiscourt@msn.com 303.355.3546

Rep. Claire Levy (D HD13-Boulder) claire.levy.house@state.co.us 303.866.2578

Rep. Larry Liston (R- HD16 CO Springs) llliston16@q.com 303.866.2965

Rep. Joe Miklosi (D-HD9 Denver)joe@joemiklosi.com 303.866.2910

Rep. Nancy Todd (D - HD41 Aurora) nancy.todd.house@state.co.us 303.866.2919

Rep. Mark Waller (R- HD15 CO Springs)markwaller.law@comcast.net 303.866.5525

Current law requires an agency or political subdivision of the state to verify the lawful presence of each applicant 18 years of age or older for federal public benefits or state or local public benefits. The bill amends that law by requiring the applicant to provide the applicant's social security card for inspection.

Current law requires an applicant to sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident or that he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law and the attestation is subject to the perjury laws. Instead of signing the affidavit, the bill provides that an applicant may submit for inspection a birth certificate or other documents that indicate the applicant's lawful presence in the United States. The bill clarifies that an employer of a newly hired employee must check legally acceptable documents to verify the identity of the employee as well as check the authority of the person to legally work in the United States.

Dick Wadhams Drops Out

2011-02-07T19:16:00.003-07:00

Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams decided to not seek reelection to his post. Chairman since 2007, the party made great gains in the 2010 election taking two (holding a third) executive branch offices and acquiring a 33-32 majority in the Colorado House.

However, the Colorado governor's race was unfortunate for Wadhams. He certainly bears no blame for the assembly and primary victory of Dan Maes, nor the political opportunism of Republican Tom Tancredo making a third party bid with the American Constitution Party.

Dick Wadhams warned of some discord brewing in the party:

I entered this race a few weeks ago looking forward to discussing what we accomplished in 2010 and to the opportunities we have in 2012 to elect a new Republican president; to increase our state House majority and win a state Senate majority; and to reelect our two new members of Congress.

However, I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.

I have no delusions this will recede after the state central committee meeting in March. Meanwhile, the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.

Mr. Wadhams was always a good friend to CRBC. He spoke to the group at its monthly luncheons quite regularly as chair.

Blogger Joshua Sharf has the statement in full.

-David Carpenter

PERA - Promised retirement benefits are unsustainable

2011-02-06T21:09:00.005-07:00

"I think 20 state pension funds will run out of money in the next decade, and that certainly includes Colorado," said CU economics professor Barry Poulson, who tags PERA as being among the shakiest public pension funds in the nation.

"We're one of the worst. We're accumulating unfunded liabilities faster than almost every other state."

The increasing cost of providing benefits to retired employees doesn't just disappear; it gets passed on to member institutions, like local school districts. In this way, it's interesting to see the dots connected between PERA's funding problems and teacher layoffs.

PERA will remain fiscally unsustainable as long as government workers are promised a Defined Benefit rather than a Defined Contribution.

Government worker retirements plans are paid for on the backs of all those who work in the private sector, who now earn on average less than government workers and have a much smaller retirement plan - even with Social Security and their own savings.

It makes you wonder who is working for whom?

Thanks to FaceTheState for liberal use of excerpts.

U.S. Debt Repayment Needs Business Plan

2011-01-31T12:25:00.003-07:00

Most small businessmen have been told that they must have a business plan to be successful -otherwise if they are successful, chances are it is due to luck. Luck that they are operating in a good market for their product or service; luck perhaps that they have few competitors; luck that their product or service has high "price stability" and they can survive even in a weak market, etc. The kissing cousin in a business is the so-called business model that represents the key elements of a strategy that basically says how that business is going to make a profit. The business plan is the specific actions based on the business model that need to be carried out within a specific plan time period, for example, one year, three years or five years. We don't want to count on luck!

This morning, Stacy Curtin (in Recession Politics), wrote a piece on David Walker, the founder of “Comeback America Initiative," one of the fiscal watchdogs on the U.S. economy and fiscal public policy. The main observation is that although the U.S. President has made reference to the sorry state of the U.S. economy in his State of the Union address, he has failed to lay out a plan to achieve meaningful goals and strategies. I agree.

Although the President formed a bi-partisan commission to explore options and the commission actually developed a number of options, that is not sufficient. As the CEO of the nation, the President must set forth a set of measurable goals and objectives and specific strategies that he plans to undertake to achieve those targets. Otherwise, we as a nation have no way of measuring success or failure; and we as citizens have no way of determining our support or lack of enthusiasm or outright disagreement for the President's aspirations and strategies for the nation.

Walker, a former U.S. Comptroller General, is fearful that lacking a specific plan for debt reduction and deficit control, that the U.S. will indeed follow that path of Japan that just had its bond rating reduced by Standard & Poors. Just two years ago, the U.S. debt held by the public was at $6 Trillion, and as of the end of 2010, stands at $9 Trillion, according to Curtin. What few ideas the President briefly mentioned speak of "investments," a political-speak meaning more spending, and cannot be taken as a serious action plan to deal with the U.S. debt. What the public wants is actual results over time. What is the case now are a lack of leadership from the White House and a lack of communication to the public on what the game-plan really is. We don't want to count on political double-talk. We don't want to count on luck for something this important!

--Joseph Chavez, Denver, CO

CRBC Board Plans for 2011

2011-01-29T11:19:00.007-07:00

CRBC met January 29 for its annual board planning meeting. In keeping with our frugal nature, we met at our Chairman's home.

Among the topics discussed were as follows:

Growing our membership
Influencing legislative action
Monthly program content
Small Business Donor Committee fundraising
New media outreach
Adding corporate dues structure

Individual membership dues for 2011 continue at the discounted rate of $25. To join or renew, click here.

High priority legislation:

Structural reform of the Colorado State budget
Reforming PERA from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution
Repeal many of Ritter's "Dirty Dozen" especially losing the tax exemption on energy use
a likely November ballot initiative to put a sales tax on services

Chairman Christine Burtt commented, "The CRBC Board is a great group of small business owners and managers. We are all volunteers working hard on your behalf to help small business in Colorado."

--CRBC Board of Directors

Governor Defends Amazon Tax

2011-01-28T13:31:00.004-07:00

Earlier this week Federal Judge Robert Blackburn ruled Colorado's Amazon tax unconstitutional. The tax on Amazon and other online retailers imposed during last-year's session contributed to the shutdown of all Amazon affiliate small businesses throughout the state last March.

Even with the preliminary ruling, the law has a surprising defender: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. The Durango Herald reports (via ColoradoPols):

“They should all pay taxes,” Hickenlooper said. “Is it fair that our local bookstores are being beat up with all these sales over the Internet?”
He thinks the federal government might have to come up with a fair solution.
“I’m not saying we should tax the Internet. I’m just saying that we need a level playing field,” Hickenlooper said.

Governor John Hickenlooper has made overtures to the business community. While certainly more business-friendly than Governor Ritter's administration, Hickenlooper sometimes reveals his pro-tax and protectionist views. However, he is fundamentally correct that federal action is the only recourse for defenders of this law.

The United States Supreme Court has a history of disallowing states to collect sales tax from retailers who do not have a physical presence in that state. The 2010 law not only violated Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) but also is in conflict with case law. The bill tried to put the burden of information collection on the Internet company who the state would require itemized receipts to be mailed to each customer. Rather than comply with this paperwork requirement, Amazon ceased its affiliate program which shut down Colorado small businesses. These affiliates paid income tax on the sales they made, thus depriving Colorado from more tax revenue.

Republicans in Colorado's house will introduce a bill to repeal the Amazon tax in the House soon, but its prospects remain grim with a Democratic-led Senate and a lukewarm governor. In any case, Colorado cannot enforce this tax collection in the near future.

--David Carpenter

Colorado's 68th General Assembly Commences

2011-01-13T13:20:00.005-07:00

The 68th General Assembly began its 120-day session yesterday morning. It was a historic morning for many reasons, not least of which being the most closely divided house in Colorado history.

The atmosphere was one of bipartisanship, pageantry and celebration with legislators and their families (including young children) sitting on the House floor. Chief Justice Michael Bender, prior to swearing in the House members, expressed his appreciation that the event was indoors (a not-so-veiled swipe at Governor John Hickenlooper's outdoor inauguration held the previous day). Outgoing Democrat House Speaker Terrance Carroll passed the gavel to incoming Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty with a gigantic bear hug.

Speaker Frank McNulty furthered the bipartisan atmosphere with his inaugural speech. However, the Speaker did point out the large budgetary problem the Assembly faces and insisted that working families and small businesses be spared the burden of closing the $1 billion gap (as recorded in the House Journal):

Our state faces an historic budget gap of more than $1 billion. On this, let me be clear. The days of balancing the state budget on the backs of working families and small businesses are over. We cannot treat the state budget differently than families across Colorado treat their own budgets. We have the next 120 days to learn how to do it.

The bill for kicking the can down the road has come due. We will not spend what we don't have, and yes, I recognize that this will require the State of Colorado to further tighten its belt. But that same belt tightening has gone on throughout Colorado by working families and small businesses for the past four years. If we refuse to make the tough choices now, these same choices will become more difficult for Colorado to bear down the road. These tough choices will require working in good faith.

Governor Hickenlooper; and my friends in the Senate: We stand ready to work with you and make the tough choices. But we must—and we will—adhere to our core principles and to the will of the people of Colorado.

Contrasting Speaker Frank McNulty's bipartisan, pro-business approach, Minority Leader Sal Pace took a partisan, pro-big government approach with a veiled swipe at Republicans.

To neglect programs or slash services without method; to penalize hardworking state workers and teachers to score political points; to demonize people because of their skin color or national origins; and to balance our budget on the backs of the poor, the elderly, the sick and the young – these are not acceptable solutions to the people of Colorado. And they should not be acceptable to any of us.

If cynicism and fear influence the choices we make in this room over the coming months, then we all have fundamentally failed the people who put us here.

