Jihad in Southern Colorado?

Channel 13 in Colorado Springs reported local reacation on the Obama administration possibly relocating Gitmo terrorists to the Supermax prison in Florence.  The reporter interviewed two women that are residents of Florence.  One woman is the local library director and the other apparently was a woman on the street.  Both women expressed complete comfort with the idea and said they believe the facility itself and the staff are quite competent to take on this unique set of inmates.  The news anchor commented that Florence residents are in favor of bringing radical Islamic terrorists to their town because it would create jobs. The question is not whether we can have confidence in Supermax and it's courageous, highly trained personnel.  None of the criminals there have escaped and threatened me or my neighbors, and I don't even worry about that happening.  However,  I am not in favor of bringing terrorists to Colorado or any other location on our mainland. 

Gitmo was put in place to keep such people away from the general population because they pose a serious threat and a clear and present danger.  The people they align with and want them free are also a threat.  While I adamantly disagree with the President's decision to close Gitmo and then toss around several ideas as to where in the United States these criminals will end up, I especially think Colorado is about as poor a choice as could be made. 

Governor Ritter is in favor of bringing the inmates here.  Residents need to consider the fact that the Colorado Springs area has been considered a possible target for terrorism, especially since 9/11.   In addition to Ft. Carson, Cheyenne Mountain AF Station, the Air Force Academy, Peterson AF Base, Schriever AF Base, we have Homeland Security and several large defense contracting firms.  This area could become even more of a target if we house terrorists that no one else on the planet wants.   Our governor should put the safety of our people first, ahead of any political consideration.

Several years ago I was employed at St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City.  We provided medical care to inmates at the various prisons that was outside the capability of the prison healthcare units.  As part of our ongoing training, we were made aware of the fact that violent criminals have families and friends that come in and out of the area to visit inmates.  In addition,  people that have an unfriendly attitude toward a prisoner also come and attempt to enter the prison to visit.  Of course, visitors are screened and may be turned away, but they are in the region, spending time in our communities.   If a very violent inmate required hospitalization or emergency care, extreme safety measures were mobilized to secure the safety of hospital employees and the surrounding neighborhood and community at large.  The possibility of a friend or family member possibly trying to stage an escape during transport or while the patient was receiving medical care was anticipated, with appropriate planning put in place.  If we house radical terrorists in prisons in Southern Colorado, and our new policy dictates that we are more sympathetic toward them, will we not be forced to allow these prisoners to have visitors?  If they ask to have the privilege of visits from families, friends and religious leaders, will we have the ability under new guidelines to deny those privileges?  Given the new policy directives, we will at a minimum allow them to meet with legal counsel.  Would we not also be required to allow them to have visitation rights similar to other inmates?  The question then becomes, do we want the friends and associates of terrorists coming in and out of our state?

Congressman Doug Lamborn has spoken out against this proposal and if you agree that our state should not take on the responsibility and possible additional terror threat, write to President Obama and Governor Ritter, and also write to Congressman Lamborn and others to support their efforts to take this possibility off the table.

 Contrary to the newsclip on News Channel 13, the support expressed by two residents does not amount to a concensus that everyone in the area welcomes the Gitmo Jihadists to our great state.  Having lived in Canon City, I know many people there and in Pueblo who are not in favor.  This is an important debate and our readers that feel strongly one way or another have an opportunity to participate in the discussion.  If our voices aren't heard, they aren't given consideration. 

TABOR for dummies (and Dems)

Here they go again. Faced with a budget that's hemorrhaging dollars, it was only a matter of time before one of our spendthrift legislators made headlines by erroneously pointing the finger of blame at Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). Never mind that last spring Governor Ritter and the Democrat-controlled legislature ignored numerous warning signals of a looming recession.

Never mind that they ignored the consensus lesson of the last "budget crisis" -- when times are good, save a little money for when times aren't so good.

Never mind that in November voters rejected higher taxes and defended the few remaining constraints on government spending.

Nope, to hear the Denver Democrats tell the story, the problem with the state budget isn't the economy or undisciplined spending. A few degrees further from reality, newly-elected Boulder Democrat Sen. Rollie Heath says the problem is TABOR.

Apparently Sen. Heath didn't hear about Referendum C which loosed Colorado's government from most of TABOR's constraints ‹ except for that pesky requirement that voters still get to decide whether to raise taxes.

"We're hamstrung," Heath complained to a legislative committee even before taking office. "Not only does (TABOR) put a limitation (on spending), it takes away your flexibility. We desperately need flexibility right now."

So perhaps it's time a for a quick session of "TABOR for Dummies" to benefit anyone else who's been elected to state government after spending the past four years in a galaxy far, far away.

Lesson 1 - TABOR doesn't limit spending during a recession.

