The energy-climate bill passed last week in the House will face an even tougher battle in the Senate, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet predicted Wednesday during a stop at the Aspen campus of Colorado Mountain College.
The Colorado Democrat, in town to attend the Aspen Ideas Festival, met with CMC administrators and other local representatives for a briefing on the college's new Green Building Academy initiative, aimed at certifying building professionals in energy efficiency and green building. The goal is to help residents meet the changing needs in the workplace in the midst of state and national efforts to stimulate the economy through the creation of "green jobs."
...The climate bill that narrowly passed in the House last week, however, "needs a lot of work," Bennet said. The legislation calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, but more costly energy while reducing the country's reliance on foreign oil, but Bennet said the bill is too weighted toward investment in clean coal and he called for better balance between coal and natural gas.
The legislation, he said, also lacks sufficient incentives for renewable energy. Several attendees at Wednesday's gathering also called for incentives to make the green push viable...
"I do think it will increase energy bills, but not as much as what they're saying," Bennet said. "We've got to be able to demonstrate that - to show people the math."
If the resulting costs to the consumer are onerous, the legislation won't pass in the Senate, he predicted.
Bennet's right about that, but he also correctly points out that the cost estimate to consumers in this bill ranges from relatively modest increases as figured by most nonpartisan sources and the CBO, to totally ridiculous scare-tactic warnings of thousands of dollars pushed by the energy companies and some Republicans. Our read of Bennet's comments, while still not as unequivocal as either supporters or detractors would prefer, suggests that he hears what the bill's opponents are saying but is not buying into it. Which is more than could be said for John Salazara few days ago, and should leave the bill's supports feeling a little better as it moves to the Senate.
Three Republican Congressmen last week launched a new caucus aimed at defending the nation against international treaties they see as threats to American rights and national interests. The so-called sovereignty movement has gained surprising momentum on the Hill recently and Lamborn's new House caucus goes further in establishing its presence.
The Washington Independent reports the House Sovereignty Caucus is the brainchild of Lamborn, Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.).
The launch party was held June 24th, when dozens of Hill staffers, foreign policy experts, and old Washington hands made their way to the lower floor of the Capitol Visitors Center, a sprawling complex below the halls of Congress. Retired Lt. Col. Oliver North and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith stopped by to make remarks and pose for photos. Patrick Henry College Chancellor Michael Farris made small talk near a table of fruits, vegetables and soft cheeses.
"I have said for years that we ought to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.," said Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), addressing the crowd in an impromptu speech. "I'll do everything I can in the Congress to maintain the U.S. as a sovereign nation, subservient to no one but the almighty God."
If the "sovereignty movement" has gained any 'momentum' over the last few months, you can assign it to the same column as the "tea party" movement or the "empty your local gun store" movement. It's a column that you don't take all that seriously, except maybe in a Homeland Security threat assessment (to be fair, "9/11 Truthers" keep such nuttery a bipartisan affair).
Slobodan Milosevic might find all this talk about "sovereignty" a little curious, or for that matter anybody the U.S. would like to see brought before a war crimes tribunal--"justice for me but not for thee" has never been especially powerful logic. Though it's true, Colorado's other GOP Rep. Mike Coffman knows some fellow Marines who will definitely agree with Lamborn.
A year ago, the El Paso County Sheriff was pleading to raise taxes to expand his jail. He was worried about overcrowding.
Today his inmate population is 20% lower than a year ago.
People can just not afford a life of crime anymore, that's how bad this economy is.
.
(Seems to be all the teevee is talking about this morning. The hideous state budget situation is going to make the job losses worse... - promoted by ThillyWabbit)
My Facebook friends reflect this. Four times this week, friends of mine have announced their availability in the job market via their Facebook statuses.
Only a fraction of the stimulus money has been spent, and most of that has come in the form of food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, and other direct assistance programs as opposed to public infrastructure projects. There is wisdom in taking the time to ensure that projects are sound and the money is not wasted, but it is frustrating to see that money delayed.
Trying something new - you can listen to the first 45 minutes of the interview here. (It was a 90 minute tape but apparently that's at the slow speed and I used the high speed so it ended at 45 minutes.) Nothing major in the last 15 minutes, that was just about his trips to Argentina and staying at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C. (For the totally oblivious - just kidding.) The meeting was Governor Ritter, Evan Dryer, & me.
This was a lot different from most of my previous interviews. I figure the first one is to let an individual talk and they drive the conversation. But for the 2nd one, I came in with a bunch of questions and tried to get full answers to those questions. So here's my first effort at an interview I tried to drive.
