Weekend Open Thread

70
  by: Colorado Pols Sat September 29, 2012 at 3:03 PM MDT

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.”

–George Orwell


Full story: Weekend Open Thread

70 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. parsingreality says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM MDT

    Anyone know a source for that?

    My prediction: By November 6th, Obama’s sweep will bring enough house races back to the Dems to have a Dem house again.  

    Not based on anything scientific, just a hope and prayer, as they say.

  2. dwyer says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM MDT

    1) The Republicans are spinning that the polls are deliberately over polling Democrats so that Republican voters will get discouraged and not even vote – thus guaranteeing a Democrat victory. This is the result of a vast left wing media/polling conspiracy.

    2) The Democrats are spinning that the polls are deliberately over polling Democrats so that Democrats will become overconfident and stopped GOTVing and will not even vote – thus guaranteeing an upset Republican sweep. This is the result of a vast right wing media/polling conspiracy.

    3) My take:  Both sides have agreed to conspire and totally confuse and confound me…this is the result of an ongoing vast right and left wing conspiracy that has targeted me my whole life and is responsible for many crazy things I have said and that have happened to me….like attempting to follow the latest Apple map.

  4. ScottP says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 5:07 PM MDT

    instead of free-market anarchists.

    That’s the base for their hypocrisy. If you can comfortably say “Government is always wrong!” followed by “USA is the best!” then why stop your hypocricy there?

    • MADCO says:
      Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM MDT

      And if was alive today, he’d have to run as a D.

      • taterheaptom says:
        Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM MDT

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike…


        Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

        …We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

        http://readingeagle.com/articl…

        Fifty-six years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a kind of universal health care.

        Eisenhower asked Congress for $25 million to fund what he called health “reinsurance.”

        Under the Eisenhower plan, private insurance companies who extended benefits to uninsured Americans would be reimbursed by the federal government should they incur excessive loses. In a way, the government was insuring the insurers.

    • Albert J. Nock says:
      Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM MDT

      instead of hardline communist.

      That’s the base for their hypocrisy. If you can comfortably say “Government is always correct!” followed by “USA is the worst!” then why stop your hypocrisy there?

        • Diogenesdemar says:
          Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM MDT

          the language is clearly clear . . . but the answer is so obvious that I sense it’s being asked clearly insincerely . . .  

        • Albert J. Nock says:
          Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM MDT

          I wish the GOP would go back to being conservative instead of free-market anarchists.

          That’s the base for their hypocrisy. If you can comfortably say “Government is always wrong!” followed by “USA is the best!” then why stop your hypocricy there?

          I wish Dems would go back to being liberals

          instead of hardline communist.

          That’s the base for their hypocrisy. If you can comfortably say “Government is always correct!” followed by “USA is the worst!” then why stop your hypocrisy there?

          • ScottP says:
            Sat September 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM MDT

            Stop eating the Play-Doh! I’m trying to have a serious conversation here.

          • AristotleAristotle says:
            Sat September 29, 2012 at 8:08 PM MDT

            It is a fact that the GOP stand for free-market anarchy. That is not the least bit exaggerated. It is not hyperbole. It’s the simple truth about the GOP.

            The Dems have moved very far to the right (center) in recent decades, apparently unwilling to cut such a major contrast with a hard right party. Look up Simpson Bowles for an example and tell me how that could even qualify as “socialist” in the most evolutionary sense of the term. Never mind “communist.” (You know there’s a distinction between those terms, don’t you?) Explain how it would even be possible for a socialist to consider something like that.

            • GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:
              Sun September 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM MDT

              Oh, Ari, sweet innocent Ari.

              They (You know: “they”.) can’t even distinguish between “democracy” and “capitalism”, “freedom” and “liberty”, “responsibility” and “immunity”, “government” and “those other guys”, “spending” and “investment”, and on and on and on. “Persons” and “corporations” and on and on and on. “Disagreement” and “activist judges” and on and on and on.

              And on and on and on.

      • parsingreality says:
        Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM MDT

        Manhattan Project.

        Space flight, clear the way for private enterprise.

        Rural electrification.

        Environmental laws.  Pollutants don’t know state borders.

        War.

        Interstate Highways.  Before them, US highways.

        Air traffic.

        Aircraft safety.