In that spirit, I call on all of us in this room to set aside the partisan differences that divided us during the campaign, and to turn down the rhetoric.

Of course, Minority Leader Sal Pace works represents the labor unions and government workers exclusively in the legislature, so he is merely fighting for his constituency. His straw man arguments about the rhetoric (read: anything with which Sal Pace disagrees) effectively poisoned the bipartisan atmosphere and left a sour taste in the mouths of many of the attendees.

--David Carpenter

Ideas to help small biz

2011-01-11T14:37:00.002-07:00

Repeal HB1190,which eliminates the tax exemption on energy used by businesses. Energy costs are no longer tax deductible. (In what universe is not paying a tax, then having to pay a tax not a tax increase? Only the world of the Colorado Supreme Court that found that elimination of a tax exemption is not a tax subject to a TABOR vote of the citizens.)
Bring businesses into the regulatory process earlier.
Fight any initiative that will put a sales tax on services. Ex: the auto mechanic, hair stylist, web designer, gardner, dry cleaner, childcare provider, home health nurse, accountant, attorney, computer tech, house cleaner, plumber, electrician, manicurist, tailor, writer, caterer, event planner, fundraiser, payroll services administrator, etc. etc will have to add and collect tax for their service, and spend the requisite time and effort to pay and report it.
Change PERA from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution. Stop paying pensions for government workers on the backs of private-sector workers struggling to save for their own retirement.

The effect of just these four changes would dramatically and positively open Colorado's business environment.

Go to www.solutionsforcolorado.com for more ideas or to post your own.

Reining-in regulation

2011-01-11T13:48:00.005-07:00

Today, Governor Hickenlooper cited the most pressing need for Colorado is the creation of "jobs!"

Wealth is only created in the private sector, so for jobs that actually contribute to the overall economic health of the state, legislators need to take action to allow the private sector to thrive.

Legislators pass laws, then the various agencies of government write the rules and regulations that often create mischief and mayhem for business. Why? Little to no accountability on the part of bureaucrats who are incentivized to levy fines to fund their department, as opposed to educating businesses to comply with the law.

Too often, regulators fine businesses for not following the "spirit" of the law - an arbitrary definition. Small businesses generally can't afford the legal expense of challenging an agency that fails to write the "letter" of the rules they seek to enforce.

What to do?

Bring businesses into the regulatory process sooner.
Open discussion between rule-making agencies and industry representatives to identify the hoped-for outcomes and the unintended consequences of regulations.
Require a cost/benefit analysis prepared by government agency staff with industry input. If the benefits of a regulation don't outweigh the cost, DON'T DO IT.
Review the cost/benefit analysis wth public input before it's final.

The likely result?

Less regulation; less government intervention.

See more good ideas and contribute your own at www.solutionsforcolorado.com

Now Democrats Want Money out of Politics

2010-11-04T13:30:00.004-06:00

Ken - I hope you sent your monologue about getting money out of politics "For Democrat Eyes Only" (below) to Stryker, Polis, Bridges, Gill, Soros, SEIU, NEA, CEA et al.

Their "blueprint" has turned campaign messaging on its head. The Republicans are just trying to co-opt this new paradigm where puppetmasters craft a candidate's message, regardless of that candidate's vision.

When McCain-Feingold was passed, it started a chain of events that has taken control of message away from candidates. It has led to the nasty, negative and untruthful ads that cover the airways. Democrat sympathizers were particularly virulent this season; they could not run on their policy ideas so the strategy was to tear down their Republican opponents. Some of it was really quite shameful and over-the-top. Voters saw through much of it.

If your solution is to stop corporate donations, then it must also apply to unions. The first step is paycheck protection so that union members proactively direct their dues toward member benefits and the PAC as they choose. Shut down the union's special status in campaign finance, then we can discuss modifications to corporate giving.

If your solution is to make all campaigns subject to public funding, that's just wrong. I pay enough of my tax dollars supporting useless programs and inefficient bureaucrats. The last thing I want to do is give my tax dollars to fund a political campaign of a candidate whom I believe would be wrong for my family's future.

BTW, your assertion that the "Democrats are the party of the people" and the "Republicans are the party of big business" belies either arrogance or ignorance. "The people" understand that it is "business" - and most specifically small business that is the engine of our economy. A political party whose policies hurt business and therefore job creation is ultimately against "the people."

Christine Burtt
Chairman
CO Republican Business Coalition
www.smallbizgop.com
303.722.9958

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Ken Gordon, former Democrat Senate Majority Leader
www.kengordon.com
Ken@kengordon.com

For Democrat Eyes Only
The polls are just closing and I know no results. I’m hoping for the best, but regardless of tonight’s result I think our party has to engage in serious reform.

For most of the last century the Democrats were the party of the people and the Republicans were the party of big business. The Republican Party started as a movement against slavery, but as it got to be dominant, business took it under its wing and… you know the rest.

I am not anti-business. A strong business community is necessary for our welfare, jobs and prosperity. It is right for government to take business interests into consideration. Business people can and should make individual campaign contributions to candidates who share their values.

Corporations though should not be able to make unlimited campaign expenditures. This money does not come from people making a volitional decision. This money comes from customers across the political spectrum. There is essentially no limit to the money that corporations can put into politics. This money distorts the political system as does the money from other special interests.

It makes us less of a democracy.

As for my party, the Democratic Party, it turned out that we didn’t turn down business money on principle. We just didn’t get any. When the business community decided that it made sense to spend money on both major parties, we took as much as we could get…and it changed us.
It has broken our connection with the people.

It has created a society where almost no one trusts elected officials of either party.

Congressional approval ratings have fallen below 20%. People who are angry at the misuse of power and money don’t become Democrats.

They join the Tea Party.

Money is seductive. It even makes sense for a candidate making a short-term cost-benefit analysis. But hundreds of Democratic candidates making short-term benefit decisions has seriously damaged our brand. If everyone makes decisions for the short-term, in the long-term we are seriously (pick your own verb).

People will reward a party that seriously moves to reduce the influence of money in politics. They will reward a party that is honest and respectful in campaigns.

Many will say that this position is too idealistic. It is not realistic to try to reduce the influence of money in politics, and negative ads work, they will say.

But the way we finance campaigns and their negativity creates a race to the bottom that seriously hurts the system we want to lead.

Negative ads only work if by “work” you mean help to win an election. If you are interested in educating kids, protecting the environment or creating a health care safety net, negative ads do not work, because they create a toxic environment where no one can govern effectively.

If we continue this way we leave the door open for a new movement that will capture the young and the idealistic. It will be powerful, oriented towards the future, and will not be called the Democratic Party.

We can do something about this. Democrats have the right DNA. I propose a conversation.

Please forward to other Democrats.

Sincerely,
Ken Gordon
Former Colorado Senate Majority Leader

Ken Buck Tells Truth about Bennet's Lies

2010-10-25T18:26:00.005-06:00

KEN BUCK ON THE ISSUES

Q: Does Ken want to levy a 23% tax on all goods and services?
A: Ken has never advocated for a 23% tax increase on anything. Ken is the only candidate who has taken a pledge not to increase taxes. This attack is even more outrageous given that Michael Bennet has supported raising taxes 24 times in his brief appointed term, and has refused to give straight answers about a permanent extension of the soon to expire 2001 tax cuts, which will cost Colorado families millions.

Q: Does Ken Buck wants to eliminate the Federal Department of Education?
A: No, but Ken recognizes the importance of local control, and having parents and teachers involved in educational decisions over bureaucrats in Washington D.C. As a nation we need to evaluate the successes and failures and eliminate efforts that are duplicative of what the States are doing.

Q: Will Ken Buck cut or reduce Social Security payments to seniors?
A: Ken believes Social Security is a sacred promise made to our nation’s seniors. He will never reduce the payments allotted for existing retirees and will fight to make the system solvent for future generations.

Q: Does Ken want to do away with Student Loans?
A: Ken is a strong advocate for federally guaranteed student loans; his opposition is to the government takeover of ALL federally guaranteed student loans perpetrated under President Obama. Ken favors a comprehensive approach that includes private banks, which have often offered more favorable rates to students then the government.

Q: Does Ken Buck want to ban birth control?
A: This is a patent falsehood. Ken Buck has never said on any occasion that he wants to ban common forms of birth control.

Q: Is it true that Ken Buck thinks being gay is a choice?
A: Ken’s running for U.S. Senate to fight to get our economy back on track by working to rein in out-of-control federal spending. Democrats and the media have tried to distract from the real issues facing our country. Coloradans care about the economy and jobs. We need to give Washington a reality check. The trillion dollars they’ve wasted of our money must stop. We need to get our economy turned around by generating economic growth.

Ken Buck was the first to successfully prosecute a hate crime and receive a conviction. In 2009, Buck filed first-degree murder and hate-crime charges against Allen Andrade, the Thornton man convicted by a Greeley jury in the brutal beating death last summer of Angie Zapata, an 18-year-old transgender woman.

It was the first successful prosecutions in the nation of a hate-crime laws.

“Initially, I was skeptical about the use of the bias-motivated crimes statute,” Buck wrote in an opinion article in The Denver Post. “Through my exposure to the Zapata case, I was persuaded that these crimes are unique. Bias-motivated crimes are particularly heinous because they target an entire community of people, not just the actual victim.”

DECISIONS AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Q: What did Ken mean when he said that a woman in Weld County had buyer’s remorse?
A: Buck explained with compassion that a jury would not convict because of information the defense would use. He said a jury might interpret her complaint as “buyer’s remorse,” a statement misrepresented by opponents to make it sound as if Buck questioned her motives.

ProgressNow Colorado tracked down and exploited a woman who reported a date rape five years ago. ProgressNow is using the case in a disgusting effort to portray Republican candidate Ken Buck, the Weld County district attorney, as a monstrous misogynist who approves of rape.

