Are we running a state or a fast food chain?

(Quite a smackdown of the Denver Post – promoted by Colorado Pols)

On Thursday, the Denver Post editorial board published a brief but disingenuous editorial that can only fairly be described as a declaration of war against Colorado’s middle class vis-à-vis Colorado’s state employees.

At issue, ostensibly, is the 3% pay raise that state employees have been advocating for since last fall and which was given temporary approval by the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee on Monday.

But really the issue goes well beyond state employees – this is an issue of whether Colorado is going to have an economy that works for the middle-class. This is about whether or not Colorado policymakers are going to lead on the issue of income inequality or whether they’re going to perpetuate economic stagnation for Colorado’s middle-class. The Post has clearly chosen the side of economic stagnation for the majority of Coloradans and now the question is which side are our elected leaders on?

The Post blithely states that the 3% raise plus average merit pay comes with an $88 million price tag. That number is presented without any citation or context in a deliberate attempt to stoke maximal outrage. The Post neglects to mention that the governor’s budget request is for $58.5 million in salary and merit pay funds, a request they seem to endorse when stating, “It’s not a question of whether state workers deserve a pay hike.”

So fully 2/3rds of what the Post insinuates is an extreme and untenable financial outlay had already been requested by the governor and is endorsed by the Post. Let us assume, arguendo, that the Post’s completely uncited $88 million figure is correct. The governor’s total budget request for 2014/15 is $21.9 billion dollars – $88 million dollars is just 0.4% of that total budget. If 30,000 middle-class workers aren’t worth 0.4% of our budget then what are they worth?


Urban Myth Becomes “Clown Car Caucus” Legislation


Last Tuesday, we took note of a spoof story on a satire "news site," The National Report, hilariously breaking the scandalous news of food stamps being accepted at Colorado's new retail marijuana stores:

“If you are a tax payer in Colorado, you get to pay for welfare recipients, a majority of whom are Democrats of course, to smoke pot now,” stated Denver resident Paul Horner.  ”Where will this all end?  First it was Obamaphones, then Obamacare, now Obamaweed?  Will we be paying for tattoos, manicures, body piercings, gay marriages and porn next?”

Store owner JC Franco defended his decision to accept EBT cards in an interview with National Report:  “Everyone should have access to marijuana. If a user is not able to afford their buds on a limited budget then having taxpayers help cover the shortage is only fair.  This isn’t a right only for the wealthy.”

So, as most readers of this piece were quickly able to determine, this didn't really happen. The National Report's website clearly disclaims that "all news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news." Unfortunately for the Douglas County Republican Party, as we discussed Tuesday, this story was lifted and reprinted on a number of real, non-spoof conservative websites as fact. It subsequently picked up with no disclaimer by lots of conservatives, including the Douglas County GOP's Twitter feed. It was our assumption that a little good-natured ribbing of our gullible friends in Douglas County would be the end of it.

weedopenBut as AP's Kristen Wyatt reports via CBS4, that's not the end of the story after all!

Food stamps for a pot brownie? It’s an urban myth in Colorado, but state lawmakers want to make sure that doesn’t happen. [Pols emphasis]

A bill proposed this week by several Republicans would add marijuana dispensaries to liquor stores, gun shops and casinos as places where recipients of public assistance payments and food stamps can’t use their electronic benefits cards to access cash.

There haven’t been any reports of public EBT cards being used at marijuana dispensaries. But lawmakers say pot shops should be added to the law to make clear it’s not legal.

“We need this bill, if for nothing else, as a statement,” said Rep. Jared Wright, R-Grand Junction… [Pols emphasis]

That's right, folks! Senate Bill 14-037 is actual legislation meant to ensure a satirical news story never "comes true." Senate Bill 37's sole Senate sponsor is the infamous Sen. Vicki Marble. In the House, the bill is sponsored by pretty much the entire "clown car" caucus of downright wacky and frequently-embarrassing GOP representatives: Reps. Jared Wright, Dan Nordberg, Perry Buck, Steve Humphrey, and Lori Saine. If they could just get Bob Gardner and Janak Joshi to sign on, it would be pretty much a perfect caricature.

Dispensary owners say they’ve been debunking rumors about food stamp use in marijuana shops.

According to Wyatt, the Marijuana Industry Group hasn't yet taken a position on Senate Bill 37. To be fair, they also haven't taken a position we've seen on the Daily Currant's shocking headline from last week, "Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado On First Day of Legalization." There are probably a few other spoof stories about marijuana in Colorado they haven't taken a stand on. Which makes sense once you know they're fake.