Governor Ritter consistently answered my questions. He never avoided them nor did he try to change the subject. And an interview scheduled for ½ hour ran a bit over an hour when he had to call it quits. So being hit with a bunch of questions, he did not use the excuse of times up to cut & run. I think this is one of Ritter's most commendable features, he will talk to the points brought up and discuss them in full.
We're pleased to introduce a new member of the Colorado Pols community, McInnis4Governor. Nice to meet you. Given all the recent hullabaloo over 'sock puppets,' we'd say our readers will find the authenticity of your approach refreshing.
McInnis4Governor's first act after signing up was to helpfully post an important release from gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis' campaign: "McInnis today filed the necessary documents with the Colorado Secretary of State's office to create his campaign committee and begin raising funds." There's also a link to a website set to launch tomorrow morning, which means McInnis' much-criticized "shadow campaign" is finally over. This is actually good information and we appreciate getting it.
Unfortunately, in their eagerness to distribute this important announcement to you personally, dear reader, their release was (inadvertently, we assume) posted as a comment here--a blog we wrote in January of 2007 announcing McInnis' run for U.S. Senate.
Now before everybody gets all schadenfreude about this, we want to encourage you to chalk it up to the learning curve, cut them some slack--though we're guessing McInnis hopes the new campaign goes, um, a little better than that one did, it's true, and would probably rather not have people reminiscing about that abortive Senate run while reading this announcement.
Full release after the jump. Make no mistake, we do appreciate the updates. Keep them coming, just double-check stuff before you click "post" in an unintentionally ironic location.
Republicans think Rep. Betsy Markey's vote Friday on the cap and trade bill will cost her votes next year. Politico, in a breathless and at times inaccurate piece Tuesday, even described it as a "career-ending vote." The article included the National Republican Congressional Committee's plans for attacking Markey and other potentially vulnerable Dems with TV and radio spots.
The NRCC's offensive was unveiled today. They're targeting Markey with robo-calls and a Web ad. As I discuss in my Coloradoan blog, that seems like a pretty light response, especially after the buildup. See my blog here: http://tr.im/quL5
In my blog, two Colorado State University political scientists discuss how important this vote might be next year. The obvious conclusion -- it's way too early to tell.
Bob Duffy, the CSU political science chair, is particularly dismissive of the NRCC: ""Who cares what the NRCC says-they have no credibility at this point."
His colleague, John Straayer, said Markey's votes could create vulnerability, but much of that will depend on how she responds.
"If Markey finds herself on the defensive, she's in trouble," Straayer said. "If she proudly owns her votes and casts them as pushing to solve serious problems for which the R's have no solution, she may well be just fine. And she can't let her opponent define Betsy Markey."
New laws take effect making it legal to collect rainwater, implementing the hard-fought FASTER bill that raises vehicle registration fees to pay for roads, and Governor Bill Ritter's bill that will raise hospital fees to pump more money into Medicaid, thereby scoring more federal matching funds.
But most interesting to me is the Designated Beneficiary law, which will allow same-sex couples (among others) to inexpensively establish a legal arrangement ensuring one partner will receive the other's belongings when they die, make medical decisions in the case he or she is incapacitated, and inherit workers compensation death benefits should a partner die on the job.
Today State Sen. Pat Steadman and State Rep. Mark Ferrandino are holding a press event highlighting the new law (received by e-mail):
(First time promoting myself--I feel like an American-trained Central American general seizing power in a coup. Or something. - promoted by ClubTwitty)
In the 'dog bites man' category, Gary Harmon--crazed opinion-editorialist and pretend reporter at the Daily Sentinel--has another article on the FRAC Act.
The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would require federal monitoring and disclosure of the mostly unknown chemicals that are injected by the truckload into the ground around, among, and outside our ranches, communities and neighborhoods.
Gary's latest hit-piece dressed up as a newspaper article sits under the screaming headline: Cities, counties oppose legislation on gas fracturing-Bill sponsored by Colorado Dems draws little support in drilling areas
A Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat will speak on Independence Day to a Grand Junction tea party.
Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck will speak at the 7 p.m. event. Buck is the second potential Senate candidate to speak to a Grand Junction tea party. Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier spoke to a tea party April 15 in Lincoln Park.
Frazier and Buck are considering runs against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat who was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Ken Salazar, who now serves as interior secretary.
The Western Slope Conservative Alliance is organizing the tea party at the old Mesa County Courthouse, 544 Rood Ave.
Other speakers at the tea party will be state Sen. Josh Penry and state Reps. Steve King and Laura Bradford, all Mesa County Republicans.
