Archives for 2010

“Anyone who accuses the legislative council staff
[who wrote the Blue Book] of bias,
will be ejected from this hearing.”
-Chairman Terrance Carroll opening the only public hearing

With Colorado’s Blue Book Alternative you can avoid our government’s conflict of interest and bureaucratic bias, and get information about ballot initiatives straight from the proponents.

Proposition 101 (Cut car, income, phone taxes)

Amendment 60 (Limit Property Tax)

Amendment 61 (Limit Colorado Debt)

Time is almost up to do the right thing Mr. Peterson.

The right thing would be to stop promoting the grifter for governor and get behind the man with real answers, real experience, real leadership and real command of the office he seeks.

And doing the right thing for the greater good would be to support tax limiting proposals instead of big public money interests.

When Republicans align with the NEA, the Colorado Progressive Coalition, the Democratic Governors Association, and the SEIU, it’s time to say goodbye to the Republicans.

The Governor’s Forum debate begins at about 23 minutes into this video.

Ad Strategy Worked: Weak Tea Party Candidate Won Primary

“The most recently filed campaign records from Colorado Freedom Fund indicate that the Democratic Governors Association donated $150,000, while wealthy Colorado philanthropist Pat Stryker gave $108,000. The SEIU Small Donor Committee gave $200,000 and the Public Education Committee, an education union, gave $150,000. Two other groups gave $5,000 each to the committee.

“Democrats spent more money on Maes in two weeks than he raised in his entire campaign,” said Rob Witwer, co-author of “The Blueprint,” a book about the Democrats takeover of Colorado. “They wanted Dan Maes to be the Republican nominee and they got him.”

With nearly $4 million spent so far to defeat these measures, an amount which dwarfs the money for all other political issues and offices in Colorado combined, these measures are the biggest threat to tax and spend liberalism currently on the table.  You know, to a point of certainty, that the legal briefs that will challenge these measures are already written and waiting to be filed, should any of them squeak through the liberal firewall.  And you know, given the composition of the Colorado Supreme Court, that any legal challenge to these measures will be found sufficient and ultimately upheld.  There’s just too much money on the table to enliven the fight.

Still, it’s a fight worth having because it exposes the tax and spend super structure running Colorado.  And there’s no other way we’ll ever even see who runs our government.

Donors

According to August 2010 reports, Coloradans for Responsible Reform, an opponent of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61, has reportedly received $4.109 million in campaign contributions and has spent $3.877 million. Their current balance is $231,335.98.^[29] Compared to May 2010 reports, supporters reported that they had received $777,000 in campaign donations and a total of $671,190 in the bank.^[30] In July 2010, state campaign finance records revealed that opponents received contributions from 36 businesses and 11 business & trade groups.^[13]

Below is a chart that outlines major cash contributions to Coloradans for Responsible Reform:^[31][32]

Contributor	Amount
National Education Association	$400,000
Colorado Contractors Association, Inc.	$300,000
Colorado Education Association	$250,000
The Colorado Health Foundation	$175,000
Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association	$150,000

Campaign advertising

• Opponents purchased $2 million of television air time. Their ad campaign is expected to launch after Labor Day.^[13]

• On September 8, 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a one-minute ad in opposition to Prop 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the ad calls the three measures “The Ugly Three.” The radio ad ran on 64 stations in 39 cities.^[33] The radio ad can be heard here.

Tactics and strategies

• In May 2010 Coloradans for Responsible Reform launched a website called www.donthurtcolorado.com in order to fight Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. According to reports, the group has raised approximately $800,000 to fight the measures. The campaign group is supported by Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and others. According to Coloradans for Responsible Reform the proposed measures would make Colorado an “investment-flight state.”^[30]

• On August 14, 2010, opponents of Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and Amendment 61 gathered at the Robert Hoag Rawlings Public Library, the headquarters of the Pueblo City-County Library District. According to reports, the crowd consisted of about 50 local politicians, school, library and business leaders.^[34]

• On August 25 opponents hosted a rally at the Pioneers Museum gazebo from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm to explain and distribute information on the potential impact of the three measures. The rally, according to reports, was sponsored by the Citizens for Effective Government and group of businesses and organizations.^[35][36][37]

• The Colorado Progressive Coalition hit the road on September 14 in a ten-day “Civic Engagement Roundtable Ballot Tour” to inform voters of “the costly effects and unintended consequences” of the measures.^[38] A list of tour events can be found here.

