Recent Posts

BREAKING: Hickenlooper Grants Temporary Reprieve for Dunlap

by: Colorado Pols Wed May 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM MDT

UPDATE: #3: Attorney General John Suthers fires off a highly political response to today's decision:

The defendant was eligible for the death penalty under Colorado law. The district attorney believed the defendant deserved the death penalty. A jury of twelve citizens of Colorado determined that he deserved the death penalty. And a plethora of appellate courts have upheld the jury’s decision. But Governor Hickenlooper simply cannot cope with the task of carrying out the execution of Nathan Dunlap or exercising his constitutional mandate.

Executive authority to modify criminal punishment is part of our constitutional system, and I respect that. However, the citizens of Colorado deserve honesty and the victims deserve finality. I believe the governor’s decision does not stem from anything but his personal discomfort about the death penalty. I also believe that the governor should have been much more up front with the voters when he ran for office if he couldn’t carry out the death penalty.

I have an excellent working relationship with the governor and I respect him very much. Yet it’s been apparent to me that issues of crime and punishment are not his strength. John Hickenlooper is an optimist. He has proven to be uncomfortable confronting the perpetrators of evil in our society. I saw this when I discussed last year’s juvenile direct-file bill with him. He had trouble comprehending that a 16 or 17-year-old is capable of brutal acts deserves adult punishment. I saw it in his naïve views about the role of administrative segregation in our prisons. And I’ve heard it in my discussions with him about the death penalty. The governor is certainly entitled to these views, but granting a reprieve simply means that his successor will have to make the tough choice that he cannot.

—–

UPDATE #2: Press release announcing today's executive order after the jump.

—–

UPDATE: 9NEWS' Blair Schiff:

Under a reprieve, Dunlap could conceivably be executed some day. The reprieve will stay in place until Hickenlooper or another governor lifts it.

Arguably the most difficult decision of his political career, Hickenlooper's decision may earn him blowback as prosecutors are currently seeking the death penalty against James Holmes for the mass murder at an Aurora movie theater.

The death toll in the Dunlap case is not as high as the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, but it shares similarities. Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of killing four employees at a Denver-area Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in 1993. The jury sentenced him to die. His last guaranteed appeal was rejected this year. His execution was scheduled for August 2013.

FOX 31:

The reprieve can only be lifted with another executive order, and Hickenlooper said at a 2 p.m. news conference it’s highly unlikely he will revisit the issue again. That means it would be up to his successor to decide to stay the execution or allow it to resume.

“This weighed on me heavily for a year,” Hickenlooper said in explaining his decision to reporters. He spoke slowly and deliberately.

“I could not find the justice in making” a decision to allow Dunlap to die, he said.

—–

We'll update shortly with coverage and the full text of the statement–word breaking now that Gov. John Hickenlooper has granted a temporary reprieve to death-row inmate Nathan Dunlap, citing questions about the application of the death penalty generally–while acknowledging the "horrific" nature of Dunlap's crime.

Gov. Hickenlooper grants temporary reprieve of death sentence

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed an Executive Order today that grants Nathan J. Dunlap, also known as Offender No. 89148, a temporary reprieve from his death sentence.

The Colorado Constitution provides for one final review by the governor before the State executes another human being. This check is one that, from its Common Law origins, embeds in the governor the authority to grant a reprieve. Not taking action in this case was not an option.

“I have taken this responsibility seriously,” Hickenlooper says in the Executive Order. “As Governor, I must either direct state employees to execute a human being, or I must exercise my constitutional authority to stop an execution. Both paths require an affirmative decision by me, and the prospect of either decision has been daunting. It has forced me to think of the issue in a personal way because it is on my conscience the decision will weigh. I am confident that most Coloradans – no matter what their views on the death penalty may be – will respect and understand the unique burden of this decision.”