Back in reality, only specific qualifying food items can be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds. Retailers who want to accept these funds must apply and be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We feel pretty confident that any licensed retail marijuana merchant who tried to accept SNAP funds for the purchase of marijuana, or anything containing it, would be frog-marched to the federal prison in Englewood faster than you can say "pass the bong." With lines around the block full of eager buyers with pockets full of cash, the idea that any marijuana retailer would need or want to try this is simply laughable.

With that said, AP reports that recipients of Social Security for Disability and certain other assistance funds that are deposited to the same account can be used essentially as cash for those funds–our understanding is that items are allotted to different funding pools from the same card at the point of sale. This has led to legislation prohibiting these cards being used at casinos and liquor stores. Those aren't "food stamp" funds at all, of course, but the outrage a good conservative feels at the mere thought of public assistance funds being spent in such disreputable places motivated them to be absolutely certain those immoral entitlees use an ATM across the street.

We suppose that alone might give this bill some pro forma utility–a "statement," like Rep. Wright says. What urban myth do you suppose our intrepid "clown car" caucus should tackle next? We open the floor to suggestions.

Fact: Magpul Played Relocation Patty-Cake Well Before 2013

Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.

Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.

Last Friday, we talked about Erie-based gun magazine manufacturer Magpul's announcement that they intend to move most of their manufacturing jobs out of Colorado in the next 12-16 months. Allegedly in retaliation for the passage last year of House Bill 1224, legislation restricting the sale of gun magazines with a capacity over 15 rounds, coverage of Magpul's impending departure in the Denver Post failed to mention a key component of the story: millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded incentives to offset the cost of moving to other states.

Reviewing this story over the weekend, there is one additional detail regarding Magpul and financial incentives to move out of Colorado that we think every Colorado voter reading this story should understand. Magpul was threatening Colorado economic development authorities with incentives from Wyoming and Texas–the very same states Magpul is now slated to move to–a year before the gun safety legislation Magpul cites as their reason for moving were introduced. As FOX 31's Eli Stokols reported last March during the legislative debate over the bills:

FOX31 Denver has confirmed that Magpul had discussions last year [2012--Pols] with the state’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade in which they asked about tax incentives and credits that might be available to them as they looked to consolidate their two facilities into a single space at North Park in Broomfield.

“They wanted some state support,” said Kathy Green, OEDIT’s spokeswoman. “We had some job training credits available but there was never any follow-up.”

According to Green, job training incentives would have been available only if the company was adding new jobs.

Last summer, Fitzpatrick reportedly told the governor’s office and Sam Bailey, the business development manager from OEDIT who toured Magpul’s facility, that Texas and Wyoming had lots of incentives for them should the company decide to relocate. [Pols emphasis]

“That was not a threat. We never made any threat to leave,” Doug Smith, Magpul’s Chief Operating Officer, told FOX31 Denver late Thursday afternoon. “We were just mentioning, hey, these other states have approached us, this is something they offer.”

Particularly in light of Magpul's subsequent decisions, it's absurd to suggest that the company mentioning "lots of incentives" available from Wyoming and Texas back in 2012 was not intended to spur a better incentive package from Colorado officials. Of course it was a "threat," and the only question is how implied or overt it was. The millions of dollars Magpul is getting from the state of Wyoming to build a huge new custom manufacturing plant may well have justified their decision to move without the gun safety legislation passed in Colorado last year. Those bills were used by Magpul to panic-sell thousands of high capacity magazines ahead of the new law taking effect, but that can't exactly be called a hardship for the company either. Remember, nothing in House Bill 1224 stops Magpul from manufacturing high capacity magazines in Colorado. 

Wouldn't it be great if a reporter would connect these dots in a news story? How much sympathy would Magpul still have if this had been reported along with the announcement they are leaving the state?

Because there's a real possibility that Magpul has been playing Colorado for suckers this whole time.

Magpul Gets Millions In Incentives To Leave Colorado

Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.

Colorado-based gun accessory maker Magpul.

As the Denver Post's Carlos Illescas reported yesterday:

Magpul Industries threatened to leave Colorado after the legislature passed a measure banning weapons magazines with more than 15 rounds.

And now that is official.

The Erie-based ammunition magazine manufacturer said Thursday it is relocating its operations to Cheyenne and Texas.

Most of the 200-plus employees will [NOT--Pols correction] be moving to Wyoming, where manufacturing and distribution will take place, said spokesman Duane Liptak.

From plastic ammunition magazine maker Magpul's press release:

The company is relocating manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Magpul is leasing a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility during the construction of a 100,000 square foot build-to-suit facility in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. The Wyoming relocation is being completed with support from Governor Matt Mead, the Wyoming Business Council and Cheyenne LEADS.