Even though Buck is the nominal headliner, all eyes will be on Josh Penry after rumors circulated early last month that he would announce his run for governor at this event. Penry, as you know, is very fond of the "tea party" for podium-and-crowd shots (see photo right), and the ardent conservatives who flock to them love Penry right back--Penry even recorded a video message to local attendees at Fox News host Glenn Beck's"We Surround You Friday" event back in March, where Beck tearfully warned the audience that he "can't debunk" the FEMA concentration camp myth, and that America "is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest dreams."
Will Saturday be the day Penry's Long March begins?
Confirming what was widely anticipated, from the AP wire:
Another Colorado state senator is leaving for a job with the Obama administration.
Democratic Sen. Jim Isgar of Hesperus was announced Tuesday as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's state director of rural development.
The La Plata County rancher says he will give up his Senate seat early for the post. Isgar is chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resource and Energy Committee but was ineligible to run again because of term limits...
Isgar is not announcing an exact date to leave the Senate until he finds out when his job with USDA begins.
This was going to be a hard one for Democrats to defend as an open seat in 2010, and Isgar's departure may help give his replacement a much-needed leg up. We've heard that former Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson is interested in appointment to the seat among with a few other recognizable names. Whoever gets the nod will face the locally popular and moderate GOP Rep. Ellen Roberts in the general. Assuming the conservative wing doesn't decide that Roberts is a Ramey Johnson-style 'RINO' and decide to punk her--something we have heard may indeed happen--she will present a formidable challenge, appointed 'incumbency' or no.
Just now breaking, former Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman will concede defeat to challenger Al Franken following a unanimous state Supreme Court decision declaring Franken the winner. This ends a nearly eight-month court battle for the seat and brings the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate to the "magic" sixty votes needed to move legislation without partisan encumberance--at least that's the theory. From the Star-Tribune:
Republican Norm Coleman ended a bruising eight-month court fight court today, conceding to Democrat Al Franken after the Minnesota Supreme Court said he was entitled to the office.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Democrat Al Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he is entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.
"Affirmed," wrote the justices, unanimously rejecting Republican Norm Coleman's claims that inconsistent practices by local elections officials and wrong decisions by a lower court had denied him victory.
[disclaimer: I work on projects for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative but am not a staffer]
While the idea of health cooperatives might be a tempting solution for liberals to grab onto, co-ops actually would endanger the current the health care reform effort by posing as a politically palatable--but ultimately meaningless--alternative to a public health insurance option.
As Paul Krugman, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist wrote in the NYT:
For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives [to the public option], would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.
Jacob Hacker, author of Health Care for America and U.C. Berkeley political scientist offers this analysis in the New Republic:
[The co-op plan is]...not going to have the ability to be a cost-control backstop, much less a benchmark for private plans, because they are not going to have the reach or authority to implement innovative delivery and payment reforms.
And Robert Reich, former secretary of labor and professor at the University of California explains the problem in the WSJ:
...cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.
Co-ops are not going to get done the job of lowering costs even though they're politically attractive. The last time healthcare reform was part of the agenda, the lobbying powers of the AMA, pharmaceutical industry, and others buried it so deeply we didn't see it again for 15 years. Let's not let the same thing happen again.
After some tough press last week regarding a couple of small but politically inconvenient expenditures, the Colorado Senate leadership announced today that it is returning over $627,000 in unneeded funds to the state. Says Senate President Brandon Shaffer, "The cuts start here. We must be first in line to demonstrate fiscal restraint."
Full release follows: had the timing been a little different this could have muted a lot of criticism last week, but it's a welcome gesture in any event--and should take the the pressure off that "team building retreat" business pretty neatly.
As most of you know, it's almost time for our new front page guest editors, ClubTwitty, ThillyWabbit, and guest front page author Barron X to begin their six-month terms. We will grant them the necessary privileges first thing in the morning, and we look forward to them doing as well as our outgoing editors, Laughing Boy and redstateblues did. We're proud of the community that has grown up around this blog in the last four and a half years, and we feel really good about the people you've elected to help us manage the fun.
In the interest of clarifying the expectations and responsibilities of our front page guest editors, we've put together a set of basic set of instructions that we'd like everyone to take a few minutes to read and comment on (posted after the jump).
Colorado Pols has been named Top Blog in 5280 magazine's "Top of the Town" edition. 5280 says that "ColoradoPols.com is chock-full of valuable analysis about the politics of politics in Colorado."
Thanks to all of you who read and post here for continuing to make Colorado Pols a huge success.
Two anti-abortion groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new "personhood" initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot.