The governor met in recent weeks with prosecutors, clergy, victims and their families, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and countless other people to discuss this case and the death penalty. In granting the reprieve, the governor used the Executive Order to explain a number of issues, including:

Colorado’s imperfect capital punishment system

“If the State of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. Colorado’s system for capital punishment is not flawless. A recent study co-authored by several law professors showed that under Colorado’s capital sentencing system, death is not handed down fairly. Many defendants are eligible for capital punishment but almost none are actually sentenced to death. The inmates currently on death row have committed heinous crimes, but so have many others who are serving mandatory life sentences. … As one former Colorado judge said to us, ‘[The death penalty] is simply the result of happenstance, the district attorney’s choice, the jurisdiction in which the case is filed, perhaps the race or economic circumstance of the defendant.’ Indeed, ‘Death, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two,’ U.S. Supreme Court Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens wrote in a 1976 decision. Thus, they said, ‘there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability.’”

Issues surrounding the statutorily required drugs for lethal injection

“… as a result of the infrequent use and application of the death penalty in Colorado, the State is not immediately equipped to carry out a death sentence. Recent restrictions imposed by pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration make procuring these drugs challenging. We must ensure that individuals facing the death penalty are afforded certain guaranteed rights of due process before a state proceeds with an execution.”

National and international trend toward abolition of the death penalty

“Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and New Mexico recently repealed the death penalty. There are now 18 states without the death penalty and 7 of the states with the death penalty (including Colorado) have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years. There has been a moratorium on executions in California for more than 6 years due to concerns regarding the constitutionality of their execution procedures. And the death penalty is effectively suspended in Oregon, where the governor has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty for the duration of his service as governor. Internationally, the United States is one of only a handful of developed countries that still uses the death penalty as a form of punishment. Approximately two-thirds of countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, largely due to concerns regarding human rights violations. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, ‘The death penalty experiment has failed.’”

“My decision to grant a reprieve to Offender No. 89148 is not out of compassion or sympathy for him or any other inmate sentenced to death,” Hickenlooper says in the Executive Order. “The crimes are horrendous and the pain and suffering inflicted are indescribable. I have enormous respect for the jurors who deliberated over Offender No. 89148’s case, the decision they rendered, and the amount of reflection they demonstrated in discharging their civic duty.”

The order says more than 15 years have passed since that jury convened, “and we now have the benefit of information that exposes an inequitable system.”

“It is a legitimate question whether we as a state should be taking lives,” the order says. “Because the question is about the use of the death penalty itself, and not about Offender No. 89148, I have opted to grant a reprieve and not clemency in this case.”

The Executive Order signed today will remain in effect until modified or rescinded by future Executive Order of the Governor. Offender No. 89148, meanwhile, will remain in administrative segregation.

Full story: BREAKING: Hickenlooper Grants Temporary Reprieve for Dunlap

Congrats Sen. Pat Steadman, Colorado’s “Champion of Change”

by: ProgressNow Colorado Wed May 22, 2013 at 1:21 PM MDT

Colorado Sen. Pat Steadman is being recognized today at the White House as a "Harvey Milk Champion of Change." From Fox 31:

Over the last few years, as LGBT advocates have pushed for a new civil unions law, many of them lauded the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Pat Steadman, a long-time lobbyist on equality issues, as “Colorado’s own Harvey Milk.”

…The Champions of Change program was created as an opportunity for the White house to feature groups of Americans – individuals, businesses and organizations – who are doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities.

In 1992, Steadman organized the lawsuit challenging “Amendment 2,” the voter-approved anti-gay initiative that made Colorado known for a time as the “Hate State”; the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the statute in 1996 in the landmark Romer v. Evans ruling.

The civil unions legislation was finally passed this year and signed into law in March.

Thank you, Sen. Steadman, for decades spent fighting for equality for every Colorado family! Your work honors Harvey Milk's legacy every day.

Full story: Congrats Sen. Pat Steadman, Colorado’s “Champion of Change”

Dick Wadhams Gets Another Shot at Glory

by: Colorado Pols Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM MDT

We missed Dick.

With a H/T to reporter Marianne Goodland, Roll Call's Kyle Trygstad:

Veteran GOP operative Dick Wadhams has signed on as general consultant for the leading candidate in one of the GOP’s top Senate pickup opportunities.

Former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds announced on Wednesday that he has retained Wadhams to help lead his campaign.

