Tea reports from across Colorado

From Colorado Springs, Steamboat Springs, and Loveland, along with a terrific photo essay on Denver, here are more party reports as compiled by Karen Kataline and John Andrews. Sean Paige of Colorado Springs posted his report here. Reach him seanpaige@msn.com

Jennifer Schubert-Akin filed copy from Steamboat as shown below. Reach her at jschubertakin@marathonaccounting.com

Jack Rudd checked in from Loveland, also as shown below. Reach him at jgrudd@comcast.net

Plus a fotog friend of Karen's provides these pictures you'll love from the State Capitol event.

Today in Loveland, Colorado our "tea party" had about 1000 people...

lining the very busy streets near the intersection of federal highways 34 and 287.

For three hours there was very enthusiastic sign waving, flag waving, jumping and hollering, which a large percentage of motorists reciprocated with honking and waving and thumbs-up. There was a fife and drum group but no speakers. There was one guy trying (with not much success) to collect an e-mail list for the county Republicans, but (unlike at Denver) there were no politicians in evidence. This group was not "led" by anyone; although (like the other tea parties) it was probably inspired by Rick Santelli's famous rant on CNBC.

It was a very tidy group. People picked up their own trash, except that I did see a couple of teabags in the street.

I saw no pro-Bush or pro-Obama signs, and only one pro-Paul sign. About one car in 100 had a pro-Obama bumper sticker, and the drivers of these cars tended either to look puzzled or to scowl or to flip an obscene gesture.

Everyone seemed to be aware of the silly DHS "report" in advance of today's protests "warning" about all manner of potential right-wing extremism. Napolitano and company were so clueless (or politically clumsy, take your pick) that even the White House is reported to be distancing itself from the report. Thus many folks at today's rally were commenting jocularly about the great turnout of "right-wing extremists" and what a good omen that is for America.

Among the signs being waved:

"I'm the right-wing extremist that DHS warned you about."

"Government is the biggest pirate."

"Elephants and asses screwing the masses"

"Liberty is all the stimulus we need"

"Big government sucks"

"No to Socialism"

"You spent all the money we had"

"Born free, becoming slaves"

etc., etc., etc. There must have been 100 or more unique messages on the signs.

As expected, nobody I talked with saw any media presence at this protest. I guess the liberal MSM will just try to pretend that we were never here. Some protesters were taking pictures and film to prove otherwise on the Web.

Congratulations, all 200+ of you tea partiers who turned out in Steamboat Springs today!!!

We had downtown Steamboat Springs rockin' with calls for an end to HIGH TAXES AND OUT-OF-CONTROL GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!

With our Tea Party located immediately next to U.S. Hwy 40, which runs through the heart of downtown, we had constant horns honking and pumped fists from passing motorists and, especially, the truckers!!

And, our crowd loved the personalized recorded messages from Steve Moore at the Wall Street Journal and Dan Mitchell and Chris Edwards of The Cato Institute, as well as the inspiring messages delivered live in person by our local citizens.

And...Denver's NBC affilliate, 9News, even remarked on "the large protest outside the Routt County Courthouse in Steamboat Springs"!!

Now...to answer the dozens of you who came up to me after the rally and asked, "where do we go from here" and "how can we keep this going?".....

ANNOUNCING THE FORMATION OF THE: "1773 CLUB" This will be an informal, non-partisan group of citizens who will meet regularly to discuss the important issues facing our country. Please reply to let us know if you would be interested in participating and, if so.....

* How often would you like to meet? Monthly, bi-weekly, or other? * What time of day would work best for you? Breakfast, lunch or after work?

If there is sufficient interest, we will design "1773 Club" hats and shirts, which will surely annoy lots of liberal tax-and-spenders!!

Stay tuned for future announcements........

Jennifer Schubert-Akin jschubertakin@marathonaccounting.com Director - The Steamboat Institute (www.steamboatinstitute.org) Steamboat Springs, Colorado 970-871-9936

Pinnacol escapes, but lessons linger

Editor: The capitol gang's thieving intent toward Pinnacol shouldn't be forgotten, even though on April 15 (fittingly) they called off the heist. Mark Hillman draws exactly the right lesson. Stealing is wrong - even if government does it We allow government to tax and spend, recognizing that forcibly taking the fruits of someone else's labor would constitute theft if anyone else did it.

In turn, we expect our elected officials to remember that their responsibility is to represent taxpaying families and businesses - not to protect government at all costs.

