Dems' arrogant money grab worsens

If legislative Democrats in 2007 were devious for passing Gov. Ritter's infamous property tax hike without voter approval, the 2009 crop plunges to new depths. In an act of sheer arrogance, this year's Democrat majority poked taxpayers in the eye just for spite.

Recall that the aforementioned property tax hike increases the burden on local property owners while reducing the state's obligation to fund K-12 education.

Recall also that Colorado's constitution says that no "tax policy change directly causing a net revenue gain" can be enacted without a vote of the people and that this policy change increased property tax revenues by $117 million in the first year alone.

Finally, recall that crafty Democrats hinged permission for their tax hike on 174 separate, previous votes by taxpayers in all but four of the state's 178 school districts. Never mind that those voters were repeatedly assured by school and state officials that their taxes would not increase as a result.

Not satisfied that the Colorado Supreme Court slipped this nonsense through a previously undiscovered loophole in the state constitution, Democrats added arrogance to insult by swiftly passing bill to now prevent any of those 174 school districts from reconsidering.

That's arrogance, plain and simple.

For 13 years after voters adopted the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), the Department of Education and local school districts reassured property owners that they could loosen revenue limits on their local schools without making themselves vulnerable to a tax increase by the legislature.

They took this position not because CDE or local school boards are staunch defenders of TABOR but because they were following state law.

Then in 2007, the legislature unilaterally decided to change the law, to impose an immediate tax increase on property owners - and to retroactively change the result of those 174 local elections, all the while arguing that it was precisely those elections that permitted the tax hike in the first place.

As a result, property owners in those districts are now paying higher taxes - not so their schools can receive more money, but so the state can take the money it previously spent on K-12 education and spend it on social welfare programs instead.

However, the four districts that never waived their school's revenue limits remain exempt from the legislature's shenanigans. In those districts, the growth of local property tax revenues is limited and the state must provide any additional money necessary to fully fund those schools.

A reasonable taxpayer - or school board member - in one of the school districts now being soaked by the state might see this disparity and decide that the local school district should reconsider its decision to waive all revenue limits. After all, it's one thing for property owners to permit local school to "keep the change" and quite another to permit the state to raise taxes, too.

Now thanks to Senate Bill 291, which was opposed by every Republican at the state capitol, districts that loosened the tax limits under the old law are forbidden from reinstituting those limits now that the law has changed. If they do, the state will punish their children by withholding funds from their school.

This from the party that claims to do everything "for the children." In reality, the Democrats do everything "for the government" and aren't above using your children as hostages in their extortion racket.

It's hard to imagine how the state's constitutional mandate to provide a "thorough and uniform system of free public schools" could be interpreted to allow one school to be penalized solely because of the way its residents vote.

However, Colorado Democrats have already proven that they will ignore the constitution when it's inconvenient and that the state supreme court can be counted on to back them up.

Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Useful idiots & how not to be one

The term “useful idiots” was attributed to Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin describing intellectual idealists persuaded to adopt communism. Later after a fait accompli, with their idealism supremely disappointed and dangerously reactive, they would of course have to be eliminated. Wikipedia explains how Lenin’s, “‘useful idiots of the West,’ described Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West.”

From www.usefulidiots.com , the question, “Why This Web Site?”: "Useful idiots is a name no group of people would like to be called. It is however, what most Americans are relied upon to be by the powers that be. When the voting segment ... allows itself to fall for the same old word games and mind manipulation, it sadly earns the title of useful idiots ... too many Americans are naive about their political ‘system’ and its politicians ... America is a land of plenty. Plenty of food, plenty of money, plenty of gods, plenty of corrupt politicians and alas, plenty of useful idiots that repetitively vote for them.”

From five million Coloradans, 65 House and 35 Senate members emerge to serve public office in the Legislature. They take an oath to support the Colorado and U. S. Constitutions. This is their only required oath -- not to their constituents, the government, their political party, nor the citizens, voters and taxpayers of Colorado, not even to their families or themselves. Just to the rich heritage, words, meaning, expression, majesty and magnificence of those documents.

Question: How many elected officials have read both documents, before or after entering office? The oath presumes familiarity with, understanding of, and a full, recent read and determination to honor them. Otherwise it’s easier to create, cultivate and control “useful idiots.”

Officeholders are prote cted in this ignorance. Those who voted them into office too are “useful idiots.” They have little familiarity, interest or knowledge of those documents whose power is to contain and control only the government, not the people.

Once public officials, they are in intimate contact with “the system” – elected colleagues, special interests, partisan political parties, government bureaucracy and employees, bond dealers, lobbyists and friends of same, and far removed from those who sent them there. The Legislature meets for 120 days creating legislation presumably to make Colorado a better place. However, officeholders’ limited political, economic, business, financial, constitutional and governmental acumen put them at the mercy of the true, long-term professionals, well-paid, who know how to manipulate people, opinions, legislative bills and votes.