Date rape convictions are especially unlikely. Typical cases consist of “he said” v. “she said” and not much more. The defendant has the advantage of a presumption of innocence; the victim is burdened with providing proof.

Buck advised her of other legal remedies but warned that they may lead to hurtful defense attacks. To be certain he was making the right call, Buck asked the office of then-Boulder District Attorney Mary Lacy, arguably the stateʼs most aggressive sex crimes prosecutor at the time, to review the case. Lacyʼs prosecutors concurred with Buck.

Buck has an impressive list of high-profile rape and date rape convictions. His
Department’s relentless prosecution of rapist Brandon Bradshaw resulted in a
192-year sentence.

Why Obamacare Won't Work - An MD's View

2010-10-25T18:14:00.003-06:00

ER doc Mike Fallon, candidate for Denver's 1st congressional district, gives a two-part insight into the costs and unintended consequences of this radical take-over of 1/6th of the US economy.

Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvPs38FGJwE
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDKSuOe_hqc

Obamacare 1099 rule makes a cheater of every taxpayer

2010-10-20T15:24:00.004-06:00

IRS 1099 tyranny
You see, while he was ramming through the health care bill, Harry Reid hid in its 2,500 pages of gibberish a provision requiring all businesses - big, small and even sole proprietorships - to file a 1099 form reporting every purchase of $600 or more from every vendor - including small purchases adding up to $600 or more.

This is complete insanity. I own a small research-and-development business with 15 employees. We make hundreds of purchases in the $600 range each year. We would need to file several hundred of those 1099s. Big corporations would need to file millions of them. Furthermore, vendors such as hardware stores will need to keep track of all their sales to each of their customers - tens of thousands for a typical big store - in order to provide an accurate 1099 totaling the purchases of each and every customer who is, or might be, a small business. These forms would have to be reconciled with the records of each business, or the IRS would have grounds to accuse one or the other of a discrepancy.

This bill will not bring the federal government any tax revenue. Rather, by adding to the overhead of companies big and small, it will take away from their bottom line and reduce the taxes they are able to pay accordingly. In my case, I will have to hire a person for $50,000 per year to do nothing but try to obtain and verify the information of such forms. That will cost the federal government $12,000 in lost taxes.

If I were a smaller company, however, say with four employees, I could not afford to do that and so would have to either go out of business (thus costing the feds a great deal of tax revenue) or operate illegally and live in fear of prosecution. As for the hardware store, the owner will have to hire a platoon of clerks, which either will reduce his profits and the taxes he pays or force him to increase his sales prices, which will cut into the taxable income of all of his business customers.

But it gets worse. Because there is no fundamental difference between a sole proprietorship and any private person, there is no reason why this provision, if accepted, should not be applied to every taxpayer.

Consider: Do you know how much you spent at your local grocery store last year? Certainly more than $600. But how much exactly? What, you don't know? You will need to know, or under this law, you would commit tax fraud by failing to report accurately the exact amount you spent at every store, hotel, gas station, airline, etc., at which you spent $600 over the course of the year. You would need to get a 1099 from each of them to include in your tax return. If you failed to do so, you could be subject to prosecution. And if you somehow do get all your forms in correctly, you still will be subject to endless arbitrary audits and harassment because you will never be able to prove the accuracy of your submittal to the Internal Revenue Service. Is this the kind of nation we want to live in?

Nearly every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare - including Sen. Bennett. Mr. Reid's 1099 tyranny law is not a small matter. It is a very big deal. Passed through fraud, it is much worse than the publicly debated provisions in the rest of the health care bill or the failure to repeal the George W. Bush tax cuts. The nation is being threatened with a totalitarian tax nightmare. It will not only destroy businesses coast to coast, it will endanger the freedom of every citizen.

Robert Zubrin is president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of "Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil" (Prometheus Books, 2007).

Poll Your Opinion on 60, 61, and 101

2010-10-10T17:45:00.010-06:00

Poll Your Opinion on 60, 61, and 101

HB1408 opens door to gerrymander legislative districts

2010-04-20T21:15:00.003-06:00

Anything Goes

That, apparently, is the philosophy behind the Democrats’ bill, HB-1408, for eviscerating the rules concerning Congressional redistricting. Next year, after the 2010 Census and elections, Colorado will, like every other state, draw new congressional district boundaries. In the past, with one notable exception I’ll discuss below, there have been certain statutory rules governing the drawing of those boundaries, describing what criteria the courts may or may not take into consideration. The Democrats’ bill would seek to repeal all of these statutory guidelines and replace them with..nothing.

In general courts could not use “non-neutral” factors such as ”political party registration, political party election performance, and other factors that invite the court to speculate about the outcome of an election.”

Here are the “neutral” factors that courts could use, according to the relevant statute:

(I)First, a good faith effort to achieve precise mathematical population equality between districts, justifying each variance, no matter how small, as required by the constitution of the United States. Each district shall consist of contiguous whole general election precincts. Districts shall not overlap.

(II)Second, compliance with the federal “Voting Rights Act of 1965″, in particular 42 U.S.C. sec. 1973;

(III)Third, except when necessary to comply with subparagraph (I) or (II) of this paragraph (b), political subdivisions such as counties, cities, and towns shall be preserved intact and shall not be fragmented or dispersed across district lines. When applying this criterion, preservation of the most populous counties, cities, and towns shall take precedence. When county, city, or town boundaries are changed, adjustments, if any, in districts shall be as prescribed by law.

(IV)Fourth, communities of interest, including ethnic, cultural, economic, trade area, geographic, and demographic factors, shall be preserved within a single district whenever possible. Traditional communities of interest in Colorado include the western slope and the eastern plains.

(V)Fifth, each congressional district shall be as compact in area as possible, and the aggregate linear distance of all district boundaries shall be as short as possible; and

(VI)Sixth, disruption of prior district lines shall be minimized.

Presumably, the Voting Rights Act would continue to apply, and despite the failure to capitalize “Constitution,” one assumes that the Democrats don’t want to introduce wild disparities in district populations. The courts will still be bound by federal law in drawing federal districts. Those details aside, there are good, longstanding reasons for all of these exclusions and inclusions.

The absence of the additional restrictions would open the door to the sort of gerrymandering that characterizes Illinois.

It also makes intuitive sense that cities and towns should have the same Congressional representation, where possible. In fact, they are merely a subset of (IV): communities of interest. It makes sense that interests, rather than parties, should be represented is legislatures. Citizens have interests. They may be economic, ethnic, cultural, or social, but citizens are far more likely to think about them on a daily basis than they are to think about their party affiliation, if any. Political parties may or may not be an expression of those interests, but are, at best, a secondary overlay on top of them. If this weren’t true, “Unaffiliated” wouldn’t be our largest party non-identification in Colorado.

This may be a perfectly logical choice, for a party that sees interests as tools of political power, rather than parties as expressions of coalitions of interests, but I doubt that most people think that way.

But aside from the philosophy involved, it’s important not to lose sight of the mechanics. Redistricting in Colorado is done by a tripartate commission from each of the branches of the government. Two each (one from each party) from the House and Senate, three appointed by the Governor, and the last four appointed by Supreme Court’s Chief Justice. If the commission can’t reach agreement, the District Court can impose a solution, as happened in 2002, when it adopted the Democratic plan for Colorado’s new 7th Congressional district. Interestingly, the court specifically included “competitiveness” in its ruling, despite a specific statutory injunction against using party registration as a criterion. This bill aims to remove even that potential legal obstacle.

HB-1408 is directed to the courts, not the commission, implicitly anticipating gridlock there. If this weren’t the case, the bill would remove any guidelines from the commission, as well. I don’t think it goes too far to suggest that the strategy here is to repeat 2002, obstructing a solution and then getting the courts to adopt a partisan plan.

CORRECTION: I am reminded by Matt Arnold that the reapportionment commission only applies to state legislative districts. Congressional districts are redrawn by the General Assembly alone, without the governor or the courts. Of course, this increases the chances for gridlock, but it also means that the composition of the Supreme Court will be less important in this regard, should this pass. Similarly, it means that the composition of the legislature will be far, far more important.

Reposted with permission from author Jonathan Sharf
http://www.jsharf.com/view/?p=446

Three Kinds Of Folks...

2010-04-08T14:41:00.002-06:00

1) Those that MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

2) Those that WATCH THINGS HAPPEN.

3 Those that ask, "WHAT HAPPENED"?

[Paraphrase of a Jim Rohn quote.]

The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged to each other "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." They are among those that made things happen. Members of the CRBC fall into the “make things happen” category as well.

Thanks to all of the CRBCers who put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for Colorado's small businesses, for liberty, and for the constitutional values that made America great.

Now, back to making things happen.

It seems the Dems are working overtime in Colorado and in the US Congress to make things happen that not only do not support small businesses, liberty, and constitutional values but directly contradict and contravene them...you know what those issues are. We recognize that a passion for change that ranges from misguided to unconstitutional to downright puerile motivates their actions.

Here’s the pitch…

The small part of my life, fortune, and sacred honor that I dedicate to making things happen through the CRBC is co-chairing, with Roberta Bourn, the Small Donor Committee.

It is imperative—absolutely imperative—that the Small Donor Committee succeed in raising a great deal of money this year so CRBC can support candidates that will overthrow the insane legislation that is being proposed and passed both in Colorado and in DC.

The Small Donor Committee won't ask you for your life or your sacred honor. However, we sure would like $50.00 of your fortune [that's the most we can accept from an individual]. That’s one way CRBC can make things happen for candidates that need a little help getting over a hump or responding to some insanity from the leftists later this year when a conservative candidate may win an election because of CRBC’s contribution and begin to restore the Constitutional values that make America and Colorado great—or lose in the absence of it and allow the leftist elite to continue their rampage through out rights..

Make your checks payable to the CRBC Small Donor Committee. Today! Thanks...jr

Legislative Update April 1, 2010 - NO JOKE!

