The Colorado Index

Republicans Require Big-Tent To Limit Government Expansion

I believe in liberty, and that liberty requires limited government.  Government, left unchecked, grows in scope and size due to its (mostly) well-intentioned public representatives and employees.  Some people prefer to add regulations and restrictions (see the cell phone texting ban); others prefer to merely transfer wealth to political contributors (see Governor Bill Ritter’s “green” economy measures or the Federal Government taking over GM).  Of course, all government money is transferred wealth that others created, so minimizing this wealth transfer is crucial to maintain individual liberty and property rights.

TABOR, the taxpayer’s bill of rights, kept Colorado’s government from growing out of control in the good times, so the government cuts are not so painful during the lean times.  The budget “hole” for this year is only $1 billion.  That looks pretty good compared to California’s $50 billion deficit. 

However, for some (including Governor Bill Ritter), enough is never enough.  The Governor declared a hiring freeze for the state and then proceeded to add over 2,000 new employees to the government payroll.  Recently, outgoing Senate President Peter Groff (amongst others) gave bonuses to his staff while state employees are asked to take some furlough days to save money.  Ben DeGrow, writing at Mount Virtus, writes of the “Colorado Democrats’ Taxpayer-Funded Arrogance” with regard to a partisan retreat recently held on the taxpayer’s nickel.  How are these programs funded?  Funding comes from tax increases, of course.

While TABOR does not allow for increases in tax collection without a vote of the people, politicians invented rather sneaky ways to circumvent TABOR.  There was the new tax fee on car registrations.  The Colorado Supreme Court declared Governor Bill Ritter’s illegal property tax freeze as legal.  Of course, the court also will get a brand new state-constructed building (apparently its 30-year-old building in Denver is too old).  This ruling led to all sorts of new “allocation strategies,” a code word for raising taxes without a vote.  Hence, everyone’s cigarette taxes increased fifteen cents a pack.  Republican Don Marostica crossed party lines to co-sponsor Senate Bill 228, which removed the six percent annual governmental growth limit.  While the six percent limit may seem low, it merely meant that the government would take only twelve years to double in size.  With that obstacle removed, the government is nearly unlimited in its growth potential.

What could the Republicans do to stop this madness?  They could do little this year.  Kent Lambert’s statement in January that we need to “thin the ranks” of weak Republicans is wrong on multiple levels.  Yes, the ranks of the Republicans are thinner, and the Democrats control every branch of government.  What does a party gain when its membership is ideologically “pure”, yet it is unable to influence public policy?

When asked at a luncheon about what the party should do to Don Marostica due to his sponsorship of Senate Bill 228, State Senator Shawn Mitchell responded, “I think public excommunications do more harm than good.”  Luckily, Kent Lambert did not “thin the ranks”, and Shawn Mitchell’s side won out.  While the Democrats plot to further neuter TABOR, Marostica wants to revisit the true problems in the state: the automatic funding increase in spending due to Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment.

Slowing the growth of government is hard work, and it will require (at a minimum) divided government.  Big-tent Republicanism is the only way to achieve a majority in either one of the legislative chambers.  Therefore, the best way for me to support Tom “A Watcher” McDowell’s campaign for State Senate is to keep this blog alive to promote our shared values in a big-tent Republican Party focused on limited government and fiscal responsibility.

by Civil Sense

The Numbers Behind Xcel's Rate Increase

Xcel energy is asking for a $4.50 monthly base rate hike and is likely to get it. 

According to the Denver Post, they have invested $1.7 billion in Colorado since 2006 and they would like to get that money back.

If one assumes that Xcel has just over a million customers in Colorado and charges each an additional $55 a year in base rates, it will take about 31 years to pay back that investment, and that doesn't include interest.

Those numbers suggest that a more realistic base rate increase would be in the neighborhood of $100 or more per household per year, depending on the interest rate Xcel has to pay and the length of the payback period.  We used 1.2 million customers, 6%, and 30 years.  Xcel had 1.2 million customers in 2003, but we did not include the built in profit that the PUC will allow.

That $100 per household number assumes that Xcel doesn't invest another dime in Colorado. Expect another $4.50 a month bump next year and the year after.  Ten years of rate expansions of this magnitude is real money for a lot of people.