"Moving operations to states that support our culture of individual liberties and personal responsibility is important,” says Richard Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer for Magpul Industries. “This relocation will also improve business operations and logistics as we utilize the strengths of Texas and Wyoming in our expansion.”

Erie-based Magpul originally vowed to leave the state during debate over last year's House Bill 1224–legislation limiting the capacity of magazines sold in Colorado to 15 rounds. Their threat to leave was originally a negotiating chip for Republican opponents of the law, but became a retaliatory act once the bill was signed into law. Months dragged on, leading to news reports noting their lack of action to move out of Colorado as threatened. It's worth restating that nothing in House Bill 1224 prevents the manufacture of high capacity magazines in Colorado, only their retail sale to the general public. But Magpul, unlike their defenders in the legislature, was always honest about the fact that they were leaving the state to "defend principle"–not for any real economic reason created by the state's new gun safety laws.

Well, folks, as it turns out, there is an economic motive–but the Denver Post curiously omitted it.

Randy Bruns, CEO of Cheyenne’s economic development organization, said it is working with Magpul on a financial package that could include up to $13 million in state grants and loans to help the company move to Cheyenne. [Pols emphasis]

For Magpul, the passage of House Bill 1224 was an opportunity, not a crisis. Our understanding is that this company is no stranger to taxpayer-funded business incentives. And now, with the pretext of "defending principle" in hand, Magpul is leaving Colorado to custom build a new 100,000-square-foot manufacturing plant in Cheyenne with millions of dollars in Wyoming state grants and loans. Apparently they're going to get more taxpayer money from Texas Gov. Rick Perry to build a corporate headquarters in north Texas.

Far from a hardship, could be the most profitable "crisis" in Magpul's history! We think that detail, and maybe the fact that this is the manufacturer of the high capacity magazines used in the Newtown school shootings a year ago, should be included in these stories about Magpul leaving the state. At the very least, readers will understand that this wasn't just some altruistic defense of principle. And others might not be as sorry to see them go at all.

Unemployment Insurance Looms As Next Big Congressional Fight

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Businessweek's Joshua Green reports today:

When Congress reconvenes on Jan. 6, one of the first issues it will take up is whether to renew an emergency federal unemployment program that expired on Dec. 28, cutting off 1.3 million jobless workers. Enacted in 2008 at the start of the recession, it provided up to 47 weeks of benefits for those still looking for work when their state unemployment benefits ran out. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’ll try to pass a temporary extension, but most Republicans have balked at the $25 billion-a-year cost. If the program isn’t revived, the impact could be significant—not just for the 1.3 million people losing a vital lifeline but on the broader economy.

On Monday, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee released new data on the loss of unemployment insurance benefits by state, with a statement calling on Republicans to intervene on behalf of families "cut off from this basic assistance for job seekers."

Ways and Means Committee Democrats today released new estimates showing how many additional people in every state will lose their unemployment benefits each week that the federal program remains expired. On Saturday, 1.3 million people nationwide lost their federal unemployment insurance. In the first six months of 2014, an additional 1.9 million Americans will lose their coverage as they exhaust their state benefits and are unable to receive federal unemployment insurance – with 72,000 losing their benefits each week during the first half of 2014. The figures are based on Department of Labor data.

In Colorado, an estimated 20,200 unemployed workers saw their benefits cut off last weekend–a tough Christmas present indeed. During the first half of 2014, data from Ways and Means Democrats estimates that 1,123 workers in Colorado will lose unemployment benefits each week if the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation program is not extended, a total additional 29,200 workers.

As usual, Democrats find themselves up against Republican ideological presumption. Businessweek:

Though the job market hasn’t fully recovered from the recession, many Republicans believe extending jobless benefits saps workers’ motivation to seek employment or accept positions they deem less than ideal. “I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said on Fox News on Dec. 8. “Beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group.” 

Much like the "sequester" federal budget cuts that took effect after Congress failed to make good on their 2011 promises to find alternatives, Republicans for a long time paid lip service to the desire to keep unemployment benefits flowing to jobseekers during the recent severe recession. With after the disastrous shutdown of the federal government last October, the sequester cuts Republicans had previously spoke out against became more or less their sole claim to victory. Today, where disparaging unemployment benefits was at one point off limits in this recession, you have influential Republicans openly grousing about creating a perpetual "dependent class" on government.

Polling released just before Christmas from Colorado's most competitive congressional district, GOP Rep. Mike Coffman's CD-6, shows voters their support extending federal emergency unemployment benefits by a whopping 63-33% majority. Here again we have an issue where the polling clearly indicates a politically expedient course of action. Just not the action taken by Coffman and his Republican colleagues.