Well, after three years of spending every available tax dollar, dismissing every opportunity to save for the next downturn, and surreptitiously raising taxes without voter approval, Colorado's Democrat lawmakers are now planning to steal - a term I don't use loosely - $500 million to balance this year's state budget.

Targets of the heist are Colorado businesses that protect their employees against workplace injuries by purchasing coverage from Pinnacol Assurance, a state-sanctioned insurance company.

Although created in state law, Pinnacol operates as a mutual insurance company for which the state assumes no liability. When Pinnacol suffers losses, Colorado employers pay higher premiums. If Pinnacol builds a surplus, employers receive rebates.

After years of financial distress, Pinnacol turned a $200 million deficit into a surplus reserve of some $700 million - from which Democrat leaders, Governor Ritter and (it gives me no pleasure to note) two Republican legislators now intend to beg, borrow or outright steal.

Inconveniently, Colorado law explicitly explains that state government "has no claim to nor any interest in (Pinnacol's) revenues, money, and assets and shall not borrow, appropriate, or direct payments . . . for any purpose."

If the constitution doesn't constrain these lawmakers, mere statutes won't either.

So this is what it's come to: lawmakers suggest that their only options are to steal money paid by Colorado employers to pay for workplace injuries or to cut $300 million from colleges and universities.

Perhaps if anytime in the past year those same lawmakers and Gov. Ritter had heeded warnings of a recession they wouldn't be in such a fix. Instead, they built a budget based on rosy economic projections, then ignored warnings from their own economists, then underestimated the magnitude of their earlier errors, and finally acted after their options were severely limited by their own intransigence.

Gov. Ritter conceded as much recently when he told listeners to KOA's Mike Rosen Show: "We already for next year's budget have cut $1.2 billion and have $300 million more to find."

Why is it necessary to cut so much from next year's budget when revenues fell far more in the current year ($1.1 billion) than from this year to next ($100 million)? Because statehouse leaders balanced this year's budget mostly with smoke and mirrors.

When business leaders objected to the proposed Pinnacol heist, lawmakers whined.

Sen. Suzanne Williams (D-Aurora) wanted car dealer John Medved, testifying at a committee hearing, to tell her how to balance the budget without stealing from the injured workers fund. Medved instead schooled Williams on budget balancing in the real world where theft is still illegal, explaining the tough choices he made to address a $500,000 a month shortfall.

Meanwhile, "enraged" college students rallied on the Capitol steps with clever signs - or so they thought - asking "WTF? Where's the funding?" As though they and their professors have an inherent right to taxpayer subsidies.

So long as colleges and universities offer a plethora of trivial degrees in professional victimology, rather than focusing scarce resources on genuine disciplines like medicine, engineering and physics, such pleas of poverty can't be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, Sen. Al White (R-Hayden) outrageously pandered to students, telling them Pinnacol has their funding. The obvious lesson is that a business that responsibly saves for hard times will be plundered by those that do not.

Gov. Ritter could have exhibited leadership by squelching the idea immediately. Instead, he needs the legislature's help to cover his dismal fiscal record and, therefore, can't afford confrontation.

"First, it's a legal question. Then it's a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he explained to a KOA caller.

Ritter has it backwards, forgetting a lesson his mother surely taught him: the first question is whether it's right or wrong. And stealing is wrong, even if a lawyer says it's legal.

Can'em or keep'em?

(Denver Post, Apr. 5) “We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.” Reagan’s words speak defiance to statism, but they are only as true as we make them. The 2010 election is Coloradans’ chance. Supreme Court justices Mary Mullarkey, Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice will be up for another 10-year term. Poor stewards of the law since they last faced voters in 2000, all four deserve dismissal. Whether they’re retained or bounced will signal how much we cherish liberty. Voting judges into office ended here in the 1960s. Gubernatorial appointments replaced the unseemly spectacle of jurists soliciting campaign funds. The people can still vote judges out, however, and no court can overrule us. Nor need we explain why. In this, at least, we’re still sovereign.

Capriciousness isn't justified. “Prudence will dictate” avoidance of political changes “for light and transient causes,” the Declaration of Independence cautions. But terminating a dishonest judge is warranted – and so is termination for breach of trust. Mullarkey, Bender, Martinez, and Rice have failed their constitutional trust.

The justices up for renewal are poster kids for the “living constitution” racket of legislating from the bench in disregard of the written text. Under Chief Justice Mullarkey, as Vincent Carroll wrote after last month’s TABOR ruling, “the Colorado Supreme Court seems to think that it is… free to redefine words however it likes.” Let’s answer their abuse of judicial review with electoral review and retire them.

