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.

How to Beat John Morse and Bill Ritter in 2010

It appears that John Morse has made the mistake of his political career if Republicans can play it right (and that is a big if).  Bill Ritter is prepared to follow him into the abyss.

The Republicans in the State Senate have been making the wrong argument.  By making the highway argument, they have let the Democrats and especially John Morse and Bill Ritter off the hook.

Had I been constructing the argument, I'd have been making a purely populist (or perhaps reverse populist) argument.  I'd have never mentioned highways.

This argument isn't about highways.  Fundamentally, it is about the rate of growth of government and whether it is even possible for the taxpayer to keep up with what John Morse is proposing.

At the six percent rate of growth currently in the law, the size of government already doubles and redoubles in size at an obnoxious rate:

A child born today will have a government twice the current size when he is 12.

When that child graduates from college and marries, government will be four times as large as when he was born (24 years)

When our child's own first child is playing little league baseball, it will be eight times as big as when today's child was born. (36 years)

When today's child becomes a grandfather, government will be sixteen times as big as when he wore his first diaper. (48 years).

Before today's child is eligible for retirement, government will be 32 times as big as it was when he was just a gleam in his father's eye (60 years)

Just five years into retirement, government will be 64 times as big as it was the day he was born. (72 years)

By the time today's child nears the end of his life, government will be 128 times as big as the day his parents brought him into the world.

The thing that boggles the mind is that John Morse is dissatisfied with that rate of growth.  What rate would he be satisfied with?  If the limit were 8% instead of the 6% that it currently is and he wants to change, a child born today would see government grow by 512 times by the time he was 81.

Perhaps 8% isn't enough for John Morse.  A 10% growth rate would have government grow by 2048 times before he was 80.  If that child were unlucky enough to make it to 87, the number would be 4096 times.

How much is enough for John Morse?

Those who are math challenged might want to look up The Rule of 72  That is where these numbers come from, that and powers of the number 2:  2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 264, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096.

Does Bill Ritter Have a Clue?

This Morning’s Denver Post did a piece examining the Bill Ritter announced hiring freeze.  It begins the story with the following three sentences:

The hiring freeze Gov. Bill Ritter unveiled in late September to help head off a mounting state budget shortfall turned out to be more of a chill.

The governor's office estimates that it has frozen 463 spots and has saved the state $12 million. A Denver Post review of hundreds of applications for exemptions shows that in three months, [ Bill ] Ritter's office approved 326 new hires and promotions — out of 371 requests — that could cost the state more than $12 million.

Bill Ritter’s management style is one that is completely divorced from reality.

Personnel Moves: A Potentially Good Decision

Governor Bill Ritter surprised everyone when he named Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to replace Ken Salazar as US Senator.  This could be Bill Ritter's boldest move since taking office. 

Michael Bennet is a large proponent of accountability in schools.  The performance-based pay in the ProComp plan irritated the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and provoked their childish hooky-day last spring.

Many are surprised that Governor Ritter did not appoint one of the elected politicians mentioned for the job (I predicted outgoing House Speaker Andrew Romanoff).  Joshua Sharf at View From a Height provides great insight into Governor Ritter's rationale behind this choice.

Gov. Ritter hasn't just avoided picking the winner in this sweepstakes. As importantly, he's avoided picking the losers. Any of them may perceive a primary worth running and worth winning. None of them feels locked out. All of them can proceed with whatever career plans they had just after the election, so nobody's worse off. They could plausibly claim to be disappointed, but not excluded. Down, but not out.

While having no elected experience will challenge Michael Bennet, there is plenty of time for him to learn the nuts and bolts of legislating.  After all, the Senate is a place of talking, not action.  Another potential issue is that no one truly knows Bennet's political philosophy outside of the education front.  One assumes that he is a reliable Democrat.  However, Governor Bill Ritter was not going to appoint a Republican.  Therefore, Michael Bennet is likely as good of a choice as any for a centrist US Senate appointment.

by Civil Sense

Who Could Have Guessed-Ritter is Running in 2010

Today’s Denver Post provides the news that one of my New Year’s Day predictions was wrong.  Bill Ritter will run for reelection in 2010.

Who could have guessed?

The article has some interesting quotes:

"On the average voter level, [ Bill ] Ritter is not in all that bad a shape," [ Floyd ] Ciruli said. "I think his problem is with the 'attentive public,' and that includes his own party.

"If you're talking to anyone out there in the political world, there's this sense that he's made some serious political mistakes and also not been able to deliver on some substantial promises."

Before a politician can get his name on the ballot, he has to impress the activists.  Before a politician can collect campaign donations, he has to impress the activists. 

"At the end of the day," he said, "Coloradans respond far more to how people govern than they respond to well-funded negative political ads.

"I want you to write that."

He appears to believe that he would have sailed to election without the Both Ways Bob ads.  This is just another example of how Bill Ritter is in his own little world.