Will this election year make a difference–to the endangered Rep. Coffman, or to House GOP leadership? We'll have to wait and see.

Strengthening Colorado Economy Calls For New Talking Points


The numbers reported today by the Colorado Business Journal's Mark Harden don't lie:

Colorado's unemployment rate fell sharply to 6.5 percent in November, the lowest level since 2008, and the state added 4,200 payroll jobs from the previous month, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment reported Friday.

The official Colorado jobless rate scored its biggest month-to-month drop — three-tenths of a percentage point from October's 6.8 percent reading — since before the Great Recession.

The latest unemployment rate stands 2.6 percentage points lower than its late-2010 peak of 9.1 percent, and 1.1 points below its level a year ago, according to adjusted data. Colorado in November had 32,000 fewer unemployed people than a year ago, for a total of 177,100, CDLE said.

Today's press release from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment is clear that the drop in the official unemployment rate to pre-recession levels is due to both an increase in the number of jobs, as well as due to some workers leaving the workforce for a variety of reasons. Often attributed to "discouraged" unemployed workers deciding not to try to find work, there are also people returning home for domestic reasons and going back to school–both of which can actually be considered good signs for the economy. There's some glass-half-full to respond with anyway.

In customer service, it's said that for every bad experience, it takes a dozen good experiences to make a person feel good about you again. The state of the economy is one of the most important factors going into any election, even though it's also something over which politicians have indirect control at best. Disparaging the economy as an electioneering tool has been a great gift to Republicans since Barack Obama inherited a collapsing American economy–and in Colorado, at least since the 2005 epic ideological battle over Referendum C. There's a good argument that a political desire to foment economic dissatisfaction against the sitting President has prolonged the recent years of recession, and slowed recovery in the American economy. We believe historians will be arguing that point many years after Obama's term is over.

In the meantime, it's at least getting harder to disparage the economy. That's good politics for the party in power, but it's also just plain good for everyone. We have to believe there's a winning political message for Republicans in an economic recovery, even if it requires an admission that the sky didn't fall on America when President Obama took the oath of office. We humbly submit that would be good for everyone too.

Hickenlooper Hints at Potentially Terrible Idea on Gun Safety Legislation

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper held an end-of-year press briefing at the State Capitol yesterday. He told reporters that he was aiming for a modest, quiet legislative agenda (more on that in a moment), but more importantly, he hinted at a potential strategy around gun safety legisation that would be absolutely disastrous for both he and his fellow Democrats. From the Associated Press:

Hickenlooper said he doesn’t want to see any gun-control laws repealed, including new expanded background checks and a 15-round ammunition magazine limit. But he told reporters he’d consider tweaks to some of the new gun laws, without specifying what changes he’d agree to. [Pols emphasis]

“If there’s a way to improve them some way, if you have some way that they work better or do a better job at what was their intention, then I think we should sit down and have that discussion,” Hickenlooper said.

Your hole is big enough

Stop digging, Governor.

This may just be one of those classic "off-the-cuff" statements by Gov. Hickenlooper that make his staffers cringe but don't otherwise end up having any basis in truth behind them. But if Hickenlooper is so much as entertaining the idea of "tweaking" gun laws approved last spring, it would likely end up being the Governor's most bone-headed decision in his political career. You can argue whether or not you think the gun legislation passed by Democrats was a good idea, but there is absolutely no reason for Hickenlooper to support changing any of the new laws after only a few months.

"Tweaking" any of the legislation would immediately be spun as a victory by Republicans and groups like Dudley Brown's Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Hickenlooper can use whatever word he wants to describe such a change, but to everyone watching it would appear as nothing less than a capitulation on an issue that Democrats fought long and hard to achieve. And to what end? Would right-wing voters who opposed the gun safety legislation decide to support Hickenlooper all of a sudden? Of course not!


Fix It, Don’t Repeal (Or Break) It

Sen. Mark Udall.

Sen. Mark Udall.

The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports on discussions in the U.S. Senate, which appear to now involve both Colorado U.S. Senators, on possible "fixes" to solves problems associated with the troubled rollout of the new Affordable Care Act insurance marketplaces:

Senate Democrats facing tough reelections say President Obama has not done enough to fix the botched rollout of his healthcare law and are vowing to repair it themselves.

The Senate Democratic leadership is not on board with lawmaker plans to begin rewriting ObamaCare and have urged for more time to assess the changes made by Obama and his team, lawmakers say…

“The [ObamaCare implementation] upgrade has been significant, but there’s more work to be done,” said [Sen Mark] Udall.

“Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Heitkamp, Sen. Shaheen and I are all working on a package that would incorporate our ideas,” he added.

Shaheen wants to extend the enrollment period for the ACA; Landrieu wants to mandate that insurance companies continue to offer plans that people like, even if they don’t meet the law’s requirements; and Udall wants to expand the pool of people included in the individual insurance marketplace.

Last month, Sen. Mark Udall's proposal to temporarily allow Americans to renew health insurance plans not in compliance with the Affordable Care Act's reforms raised some eyebrows, and this ongoing discussion about changes to the law isn't likely to sit well with many health care reform proponents. Just after Udall's first proposal came out, research from Udall's own office found that the vast majority of "cancellations" in Colorado actually weren't–most of the affected consumers on the individual market had indeed been given the option to renew their existing coverage into 2014. Nonetheless, the slow pace of marketplace insurance signups in Colorado and elsewhere, still more attributable to technical problems than any other factor, is growing increasingly urgent as deadlines approach.

To a certain extent, there's a need now for Democratic proponents of health care reform to accept that the protracted startup problems for the exchanges are causing real problems for citizens, that may indeed require fixes beyond what the Obama administration can do without Congress. That doesn't mean any of these current ideas from swing-state Senators will become law, between defensive Democrats and belligerent Republicans determined to not help fix a law they believe to be inherently evil. We also like the sound of what Udall is proposing based on this report better than Sen. Mary Landrieu's idea to simply allow noncompliant health insurance to be sold in perpetuity. But between the legitimate problems that exist today and the GOP's dogmatic resolve to kill the entire health reform law by any means necessary, a middle ground desiring to fix, but not repeal Obamacare, may well emerge as the political sweet spot in this debate.

The one other point we'll note from this Hill story is the role of Colorado's junior Sen. Michael Bennet in these discussions. Though considered a centrist, Bennet's close relationship with the White House, and status as head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, signal to us that these discussions have at least a liaison talking to the Obama administration. Politically, the thing to keep in mind is that Sen. Udall is on the ballot in 2014, not Obama–and though we absolutely believe they share a common goal of successful health care reform, a little judicious triangulation off Obama and the recent troubles with Obamacare may not be such a bad idea.

More Data Shows Universal Background Checks Are Working


A press release a short while ago from the Colorado House Majority Press Office:

Dozens of criminals have been prevented from buying a gun under a 2013 law that closed the loophole that allowed private sales of firearms to proceed without a background check on the buyer, official statistics show. 

Stats released by the state Department of Public Safety at the request of lawmakers show that from the time the background check law went into effect in July through the end of November, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation performed nearly 4,800 background checks on private sales in the state. 

After those 4,792 background checks, 72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order. The crimes include homicide, sexual assault, assault, dangerous drugs and larceny/theft. The other 98 percent of the sales were to law-abiding citizens and went through without a hitch. 

The data also show an upward trend in the number of private-sale background checks in the first five months the law has been in effect. 

“Dozens of criminals would be walking around with a gun right now if not for the new law,” said Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora), who sponsored the background checks law with Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver) and Senate President-designate Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora). “Our intention was to make our communities safer and make it harder for criminals to get guns. We now have five months of data that prove that the law is working.”

The data supplied by the Colorado Department of Public Safety shows a steady increase each month in the number of background checks conducted for a private sale or transfer of a gun as mandated by this year's House Bill 1229. Just over 550 checks for private sales were conducted in July, increasing to a total of 1,327 last month. The denial rate, with the exception of a small uptick in September, has held steady at just under 2% of transactions being rejected due to a disqualifying criminal record.

Those two percent of denied purchases were due to a number of reasons we'd consider very tough to argue with: four with restraining orders, a dozen people who had committed assault, five who committed burglary, and at least one rejected for a homicide conviction.

When the very earliest figures were released showing the first month of background checks had stopped ten criminals from purchasing guns in private sales, Republicans like Sen. Kevin Lundberg claimed that the number of denials was "not persuasive at all" that the law was working. We were reminded then of a 2012 bill from Rep. Mark Waller, now a candidate for Attorney General, to eliminate "redundant" state background checks by the CBI entirely. CBI checks became the law after a Castle Rock man bought a gun in a purchase that state checks would have prevented due to a restraining order, and then killed his children. Waller argued that this "one act" is the reason why have those "redundant" state checks.

Well, as of today, House Bill 1229 has prevented six dozen guns from ending up in the wrong hands. Every month there will be more such denials, even as 98%+ of the lawful gun buying public has no problems. Is preventing some quantifiable number of guns from being sold, to people nearly everyone agrees shouldn't have a gun, worth a few minutes of time and a few bucks from law-abiding citizens?