Is this a wild revolutionary idea as some lawyers and professors will claim? No, it’s an eminently conservative remedy of checking power with power and reminding the government it answers to the nation, not the other way around.

Termination wouldn’t deny the thorniness of such questions as when a tax vote is required, how citizens can petition to discourage illegal immigration, whether low-income scholarships are allowable in public schools, who draws congressional districts, or why a juror’s Bible should annul a murder sentence. It would simply express our displeasure with the four activist Supremes by ordering them replaced.

Replacement, should it occur, may itself be thorny. If defeated in November 2010, Mary Mullarkey (appointed in 1987), Michael Bender (1997), Alex Martinez (1998), and Nancy Rice (1998), Democrats all, would leave office in January 2011 and have their places filled by either Gov. Bill Ritter or his successor. Republicans voters are more likely to want the seats vacated if they foresee a new governor, but that’s no sure thing.

Amendment 40, the judicial term limits proposal I led in 2006, led early but sank as the GOP base saw Bob Beauprez’s gubernatorial hopes fading. Its mandate for appellate judges with over a decade of service to leave after 2008 – which would have opened up five of the seven Supreme Court seats – was less attractive to center-right voters when a Ritter victory seemed likely. Might that dynamic recur next year?

It depends on how energetic and well-funded the do-not-retain campaign against Justices Mullarkey, Bender, Martinez, and Rice turns out to be. California chief justice Rose Bird and two of her liberal colleagues were tossed in 1986 by voters outraged at their leniency to killers. That Colorado murder case I mentioned, the one with the Bible, may gain notoriety as the 2010 race heats up.

Plus there’s the March 16 decision allowing billions in higher taxes without voter approval, which Beauprez calls “the kind of blatant judicial activism that infuriates the citizenry and increases the call for voting against retention of wayward justices.”

A dismissal drive called Clear the Bench Colorado is already being organized by Arapahoe County activist Matt Arnold. Politicians of both parties will probably keep their distance while a nonpartisan “can’em or keep’em” contest determines the four justices’ fate. I say can’em.

Brady & Sharf: More electoral mischief

Editor: Thwarted repeatedly in the past, progressive zealots in Colorado continue their push for a plebiscitary presidency in defiance of the Founders' wisdom. Here's part of the case for honoring the Constitution with continuing reliance on the Electoral College, from contributors Peg Brady and Joshua Sharf. Why even have elections? By Peg Brady gpbrady2@earthlink.net

House Bill 1299’s massive illogic dumbfounds me. As described in the 10 March 2009 Post (Bill “popular” enough to get first panel’s OK), this proposal would require Colorado’s Electoral representatives to ignore Colorado voters’ presidential choice.

Currently, our Electors cast Colorado’s votes for the presidential candidate chosen by the majority of Colorado voters. Thus, in 2012, if most Colorado voters chose candidate A, our state’s Electoral votes would be cast for candidate A. That makes sense.

However, if HB 1299 becomes law, our Electoral votes would be cast for the candidate preferred by voters in other states. Large-population states would control future presidential elections. That may be desirable for them, but it would be disastrous for us.

Reading the arguments debated as the Founding Fathers crafted our superb Constitution reveals their wisdom in establishing the Electoral College. They wanted to ensure that the voters in small-population states would be respected. Because of uneven population distribution, a few states could dominate presidential elections if the Constitution had not protected small-state voters.

To propose throwing away our Electoral safeguard undermines our Constitutional protection.

State Representative Claire Levy supports this dangerous proposal, stating illogically that “…everyone in the state who votes for the candidate who loses Colorado essentially has their vote wiped out.” Conversely, were HB 1299 passed, all Colorado voters would have their votes discarded.

If our Electors were required to ignore our choice and cast our Electoral votes with the national majority, we wouldn’t need to vote at all. The president would be chosen by the large-population East Coast and West Coast states. All the rest of us could just stay home.

I suppose that Colorado could save money by not bothering to hold elections. What would be the point? But I, for one, want my vote counted.

------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment by minority, compact by whim By Joshua Sharf jsharf@jsharf.com

Ross Kaminsky, Amy Oliver, and others have blogged locally about about the end-run around the Constitution that is HB1299. I won't bother to repeat their efforts to defend the Electoral College.