With accompanying “spotlight and applause,” many of these “useful idiots” can be persuaded to perform in ways anathema to what they otherwise would want done, or perhaps more importantly, not done. They sponsor, sign on to, or support bills that on their face violate their oath of office and the Constitution.

Examples of the Useful Idiot Dodge (UID) are abundant. Colorado’s executive, legislative and judicial branches too often misapply, misinterpret or ignore the Constitution when it threatens their agenda or very existence. Good job, “useful idiots,” on the following:

** “FASTER” legislation politically morphed an in-fact tax increase into an automobile fee increase, to obtain more revenue, and avoid submitting it to the electorate, in compliance with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.

** The General Assembly could have put on the ballot a gasoline tax increase, but no. Instead, this UID was an intentional end-run around TABOR, depriving taxpayers of their power to accept or reject this tax increase.

** The general assembly enacted a mill levy freeze to increase tax revenue to the schools, to provide the general fund more money to spend, again without a vote of the people, a UID for a billion dollars over the next ten years.

** Boisterous assault on TABOR, with a power-hungry and derelict Democratic Majority in the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Governorship. The next TABOR-forbidden UID target, is the 1 992 Bird-Arveschoug six percent growth limit to the General Fund, conservatively interpreted and highly respected for 17 years, is now being plundered to allow for easier, less confined state spending.

** The current target is to throw Colorado’s nine electoral votes into a consensus pool of other states, making null and void the Founder’s concepts. The 222-years-old Electoral College was crafted to protect the small versus big states. Requiring a consortium of states to support one national candidate/party is a UID that shrinks the power of Colorado voters. Is there no limit?

William Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” That’s the tragic tale of today’s “useful idiots.” While in office they are conned into legislative actions that are long-term anathema to what their Founders and Freedom Documents, their children, grandchildren, even themselves; and unborn, unrepresented generations in the future would want. But once in, laws stay. Good job, “useful idiots.”

Conversely, realization is how legislators can get beyond being “useful idiots.” They first realize the Founders created a system of limited government and self-governing people, that government is to protect the people's rights and property, that its financial impact was not to overspend, overtax or over borrow, that its Founding document, the Constitution, was meant to control the government, not the people. When the people put in place an amendment to the Constitution, it is not up to the legislators to flail it to oblivion, but to respect and abide by it. Inconvenient, frustrating or difficult? Deal with it.

How can one avoid becoming or being an elected official or citizen “useful idiot?” Six steps:

1. Read, understand, know, preserve and protect America’s and Colorado’s Freedom Documents--Declaration of Independence, Constitutions and their incredibly important Bills of Rights. Lesson: Master the basics, the fundamentals of a successful society.

2. Build your knowledge and understanding of history’s fundamentals -- its ideas, philosophies, ideals, events and actors, heroes and villains. “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child,” is chiseled on a building at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Lesson: Grow up.

3: Read. Watch. Listen. Think. Understand. Lesson: Get and stay informed.

4. Quit being a civics dropout, constitutional illiterate or citizen slug. America’s Republic (not “Democracy”) is not a spectator sport. Lesson: Become aware, interested, informed, concerned, involved and active in what is going on.

5. Share your information, knowledge and concern. America’s educational system leaves too much out. On many talk shows I told listeners too many Americans are “dumbed down, numbed up, tuned out and turned off.” We need to turn them back on, to a country and future of Freedom and destiny. Lesson: Share true personal Freedom and political Liberty.

Sixth: Seeing a “useful idiot” committing a UID, pounce on it. Lesson: It’s up to you.

President George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Louis D. Brandeis said, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men (and women) of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Nobel Laureate Economist Dr. Milton Friedman, “Our problem is not ignorance. It’s what we know that’s not so.”

Note: The term “useful idiot” is not meant in any way to disparage, deprecate, defame, denigrate or demean the word “idiot.”

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.

Do women legislators rule?

Listen to my radio special exploring the question. Our state legislature has the nation's highest percentage of women. Thirty-nine of 100 members in this year’s General Assembly are women. So are we better governed because of the female factor? Does one party speak more for women than the other? Is the political playing field really level for skirts and shirts? Listeners got firsthand perspectives from the Capitol when they tuned in on Thursday, April 2, at 7:00 pm for "Under the Dome," my issue special on 710 KNUS in Denver, also streaming live at www.710knus.com.

You can hear the podcast by clicking here

"Under the Dome: Women Speak Out" is my conversation with State Reps. Claire Levy (D-Boulder) and Amy Stephens (R-Colorado Springs), State Sen. Nancy Spence (R-Centennial), and Jessica Corry of the Independence Institute. Krista Kafer is along as co-host to help me avoid male brainlock.

To contact my guests via email, click the names.

Rep. Claire Levy

Sen. Nancy Spence

Rep. Amy Stephens

Jessica Corry

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.