        Healthcare.  Private for pay has failed miserably. Compare to any other nation.

        As to USA! USA!, what have we got to be proud of anymore?  The biggest kick ass military, sucking down 65% of our discretionary income while it couldn’t protect us against a few men with box cutters?

        Maybe our wonderful healthcare?  No, obese as hell, something like #19 in the matter of infant deaths, way behind every (remaining) Communist country.  The Dutch are the tallest people in the world, thanks to good food and good care, probably.  Long life?  Not hardly.

        How about class mobility?  Ouch. Something like #27 in the world, but still ahead of Romania.  I think.

        When morons start shouting USA! USA! it puts on display their jingoistic total, complete failure to know anything other than what Fox “News” has told them.

        Americans like you are like most Brits ca. 1900 who truly believed that they were still on the top of the heap, when the decay was in all institutions.  

  5. taterheaptom says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM MDT

    Tipton and Pace both said the EPA needs to be reined in by Congress because it is too strident in enforcing environmental laws.

    http://www.durangoherald.com/a…

    Well, now I am at a loss who to vote for.  Is there a Green candidate in the Third?  

  6. MADCO says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM MDT

    http://kdvr.com/2012/09/28/col…

    Suthers too.

    And everyone this firm “registered” should be contacted and made to register again.

  7. MADCO says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM MDT

    Good coattails are better.

    Great coattails –  great.

    F*cking awesome omg coattails?

    We need to get the Clintons out there for House candidates. And Ms Sebelius. And POTUS, FLOTUS and anyone else.

    I realize they aren’y going to help in say…the CO 5th.  But there are House races where some celebrity D presence could help.

    Oh – and Tammy Baldwin is going to be the next Senator from Wisconsin. (Where  Scott walker – yes the gov – just endorsed organized labor). Virginia and Missouri are going to vote D for their Senators.

    And for an astonishing modern day lesson in American political races at the best- check out Maine.

  8. Diogenesdemar says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 9:49 PM MDT

    just fallen in love this woman . . .

    Ann Romney: biggest fear is for Mitt’s “mental well-being”



    “I think my biggest concern obviously would just be for his mental well-being,” she said. “I have all the confidence in the world in his ability, in his decisiveness, in his leadership skills, in his understanding of the economy. … So for me I think it would just be the emotional part of it.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article…

    . . . is there anyone left on this planet who isn’t trying to prevent an RMoney presidency?

  9. AristotleAristotle says:
    Sat September 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM MDT

    Read all about it, and listen a taped conversation at this link.

    One possibility is that the Florida GOP is up to its dirty tricks again. They deny it, of course.

    That said, the more plausible possibility is that the volunteer is another gone-rogue rightie. This is what decades of right-wing misinformation has done. The chickens of the end of the Fairness Doctrine have come home to roost.

    • parsingreality says:
      Sun September 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM MDT

      …., like the repeal of Glass-Stiegel, were the biggest failures of the Clinton administration to stop the creeping fascism that is now in full swing.  Media consolidation, Everything is Fair in Love and Media ideology, has brought us to where we are socially and in cultural knowledge.

      Ain’t the marketplace wonderful?  NOT!  

      • Barron X says:
        Sun September 30, 2012 at 9:37 PM MDT

        wasn’t there some legislator from Colorado, Tim somebody, who was the motive force behind the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ?

        What many called a watershed of corporate welfare largess ended up making tens of millions for Tim, so he could move on to run a self-promoting foundation for Bill Gates ?  

        and yet, Democrats cannot remember his name.  

  10. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:
    Sun September 30, 2012 at 1:22 AM MDT

    Canvassed a feller today who greeted my pitch for Perlmutter by pulling a face and explaining, “I listen to a lot of talk radio.”

    “So do I,” I said, “But I think we’re talking about different stations.”

    Ended up chatting for 20 minutes. Nice guy. He’s a Tea Party protester and afraid of socialism, but also strongly opposed to the war in Iraq and concerned about the steady trickle of excessive power to the executive branch.

    I feel for people who can’t really quite fit with either party. There’s nothing I’m really with the Republican establishment on, but I sympathize with Libertarians and Greens on some issues, and I like the occasional individual Republican candidate–or I did, before it became a capital offense in the party to support women’s rights or LGBT equality. I wouldn’t mind losing some D votes if we could get a viable third party or even a fourth party going.  