Folks, excluding a few shrieking lunatics and the elected officials goading them on, this is a no-brainer.

Boehner Changes Tune, Criticizes Right Wing Groups

House Speaker John Boehner

House Speaker John Boehner

A fascinating turn of events in Congress, as NBC News reports:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, lashed out at conservative advocacy groups that have encouraged GOP lawmakers to oppose a budget framework unveiled last night by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals," an animated Boehner told reporters at the Capitol. "This is ridiculous."

Ryan and Murray, the top budget officials in their respective chambers, announced an agreement that would set baseline spending levels for the 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. The agreement calls for spending levels slightly above the cap established by the automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" through a combination of reforms, cuts and new, non-tax revenue.

Conservative groups had been girding themselves against the deal before its details were finalized, mostly because the spending levels exceed sequester levels. The Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity and Heritage Action — each of them well-financed conservative advocacy groups that hold some sway over Republican primary voters — have begun lobbying furiously against the modest government funding agreement…

…The Republican leadership's struggle to manage its restive conservative flank is a familiar storyline to any observer of Congress over the past three years. Boehner's decision to side with conservatives and drive a hard bargain over government spending and the Affordable Care Act contributed in large part to the government shutdown in October that nearly threatened default on the national debt.

If conservatives balk at supporting the legislation, Boehner would need to turn to Democrats to help advance the package through the House. The speaker did just that in passing legislation to end the government shutdown earlier this year.

It's no secret that the right wing of the Republican Party, energized by the Tea Party's emergence in 2009, has been slowly but surely dragging down the GOP into depths that leave moderate voters shaking their heads. While many Republican leaders have been wringing their hands about how to distance themselves from the right wing while maintaining their support come election time, Boehner's outspokenness is the most visible example yet of the growing frustration in the GOP.


Study: Economic Mobility in America is a Myth

With more news of strikes in the fast food industry and concerns about low wages in other retail industries, economic inequality continues to emerge as a growing issue heading into 2014. According to results of a new study, there's good reason for concern:

It's easier to rise above the class you're born into in countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, and the Scandinavian nations, according to research from University of Ottawa economist and current Russell Sage Foundation Fellow Miles Corak.

Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility [than in the United States], according to Corak.

The research measures "intergenerational earnings elasticity" — a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later — in a number of different countries around the world…

..If why Americans have a harder time making it into the middle class is a bit of a mystery to economists, why Americans cling to the belief that it's still easy to do is even more baffling.It could be because, during the late 1800s and early 1900, the United States was a much more mobile country than Britain, said Jason Long, an economist at Wheaton College in Illinois.

"It's clear that Americans still believe that America has exceptional mobility, and that's not true," said Long. He calling it "vexing" that "lots of people could be systematically mistaken about verifiable, factual information."

This gap between what Americans believe and what research shows to be true is apparent in recent comments by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who wants to end extended unemployment benefits. From The Washington Post:

“When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy,” he said on Fox News Sunday. If the unemployed stopped receiving benefits sooner, they would be back to work sooner, he suggested.

Extended benefits expire at the end of the year, meaning job-seekers in most states will only get 26 weeks of unemployment insurance, instead of 43 or more in most. That deadline represents an immediate cutoff for 1.3 million people, according to the National Employment Law Project. Paul's comments came in response to President Obama's call for an extension of those benefits.

In other words, Sen. Paul apparently believes that there are plenty of jobs out there — people just don't bother trying to get them.

Hickenlooper Offers Glimpse at Re-Election Theme

Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Did Hick make the economy stronger? Well, he didn’t NOT make it stronger.

Taking a page out of former President Bill Clinton's playbook (or James Carville, if you'd rather), Gov. John Hickenlooper provided a glimpse at what is likely to be a central theme of his re-election campaign in a fundraising email to supporters this afternoon.

Given his rather tepid support of Democratic-backed legislation in recent years, you're not alone if you've been wondering what Hickenlooper would campaign around in 2014. You know he doesn't want to talk about guns or the death penalty, and the recent failure of Amendment 66 makes it difficult for him to talk about education, so…it's the economy (stupid):

I’m glad to be the one to break it to you: We’ve got more economic good news! Unemployment is down and most other economic indicators are up across the board. The national economy is back on track, and Colorado’s economy along with it. Check out Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s recent statement, which hits some of the highlights.

The morning news isn’t always good, and around these parts we certainly know how it feels to wake up to tragedy in the headlines. But more often than not when we pull out the paper first thing its stories like this that get us revved up to keep at it.