To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid!" During a recession, the limiting factor on state spending is the economy. After all, Colorado ‹ unlike Congress ‹ has a balanced budget amendment, so the state can't spend money it doesn't have.

Lesson 2 - Ref C doesn't expire in 2010.

When the voters passed Ref C in 2005, they changed the way the original TABOR worked. Even after portions of Ref C expire in 2010, the new, revised spending limit under TABOR 2.0 will no longer "ratchet down" spending during a recession and will rarely restrict spending during an economic recovery.

According to the legislature's economists, TABOR will not limit government's ability to spend in the foreseeable future.

Lesson 3 - Amendment 23 doesn't expire in 2010.

The constitutional amendment that actually makes matters worse during a recession is Amendment 23, which mandates that K-12 education spending must increase every year - even when revenues are decreasing.

In the current budget, Amendment 23 requires a spending increase of $189 million. Meanwhile, economists predict that total general fund spending must be reduced to $172 million less than last year.

K-12 education accounts for 41 percent of the general fund budget, so the remaining 59 percent of the budget must be cut by $172 million to compensate for falling revenue plus another $189 million to accommodate Amendment 23.

Will Sen. Heath and his fellow Democrats buck the teachers unions to pull the teeth of the real shark in the budget process? Don't hold your breath.

Lesson 4 - Flexibility under TABOR 2.0.

Ever since Ref C suspended the TABOR spending limit, legislators have enjoyed absolute flexibility to spend, to save or to strike a balance between the two.

Guess which option they chose? Not saving. Not balance. Just more spending.

The flexibility they haven't enjoyed is the flexibility to raise taxes without a vote -- although they even tried that with Gov. Ritter's property tax increase.

Herein lies the lesson for voters:

For four years, legislators have budgeted without TABOR's training wheels. They could have saved money during good years, but they didn't. They should have asked our permission before raising property taxes, but they didn't.

What possible justification exists for relaxing the remaining safeguards that protect taxpayers?

Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Colorado Dems flunk basic econ

As Obama pledges to use taxpayer money to hand out cash and prizes in the name of jump-starting the economy, Colorado Democrats seem to be taking notes. But perhaps they should start taking a basic college economics course. Their chosen model just won't work. A quick read through the daily papers and opening day remarks by the state's leading Democrat lawmakers revealed their plans to increase government regulation and taxation, two actions all but guaranteed to worsen the state’s economic prospects.

Here’s just a quick sample of their plans. Democrats want to mandate new business regulations. Rep. Mark Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat, is introducing legislation to force banks to give loan defaulters a “temporary timeout” to renegotiate their loans. Rep. Andy Kerr of Lakewood hopes to force businesses to grant a week of unpaid leave so parents can go to school events.

The trouble with these nice sounding ideas is that they will increase government intrusion into private businesses and increase costs that are in turn be passed on to consumers.

Democrats also want to increase the size of government. Only the state’s projected $604 million budget shortfall restrains their ambitions. According to the Rocky Mountain News, a $13 billion price tag for start-up costs is the only thing stopping some Democrats from moving forward with a socialized medicine scheme.

Even so, Rep. Mary Hodge of Adams County thinks a smaller version is doable. Never mind that government takeover of healthcare is a prescription for long lines, escalating costs, deficit spending, and loss of personal freedom.

To improve education, Rep. Karen Middleton of Aurora suggests that we should increase government bureaucracy by creating an "Office of Dropout Prevention and Student Reengagement." State Rep. Debbie Benefield of Arvada wants the government to guarantee every student has access to a high-quality teacher. I’m guessing parental choice isn’t what she has in mind rather the creation of yet another government teacher training program or teacher salary initiative. On the welfare front, legislation is poised to create an “Economic Opportunity Task Force” (at least it’s not a blue ribbon panel) to develop a “strategic, integrated and comprehensive plan to help lift families out of poverty.”

Bear in mind that every dollar spent on state bureaucracy is one not spent by entrepreneurs to create jobs, charitable organizations to provide real help, or individuals to invest in their own future.

Democrats think they can create jobs, stimulate growth, and generate prosperity through the creation of more government programs, hand-outs, and regulations. Unfortunately, they missed the lessons of the 20th Century, subtle as they were, like the Great Depression, 70's stagflation, and the collapse of centrally planned economies.

“There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do,” observed Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. The direction sought by the majority party this legislative session points to darker days ahead.

Krista Kafer is a Denver-based education consultant, frequent cohost on Backbone Radio, and regular columnist for Face the State.com, from which this is reprinted by permission.