    • harrydobyharrydoby says:
      Sun September 30, 2012 at 3:03 AM MDT

      Fingers crossed, Obama takes this one with at least a few percentage points over Romney, pulling along a Senate seat or two, and possibly a squeaker lead in the House.

      GOP/Tea Party goes totally nuts, purging the last of the moderates, tripling down on purity and “conservative values”.  Tea Party/GOP thus marginalized.

      Dems work the agenda for 4-12 years. Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan get older, craftier (like Strom Thurmond) but don’t advance past their current seats.  Rand Paul becomes the new Harold Stassen.  

      Ennui sets in.  Some Dems think having too much success may not be a good thing, so left-wing splinters off.

      The question then becomes do the two major parties keep their old names, or does a “third” party, like “new conservative party” form and takes the Blue Dog Dems and unaffiliated ex-Republicans (like my wife) with them?

      Tea Party/John Birchers become just another angry sideshow, and the media moves on to other sound bite opportunities.

    • ScottP says:
      Sun September 30, 2012 at 5:48 PM MDT

      I was registered as a Libertarian when I first started following politics because I like the idea of government involvement only when necessary in community and economic areas. It would be especially nice if, for the most part, government stayed out of social issues.

      I like the idea that if a community needs something done, let individuals, businesses and charities attempt to do it before government does it.

      Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party is libertarian-right and does what they can to try to be right of the GOP which is really hard to do. They may want government out of their pocketbooks, but they seem to really enjoy the idea of having government in their bedrooms and social lives.

      • Tom says:
        Sun September 30, 2012 at 8:15 PM MDT

        The Green Party looked promising. I was involved for about a year since the idea of promoting human rights and environmental protection seemed reasonable. I eventually realized that the long-time party activists were just Democratic party hacks that were just a wee bit too kooky to rise any further in the party structure– think mullets and fanny packs.

  11. Sir RobinSir Robin says:
    Sun September 30, 2012 at 4:25 AM MDT

    Just what we want in a new President, right? Not so much. Truth be told, I’m concerned about all the people who back the Republicans mental health.

    • Barron X says:
      Sun September 30, 2012 at 9:43 PM MDT

      furthermore,

         Life is short,

         and Art long,

         opportunity fleeting,

         experience perilous,

         and decision difficult.



         Vita brevis,

         ars longa.

      and don’t bet on the Orioles.  

  13. Algernon MoncriefAlgernon Moncrief says:
    Sun September 30, 2012 at 6:43 PM MDT

    THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S LEGISLATIVE INTENT: CREATION OF A COLORADO PERA AUTOMATIC, CONTRACTED RETIREE COLA BENEFIT IN HOUSE BILL 93-1324.

    The initial District Court decision in the case Justus v. State includes the following findin

    g:

    ” . . . the 1993 legislative history indicates that no member of the General Assembly expressed intent to create an unchangeable COLA from that date forward. (House Finance Committee Hearing on SB 93-1324, 1993 Legis., at 5:6-10 (Colo. Mar. 24, 1993).”

    I believe that this particular court finding is a red herring. The central question is not whether the PERA COLA (escalator, annual benefit increase) can be legally “changed,” it is whether the contracted PERA COLA can be legally, retroactively, diminished. In testimony to the Legislature, and in conflict with the initial District Court decision, a Colorado PERA representative has stated that the PERA COLA cannot be retroactively diminished absent “actuarial necessity,” “because it is part of the contractual obligations that accrue under a pension plan protected under the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 11 and the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10 for vested contractual rights.”

    Improvements made to the PERA COLA do not breach PERA written, statutory pension contracts. As we have seen, in 1975 the Colorado Supreme Court held in Taylor v. PERA: “Fact that petitioner had certain pension rights at time of her retirement as a state employee did not operate to preclude postretirement pension changes which increased rather than decreased benefits received there under.”

    I contend that the legislative intent of the Colorado General Assembly to create an “automatic” contracted PERA COLA benefit (that PERA members could depend upon in retirement, and that was “guaranteed”) was clearly expressed at the first legislative hearing on House Bill 93-1324.