2010-04-08T08:19:00.007-06:00

After passing the arbitrary tax hikes of Ritter’s “Dirty Dozen”, Nanny Statist Democrats in Colorado are now focused on other ways to hurt business and job creation. See the CRBC Legislative Matrix for the names of legislators to contact on the bills. Here’s the latest:

Energy
HB1001 – (Max Tyler D-Golden/Schwartz D –Snowmass Village) Requires public utilities to supply 30% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. This is the most stringent standard in America and will increase the cost of energy for business and residences. Energy from wind and solar are almost impossible to store so traditional sources will still be required. Status: Signed by Gov. Ritter.

HB1365 –Utilities Convert Coal To Natural Gas (Judy Solano D-Brighton/Bruce Whitehead D-Hesperas) Once again, government picks winners and losers. Effectively shuts down two coal-fired power plants and switches Xcel Energy’s fuel source to natural gas. An amendment that would have allowed natural gas to compete with low-emitting fuel technologies was killed in committee. An amendment passed that delays utility rate increases until after the 2012 elections. Status: 4/1/2010 Passed after 3rd reading in Senate, with Republicans Josh Penry, Ken Kester and Greg Brophy voting yes. Ritter will sign soon.

Private Property Rights
SB185 Residential Warrant of Habitability (Brandon Shaffer D-Longmont/Mike Merrifield D-CO Springs) Makes it easier for tenants to sue a landlord by removing the requirement for a tenant to provide written notice prior to a breach of the warranty, and it modifies the standard of condition that would constitute a breach. Additionally, it creates a right of action for tenants, including disciplinary action and treble damages. This bill will lead to an increase in rental housing costs, as well as limit the building of new properties, due to possible litigation. Status: 03/29/2010 Senate Second Reading Laid Over to 04/12/2010

HB 1017, Voluntary Agreements Affecting Rent on Private Residential Property (Dan Kagan D-Denver /Betty Boyd D-) This bill alters current state law, which prohibits counties and municipalities from enacting any ordinance that would allow rent control on private residential property. This opens the door for any remodeling, construction or new development project — regardless of size or scope — to be subject to such requirements – such as ADA compliance - and would decrease investment in rental housing. Status: Passed House, 4/1/2010 passed 2nd reading in Senate with amendments

HB 1107 Urban Renewal Area Ag Lands (Randy Fischer D-Ft Collins /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill restricts the inclusion of agricultural lands within urban renewal areas and outlines procedures for county assessors when classifying agricultural land for property tax purposes. It damages the prospects of additional job growth in the clean tech industry sector, which often has a sizeable manufacturing component and requires large parcels of land adjacent to rail lines. Status: Passed House, passed Senate; laid over daily for House to consider Senate amendments

Workers Comp
HB1356 Workers' Comp Policyholder Protection Act 2010 (Su Ryden D-Aurora/ Lois Tochtrop D-Thornton) A deal to extort up to $330M from Pinnacol Assurance in exchange for near autonomy has collapsed. The mutual assurance company insures almost 50% of Colorado companies and is owned by the policyholders. But, Pinnacol receives tax breaks as the “insurer of last resort” and has been financially profitable since being managed as a private company. Legislators expect that an audit of Pinnacol in June will give the State more leverage to demand a higher payoff. Status: Introduced in House; assigned to Business & Labor

HB1012 Limit Surveillance Workers’ Comp Claims (Sal Pace D-Pueblo/Morgan Carroll D - Aurora) is another bill aimed to hurt Pinnacol and small businesses. This bill restricts a company’s ability to see if an employee’s workers comp claim of injury is valid with commonly used fraud-detection procedures. Status: 03/31/2010 Senate Committee on Judiciary Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only

Higher costs to business
HB 1263 Limit Income Tax Benefit for Comp Paid (Jack Pommer D- Boulder /Betty Boyd D-Lakewood) Increases the state income tax on individual total compensation above $250,000 and limits the deductibility of income above that amount for corporations. Company must pay taxes on an amount over $250,000 rather than deducting it as an operating expense. (The federal level is $1million.) This bill creates a disincentive for businesses to locate a national HQ here and create high-paying jobs. Sports teams, airlines, hospitals, telecom companies etc. will see their expenses rise – all passed to consumers, or they’ll move to a more business friendly state. Status: Introduced in House, assigned to Finance Committee

HB 1269 Workplace Fairness Civil Remedies Act (Claire Levy D- Boulder /Morgan Carroll D-Aurora) This bill significantly increases the damages in state employment discrimination lawsuits by adding, for the first time, pain-and-suffering penalties, punitive damage, attorney’s fees and other remedies already available under federal law. Duplicating expanded lawsuit remedies for large businesses already available under federal law is unnecessary and will permit plaintiffs to “forum shop.” Status: House Committee on Judiciary Referred Amended to Appropriations

Some Good Bills
HB1160 – (Amy Stephens R-CO Springs; Joe Rice D- Littleton/Shawn Mitchell R-Broomfield) Allows insurance companies to provide incentives such as reduced policy premiums or co-payments to companies that offer wellness programs. Status: Passed House, assigned to Senate Com on Business Labor Tech

SB 112 (Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Keeps workers compensation insurance rates down by allowing businesses to take advantage of cost savings through highly successful deductible programs. It provides businesses with access to important rate setting data, which can be used to appeal their own insurance rates. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.

SB 116 Public Contracting Jobs Protection Act ((Mike Kopp R-Littleton) Requires public entities to reimburse contractor for costs incurred from additional work until an agreement can be reached between the two parties. Current practices require contractors to pay upfront labor and materials costs for any additional work until a change order agreement can be reached, which can take months. SB 116 will ensure contractors are paid on a timely basis for change directive work, creating a great stimulus for the Colorado economy and keeping Colorado workers employed. Status: Passed, awaiting Ritter signature.

Posted by Christine Burtt, Chairman, CO Republican Business Coalition smallbizgop@comcast.net

CO DEMS show anti-business bias

2010-03-15T13:24:00.002-06:00

Democrats Gone Wild: Speaker Carroll follows Dem spokesman Jack Pommer down the anti-business rabbit hole. As reported in the Denver Business Journal, House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, "Because life under the Dome is sometimes divorced from reality, the business community has always said that no matter what we do, we’re going to lose jobs. I’m just not going to engage in those debates with them because it’s like the boy who cried wolf."

Carroll is divorced from reality. "Accusing the business community of 'crying wolf' over job losses is a huge insult to the hundreds of Amazon affiliates laid off because of the new Internet tax or the thousands of steel workers whose jobs have been put in jeopardy because of the new energy tax," said Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas.

Business owners repeatedly testified before members of the legislature saying that a series of Democrat proposed tax increases would kill jobs. Pepsi officials, for example, told lawmakers a new soda tax will put at risk as many as 800 jobs. A new tax hike on candy will target 150 workers at Grand Junction confectioner Enstrom’s, and the more than $3.3 million the company spends each year with more than 300 Colorado vendors. Democrats ignored the warnings and passed over $300 million of tax increases.

During floor debate about the tax increases, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, accused business of not caring about Colorado. Neil Westergaard, editor of the Denver Business Journal, responded by calling Pommer the "most clueless lawmaker" and accused him of being the "torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last." ColoradoSenateNews.com

DEMS add mandates and increase hlth care ins costs

2010-03-14T21:49:00.002-06:00

HB1021 by Sen. Joyce Foster D-Denver and Sen. Betty Boyd D-Lakewood
Status: awaiting final Senate vote before signing by Governor

By mandating insurance companies to cover reproductive services and contraception in all small group and individual plans, Democrats are effectively making coverage more expensive for everyone.

Mandates require insurers to pay for reproductive care consumers previously funded out of their own pocket.

Another consequence of increasing price is that healthy individuals, often young people with low salaries, drop coverage. Ironically, those are the exact people the system needs to offset the cost of covering people who are not healthy. This creates a downward spiral in which costs increase further and fewer individuals are covered.

Limiting Growth - Initiation Ties Construction to Prior Water use

2010-03-14T21:42:00.003-06:00

Stop Growth In CO by Limiting New Residential Housing Along the Front Range

The initiative assumes that water is a finite resource. We've seen how well artificial restrictions on growth work; witness the high cost of housing inside the Boulder "green belt" and the sprawl, traffic and congestion outside the arbitrary no-growth zone.

A proposed Colorado ballot initiative in the works would limit the amount of water made available for "newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units" along the Front Range and would prohibit cities and counties from issuing building permits that would cause those caps to be exceeded.

The cap provides:
Beginning in 2011, the amount of water available annually for newly constructed, privately owned residential housing units for the cities and counties or counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld shall not exceed one percent of the total water used for privately owned residential purposes annually averaged over the previous ten years in such cities and counties or counties.

Each local government and any part of such, whether statutory or home rule, shall allot building permits so that housing growth does not exceed the limitation on water use cumulatively for such city or county in a calendar year.

CRBC Legislative Update - the first seven weeks (only- gasp!)

2010-03-04T15:17:00.006-07:00

In a ram-and-jam style that would make Nancy Pelosi proud, Governor Ritter and his Democrat-controlled Legislature seem intent on driving business away from Colorado and crippling the ones that stay.