We’re hard at work in Colorado, bringing in jobs in wind turbine manufacturing, construction, education, and making sure local governments have the resources to do their jobs. We’re making sure that Colorado is the kind of place people want to raise a family and start a business, and that’s a message that we are proud to spread far and wide.

Things are looking up. Naturally, we have our share of challenges to tackle, but that’s no excuse for believing that things aren’t going to get better.

They can. And they are. And we’re going to keep Colorado headed in the right direction.

You can argue over how much credit Hickenlooper should get for creating jobs in Colorado, but regardless of any particular cause-and-effect relationship, (and similar in some respects to Clinton's presidency) it is inarguable that an economic upswing did happen while Hickenlooper was Governor.

It's also a clever move to point to Scott Gessler's economic report as part of this message — it sends a bipartisan tone, and it also highlights one of Hickenlooper's preferred opponents in a general election.

Obamacare’s Detractors Finally Running Out Of Time?

Better late than never.

Better late than never.

As The Hill's Jonathan Easley reports:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is expected to release data later this month showing a “surge” in enrollees in the federal and state healthcare exchanges for November.

The numbers are expected to surpass the paltry figures for October, when enrollments were hampered by an erratic website plagued by outages and error messages…

Even with the jump, the administration appears well behind its original goal of having 800,000 people signed up through the state and federal exchanges in the first two months. Still, the figures could be a sign the rollout finally has some positive momentum after a catastrophic launch.

Bloomberg reported on Monday that the HHS will say 100,000 people selected plans through the federal exchanges in November, a nearly four-fold increase over the almost 27,000 that signed up in the first month of its operation.

The Pueblo Chieftain's Loretta Sword updated numbers for Colorado over the holiday weekend:

More than 71,000 Coloradans have created accounts on Connect for Health Colorado, the state marketplace for insurance coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare.

The initial rollout of the online health insurance marketplaces, both federal and to a lesser extent in Colorado, were marred by disastrous and in most cases preventable errors. Here in Colorado, many of the functions to calculate available subsidies for health insurance buyers weren't available when the site rolled out on October 1st. A larger and more fundamental problem was discovered in the process flow for new signups to Colorado's health insurance exchange, which has seen thousands of applications stall while awaiting denial for Medicaid coverage. Slowly but surely, the weeks-long story of epic failure is being edged out by newer stories of success–halting, still far below expectations set before the beginning of October, but enough to provide hope that the situation will be brought under control in time to work.

Ever since the passage of the Affordable Care Act over three years ago, Democrats have banked on the promise that at some point, the law would begin providing tangible and undeniable benefits to the public. The answer from Democrats to the hysterical, exaggerated claims from Republicans about the effects of Obamacare was simply going to be a system that voters could see with their own eyes was working.

Needless to say, the last few weeks of highly public dysfunction, at the exact moment a functioning new system was supposed to be reassuring the public, put a giant hole in the plan. When you consider the horrible political situation Republicans were in at the end of the October government shutdown, Obamacare's website catastrophe was the best thing that could have possibly happened for the GOP. The reversal of political fortunes in such a short time was enough to induce whiplash.

But today, it's looking more like delayed political payoff for Democrats from Obamacare, not destruction. For all the self-inflicted damage caused by websites that weren't ready for prime time, if the public's confidence can be restored in the system by seeing it work, even belatedly, that's a win for Democrats. In fact, the startup problems might even work to the long term advantage of Democrats, by lowering expectations which can then be met or exceeded.

The fact is, Democrats still have the upper hand in a debate over something that most everyone agrees is necessary. Unforced errors have extended the pain, but the ultimate goal hasn't changed. Even in the ugliest recent polling on health care reform, voters don't want it repealed–they want it to work. That's an advantage no amount of disparagement can overcome.

Unfair Advantage: Magpul PMAGs Used At Newtown

UPDATE: Credit where due: we'd like to acknowledge that our friend, media critic Jason Salzman, was asking prescient questions about the origin of the magazines used at Newtown as far back as last March.


Magpul PMAG high capacity magazines.

A long-speculated and significant detail from the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings last December emerges today–and as reported by FOX 31's Eli Stokols, there's an important Colorado connection:

Adam Lanza, who went on a shooting rampage last December at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., carried out the killings using 30-round magazines made by Colorado’s Magpul Industries, according to a 48-page report released Monday.

Lanza used the company’s best-known “PMAG” (polymer magazine), a 30-round cartridge, to kill 26 people, including 20 first graders, the report said.

Colorado lawmakers this year passed five bills aimed at strengthening the state’s gun laws, including a measure that bans the PMAG and any magazine of 15 rounds or more.  Lawmakers cited the Sandy Hook shooting as a partial motivation for the laws.