    On March 24, 1993 (1:32 PM – 2:28 PM) the House Finance Committee of the Colorado General Assembly heard House Bill 93-1324.

    In presenting the bill to the House Finance Committee the bill’s sponsor, Representative Martin, noted that it had been “unanimously approved by the PERA Board.” He said “with this bill, a single actuarially sound increase at a compound rate of up to 3.5 percent per year would be established beginning in 1994.” “I think this is a reasonable approach.”

    After Representative Martin’s introduction of the bill, Rob Gray, PERA Director of Government Relations, testified before the House Finance Committee.

    Rob Gray said: “The PERA Board does support this bill.” “We felt like it is something that is good pension policy . . . that it makes sense . . . THAT IT IS MAKING PERMANENT CHANGES, and also that it does help employers which is one of the goals of the bill.”

    (My comment: Part of the motivation for this bill was to create incentives for long-time public sector employees to retire, and be replaced by less expensive employees. Accordingly, this would reduce salary costs for PERA-affiliated employers.)

    Rob Gray commented on the provisions of HB 93-1324 which folded the Cost of Living Stabilization Fund (CLSF) into the PERA trust funds, while simultaneously establishing an automatic, contracted PERA retiree COLA benefit of inflation up to 3.5 percent.

    (My comment: As we know, the amount of the contracted COLA benefit was later improved to a flat 3.5 percent [in 2000.] HB 93-1324 also struck the “ad hoc” language from Colorado law whereby the General Assembly reserved the right to approve COLAs before they were paid. HB 93-1324 replaced the former “ad hoc” PERA COLA statute in Colorado law with an “automatic” PERA COLA benefit. HB 93-1324 struck the following language from the PERA statutes “COLA increases shall be made only on approval of the General Assembly.” As a consequence, the discretion of the Colorado General Assembly to diminish the COLA benefit for vested PERA members was eliminated.)

    Rob Gray continued: “Last year, there was a bill passed that included a study.” Rob Gray stated that PERA’s actuaries had recommended in the “CLSF Study,” “that a single annual increase should be adopted” for Colorado PERA retirees “which would have a compound increase.”

    (My comment: Another motivation for the bill was concern on the part of the PERA Board and the General Assembly that even the current “ad hoc” COLA provisions could lead to the payment of higher COLA rates to retirees in the future if inflation accelerated. Ironically, at the time they believed that capping the COLA at inflation up to 3.5 percent was a good deal for Colorado PERA-affiliated employers, even though the COLA would become “automatic.”)

    Rob Gray elaborated: “The (CPI up to) 3.5 percent increase is a reasonable level.” “It will probably come close to what the long-term inflation rate is.”

    He said that an advantage of the (CPI up to 3.5 percent) COLA “IS THAT IT ADDS PREDICTABILITY FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RETIREES, PEOPLE LOOKING AT LEAVING MIGHT LOOK AT THIS AND SAY NOW I KNOW HOW MY FUTURE INCREASES ARE GOING TO BE DETERMINED, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT MATCH INFLATION.”

    “THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE THINK FOLDING THE CLSF INTO THE PENSION FUND IS A GOOD IDEA.”

    “PERA does support the bill.” “We think it is a positive step, and one that can be afforded within the statutory rates.”

    (My comment: Remember, at this point in time the PERA retiree COLA had not yet been improved to the flat 3.5 percent level. That occurred at the 2000 session of the Legislature. The portion of the bill folding the CLSF into the PERA trust funds included the “inflation up to 3.5%” provision. Remember too, that the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees had unanimously supported the bill.

    In my opinion, Rob Gray, a representative of the PERA Board of Trustees, in this statement, clearly allays the concerns of PERA members about making the retirement decision. I believe that he offered assurances to PERA members choosing to retire under the written contractual terms of the bill that they need not be concerned that the annual increases in their pension benefits would ever be diminished. With the bill, COLA benefits were now safe, “predictable.” Since the endorsement of this employment exchange transaction by the Colorado PERA Board, and the subsequent codification of contractual terms for this deferred compensation arrangement by the Colorado General Assembly in state statutes, many PERA members have changed the course of their lives by choosing to retire in reliance upon the automatic, contracted PERA COLA.)