Not yet half-way through the session and there have been a barrage of bills to increase taxes, neatly circumventing TABOR by a single statement in a Court decision that opined that repealing tax exemptions were not really tax increases and therefore not subject to a TABOR vote of the citizens. (Ritter's "Dirty Dozen" HB1189-1198)

Other highlights:
Attempts that may be likened to mob extortion by the State to wrest more control or pay-offs from Pinnacol Assurance, the private sector funded workers comp insurance program. (HB1009; HB1012)

We got more than half a loaf in reforming PERA, but the structural problem still exists: why should public sector employees and spouse enjoy a generous Defined Benefit after retirement at age 60 until they die, when the best a private sector worker can hope for is a Defined Contribution to his or her retirement plan and a pathetic return on their confiscated Social Security payment? (SB001)

In a cynical move to offset the job-killing effect of Ritter’s Dirty Dozen and other State regulations to stifle business, an income tax credit of $4,000 to re-hire employees you couldn’t afford to keep in 2009. (SB133)

“Economic Justice” A limit on tax deductibility for salary and compensation in excess of $250,000. The Federal cap is $1M. It’s basically a message to business: don’t bring your national HQ to CO, and we don’t want successful small businesses either. (HB1263)

More “economic justice” – Rather than layoff employees, cut back their hours and then have each one file for unemployment insurance commensurate to their lost wages. That way, the State can redistribute the pain of the recession to the businesses that still have customers and are keeping their heads above water. (SB28)

DOA: Republican bills that are bonafide solutions to healthcare costs and accessibility – a moratorium on adding to Colorado’s 51 mandates and selling insurance across state lines. (HB1154; HB1163)

Also DOA: Republican bills to stop the madness of continual personal property tax by a pilot program to reimburse counties that stop receiving monies from personal property tax on items that are fully depreciated (SB085) and by creating a system that stops taxing fully depreciated items over a 13-year timeframe. (SB086)

Efforts to get some justice for the 39 Colorado auto dealerships that were arbitrarily shutdown when Government Motors took control of the company and the Chrysler bondholders saw decades of securities law turned on its head. (HB1049)

Nanny Statism at its finest: a proposed ban and severe penalties for those who manufacture or sell cosmetics, shampoos, sun screen, deodorant or any other product you put on or near your body that may have any of 700 trace elements that might cause cancer. (HB1248)

Read blog comments for more info on specific bills. The hits just keep coming! Stay tuned.

HB1330 Hlth Claims Database Invades Privacy

2010-03-04T15:11:00.002-07:00

HB1330: The All-Payer Database is a Transparency Trojan Horse

Exerpt from March 1, 2010 Opinion Editorial
By Linda Gorman

House Bill 1330 would create an "all-payer health claims database" in Colorado. Bill supporters claim government can reduce health care costs through "transparent public reporting of health care information." In fact, the bill is a transparency Trojan Horse.

It will make your most personal actions transparent to government officials, officials who have no business keeping track of what kind of health care you buy or what you pay for it. The bill authorizes the state to collect information on every health care transaction in the state, including information from private medical records, insurer files, and hospitals.

People who refuse to comply can be fined. There is no limit to the fines that may be assessed. The data that can be requisitioned and stored include individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements. If your teenager filled out the kind of questionnaire that is standard in pediatric practices, it may also contain information on whether you own a firearm, your household's illegal drug use, how well your child does in school, and whether your child or his friends have ever broken the law.

No one can opt out of the database the bill creates,... (which)is to be financed by gifts, grants, and donations from unknown sources with unknown agendas. The design of the database is controlled by an unknown "Administrator" who will decide who your data will be shared with and the form it will take. With no limits on how the data collected can be used to coerce individual behavior, this bill poses a grave threat to both medical privacy and individual liberty.

Linda Gorman directs the Health Care Policy Center at the Independence Institute.

2010-02-28T00:31:00.004-07:00

PERA Reform - Sort of. SB10-001 by Sen. Brandon Shaffer (D) and Rep. Andy Kerr (D)

MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION NECESSARY TO REACH A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FUNDED RATIO WITHIN THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS

Status: 02/23/2010 Governor Action - Signed

SB001 raised the retirement age to 60, decreased the COLA from 3% to 2%, increased the number of years to average highest income from 3 to 4 (for purposes of determining the annual retirement benefit); the employers' (taxpayers) contribution level went up; the employees contribution level stayed the same or dropped; changed the surviving spouse benefit to require a minimum number of years on the job ,and reduced benefits for those who retire before the retirement age.

The plan anticipates a continued high rate of return on PERA investments.

SB001 goes a long way to solve the $30Billion anticipated deficit in the Fund, but the real solution is to restructure the program from a Defined Benefit to a Defined Contribution. The challenge is finding enough money to keep the extraordinary promises made to retirees while allowing younger employees to have a portable, private property right in their retirement account.

At its heart, there is a basic issue of fairness regarding PERA. How much paid retirement do private sector workers owe their public sector-working neighbors? Public sector workers are paid more than private sector workers and Defined Benefit plans in the private sector are virtually non-existent. By 2019, Social Security will only 70% of earned benefits. Why should the full responsibility for retirement benefits fall to entrepreneurs and wage earners?

HB1263 Dems to business: Buzz off

2010-02-27T23:58:00.004-07:00

Exerpts from 2/19/2010 Denver Business Journal - by Neil Westergaard

I don’t know whether it’s just the yin and yang of politics or what, but Statehouse Democrats are jumping off a political cliff. They’re squandering their advantage, just like the Republicans did by carrying out radical agendas.

They’re handing the majority back to the Republicans in a stunning case of political hari-kari, alienating the very constituency that put them in control for the first time in four decades: political moderates and independents, many of them in business.

What else explains going after business with such a vengeance this session? Why else would you go out of your way to prop up organized labor even as its membership dwindles nationwide?

What’s the rationale for engaging in this victim-led, symbolic populist revolt against anybody who’s ever been successful in business?

This past week, Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, who gets my vote as the most clueless lawmaker up there today, introduced legislation barring businesses from deducting more than $250,000 in individual salaries as a business expense. Pommer has been the Democrats’ torchbearer in a series of attacks on business this year and last.

Pommer’s salary bill is aimed at executives, of course, a flash point for ignorant people who rationalize their lack of success on assorted “fat cats” and “bigwigs.” This is class warfare, folks.
Not to be outdone, even by himself, Pommer declared on the House floor that “businesses don’t care about Colorado.” A few members of his own party winced.

If Pommer’s salary bill passes, there won’t be another economic development deal in Colorado — ever. No company of any size will want to do business in this state. The eco-devo agencies might as well pack up and go home. File for unemployment. Game over.

HB1049 Protecting the Rights of Car Dealerships

2010-02-27T23:49:00.002-07:00

HB1049 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Marsha Looper (R) and Sen. Chris Romer (D) Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)

Status: The Bill has already quickly made its way through the House on a 60-5 vote. Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee hearing Monday March 1.

CRBC position: monitor

The origin of the bill comes from the frustration of 39 car dealerships that were terminated in Colorado as a result of the bankruptcy restructuring plans of Chrysler, LLC and GM. Lawmakers and the dealers say now that the two auto manufacturers have partially emerged from bankruptcy, GM is attempting to reopen dealerships in Colorado with new owners, some with out-of-state investors.

Lawmakers have responded with legislation that would require manufacturers to provide dealers with a first right of refusal should the manufacturer decide to reopen a terminated dealership in the same market area. The legislation would also require carmakers to reimburse dealers for facility upgrades that were made in the past five years.

Proponents of the bill point out that taxpayers funded an $82-billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, of which taxpayers are expected to lose $30 billion. GM has launched an estimated $60,000 advertising campaign against the bill.

From a prepared statement from GM: “HB 1049 is a bad bill that will threaten our progress. This legislation will create special rights for underperforming dealerships and micromanage our dealership network to the detriment of taxpayers, our customers and the thousands of well-run dealerships that remain a part of the GM family.”

GM argues that the dealerships that were terminated in Colorado were not profitable and therefore a detriment to the corporation. The company worries that Colorado could set a “dangerous precedent” for the rest of the nation with HB 1049 that could “reverse the progress we’re making inside the company,” said Martin.

But as Melissa Kuipers, vice president of government relations for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, points out, it was Chrysler and GM that fell into bankruptcy, not the dealers themselves. “It is just plain wrong that these out-of-state manufacturers cut 39 hometown dealers during their bankruptcy proceedings, only to then turn around and reallocate those very franchises to new dealers,” said Kuipers. “The local dealers weren’t the ones who were in bankruptcy.”

Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010
denverdailynews.com

SB133 Tax Credit for Hiring Employees You Can't Afford

2010-02-27T23:37:00.002-07:00

SB133 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)

INCOME TAX CREDIT TO INCENTIVIZE COLORADO BUSINESSES TO REHIRE LAID-OFF WORKERS SOONER
Status: 02/16/2010 Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology Refer Amended to Appropriations

CRBC position: oppose

SB 133 is arbitrary in choosing beneficiaries of the incentive without regard to economic benefits to the state. A useful change would be different qualification dates and the directive nature of the re-hiring concept.

First, the bill should apply to any employer hiring back any laid-off worker. Limiting the rehire to a company's own previously laid-off workers has no greater benefit to the state or the UI fund over any employer hiring any Colorado resident.

Secondly, the time frames in the bill are unworkable. Many employees suffered their layoffs prior to 2009 and therefore would be disadvantaged compared to other workers laid off more recently. And employers that tried to carry employees through the holidays would be penalized for their good actions. Also, if the tax credit applies only to the tax year 2011, companies with various fiscal years cannot meet the hiring windows AND show that that employee has remained employed for a full year before they file their taxes.

Also, while many incentives use a simple verification, it would be impossible for an employer to say that they hired back an employee solely for this tax credit. For example, a company can easily say they located or relocated jobs in an enterprise zone due to the incentives offered, but they do not verify that the jobs were created due to the incentive. A company hires employees when there is demand -- not solely based on a tax credit (that at a maximum would be about $4000).

Perry Pearce
Chairman
Colorado Compeitive Council

HB1248 Nanny State restricts cosmetics, deodorant

2010-02-27T23:10:00.003-07:00

HB1248 by Sen. Betty Boyd (D) and Rep. Dianne Primavera (D)

THE "COLORADO SAFE PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS ACT" AND PROHIBITING THE SALE OF PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS CAUSING CANCER OR REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY

Status: 02/03/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary

CRBC: Oppose

The bill proposes to ban products that are legally marketed under FDA regulations. It is grossly overreaching and lacks scientific basis. Shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, sunscreen are just some of the products that may be banned.