Magpul, which is based in Erie, fought hard to stop the proposal, even threatening to leave the state should it pass (the measure became law in May and, as of November, Magpul has not yet moved although the company said it’s still planning it).

Here's the report in question from the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice. Search the document for the word "PMAG" to read about the high capacity magazines found in the possession of the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza.

Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle used in Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, with Magpul PMAG magazine.

As one of the more popular brands of high capacity AR-15-type magazines available, it has long been a suspicion that the magazines used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut last December were made in Colorado by Magpul Industries, Inc. As Stokols reports, Magpul led the fight to stop the passage of House Bill 1224, legislation limiting the capacity of magazines sold in Colorado to a maximum of fifteen rounds. Magpul had threatened to leave the state if HB-1224 passed, but as of this month has controversially failed to do so. It's worth noting that HB-1224 wouldn't have prevented Magpul from manufacturing its high capacity PMAGs in Colorado–just their retail sale here. In Connecticut after the Newtown shooting, legislation passed this year limited magazine capacity to ten rounds.

We'll put the question to our readers: will confirmation that the high capacity magazines used to gun down over two dozen people, mostly little kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary last year were made in Colorado by Magpul, alter the debate over gun safety legislation in Colorado? Do you think it should? Whichever side you come down on the issue, this is a development that requires a rational answer one way or the other.

And maybe before that, some soul searching.

Confirmed: The “Hunter Boycott” That Never Happened

As it turns out...

As it turns out…

Scott Willoughby writes for the Denver Post this past weekend:

Colorado attracted national attention and threats of a hunting boycott last spring after Gov. John Hickenlooper signed a trio of gun laws restricting magazine capacity to 15 rounds and mandating background checks, paid by the purchaser, on most gun sales. The controversial bills were approved by the state legislature shortly before the big game application deadline, generating concerns over a potential decrease in demand for limited licenses in the state's premier hunting units.

Instead, the state's big game limited license applications increased by 17,000, or 4 percent, over the 2012 figures, totaling nearly 469,000. The increase in demand apparently was reflected in unlimited over-the-counter sales during the second and third rifle seasons this fall. With the largest elk herd in the nation, Colorado is the only state that offers an unlimited number of over-the-counter bull elk licenses to out-of-state hunters.

"If you want to go elk hunting, you are going to come here," said Eric Whirley, owner of Action Taxidermy in Gypsum, adding that his business was the best it has been since opening nine years ago. "We get a lot of out-of-state repeat business, a lot of the same groups of guys come back every year. We saw the same faces this year. You aren't going to Michigan to go elk hunting because Colorado changed a law."

Back in April, we took note of a revealing budget appropriation proposed during debate over this year's "Long Bill" by GOP Rep. Bob Rankin. Rankin unsuccessfully sought $1 million to fund a PR campaign by the Colorado Tourism Office, to dispel "myths" about Colorado's new gun laws Rankin believed threatened to harm tourism in the state over the summer and upcoming hunting season. As we noted at the time, many of the "myths" Rankin was concerned about originated with his fellow Republican legislators during the debate over the bills. Sen. Kevin Lundberg claimed that the bill limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds would "ban all magazines." Sen. Kent Lambert flat-out claimed the bills had "banned gun ownership," and predicted they would lead to guns being "confiscated or taken away here over the next couple of years."

Before you laugh dismissively, consider the fact that these absurd allegations had, and continue to have, a real impact on a large segment of voters. Evidence for this is everywhere, not least in polling showing that Coloradans hate "gun control," but support the gun control legislation that was actually passed by the Democratic-controlled Colorado General Assembly this year. The gap between fiction and reality is as wide in the Colorado gun debate as any issue we have ever seen in modern politics, and when you consider the prevalent misinformation on issues like Obamacare, that's saying a lot. So far, no preponderance of facts has been able to slow the momentum of the gun lobby, which is now focused on recalling a third Democratic Senator over legislation that actually enjoys broad support. If nothing else, this is another demonstration of the "reality gap" we're talking about.

But as we now know, the campaign of misinformation did not deter hunters from traveling to Colorado. We're not surprised. For one thing, it was reported back in June that hunting license applications had surged instead of declining. Some of our readers suggested that "reverse psychology" may have been at work, with hunters anticipating a boycott by others sought easy pickings that never materialized. Regardless, the bottom line is that a sane examination of the new laws makes it clear they don't impede hunting in Colorado one bit. And hunters who don't fall in the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners angry activist demographic were able to figure this out despite the ludicrous warnings spewing from the mouths of Republican lawmakers.