Of course, Bill Ritter wants to push his new energy economy on the backs of rate payers. His new energy economy isn't going to be cheap, and rate payers will pick up the tab. Xcel will get a profit on every dime they invest, so they are quite willing to help Ritter, because he is helping them.

The numbers and the politics say that rate payers will be paying as much as $450 a year in base charges within ten years.  That is before a single watt is used.

Not all of Bill Ritter's tax increases are the visible kind, and this is one.

As an aside, note that the Denver Post did not include a word about the amount Xcel has invested in high cost wind and solar energy and the transmission lines needed to support them.

Not In My Back Yard

NIMBY is alive and well in El Paso County.

There is something special about owning your own land far out of town.  It is peaceful.  Animal life is plentiful.

That peace is about to be disrupted for two weeks in one neighborhood by a wildcat gas drilling rig, and the property owner is understandably unhappy about it.

The problem is that people who choose to live far out of town and who have jobs in town consume more energy than the rest of us.  That energy must come from somewhere. More specifically, it has to come from where it can be found.

The sad fact is that we can’t have it all.  We can’t live a prosperous life style and not expect to pay the costs of that lifestyle.  Politicians who claim otherwise are living in their own little world, but they always seem to get elected.

Case in point:  Mark Udall

Is Too Much Money Going to Green Space?

Legislators who are looking for sources of revenue might consider asking the voters for permission to reduce the amount of lottery funds being spent on the purchase of green space.  Those monies could then be redirected to the general fund.

Colorado leads the nation in the expenditure of money for green space.  In good times that may be a good thing.  In bad times it is a luxury that we can't afford. 

If it is bad to be in last place in a category among the states, it is equally bad to be in first place in a category that doesn't directly impact near term quality of life.

More Silliness From the Denver Post

The Denver Post is up in arms about the fact that the Bush Administration has issued a rule which allows 720 snowmobiles into Yellowstone Park each winter.

They don't even pretend to try to be professional with what they write:

How much more irritating can George Bush get before he leaves office?

Who is George Bush irritating other than the extreme fringe of the environmental fringe which obviously has full representation on the Denver Post editorial board.

He isn't irritating people who might like to see Yellowstone in the winter.  It is very obvious that snow plows operate in Yellowstone.  Road building equipment operates in Yellowstone.  Hotels operate in Yellowstone.  The Denver Post has no objection to those and other intrusions by man, so why is their underwear in a twist over snowmobiles?

They are dumb enough to show a photo of a buffalo who appears to be a lot less disturbed by snowmobiles than they are. 

Nature adapts.  If it didn't, the geysers and hot springs, which aren't found anywhere else in the habitat, would have long ago chased the buffalo, the elk, the bears, and moose out of the park.  Why would anyone with half a brain think that animals that can live with the unusual features of Yellowstone could be disturbed by 720 snowmobiles?

For those who are curious, that is about one snowmobile for every 5 square miles.  This is a fringe issue created by the fringe environmentalists and supported by editorial boards who are math and common sense challenged.  Once again, the Denver Post embarrasses itself. 

So, The Roan Leases Are Sold

Note:  Sometimes we write blog entries and forget to hit the publish button.  Last night, I was going through some of my older essays and found this one from August.  Oops!

It looks like Colorado may be in line to get a $55 million windfall someday, after the litigation is over.  That is about half of the proceeds from the leases.

Simple logic, something that environmentalists don't seem to be good at, says that their actions severely depressed the size of the windfall and the number of bidders who were willing to invest time and money on a project they hope never materializes.

Still, the sale realized much more than the the $6 million that they hoped and prophesied would be the maximum that the government would get.

The Denver Post takes its traditional anti-development stance on the issue by proclaiming:

In our view, the modest return on the Roan leases clearly justifies the governor's efforts to protect the state's wildlife and other environmental treasures — rather than selling our birthright for what proved to be a rather modest mess of pottage.

Mark Udall, who suddenly is in favor of off shore drilling after spending ten years in Congress as the most ardent opponent of fossil fuels still seems to oppose development of the Roan.  I have to chuckle at his commercial claiming that Bob Schaffer has sold out the the oil industry when Mark Udall has so clearly sold his soul to the "no drilling" environmentalists.

