U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 12, 2009 05:25 PM UTC
20 Comments
I wrote one at the same time as this one apparently. So here’s my $0.02 worth from it:
Gee, it’s nice to see that they are going to wait till we are totally screwed before starting to look at how to fix things. Nothing like waiting until after we are totally screwed.
Attention legislators & Gov – you need to take a serious look today at:
1) Not putting low-level drug user in prison. That alone could drastically reduce the number of prison beds needed.
2) Decriminalizing drugs. The state spends an incredible amount of money criminalizing mental health issues and in the course of that making it a much more expensive problem.
3) Unscrewing the budget mess in the constitution (which is much more than just TABOR). And that will probably require a constitutional convention, which means timing wise that they need to start now to get step 1 of the convention process on the ’09 ballot.
4) Have the state support small & medium business in this state (at present, outside of green, the state’s actions to small business run the gamut from neglect to hostility). Why? Because that will increase sales & income tax revenue.
Check here – http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid…
Waiting until 2011 is typical Bill Ritter-speak. This is the guy that took credit for Ref C even though it was the former Governor’s budget “solution.”
Should anyone be surprised that this governor wants to wait until after he’s re-elected to actually work on a major problem? It’s his M.O. “Re-elect me and then I’ll work on stuff…trust me.”
If anything, we can all see that this governor is no leader and he cannot be trusted.
Chris Romer’s quote at the end of the story is enough to make me wonder how seriously he’s considering a primary challenge to Ritter.
I’d disagree that Ritter is sitting on his laurels. While I think that it’s obvious that he’s made more than his share of political missteps, I think that Colorado’s economy is still in good shape relative to most of the nation, at least in part due to his leadership. I personally feel that his politics are representative of his constituents and he has done an overall good job for Colorado. If I was a Democrat, I might disagree with that lack of progressive positions though and the constant stepping on of toes.
Anyway, some of the good news—brought on at least in part—by Ritter.
According to a new report by Moody’s, Colorado is among the five states expected to recover first from the recession, projected recovery in the fourth quarter this year. One of the reasons given is Colorado’s strong high-tech industry, a strong focus of Governor Ritter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30…
* Colorado is home to one of the largest and fastest growing pieces of America’s clean energy economy, according to a report released today by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The report found that in Colorado, clean energy jobs grew at a rate of 18.2 percent, while traditional jobs grew by 8.2 percent, outperforming overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia. http://www.pewcenteronthestate…
I think Ritter is doing a good job too but his administration has given local high tech companies absolutely nothing.
I have to disagree somewhat. He’s hasn’t gone out and made the high tech sector a central tenant to his stump speeches to my knowledge, but just re-establishing the Office of Film and Television, signing the Colorado Broadband Mapping bill, and signing HB 1035, 1001 and SB 171 this year are good things. Add in the fact that many of the “Green Energy” jobs will be fairly high tech (at least in my uneducated understanding) and it seems that we are far better off that most states. How much Gov. Ritter has to do with all of it is of course up to debate.
The report you cite in your 2nd bullet point refers to a study that measured green job growth between 1998 and 2007. The Governor wasn’t inaugurated until 2007.
I missed that aspect when perusing it.
With mandated budgets for Medicaid/Medicare supplements, K-12 education,the Univeristy system and the Dept of Corrections, very little can be done to fund other programs.
Further, if tax revenues decrease this year, then next year will be worse.
I brought this up 2 years ago to Andrew Ronaoff and Ken Gordon in a town hall meeting. They were of course aware of the problem. The general public, however, has very little idea of the negative consequences of the legislation.
The Governor is running to the right in an effort to win a second term. The question becomes with his recent anti-labor stance and veto of health care reform if he isn’t governing like a Republican.
I personally like Governor Ritter and have been acquinted with him for 13 years now.
His office prosecuted the murderer of one of my relatives to my family’s satisfaction over the objections of the ADA. I therefore still feel peronally bound to support him.
My concerns, however, grow.
There are no mandates, federal or state, for higher education. It’s been the bank of last resort everytime the state has needed to shore up the budget – witness the 2002-03 and 2003-04 years, when general fund for higher ed was substantially cut and it wasn’t back to the 2001-02 levels until this current fiscal year (if I remember correctly).
The only problem with cutting higher ed now is that it will jeopardize the state’s share of the state stabilization funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The state cut higher ed general fund by about $150 million but backfilled all of those cuts with ARRA money. The cuts were the MOST they could do without violating ARRA rules – to cut any more than that they would be risking $760 million, some of which goes to K-12.
It’ll be interesting to watch.
It hoses the future of the state.
It just means that all the best jobs will go to people who move here from out of state.
But what the heck, you don’t need a PhD to load chairs or wait tables.
Government growth would have been higher during the boom years, as lawmakers would almost certainly have spent the extra revenues. The so-called budget “base” would be much higher. Things would be worse now, not better, as we’d be faced with a much bigger deficit.
The bottom line is that the Colorado Supreme Court has apparently gutted just about all of TABOR. I think it’s one of the most politicized, activist judicial decisions ever and it’s not rooted in the rule of law. But it is what it is. Taxes can be increased as long as the revenue does not exceed the TABOR mandated spending caps.
So TABOR has mitigated today’s problems, not caused them. Many states, particularly states with big governments, have much bigger problems that Colorado does.
if you want no services whatsoever from government. No roads, no schools, no colleges, no prisons.
Services cost money. It’s about time you wingnuts acknowledged that, but I hold out no hope that you will. You’ll just say you don’t want “services.” You just want stuff like “transportation” and mandatory minimum sentences.
It’s not a game of semantics. It’s a game of dollars and cents. You want shit? You pay for it. Very simple.
I notice that you ignore the basic point I was making: TABOR is not the genesis of our current budget challenge.
But to your point, probably the biggest problem is Medicaid, which continues to grow at excessive rates (crowding out other programs) and is shackled from federal reform by rigid federal mandates. Rein in and reform Medicaid and focus it on the poor — not expand it to the middle class such as has been the trend lately — and we’re in much better shape.
Colorado state and local spending per capita is about average among the 50 states. I don’t think we are undertaxed.
If you think we need to grow government significantly, then we agree to disagree. But you should be up front with your proposal to get new revenues. Do you want higher sales taxes, income taxes, or what, Ralphie?
n/t
but it assumes that government expenditures are always wasteful and have no impact on economic growth. The problem with TABOR is the assumption ALL government spending is a net drag on the “free market” economy when, in fact, a dollar spent into the economy is a dollar spent, regardless of who spends it. IF wealthy corporations can “create jobs” that benefit the people, so too can well-funded governments.
TABOR has nothing to do with it, really. Compare Colorado to Wyoming, where state government made some smart investment decisions with their revenue surplus, and you will appreciate that the real question is, what sort of lousy investment decisions did Owens and the Republicans make in the last several years prior to 2006? We are living with the consequences of bad investment policies, and TABOR does nothing to mitigate against that.
I’m not here to defend a political party, but the Republicans haven’t controlled the Colorado legislature since 2004. And I’m willing to bet you were with Owens on Referendum C. Kind of weak to just try and blame the problem on Republicans.
It’s good to see you differ with Pols and most of the liberals on this site, who blame TABOR for all the world’s problems.
I’d love to debate whether government spending creates jobs, etc., but that’s quite a different debate. Let me just say that I believe government spending (particularly all the social welfare spending that is going on now) has a net negative effect on jobs. The public sector takes money out of the more efficient private sector and the result is a loss of jobs.
Only because it’s more important.