The bill prohibits a manufacturer from knowingly selling, offering for sale, or distributing for sale or use in Colorado on and after September 1, 2011, any personal care product that contains a chemical identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity, regardless of trace amounts. At least 700 substances are included in the list of known or suspected carcinogens.

The bill establishes a process for identifying those chemicals that cannot be contained in personal care products sold or distributed in Colorado by recognizing existing lists of harmful chemicals established by authoritative bodies such as the United States environmental protection agency, the international agency for research on cancer, the national toxicology program, and the national institute for occupational safety and health.

"Personal care products", consistent with the definition of "cosmetics" in the federal "Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", is defined to include any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing,
beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering a person's appearance. Private citizens may file suit to enforce the act, and penalties to manufacturers and distributors are severe.

Rep. Primavera is a cancer survivor.

ACTION: Contact the members of the House Finance Committee about your experiences with various personal products. If you manufacture or sell such products, explain the process you use to determine their safety.

SB085 & SB086 Republican Solutions: eliminate double taxation

2010-02-27T23:02:00.003-07:00

SB 10-085 & SB10-086 by Sen. Mark Scheffel (R) and Rep. Kevin Priola (R)

Status: Sent to the graveyard of the Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs to be postponed indefinitely

CRBC position: support for both bills

SB085 would have created a pilot program in five counties to reimburse participating counties for lost revenue from private property tax exemptions.

SB086 would have allowed a percentage of fully depreciated personal property to be deducted each year until the property is entirely exempt beginning with the 2023 property tax year.

To never have to stop paying tax on business equipment is just wrong.

HB1163 - Republican Hlthcare Solution - Sell Ins Across State Lines

2010-02-27T22:57:00.002-07:00

HB1163 by Rep. Cindy Acree (R) and Sen. Mark Scheffel (R)

CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE TO ENTER INTO MULTISTATE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING COLORADO CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE PRODUCTS

A great idea, CRBC supported. Killed in Committee. We thought lowering health care costs through competition was central to Obamacare. Guess that only applies if the "competition" is government-run and taxpayer funded.

SB28 UI Fund is Broke but Dems Want More Benefits

2010-02-27T22:42:00.003-07:00

SB28 by Sen. Rollie Heath (D)

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLORADO "WORK SHARE PROGRAM" TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A REDUCTION IN WORK HOURS.
Status: 02/26/2010 Senate Committee on Appropriations Refer Unamended to Senate Committee of the Whole

CRBC Position: Oppose

The bill proposes to set up a new program under the unemployment system in the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to allow employers, in lieu of laying off a percentage of their workers in a unit, to cut back on all workers’ hours by that percentage (between 10% and 40%) and then apply to have those employees file for a proportional amount of unemployment insurance benefits.

This is a new expansion of benefits – currently employers can cut back to 32 hours per week with no benefits allowed.

This proposal goes against a basic premise of the UI system – that workers receiving benefits must be actively looking for work or additional work.

SB 28 sets up a complicated and difficult program that is unmanageable and unverifiable – employers cannot prove that they would have laid off a certain number of workers and cannot give assurances that employees will be returned to full hours in the future, but especially not in the short time-frame given in the bill.

UI Fund Costs – SB 28 will be a further cash flow drain on the Unemployment Insurance Fund which is currently insolvent. Even though employers who choose to utilize the fund will pay a higher experience premium in following years, the fund will bear an immediate cash flow outlay. Also, in order for an employer to realize the equivalent costs savings of layoffs, he/she would have to reduce hours by a greater percentage – thereby impacting the UI fund to a greater degree.

Administrative Costs – administrative cost estimates have varied from an initial $60,000 per year to $486,000 for the initial year to $231,000 for the initial year – but we still do not have a formal fiscal note. We know costs will be high as each plan for each employer must be reviewed and accepted by the Director of CDLE. CDLE says these costs will be covered by the federal government…but that money still is paid employers through our federal unemployment tax (FUTA).

SB10-28 creates an expensive program that few employers could utilize and that will put further drain on the UI fund if they do.

Virginia Morrison Love
Colorado Competitive Council

ACTION: Contact your Senator and explain how adding more cost to a program that is already borrowing between $80M -$100M a month makes no sense.

HB1263 Compensation Caps: Tell Business to Leave CO

2010-02-27T22:23:00.003-07:00

HB1263 by Rep. Jack Pommer (D) and Sen. Betty Boyd (D)

A LIMIT ON THE STATE INCOME TAX BENEFIT FOR COMPENSATION PAID BY A BUSINESS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED
Status: 2/4/2010 Introduced in House; assigned to Finance Committee

CRBC Position: oppose

House Bill 10-1263 would not allow a business to deduct the total amount of salary and other compensation (ie - benefits of any kind such as health care, retirement plan contributions, and all others) paid to any individual in excess of $250,000. It would apply to the tax returns of all businesses which file in Colorado, whether located in Colorado or outside the state, including “C” corporations, “Sub-S’ corporations, Schedule C sole proprietors, partnerships, LLC’s, and all other business entities.

This bill, if passed, would actively discourage most businesses from relocating their corporate headquarters to Colorado, and would discourage other high-tech and high paying industries from locating facilities in Colorado. After the Democrat-party-controlled legislature recently passed hundreds of millions of dollars of sales tax increases on Colorado businesses, this bill would further seriously damage Colorado’s reputation as one of the most business friendly states in the country.

Now with HB-1263 the CRBC seriously questions why some members of the Democrat party deem such measures appropriate when the State is now starting to work its way out of a serious economic downturn.

This bill is sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and 12 other members of the House, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Jefferson County plus 4 other senators. Representative Pommer is infamous for his recent comment on the House floor saying that “businesses don’t care about Colorado”. This Bill would seem to strongly indidcate that Rep. Pommer feels likewise about businesses.

HB1263 complicates CO income tax law by creating a significant difference between CO and Federal income tax law (with a limit of $1 million deductibility on compensation). It imposes an unusual and unnecessary cost on businesses in Colorado.

ACTION: Contact your representative and explain to them how socialist mandates discourage business, which decreases revenue and taxes available to pay for public sector programs.

HB1193 How to Pay Your Use Tax for Internet Purchases

2010-02-27T22:16:00.002-07:00

Most of us are accustomed to receiving a Form 1099 every January from our bank or brokerage firm which reports the amount of interest, dividends, etc. which you were paid during the previous calendar year. You also get similar Forms 1099 or 1098 for multiple other purposes, which you may or may not understand.

Starting in January, 2011 you will begin getting a new one. That “Form XYZ” will be coming from many of the Internet retailers such as Amazon, Overstock.com, etc., and catalog companies such as LandsEnd, Orvis and others.

That Form XYZ will report to you the total dollar amount of items purchased from that retailer during the previous calendar year. It will also remind you that you are required to file a Sales and Use Tax Return with the Colorado Department of Revenue. The same Form XYZ will also be sent to the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Yes, most people don’t have any idea what a Sales and Use Tax Return is – that does not matter. It is your responsibility to find out.) It is safe to assume that eventually the Department of Revenue will start to compare the Forms XYZ received against the Sales and Use Tax Returns filed and start sending out bills to those who did not voluntarily pay. Please contact your tax advisor regarding the filing of that return.

In addition to this new Form XYZ, the retailers will be required to send you a separate letter which will remind you that you are required to file a Colorado Sales and Use Tax Return. (Yes, they are required to nag you twice.)

Finally, the Colorado Department of Revenue is granted the authority to establish rules regarding the specifics relating to the Form XYZ. It is possible that they would require the retailer to provide details for every purchase made, such as the date, amount, “category” (whatever that would mean), and whether or not the purchase is exempt from sales tax (which is impossible for the retailer to determine in the case of many consumer sales).

One best believe that Big Brother IS watching, more closely every day!

Keith Crichton MBA, MT, CPA
Crichton Consulting Services, LLC
Centennial

HB1154 Republican Hlthcare solution: moratorium on mandates

2010-02-27T22:08:00.003-07:00

HB1154 by Rep. Kathleen Curry (I) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)

IMPOSE A ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATES
Status: assigned to Com on State, Veterans & Military Affairs; postponed indefinitely

CRBC Position: Support

HB1154 would have created a mandate review process to give legislators unbiased information about the potential cost increases that result from health insurance coverage mandates. There are 51 mandates in Colorado, 1,961 nationwide. Why should a man pay for maternity benefits and a woman pay for PSA exams? Why should a healthy person have to pay for diabetes supplies, substance abuse therapy or psychiatric nursing? Why should a childless person have to pay for well-child care? Why should anyone have to buy more health care insurance than they want or need?

HB1154 would have paved the way for choice and competition, ironically the mantra of the Left.

HB1009 More government interference in Pinnacol

2010-02-27T21:43:00.003-07:00

HB1009 by Rep. Joe Miklosa (D) and Sen. Mary Hodge (D)

CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PINNACOL ASSURANCE
Status: 02/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 03/02/2010

Sets up (another) Interim Committee to study PinnacolAssurance, the quasi-public workers comp insurance program, funded by private-sector businesses.

Enlarges the Pinnacol Board of directors by adding an injured worker and the executive directorof the State Dept. of Labor and Employment.

HB1009 would:

Inject government interference into a Board that has been highly successful, overseeing rate reductions and policyholder dividends for the last five years;
Create conflict for certain Board members between their fiduciary responsibility to policyholders and allegiance to their own stakeholders;
Divide the Board between members who represent all policyholders and those who represent a specific special interest;
Allow the Legislature to dictate specific Board member requirements for some members, but not others; and
Add non-management employees to the Board, lowering the level of expertise.

Pinnacol's track record of success, including lowering rates by 42 percent in four years while receiving high marks from customers and covered workers, shows that the Board is effectively managing the company and should not be changed.