• On September 27, 2010 opponents met in front of empty seats at Invesco Field to illustrate the 73,000 jobs they argue would be lost should Amendment 60, 61 and Prop 101 be approved by voters.^[39]

Other perspectives

• • 2010 Gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo announced in an early September debate that he supported Proposition 101, Amendment 60 and 61. Tancredo said, “The people of Colorado are not under-taxed; we are over-governed” and added “It’s really a reaction to people being overtaxed and taxed without their permission. The passage of these things will be an indicator that things are coming to a change and we’ll have to deal with it.”^[40] However, in late September 2010, Tancredo said he was unsure about the measures.^[41]

GOP Agenda – A Pledge To America

I don’t think there’s enough lipstick in Washington to make this pig look good. It doesn’t mention death taxes, it uses weasel words about border security, it says they’ll put us on a path to balancing the budget without actually calling for a balanced budget, and they promise to give us 3 days to digest and respond to their thousand page bills.

It looks dressed up to appeal to constitutional fundamentalists without actually saying much to hold the GOP to. And this morph of the Declaration of Independence from a document stating the foundation for our right to change our system of government, to a justification for making policy changes within our existing government, is just repugnant.

12:07

Silverman interviews Maes 9_17_10.mp4

With all of the loose ends in the continuing Dan Maes’ narrative, with the absence of any pro-forma policies that Maes might intend for Colorado, with the absence of any credentials that might lead one to a governor’s office, Maes leaves me with the clear impression that he continually invents and reinvents himself from whole cloth, minute by minute.  He is the narrative and the narrative is all there is.

Denver Post 9/17/10: Elbert County mired in crises

Let’s break this turkey down:

• No county officials will go on the record to comment on the article.
• John Dunn is aggrieved over the situation, which is his normal mental state when it comes to Elbert County.
• Norm Happel is aggrieved over the situation, which is his normal mental state when it comes to Elbert County.
• Jim Whistler is aggrieved over the situation, and he is the underdog in the Treasurers race and has a political ax to grind.
• P.J. Trostel’s indictment has many counts, but prosecutors always over-charge, and all the counts seem to be not very material in value.
• Megan Taunton’s alleged breach also appears to lack much materiality.
• And the sitting commissioners decided to refinance county debt, a decision that they were clearly empowered to make.

This article reeks of election year politics.  It’s main value appears to be as an indicator of a linkage between John Dunn and Jim Whistler.   Mr. Whistler circulated an email a couple weeks ago that grew out of a freedom of information request he had made for the 2009 county audit report.  He then cherry-picked a couple pages out of the 50 page document and forwarded those pages with his own suggestions of county financial impropriety.  A friend routed the email to me.  I asked Mr. Whistler to release the entire audit report so that I could make an informed analysis of his charges.  He refused to release the entire report.

Those are the facts as I see them.  Draw your own conclusions.

Decision: Olsen & Harrington v. Tancredo, Miller, ACP & CO Secretary of State

Excerpt:

D. Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Argument Does Not Alter The Court’s Conclusions

Plaintiffs seem to contend that the Court’s construction of the statutory framework somehow implicates Plaintiffs’ rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. They point to Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974), Colo. Libertarian Party v. Sec’y of State of Colo., 817 P.2d 998 (Colo. 1991), and Riddle v. Daley, 2010 WL 2593927 (D. Colo. June 23, 2010) and Curry et al v. Buescher, slip. op. 10-1265 (10th Cir. August 31, 2010). First, Plaintiffs do not explicitly assert a constitutional claim in their Second Amended Petition. Second, the law is clear that a court “should not decide a constitutional issue unless the necessity for such decision is clear and inescapable.” People v. Lybarger, 700 P.2d 910, 915 (Colo. 1985). Third, the associational, speech and ballot access rights at issue, if any, belong to ACP, Mr. Tancredo and Ms. Miller. Fourth, the facts of the cases on which Plaintiffs rely are distinguishable. They involve independent candidates seeking direct access by petition to a general election ballot. Such candidates are not similarly situated to candidates selected through the processes available to major and minor political parties. Finally, Plaintiffs seem to invoke these cases to make a policy argument about what they perceive as the political instability that would result from allowing someone such as Mr. Tancredo late entry into a race. It is not appropriate, however, for this Court to decide public policy. For all these reasons, Plaintiffs’ constitutional argument is not ripe for the Court’s consideration.

The GOP sponsors of this lawsuit consider Tancredo’s candidacy in the governor’s race an infringement of their 1st Am. right to free speech because Tancredo’s candidacy creates political instability for them.  A more clear nanny-state predisposition could hardly be conceived.  The Colorado Republican Party should be voted into obscurity for prosecuting such an offensive view.