It is a long article and worth reading.

Lose An Election, Win A Job

Six weeks after Secretary of State Mike Coffman won a US House seat, Governor Bill Ritter finally picked his replacement: Bernie Buescher.

Gov. Bill Ritter today selected State Rep. Bernie Buescher as Colorado's secretary of state.

[ Bernie ] Buescher, a Democrat from Grand Junction, lost his re-election bid for his House seat, but will now have two years to persuade voters statewide to elect him for a full-term in his new job.

Even in this Democrat year, Buescher lost his reelection bid to Republican Laura Bradford, albeit by less than 600 votes.  In addition, this gives Governor Bill Ritter regional diversity in the State elected executive offices.  While not a shoo-in, Buescher could run a competitive race in 2010.

Of the three finalists, Buescher is probably second-best.  The worst, Ken Gordon, can now focus on restricting individual liberty in his job with the smoking police instead of using the Secretary of State's office to eliminate the electoral college.

Probably the best candidate was term-limited House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.  Today's move most likely makes Andrew Romanoff the front-runner for replacing Senator Ken Salazar.

While Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is also a highly-regarded candidate for the Senate seat, Andrew Romanoff is the more likely of the two picks.  First, Andrew Romanoff is out of a job at the end of the month.  Also, he is a good public speaker who will be difficult for Republicans to defeat in 2010.  Second, Mayor Hickenlooper is a good executive as the Mayor of Denver.  It is more likely that John Hickenlooper will stay as Mayor and wait until 2014 to run for governor of the state.

by Civil Sense

Who Wants To Be An United States Senator?

As Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will become the Secretary of the Interior next month, Governor Bill Ritter has a quandary:  whom should Bill Ritter appoint as the next United States Senator from Colorado?

Traditionally known for his swift decisiveness, Bill Ritter did not yet form another "Blue Ribbon Commission."  Instead, Governor Ritter is asking for the public to comment on the issue. (Tip of the hat to Jeremy Pelzer of Mile High Politics).

Do you have a preference for the next Senator?  E-mail Governor Ritter with your two cents worth. After all, I am certain that Colorado's Senate seat is much less expensive than the seat in Illinois.

by Civil Sense

Supreme Court Allows Government To Collect Tax Revenues

Governor Bill Ritter is one step closer to keeping his illegal property tax rate freeze.  Similarly to the District Court ruling that originally judged the tax freeze unconstitutional, the Colorado Supreme Court ruling came late on a Friday afternoon, thus guaranteeing it to be buried during the weekend dead news cycle.  The media helped cover for the court when the Rocky Mountain News buried its story on page 4 of the dead tree edition (and did not blurb the story at all on the cover).

A law that funnels more tax money to schools is still in force for now, allowing local school districts to raise taxes in 2009, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

But the court refused to say whether the law is constitutional, and it gave no hint when that decision will come. (snip)

In a two-page order, the judges lifted an injunction by Denver District Judge Christina Habas, who held the law unconstitutional. The unsigned Supreme Court order allows the 178 school districts to set tax rates, which are due at the state Education Department by Dec. 15.

It is disappointing (but not surprising) that the Colorado Supreme Court lifted the injunction.  What is odder is that the court did not yet decide the case though it took testimony last September.  Perhaps the delay helps the court's political position better.  If the court delays its decision until after school districts send bills and collect taxes at the higher rate, the state will acquire the additional revenues, de facto legalizing the matter.  Perhaps the court will try the Solomonesque approach where they judge the law unconstitutional yet allows the state to retain the illegal funds.  The delay would allow Governor Bill Ritter and the legislature to come up with a law or referred initiative that would pass Supreme Court review.

It is obvious why Governor Bill Ritter does not want a vote of the people on his illegal tax increase.  Coloradans voted down every statewide tax increase on the November ballot.  Governor Ritter knows that the mood is not rightfor tax increases (especially during a recession), so he is happy that the partisan Colorado Supreme Court can run interference and keep his increased tax revenue.  As for the Colorado Constitution and TABOR, well, the ends justify the means.

by Civil Sense

Regulate Regulate Spend Spend Elect Elect

We taxpayers may want to consider modernizing TABOR in a way that prevents government officials from using regulatory powers to reallocate private resources.

We are going to be in a deep recession, possibly a depression. 

The root cause of this depression was the failure of the banking industry. 

The root cause of the failure of the banking industry can be traced to Federal policy set in the 1990’s that made it possible for people who couldn’t afford houses to move into them.  That sounds like a good thing until you realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were creating financial instruments that were nothing more than a secret and very heavy tax.

We are all going to pay for this largesse in ways we can’t guess.

Bill Ritter has done much the same thing with the Public Utilities Commission.  We will pay his tax in the form of much higher utilities bills.  When people can’t pay their utilities bills, Bill Ritter will come to the taxpayers and ask that we fix a problem he created.