Nancy Pelosi now sees the wisdom of allowing a vote on offshore drilling.

Democrat hypocrisy never seems to end.

Spend Billions Now, Save Trillions Later? Not Quite

Some of the very best arguments being made on the subject of global warming are coming from outside the United States.

The Montreal Gazette blows a hole in the often made argument that if we spend Gross Domestic Product on global warming now, we will save much more in GDP at the end of the century:

One commonly repeated argument for doing something about climate change sounds compelling, but turns out to be almost fraudulent. It is based on comparing the cost of action with the cost of inaction, and almost every major politician in the world uses it...

So there you have it. Of course, politicians should be willing to spend 0.5 per cent of GDP to avoid a 20 per cent cost to GDP. This sounds eminently sensible - until you realize that Barroso is comparing two entirely different things.

The 0.5 per cent of GDP expense will reduce emissions ever so slightly (if everyone in the EU actually fulfills their requirements for the rest of the century, global emissions will fall by about four per cent). This would reduce the temperature increase expected by the end of the century by just five-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Thus, the EU's immensely ambitious program will not stop or even significantly impact global warming.

In other words, if Barroso fears costs of 20 per cent of GDP in the year 2100, the 0.5 per cent payment every year of this century will do virtually nothing to change that cost. We would still have to pay by the end of the century, only now we would also have made ourselves poorer in the 90 years preceding it.

The article singles out Dianne Feinstein, but perhaps it should mention Bill Ritter and Mark Udall.  Here in Colorado, these two politicians are pushing the 20% by 2020 solution at a very high cost to our economy.  If we get there, what will it have cost, and what will we have gained?  If we are going to spend ten dollars to save a dime, that doesn't seem all that practical.

It should be noted that neither Mark Udall nor Bill Ritter have ever run a for profit business.  Spending on advertising is much like spending on global warming projects.  Some businesses spend on advertising because it brings in customers.  If they don't compare the return that those new customers bring with the cost of recruiting them, those businesses will soon be gone.  That market driven reality doesn't seem to apply to governments or politicians, but it should.

Our friends in Canada continue:

The inaction argument makes us spend vast resources on policies that will do virtually nothing to deal with climate change, thereby diverting those resources from policies that could actually make an impact.

We would never accept medical practitioners advising ultra-expensive and ineffective Aspirins for gangrene because the cost of Aspirin outweighs the cost of losing the leg. Why, then, should we tolerate such fallacious arguments when debating the costliest public policy decision in the history of mankind?

An Interesting site

Even Democrats Do Not Buy Carbon Offset Boondoggle

The organizers of the Democratic National Convention kept touting their "green" credentials.  However, even Democratic National Convention attendees realize that carbon offsets are a boondoggle as Aspen's Canary Initiative raised less than $20 for carbon offsets.

The program, set up by the DNC Host Committee through the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau and rolled out about a week before the convention started, raised a total of $18.34 worth of Canary Tags, offsetting 0.9 tons of carbon emissions.

The offsets were aimed at DNC-goers other than the official delegates, who had a separate carbon offset program through Vermont-based Native Energy. That program, set up in January through the Democratic National Convention Committee, was utilized by 65 percent of the DNC’s 4,440 delegates.

The official program for DNC delegates went to the school-district-owned wind turbine in Wray that has yet to actually produce any power.

Even with the failure of Democrats to pay indulgences for carbon offsets, Aspen's Canary Initiative  still has hope for future suckers customers via government programs.  In fact, the initiative is a government program itself, as the City of Aspen hosts the Canary Initiative website.

“Any convention that comes to Denver has a way to easily calculate its carbon impact,” said Kim Peterson, director of Aspen’s Canary Initiative.

The Canary Initiative’s Canary Tags program was selected because it has been up and running for several years and has a portfolio of in-state projects. The Denver offset program could eventually partner with a carbon offsetting program through Gov. Bill Ritter’s Energy Office and its Colorado Carbon fund, but the Web site still directs offset purchasers to Aspen’s Canary Tags Web site.

Peterson was hoping funds raised through the host committee for the DNC could be used for a signature project. But that will not be possible, as less than $20 was raised.

“Here’s three (compact fluorescent) light bulbs for the office,” Peterson said.