ACTION: Before March 2, Contact your Representative and tell them how government interference in the private sector is unnecessary and inefficient. If you are a Pinnacol customer, explain how government interference tends to increase rates.

HB1189-HB1199 Ritter's Dirty Dozen tax bills

2010-02-27T20:34:00.003-07:00

Governor Ritter signed nine of the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills. One HB1198 was killed in committee when it was discovered it would eliminate Colorado’s Alternative Minimum Tax. The other two HB1197 and HB1200 are still in the works.

These bills are job-killers and show a basic ignorance of Economics 101. If you want less of something, tax it. Raise taxes=increased cost of goods and services, passed onto consumers, who will purchase less in a recession. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush all proved it: the economy grows when tax rates are low.

STATUS: The House and Senate both voted on the same day, and Ritter signed them without the usual public ceremony the next day. All are effective March 1, 2010 Passed into law:

HB 1189 “Advertising Tax” Makes direct mail advertising materials subject to state sales tax.

HB 1190 “Energy Tax” Makes all energy that used for processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, building construction, telegraph, telephone, and radio communication, street and railroad transportation services, and all industrial uses subject to state sales tax.

HB 1191 “Sugar Tax” Makes candy and soft drinks purchased from retailers and vending machines subject to state sales tax. In some cases, the additional tax is more than the profit a vendor earns, as contracts are typically written for several years.

HB 1192 “Software Tax” Classifies software that you download from the Internet and software manually installed on a computer as tangible property so that it can be subject to state sales tax.

HB 1193 “Internet Tax” Makes items from out-of-state retailers purchased online subject to state sales tax.

HB 1194 “Carry-out Tax” Makes "nonessential" articles, containers, plastic spoons, napkins or bags subject to state sales tax. Do you want a bag with those fries?

HB 1195 “Farm Tax”Makes agricultural compounds (insecticides, fungicides, vaccines, hormones, and other animal drugs), bull semen, and pesticides used for agricultural production and caring for livestock subject to state sales tax, driving up food costs. Colorado is now one of only six states to charge farmers and ranchers sales tax for the inputs they use to produce food. The law creates an incentive to purchase pesticides and medicine online or from an out of state retailer. Ag is an industry that can’t pass costs on; we compete in a world market and are price takers. We accept the price offered by the buyer, and when competing farms located in Kansas and Nebraska don’t have the same costs it makes Colorado farmers less competitive and gives them an incentive to not pay these taxes.So what does this new tax mean in human terms? Well, if you are a full time farmer this bill will likely take $2000 to $6000 out of your pocket. That’s a lot of money. Jen Raiffie

HB 1196 “Green Tax” Repeals the tax credit for certain qualifying high mileage vehicles.

HB 1199, "Limit Loss Carry Forward" Temporarily limit the amount of net operating losses companies can carry forward on their taxes.

HB 1197 “Conservation Easement Tax” Reduces deductions for conservation easement donations. STATUS: 02/19/2010 Introduced In Senate - Assigned to Finance

HB 1200 the “Enterprise Zone Tax” Limits the amount of the credit that a taxpayer may claim for enterprise zone investments. STATUS: 01/22/2010 Introduced In House - Assigned to Appropriations

HB1012 Unintended consequence: more fraud in workers comp claims

2010-02-27T20:08:00.005-07:00

HB1012 by Rep. Morgan Carroll (D) and Sen. Louis Pace (D)

CONCERNING LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE OFEMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SUBMITTED A WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM.

STATUS: 02/26/2010 House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole

CRBC Position: OPPOSE
This is another assault on PinnacleAssurance, the quasi-private company that is the "insurer of last resort" for Workers Compensation insurance in Colorado. It is funded by the private-sector companies that buy its insurance.

HB1012 Increases the penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws from up to $500 to up to $1,000. Changes the mental state from "willfully" to "knowingly" in the statute that penalizes denying workers' compensation medical benefits, delaying payment of medical benefits for more than 30 days, or stopping payments. Allows the director of the division of workers' compensation or an administrative law judge to apportion the penalties, in whole or part, among the aggrieved party, the medical services provider, and the workers' compensation cash fund.

A Catch-22 and extremely punitive bill for employers. The Bill forbids an employer from verifying if an employee is actually disabled from a work-related incident unless there is some evidence of fraud, which an employer can't find without "surveillance" of some type. The change from "willfully" to "knowingly" not paying or delaying payment to an employee lowers the threshold of when a penalty may be incurred by an employer.

HB1012 would:

Drive up premiums for Colorado employers by allowing workers' compensation fraud to go undetected;
Limit and slow down investigations of fraud, which require a quick response;
Clog the legal system as other channels for fighting fraud are eliminated;
Undermine the credibility of legitimate claims of injured workers by driving up costs and allowing fraudulent claimants to receive benefits;
Negatively impact all workers' comp carriers in Colorado, affecting the state's businesses and workers alike.

ACTION: Contact your Representative about how HB1012 will affect your business.

HB1192 Ritter's Internet Tax hurts small biz

2010-02-27T19:53:00.004-07:00

HB1192
CONCERNING THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX OF STANDARDIZED SOFTWARE
Status: Passed and signed by Governor Ritter

One of Ritter's Dirty Dozen, advocates sold this as "fairness" for taxing software that's downloaded on-line, rather than bought in a brick and morter storefront. But ignorance of how business works shows why this bill, like Ritter's other tax increases, is a bad idea.

At the margins – for really large and really small software packages – this bill is a disaster. On the low end, think of a download of small mini-apps: a $.95 ringtone, a $1 MP3 song, a $2 e-book, a $5 upgrade to your GPS. How can you tax those things, and would it even be worth it to try?

There are many other technical issues…SaaS (software-as-a-service). Cloud Computing. Virtualization. Managed Services/Hosting. Object-oriented development. Data center hosting. Disaster recovery and remote/hot site services. Software re-use. Service-oriented architecture. Software toolkits. Telecommuting and virtual workforce. Hosted telecom apps and VoIP services. These are just some delivery methods and technology concepts that are at the leading edge of the technology frontier, and Colorado is at the forefront of these and other innovations. Every one of them has special circumstances that will have to be investigated – and analyzed and unraveled – to comply with HB 1192.

So instead of spending time on productive efforts like innovation and implementation, companies will have to invest significant time in non-productive audits and compliance.uld technology jobs leave the state as a result of HB 1192? Not only is it a definite yes, but you must understand that it is relatively easy to do so. Moving a manufacturing facility is hard. Moving a technology platform is easy. Any sizable company would find it easy – as well as advantageous – to move their technology to Seattle or Omaha or Minneapolis to avoid the brain damage of auditing and accounting for and paying the taxes under HB 1192. Not only would that company’s technology jobs move along with the technology platforms, but the jobs of any outside consulting/ implementation partner would move out of the state as well. And no large or growing company – and definitely no high-tech company – would consider moving into or investing further in Colorado if faced with this imposing and formidable barrier to technology, automation and efficiency.

Additionally, in Colorado and elsewhere, there is a shortage of students entering STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are many formal and informal initiatives aimed at training and re-training both youth and adults to enter or shift to the technology workforce. Several Federal jobs training programs are focusing on these efforts. In addition, information technology is at the core of green/sustainable energy initiatives. HB 1192 runs counter to those efforts, and would undoubtedly stifle future growth of talent here in the state, and cause the loss of federal education and training funds.

And lastly, the ARRA/HITECH act earmarks $19.5 billion in Federal funds for the implementation of IT in healthcare, which has shown to help lower our outrageous healthcare costs, reduce costly medical errors and improve patient outcomes. Providers and other entities are reluctant to adopt automation and technology, primarily because of costs and other barriers. By taxing software, HB 1192 increases those barriers, and would definitely cause the State of Colorado to miss out on some of those federal funds…they would go to other healthcare entities in other states.

Marion Jenkins
QSE Technologies, Inc.
disclaimer: Mr. Jenkins' company will not be directly affected by HB1192. He opposes the Bill because it's generally bad for business.

HB1160 Republican HlthCare solution: incentives for wellness programs

2010-02-27T19:34:00.008-07:00

HB1160 by Rep. Joe Rice (D) and Rep. Amy Stephens (R) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R)

CONCERNING THE ABILITY OF HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIERS TO OFFER
INCENTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS
Status: 2/26/2010 House Second Reading Laid Over to 3/8/2010

CRBC Position: Support

The bill could help business owners by slowing the growth of their group medical premiums.

The vote in the House will cause Representatives to publically vote a popular effort to freeze expensive mandates and also to vote against the opportunity for greater choice and lower cost medical plan option for individuals and business.

Voting against HB1160 could provide an election sound bite about Democrat obstruction of popular cost saving measures.

Take Action before March 8: Talk with you Representative about how HB1160 could help your business.

Jim Sugden
Employee Benefit Solutions, Inc.
http://www.ebscolorado.com/

CAP and TRADE is really Cap Energy and Tax YOU

2009-06-25T11:59:00.003-06:00

On June 27, 2009 the House of Representatives will vote on cap-and-trade H.R. 2454.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdn387:@@@D&summ2=m&/bss/111search.html

This is a HUGE energy tax that will cost each family about $2,500 per year. Energy companies will be limited in how much energy they can produce and sell AND be forced to buy "carbon credits" and pass the cost along to consumers. The effect will be higher prices on everything that is processed or shipped such as food, gasoline, furniture, garden supplies, tires, clothes, electronics and home heating fuel, etc. The government will pick winners and losers in terms of which companies get government funding for energy projects. It will effectively eliminate the free market from energy production and distribution in the U.S. and give control to the government.

WE WON'T BECOME LESS DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN FUEL and the number of job losses in the energy sector won't be made up by new jobs in renewable energy development. It's arguable that it will reduce carbon emissions worldwide, but it's sure to hurt the U.S. economy by restricting our greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 97% of 2005 levels.