    In another statement, I believe Rob Gray makes it clear that HB 93-1324 puts into law a new, automatic PERA pension COLA benefit that is a contractual liability of Colorado PERA and PERA-affiliated employers:

    Rob Gray: “WHEN A CHANGE IN BENEFITS IS ADDED, LIKE THIS BILL DOES, IT EXTENDS OUT THE PERIOD FOR PAYING OFF THAT UNFUNDED LIABILITY.”

    (My comment: If the PERA COLA benefit established in HB 93-1324 was an “ad hoc” COLA benefit, subject to the approval of the Colorado General Assembly, it would not have impacted PERA’s actuarial liabilities. Under that scenario [an "ad hoc" COLA provision], the General Assembly could simply opt against approval of the COLA in any given year, and thus avoid an addition to PERA’s actuarial liabilities. As we know, the bill specifically struck the “ad hoc” nature of the PERA COLA from Colorado law.

    Rob Gray stated clearly here that the new automatic COLA provision increased PERA’s actuarial liabilities. Just as the Colorado General Assembly confirmed the “automatic” status of the PERA COLA by removing the “ad hoc” language from statute in HB 93-1324, I believe that PERA’s representative Rob Gray confirmed the “automatic” status of the COLA by emphasizing the fact that the new COLA would increase PERA’s actuarial liabilities.)

    Rob Gray’s comments continue:

    “We like all three parts of the bill . . . we urge you to support all three.” “We think the cost-of-living changes make a lot of sense.”

    Rob Gray: “THE COST OF LIVING STABILIZATION FUND CHANGE ENDED UP PUSHING THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD TOO, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU’RE FUNDING IT ON AN ACTUARIAL BASIS AND YOU’RE RECOGNIZING THAT IT’S AN ONGOING THING.”

    (My comment: Why would PERA’s representative bother to characterize the COLA as “an ongoing thing” if it was temporary? He would not.)

    A member of the House Finance Committee inquired about the impact of the bill on current retirees. Rob Gray responded: “What the bill would do is say that a base benefit is created, the amount being paid in 1994 . . . and then the maximum 3.5 percent increase would be applied to that amount.”

    Rob Gray: “You’re right that you do have compounding there for the first time.”

    “I think the retirees support this change, because they see it as a more actuarial way of funding it.”

    “It will be easier for them to understand, because they won’t have two methods of increase . . . it will just be the single increase.”

    (My comment: Although, the legislative intent to create a contracted, automatic PERA retiree COLA benefit of [CPI up to 3.5 percent] was manifest at this point in the hearing on HB 93-1324 the record shows a member of the House Finance Committee making a conclusive, indisputable statement of legislative intent regarding the PERA COLA benefit:)

    “THE ACTUARIES WHO HAVE STUDIED THIS SAID WOULDN’T IT BE BETTER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD, UNDER YOUR CURRENT REVENUES, WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO GUARANTEE EVERYBODY NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.”

    (My comment: This House Finance Committee member made certain that all of her colleagues were on the same page . . . the new, automatic PERA COLA benefit was “guaranteed” into the future for PERA retirees.)

    When a legislative body grants an “automatic” COLA, it relinquishes its discretion to diminish that COLA benefit in the future for vested pension members and retirees. This makes sense. You would not want to allow someone to retire based on the expectation of a contractual COLA benefit, and later renege on those contractual terms.

    You would not want to allow a person to pay perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to a public pension plan to purchase service credit in the plan, based on a “guaranteed” COLA in retirement, [notably, PERA officials encouraged service credit purchases] and then, after the pension member has sent in the check [often from their retirement funds], inform them that the terms of the written statutory contract have changed to their tremendous detriment. It is unjust [and unconstitutional] to retroactively change the terms of the plan for such pension members after they have committed to retirement, or after they have committed to buying service credit.

    These members were compelled [as a condition of employment] to pay into the public pension plan. Their pension benefits are supported by their member contributions, and are deferred compensation for work that has been completed.

    Despite Colorado PERA’s wishes, an “automatic” public pension COLA cannot legally, retroactively metamorphose into an “ad hoc” pension COLA.

    The legislative intent is clear. When enacting HB 93-1324, the General Assembly created an automatic PERA COLA benefit. Retroactively changing the COLA benefit to the detriment of a PERA retiree is unconstitutional.

    http://saveperacola.com/

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.