Colorado voters soundly defeated a similar measure, Amendment 48, in the 2008 election.
But initiative sponsors say things will be different in 2010 because they will be better-funded and better able to articulate their message and will introduce a measure that's more accurately worded.
"The fact that we got over half a million Coloradans to vote for personhood in 2008 shows us that people care about ensuring that all humans are protected under the law," said Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of Personhood Colorado, an arm of the national Denver-based organization Personhood USA.
Last year, 73 percent of the vote went against Amendment 48, which was sponsored by Colorado for Equal Rights. Kristi Burton, a 21-year-old student from Peyton, ran the organization.
Compared with its opponent, Colorado for Equal Rights was poorly funded, raising about a third of what the anti-48 group was able to amass.
Jones said that if the initiative gets on the 2010 ballot, funding will be stronger because of the national reach of Personhood USA, formed specifically to help anti-abortion groups throughout the nation get personhood amendments on their state ballots.
Most people agree that Amendment 48 goaded out more inactive voters to vote against it than it helped turn out the Republican vote, to the extent that anybody cared about it at all.
Which is funny because when these abortion/anti-gay/sheep wedding wedge-issue initiatives were originally conceived, their intent was first and moremost to ensure strong conservative turnout at the polls regardless of whether they actually passed. But like so many "culture war" misfires that have marked the GOP's unsteady footing over the last few years, the falcon can no longer hear the falconer. In fact, the hard-line pro life activists pushing Amendment 48 went so far as to attack top-line Republican candidates who didn't immediately endorse its nutty provisions.
Democrats, we suspect, would be delighted to accomodate a 2010 redux.
For the first time since territorial days, rain will be free for the catching here, as more and more thirsty states part ways with one of the most entrenched codes of the West.
Precipitation, every last drop or flake, was assigned ownership from the moment it fell in many Western states, making scofflaws of people who scooped rainfall from their own gutters. In some instances, the rights to that water were assigned a century or more ago.
Now two new laws in Colorado will allow many people to collect rainwater legally. The laws are the latest crack in the rainwater edifice, as other states, driven by population growth, drought, or declining groundwater in their aquifers, have already opened the skies or begun actively encouraging people to collect.
"I was so willing to go to jail for catching water on my roof and watering my garden," said Tom Bartels, a video producer here in southwestern Colorado, who has been illegally watering his vegetables and fruit trees from tanks attached to his gutters. "But now I'm not a criminal."
Technically the law doesn't take effect until tomorrow, so Mr. Bartels might have waited a day or two before posing for the New York Times. We're joking, nobody's going to bust the guy--this was a holdover from the bad old days of "water is for fightin'" disputes in Colorado, rendered silly by the passage of time. There's nothing wrong with watering your Victory Garden with your roof, Kansas and Nestle won't miss it.
It does illustrate pretty clearly, however, what John McCain stepped in last fall by casually asserting that the Colorado River Compact "obviously needs to be renegotiated." Good idea to have a Secret Service detail in front of you when you say that to a guy who can't legally catch rainwater in a bucket.
I'm back from a week of furlough and digging myself out from a backlog of emails, voicemails and other work. But the one item that most immediately caught my attention was the Supreme Court's decision today to re-hear arguments in the Citzens United vs. FEC case.
But in short, the high court's eventual decision in this case could reshape the way campaigns are run in this country by lifting restrictions on corporate and union expenditures.
I use Colorado's 4th Congressional District as an example. The 2006 and 2008 races were nasty and expensive, approaching or exceeding $10 million in total costs.
We already knew that the 2010 version would again be expensive, with Republicans viewing it as one of their best pickup potentials and Dems determined to hold on to the seat to cement its hold on "purple" Colorado. The tone of the campaign is an open question, depending on how the candidates and their surrogates choose to play things. But nobody's expecting a game of beanbag to break out.
However, if limits on corporate and union contributions go away, haymakers will get thrown by both sides. All you innocent bystanders in the Denver metro area better get used to having your airwaves taken over by interest groups trying to persuade your Northeastern Colorado neighbors to vote against the other side's candidate in the 4th.
Of course, this analysis likely will extend to the 2010 Senate race as well. It may not be safe to go near a TV in Colorado after Labor Day.
(Lame duck promotion at its best - promoted by redstateblues)
We are often drawn to our differences, but politics can and should be the art of finding our common ground. There are certain things almost all people want: We all want to live well and we all want to live free. People of good will want to be fair to others, and most people want to be safe. We want these things for ourselves, for our loved ones, and, if we are reasonably generous, for our neighbors and friends as well. In our noblest moments, some of us want them even for our enemies. We dream, we strive, we aspire, we work, we play, we love, we hope. We share more that binds us than that divides us.