What strikes me is the irony of using the Electoral College and the Constitution to undermine them. HB1299 provides that the bill won't take effect until states with a combined Electoral College vote of 270 - enough to elect a President - approve it. The eleven largest states could decide that they want to change how a President is elected, without input from the other states. (In practice, Georgia and Texas, are unlikely to go along with this scheme, so the number of states needed would rise to 14 under current electoral count. Upcoming reapportionment might change it down to 13.) This reverses the Constitutional formula for amending the Constitution, with barely 1/4 of the states able to change things on their own.

When I pointed this out to the last political hack to try this stunt, Ken Gordon, on the air a couple of years ago, he retorted that this was only true because of the Electoral College itself, as those same states could elect a President. Of course, electing a President, who serves for four years, is a far less critical task than changing the Constitution, which changes will likely be with us forever.

The whole maneuver may not even be Constitutional. Article I, Section 10 reads, in part:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

There are numerous interstate compacts, dealing with law enforcement, sexual predators, water rights, and other topics. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State needn't get Congressional approval unless the compact would impinge on Federal jurisdiction, which is why it's located in Article I, legislative powers.

However, the Court also ruled that term limits were an additional requirement for office, and that since Congressmen were Federal officers, the states had no power to impose those eligibility requirements. I wonder if one could make a similar argument about electors. I also wonder if a state has the right to apportion its own electors as it chooses, but cannot sign away that right of selection to other states.

All the arguments about this being an urban power grab are true. What's also true is that it's an unholy mess, which because its effects take place catastrophically, rather than as the states adopt it, is likely to sneak up on us and be settled in court, where so many of our issues are decided, rather than in the legislatures, where they ought to be.

Open it up, urge Nikkel & Kopp

Editor: Rare is the legislation that goes from stalled to unstoppable under Colorado's gold dome, and rare is the legislator who rides that kind of cyclone in her first month on the job. But such is the case with freshman state Rep. B.J. Nikkel and her transparency bill. Taking office on a vacancy appointment after the 2009 session had already started, Nikkel picked up an open-government proposal that fellow Republican Don Marostica had recently shelved, and quickly assembled a potent coalition for its passage -- after more than a year of inaction by the executive branch on this issue. Here's her account, co-authored with Senate sponsor Mike Kopp.

Bipartisan Calls for Transparency in State Government By Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R-Larimer Co.) and Sen. Mike Kopp (R-Jefferson Co.)

Making government transparent is a popular issue in the Colorado legislature this year, as we’ve had several attempts to provide taxpayers with online access to Colorado’s various governments spending habits.

Our bill, House Bill 1288, places Colorado on the cutting edge of transparency in state government, and if enacted, we will join over a dozen states nationwide that have already put state expenditures and revenues online.

Last week, HB 1288 – The Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act, passed through House Finance Committee unanimously. Two weeks prior to that, a broad coalition of 38 Democrats and Republicans came together on the House floor in unison to co-sponsor our legislation upon its introduction.

The Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act is similar to other bills that have passed in several states, including Missouri, Kansas and Texas, as well as in the United States Senate. The U.S. Senate version of transparency was sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Sen. Tom Colburn, R-Oklahoma.

Just as transparency has brought together members of both parties in the U.S. Senate, a broad coalition of Democrats and Republicans have also come together at the State Capitol in support of making transparency part of state law.

Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colorado, has even announced plans to sign an executive order, mandating that all government spending be made available electronically. Although we applaud the governor for his willingness to put the state’s spending online, an executive order does not go far enough because it is not a law and can be swept away by the stroke of a pen.

Any new governor can simply rescind Gov. Ritter’s executive order. It’s very important for taxpayers to know that transparency in state government is not fleeting – it must be made permanent by through an act of state law. In addition, other states like Missouri that have implemented it through executive order have come back and made it permanent by putting it into law.

We are currently working with the governor’s office and hope that he will join this bipartisan group of Republican and Democrat lawmakers in supporting this important legislation in making transparency permanent for Colorado taxpayers.

Under current law, the burden-of-proof is on the taxpayer. If you want information on state spending you have to file a Colorado Open Records Act request and be willing to wait, spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on staff research and printing fees, and then wonder if you’ve truly received all the relevant information.

Our legislation shifts this burden-of-proof to the state government by making the process for quickly reviewing how the state is using your money, just a mouse-click away.

Putting the states expenditures and revenues online through statute, is a first step toward greater accountability. Under HB 1288, Colorado citizens will have the tool they’ve asked for to help us identify potential waste, and in some cases, fraud and abuse.

The state’s expenditures and revenues should be transparent, accessible, and free—and we need to keep the mantra of the taxpayers in mind which says, “if you can’t defend it, don’t spend it.”