This is a bad bill. If it only offered incentives to create alternate energy sources, that would be good. But, this draconian and punitive approach to controlling energy production and distribution will be paid for by anyone who drives, turns on a light bulb, runs a computer, eats, you get the picture. And, there is little public debate and no apparent rationale for causing such unnecessary injury to the U.S. energy industry. All of this when the US economy is in crisis with unemployment at almost 10% and our debt load five times higher than it was a year ago.

While President Obama is pushing a nationalized health care program with a free hour on national TV (where the network refuses to air ads in opposition), the IMMEDIATE vote is on the energy tax, which he is not mentioning and a complacent media isn't reporting. PLEASE don't be complacent and call TODAY. Just say NO to the cap and trade energy tax.

If you think your budget is tight now, wait a year if this passes and see how much less you have to help the people you care about.

Earlier this week, Al Gore held a conference call to mobilize more than 10,000 of his Repower America grassroots activists.

When calling, be polite. The Democrats representatives will probably vote for it anyway, but it makes a difference to them as to how many "no" votes they hear from citizens, in terms of the amendments they'll allow. The Senate could shut it down, so be sure to call them now, even though the Bill won't go to them for a vote for a few days.

Senator Mark Udall: 202-224-5941

Senator Michael F. Bennet 202-224-5852 -you'll get a busy signal or no answer. Call the Denver office (303) 455-7600 or send an email at http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

CD1 Rep. Dianna Degette 202-225-4431 Denver

CD2 Rep. Jared Polis 202-225-2161 Boulder/Broomfield/Grand/Clear Creek/Summit/Eagle/Gilpin

CD 3 Rep. John Salazar 202- 225-4761 Western Slope from Jackson to Las Animas counties

CD 4 Rep. Betsey Markey 202-225-4676 North & Eastern Colorado

CD 5 Rep. Doug Lamborn (202) 225-4422 El Paso, Teller, Lake, Chaffe, Fremont, Park

CD 6 Rep. Mike Coffman (202) 225-7882 Douglas, Arapahoe, Jeffco, Elbert

CD7 Rep. Ed Perlmutter (202) 225-2645 Adams/Jeffco

AIG madness

2009-03-11T00:15:00.002-06:00

Being in insurance, I have been following AIG. A few months ago, its stock was $52/share; then about a month ago it was $2/share. After putting in about $150 billion into AIG (and now the fed owns about 75% of it), the stock went to 35 cents.

When the feds added another $30 bil at the first of this week, it went all the way to 42 cents.

Plus, there is a strong possibility the feds will put more money into AIG, even though they admit that they're not sure where all of the first 100 billion went.

If you divide the 150 bil by our total population of 300 million (including a large number of children and people who do not pay taxes), you get $500/person or $2,000 for a family of four. I have two questions (A) Is my math right? and (B) Have we lost our minds?

Small Biz Opposes Mandatory Paid Sick Leave

2009-02-17T20:43:00.000-07:00

The Colorado Republican Business Coalition (CRBC) opposes HB09-1210, which would require companies to give paid sick leave of up to 40 hours a year in companies with six to 15 employees and up to 72 hours a year in companies with 16 or more employees. Key objections include:

Small business can rarely compete with the benefits offered by larger companies. Requiring mandatory paid sick leave reduces a competitive advantage for small businesses that typically offer flexibility in the work place as an incentive to good employees.
The carry-over provision of allowing paid sick leave to accrue for an indefinite time creates a property right for employees who could demand payment upon severance with the company.
There is no time limit on the carry-over provision. Feasibly, an employee could accrue as much as a month or more of time off, couple that with vacation leave, and be on a paid leave for months. This is a big problem for a small business that relies on a stable workforce.
It increases record-keeping and overall expenses to small business, thereby increasing costs to consumers without additional profit, which decreases the financial ability to create jobs.
Because the language of the Bill is quite broad, it encourages absenteeism as employees take days off for “mental health”.

Once again, the Legislature is offering a solution in search of a problem. Most employers provide benefits and give time off to keep good employees. It is not the role of government to prescribe the relationship between employers and employees. Most new jobs are created by small businesses. In these tough economic times, with unemployment ballooning, forcing punitive legislation such as HB1210 only serves as a disincentive to hire those who may appear less than perfectly healthy or have a history of family health issues.

HB1210 is scheduled to be heard in House Business Affairs & Labor Committee on Wed. Feb. 18. Contact the Committee members and tell them your view of HB1210. Tell them you heard about it from CRBC.

Bill Sponsor: Rep. Ann McGihon 303-866-2921 anne.mcgihon.house@state.co.us
Chairman Joe Rice (D) (D-38 Arap/Jeffco) 303.866.2953 joe.rice.house@state.co.us
Vice Chairman David Balmer (R-39 Arapahoe) 303.866.2935 david.balmer.house@state.co.us
Rep. Laura Bradford (R-55 Mesa) 303.866.2583 laurabradford55@gmail.com
Rep. Sara Gagliardi (D-27 Jefferson) 303.866.2962 sara.gagliardi.house@state.co.us
Rep. Larry Liston (R-16 El Paso) 303.866.2965 larry.liston.house@state.co.us
Rep. Kevin Priola ((R-30 Adams) 303.866.2912 kpriola@gmail.com
Rep. Su Ryden (D-36 Arapahoe) 303.866.2942 mailto:su.ryden.house@state.co.us
Rep. Christine Scanlan (D-56 Eagle/Lake/Summit) 303.866.2952 christine.scanlan.house@state.co.us
Rep. John Soper (D-34 Adams) 303.866.2931 john.soper.house@state.co.us
Rep. Amy Stephens (R-20 El Paso) 303.866.2924 amy.stephens.house@state.co.us

The Colorado Republican Business Coalition was founded in 1992. CRBC tracks legislation affecting taxes, property rights, transportation, energy and health care for the 300+ small business owners and managers members and 2000+ others interested in protecting free enterprise.

Link: http://www.smallbusinessrepublicans.com/issues/HB09-1210-SickLeave.htm

Legislative Issues Committee Recommendations for the 2008 Ballot

2008-10-12T20:22:00.000-06:00

Some important background:

In 2007, on a Friday afternoon in November when no one was looking, Gov. Bill Ritter signed an executive order allowing all public employees to join a union. Many believe this was the quid pro quo to have the unions’ sign-off on the Democrats bringing their national convention to Denver. Now almost all public employees in Colorado are in a union, depriving the Legislature the authority to set benefits and wages. That is now negotiated with labor bosses. Now, taxpayers have no voice in benefits and wages for public employees and there is no accountability to them in the process.

Amendment 47, the so-called "Right to Work" initiative was put on the ballot by a small group who understand first-hand the negative effect of unions on the economy. It allows employees to opt-out of union membership and prohibits unions from collecting mandatory union dues regardless of membership status.

Amendment 49, Ethical Standards Now (which passed last year in several counties as an "Ask First" initiative), stops government from bundling money through public payrolls and delivering it to the unions. Basically, union members would have to make their own arrangements to have their dues deducted from their checking account or write a check, rather than the government automatically withholding union dues and sending it to the union. Why should citizens pay to have the government administer union dues collection?

Amendment 54, the "Clean Government" initiative stops "pay to play" by prohibiting contractors from donating to candidates for two years when they've been awarded a no-bid or non-competition government contract.

In response, the unions put up four "poison pill" initiatives:

Amendment 53 - makes executives and board directors personally liable for corporate fraud committed by employees

Amendment 55 - bars employers from firing workers without "just cause" which is broadly defined and exempts unions

Amendment 56 - requires businesses with more than 20 employees to provide "major medical" health insurance for all employees and their dependents

Amendment 57 - allows injured workers, after collecting Workers Comp, to "double dip" and sue for unlimited damages including inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

Passage of any one of these "poison pills" would have an immediate and negative effect on Colorado's economy. 53: Non-profits and homeowner associations would have a hard time finding volunteer board members willing to assume the personal criminal liability for a sub-contractor that might cheat the organization. 55: Businesses would become even more careful in hiring, if they thought they would be stuck with an employee for life. 56: Businesses would want to know how many dependents a new employee would bring to the table: a parent with children or a woman who might become pregnant might be less desirable employees - or be offered a lower salary - so that an employer could compensate for the additional costs of mandatory health care. 57: Businesses would do much deeper due diligence on an employee's health history and litigation history to determine if the person might sue after receiving Workers Comp, or might simply not hire for those jobs with high risk to personal safety.

Passage of any of the "poison pills" would surely have the effect of slowing job creation and hurting those in the bottom of the job food chain - the young and the inexperienced. Some people would go out of business; some would move out of state. Those in the service industry have already been hit hard. For one key sector, restaurants/bars/tourism (which tends to hire the young and inexperienced), has already been hit hard: the multiple effect of union-creep into the private sector (organizing kitchen workers), mandatory minimum wage increases (where restaurant owners pay FICA taxes on increased wages beyond tip income), the effect of the smoking ban (which has slowed traffic in bars), and the higher price of gasoline (which has increased food costs and decreased disposable income to eat out).

Gov. Ritter and Mayor John Hickenlooper recognized this and both came out against the Amendments, but Ritter failed to use his leverage to demand that the unions withdraw their initiatives or risk a reversal on his pro-union Executive Order.

Instead, the unions went to business and blackmailed them into an agreement whereby the unions pulled their initiatives in exchange for $3 million of advertising from private businesses to kill 47, 49, and 54. To his credit, Jon Caldera, president of the Independence Institute and a key proponent of 49, refused the $800,000 promised him if we would withdraw 49.

This represents the worst of back-room politics. Colorado has typically been pretty clean, until Ritter invited the unions to practice their thug-like tactics. Make no mistake, this doesn't improve wages or benefits to workers; it only provides well-paying jobs and political power to the union leaders.

For more information go to our website.

To make a comment on this blog email us at smallbizgop@comcast.net .