AFP holds line in '09 for Colo. taxpayer

I listened to Gov. Bill Ritter's State of the State speech with anticipation the other day, and we have reason to be concerned. According to the Governor, we need to "invest...despite these tough economic times", and get rid of spending and tax limitations which the Taxpayers Bill of Rights [TABOR] has effectively secured. Ritter wants to extend the spending increases of Referendum C from 2005 and continue seeking changes in TABOR's limitations on taxing and spending. Here’s a quote from his speech:

"As I’ve said before, a budget is a moral document that should reflect our values. . . . There is also an opportunity here – a chance to address TABOR and the constitutional and statutory straitjacket that makes modern, sensible and value-based budgeting an impossibility."

The Governor, though, has left some questions unasked in this statement. Whose values determine what a “sensible” budget is? I know for most Colorado families, a sensible budget is the smallest one possible where they can meet their monthly needs. If their income suddenly decreases or they can't keep up with their credit card payments. Something has to give. They are forced to cut back their spending. Is this the value-based approach to budgeting the Governor finds “sensible”? Or is the “straightjacket” of TABOR, as he implies, keeping him from spending more of our money.

He argues that we have many challenges ahead, but he proposes get rid of TABOR to deal with them. He hopes to remove TABOR's restraints so that he can build a "modern" (read: bloated) government. It seems to be a pattern we are following all over the country: in times of crisis, turn to government for help. Of course, Colorado is faring much better than other states like California which are begging the Congress to bail them out. And TABOR has played a big part in keeping us from going into the tank like they have when huge budgets meet decreasing tax revenues in these tough times.

Americans for Prosperity is going to continue the fight to make this case publicly with your help. When citizens come out in a show of force like they did for us last year, it sends a message to our politicians that we Coloradans will not accept an ever increasing government.

What is a modern budget, Governor Ritter? Does that include ever increasing spending and expanding government services? Or are there some limits to the amount of government we need? Governor Ritter said that when he and other Governors met with Senator Obama in November, the President-elect said, “. . . it would take courage and a strong federal-state partnership to get America back on the path to long-term prosperity.” When has a federal-state government partnership ever made us more prosperous? Does government bring prosperity or do the people and their spirit of ingenuity? These are the questions advocates of government action never seem to ask.

Our left-leaning Congress and State General Assembly will attempt to push the limits expanding government’s role in our economy. Unfortunately, that's what Republicans did when they had the Congress and paid the price at the ballot box. You can be assured that we will oppose any changes to TABOR and any further expansion of government spending beyond the limits imposed by TABOR whether proposed by Republicans or Democrats. But we will need your help to put pressure on our elected representatives to hold the line on spending.

First of all, AFP is hoping for the grassroots army which came out last year to our Hot Air Balloon and Town Hall events to come out again this year to State House rallies and Town Hall events as we force our elected officials to see that Coloradans do not support expanded government.

I am asking for your help if we are going to be successful at stopping the Governor’s and the legislature’s efforts to eliminate TABOR. If TABOR goes down, it would give them the ammunition they need to increase spending and taxes to pay for their pet projects without the “hassle” of obtaining a vote of the people. Please support Americans for Prosperity so we can remain an active, effective force for less government in Colorado.

Last year, Coloradans defeated five measures which would have increased taxes and government spending by nearly $350 million. There is a force of people in Colorado like you who believe in free markets and responsible government.

I look forward to working with you as we continue to hold the line on TABOR and take a strong stand for our rights as citizens of Colorado.

Jim Pfaff is Colorado director for Americans for Prosperity. See www.afphq.org.

Nanny state has you covered

The Lofgren Family Carbon Monoxide Safety Act, now pending before the Colorado House, has emotional power because of the four Lofgrens' recent death in a borrowed house in Aspen. Of course we feel for their loss and wish to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Monoxide killed some friends of mine in their mountain condo years ago, and almost killed my wife's family when she was a child. We have monoxide detectors in our house. But I still say no to this mandatory detector bill for newly built homes or older ones being resold. If you legislate by anecdote, the lawbooks will soon overflow as liberty and personal responsibility are smothered with nannyism. If the bill addressed public accommodations such as hotels, and left private homeowners to make their own safety provisions, I might be receptive. But it does just the opposite, as today's Post reports.

This is the same mentality that had Gov. Bill Ritter saying in his State of the State last week, "We'll be introducing legislation with Representative Merrifield and Senator Carroll requiring that all new single-family homes come with a "solar-ready" option. Today, homebuyers already have choices when it comes to countertops, paint colors and flooring. People should have similar options when it comes to sustainability."

Another example is Sen.-designate Bennet saying "we have an opportunity to reinvent" the auto industry, where "we" means Congress -- as noted by Vince Carroll in the Rocky today.

Be it safety or energy, the liberals will always find an excuse to inject government coercion between freely choosing buyers and sellers. Uncle Sam becomes Mr. Mom and we're all children on the apron strings.