Colorado environmental groups were quick to criticize Democratic Congressman John Salazar Saturday after he joined the two Republican members of the state delegation in voting against the American Clean Energy and Security Act Friday.
The landmark climate change bill, which seeks to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 80 percent by 2050, passed out of the House by a scant seven-vote margin late Friday (219-212), with Colorado Democrats Diana DeGette, Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis voting for the bill.
"We applaud the Colorado representatives who voted for this critical legislation, yet we are disappointed with Reps. Salazar, [Mike] Coffman, and [Doug] Lamborn for opposing this critical legislation," Pam Kiely, legislative director for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said in a release.
Salazar, brother of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, told the Denver Post he couldn't justify raising utility rates in his largely rural 3rd Congressional District at a time when the economy is just now starting to stabilize.
Markey also represents a mostly rural and more conservative district but voted in favor of the bill because of last-minute pro-agriculture changes to it. DeGette, vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee that painstakingly negotiated the framework of the bill over the last several weeks, said the costs to the average American will be negligible.
This vote did go a little differently than we expected, with Markey as the more politically vulnerable moderate Democrat--and the climate bill being singled out by Republicans for attack--expected to vote against, perhaps even with approval from House leadership given her delicate position. Instead, she voted for the bill and greatly pleased environmental interests who supported her election, and Rep. John Salazar draws fire from the same lobby for voting against.
Both Salazar and Markey knew there were votes to be both lost and gained with different constituencies depending on their vote--who came out the biggest loser? Our view is that Markey had more to lose by voting yes than Salazar had by voting no going in, which in hindsight will rally liberals to Markey as well as hurt Salazar more than it otherwise might have. There's also the problem Salazar's vote creates for Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet as they take up the bill, having legitimized some talking points against it with his vote. It will be a shame, but people are going to have to be reminded of Salazar's regrettable "rain disproves global warming" gaffe as part of dealing with that--not exactly his finest hour.
That said, don't look for this one vote to seriously alienate Salazar from his core of support going into 2010--it's not going to be his only opportunity to take action on the issue, and his local popularity runs deeper than other Democrats in the process of annoying their base.
Gov. Bill Ritter came [to Ludlow] Sunday morning to honor the striking CF&I mine workers and their families who were shot to death on April 20, 1914.
However, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, as well as Pueblo firefighters, stood up and turned their backs in protest against the governor they helped elect in 2006.
Ritter's decisions in the past few months to veto several bills sought by Colorado unions appears to have ripped apart the alliance between the first-term Democrat and unions that worked for his election three years ago.
"He's just disgusting us right now," said Sam Pantelo, vice president of the Pueblo's Steelworkers Local 2102. "I don't know who he thinks is going to work for him in 2010."
Most of the crowd of about 300 people at the ceremony Sunday wore caps or shirts declaring their union affiliation. Shortly after arriving, Ritter waved off a question suggesting he is losing support among organized labor.
"I have a dispute with some labor groups," Ritter said. "But if you look at what we've accomplished for working families, I think I've acted in the best interest of the state."
...The speeches Sunday were unashamedly pro-union and Ritter's presence on the podium was largely ignored. In fact, he was not even listed in the program, which Robert Butero, UMWA regional director, explained as an "oversight" just before introducing Ritter after nearly 90 minutes of other speakers.
None of this should surprise you--obviously the Ludlow Massacre Memorial is not a place you would expect to find much praise for a Governor who just outraged thousands of fellow union members, and we seriously doubtBill Ritter's omission from the schedule was an accident. And as evidenced by these comments from a Pueblo steelworker, Ritter's vetoes have upset a larger constituency than just the grocery workers and firefighters in the spotlight. According to the Chieftain, the biggest applause for any speaker occurred when Rep. Buffie McFadyen called for the audience to support unionized grocery workers in their ongoing negotiations--directly calling out Ritter's veto of their (symbolically) key bill.
At the same time, you have to admit that failing to appear at the Ludlow Memorial yesterday would have been at least as bad for Ritter's relations with labor. He didn't have a choice but to show up and take his lumps. Until concrete steps to reconcile with this and other aggrieved communities in his Democratic base are taken--something everyone agrees is necessary but nobody seems to have really defined, let alone begun--Ritter should probably get used to the experience.
It's what happens when you "say no to your friends." You still have to see them every day...
Even though Buck is the nominal headliner, all eyes will be on Josh Penry after rumors circulated