As a user of compact fluorescent light bulbs myself, I know that the Canary Initiative could purchase six or more bulbs at Wal*Mart for the same price.  However, Aspen's Canary Initiative seems to be more interested in making money from guilty travelers and taxpayer dollars than spending wisely.

by Civil Sense

Don't Question Our Patriotism!

Democrats went to great lengths and often undisclosed expense to 'green up' their convention in Denver.  Daily there seemed to be yet another report coming either from the DNC, Hickenlooper's office or Ritter's office about yet another brilliant idea being set in motion to show the world that the Democrat party and the city of Denver are so eco-conscious. 

Having attended yesterday's McCain-Palin rally in the Springs, I was among the many thousands appalled by the way the "Don't Question My Patriotism" crowd in Denver had disrespectfully discarded American flags following Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco.  As thousands of brand-new flags were distributed throughout the masses yesterday, we were informed of how they were obtained.  The man from which I received my flag was wearing his veteran's cap.  He was asked by a person nearby if this story was actually true.  Did the DNC actually throw thousands of flags into garbage bags and leave them next to, on top of, and inside dumpsters?  This gentleman confirmed that information.

Veterans' groups will take all the other flags not used yesterday at the rally and save them for placement on the graves of vets next Memorial Day or on Veteran's Day.  Any persons wishing only to wave their flag at the rally but that didn't want to take them home were urged to leave those flags at the gate.  They will serve a further purpose in marking with pride the final resting place of some honorable American.

Maybe some of the reporting on this situation has been exaggerated, but the gentleman that spoke to me and a small group at the rally seemed honest enough to believe.  Democrats and Republicans alike get agitated when patriotism is brought into question, as well they should.  At the same time, the improper disposal of the American flag is disgraceful, even immoral to some, and it wasn't just a few flags.  Thousands of flags were left behind after Obama left the stadium.  There's a troubling symbolism there.

Some of the folks that get angry if their patriotism is questioned, must have put aside that emotion on that glorious night and walked away from the flags. Patriots or not, they just didn't have the time or interest to secure a proper home for the Grand Old Flag, at least not on the heels of such an enchanted evening of inspiration. Someone else came along and felt a tug of patriotism and decided to reclaim our precious symbol of liberty.

No matter what happened exactly, just be sure not to question anybody's patriotism.  For those that gathered up those many copies of Old Glory and found for them a new purpose, you can bet there is no question where their loyalty to country lies. 

Mark Udall, A Very Reluctant Convert

More than in any other era, we live in an age of voluntary religious conversion.  I'm using religious conversion as a substitute for political conversion because it seems to me that there is a correlation.

When Christian converts to the Muslim religion choose to become terrorists to defend their new religion, none can doubt their sincerity of conversion.  They are willing to surrender their lives for their new religion.  I'm not defending or promoting that choice, merely noting it.

On the other hand, history is rife with examples of religious conversion by military or political conquest.  When Henry VIII established the Church of England, not every catholic willingly became a protestant.  The catholic religion was secretly practiced in England for decades by men of wealth who constructed priest holes in their homes to conceal their priests.

I could go on.  Jews evaded the Inquisition by pretending by day to be catholics.  To this day, Christians in Muslim countries conceal their religion from their neighbors.  The history of communism is full of stories of a reluctant conversion to a life in denial of God.

The point that I am making is that if one understands the signs, one can distinguish between the actions of a sincere convert and those of an insincere convert.

The same is true in politics.  Mark Udall has opposed drilling all of his political life, and now, suddenly, in the face of an election that he might lose over high gas prices, he claims to favor offshore drilling.  Is he sincere or insincere?

He still doesn't favor drilling in ANWR.  He wants to closely restrict drilling on the Roan.  His support of a proposal for offshore drilling is restricted to a very few states and so restrictive that no drilling might actually occur.  He hasn't proposed legislation or supported legislation that would allow increased drilling anywhere else.

And yet, he is running commercials that claim that he favors offshore drilling.  If he is a convert to drilling, every sign suggests that he is a very reluctant convert.  His reluctant conversion suggests that Mark Udall will drop his support for drilling on the day after the election, no matter what the outcome.

It reminds one of Bill Ritter claiming to be pro business before the election and becoming anti-business as soon as he entered office.