The election next year will come a decade after Wadhams’ last triumph in the state — managing now-Sen. John Thune’s 2004 upset of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

“Dick’s reputation as a battle tested strategist, coupled with his insight into South Dakota’s political landscape make him the perfect complement to our team,” Rounds said in a statement. “We’ve been considering individuals to fill this role for months and we continued to come back to Mr. Wadhams.”

It's been a rough few years for the formerly legendary Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams. Arguably Wadhams' greatest triumph as a campaign manager came in South Dakota, though, when he masterminded Sen. John Thune's 2004 victory. Wadhams gained his reputation after massaging former Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, one of the least inspiring men to ever serve in the United States Senate, into two election wins over Democratic challenger Tom Strickland. Since 2004, however, Wadhams has presided over a string of defeats for Senate candidates in several states including Colorado continued losses for the GOP as Colorado party chairman, and the 2010 gubernatorial debacle that more or less broke the party's back here. Wadhams fell so far, so fast, that it's easy to forget that he was once near the pinnacle of his profession; Wadhams managed the 2006 re-election campaign of Sen. George Allen in Virginia, which was supposed to have been a formality along the way toward a run for President in 2008. But then "Macaca" happened.

Perhaps Gov. Mike Rounds will be Wadhams' ticket back to winner's circle. His résumé‎ hopes so.

Full story: Dick Wadhams Gets Another Shot at Glory

National Association of State Budget Officers – the Common Funding Ratio Benchmark for Public Pensions is 80%. So, Why is the Colorado Legislature Trying to Break PERA Pension Contracts Until a 100% Ratio is Attained?

by: Algernon Moncrief Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM MDT

CLEARLY LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH.

Last year, the National Association of State Budget Officers published an Issue Brief that places public pension funding in a state budgetary perspective. The Issue Brief brings perspective to the Colorado General Assembly's breach of Colorado PERA public pension COLA contractual obligations in 2010. A lawsuit contesting this state taking of PERA public pension benefits, Justus v. State, is currently pending before the Colorado Supreme Court.

"For over 60 years, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) has been the professional membership organization for state budget and finance officers."

http://www.nasbo.org/about-nasbo

The Issue Brief, "A State Budgeting Perspective on Public Pensions," is available at the following link:

http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20State%20Budgeting%20Perspective%20on%20Public%20Pensions.pdf

Below, I provide a few important excerpts from the NASBO public pension Issue Brief (and my observations):

"This brief examines a number of pension issues from a budgetary perspective. A budgetary perspective considers long term pension funding adequacy, and the financial cost of promised benefits in relation to the rest of current state spending."

"Most public pensions have retained a defined benefit status in which retiree payments are guaranteed under state statute, constitution, or contract law."

(My comment: When the Colorado General Assembly enacted the bill breaking Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts in 2010 [SB10-001], scant attention was given to the fact that the issue of governmental taking of contracted public pension COLA benefits had been previously litigated in Colorado. Decades ago the Colorado Supreme Court invalidated the taking of contracted COLA benefits by Colorado governmental employers as a means of escaping their contracted public pension debt. Colorado state and local government employers cannot "define" their way out of their contractual public pension COLA obligations in statute or ordinance. How did the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and Colorado's public sector unions arrive at the conclusion that state and local government employers, after benefiting from the labor of their employees, did not have to pay contracted deferred compensation for that labor? This notion defies Colorado case law, and common sense.

Although, many state legislators were generally aware of the recent Colorado Attorney General's Opinion stating that impairment of contracted PERA benefits would be unconstitutional (during debate of SB10-001), few had read the on-point case law, Bills or McPhail. In 2009/2010 the Leadership of the Colorado General Assembly, encouraged by self-interested public sector unions, preferred to keep rank and file members of the General Assembly in ignorance. Thus, Leadership abdicated legislative policy-making authority in this area to the state's pension administrator, Colorado PERA. The Colorado PERA Board of Trustees conducted a statewide campaign to persuade Colorado PERA retirees to relinquish their contractual pension rights. As planned, the PERA Board of Trustees presented a preordained conclusion to take "fully-vested" PERA retiree pension COLA benefits to the Legislature prior to the 2010 legislative session.

Although encouraged to do so, the Leadership of the General Assembly did not pursue an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court requesting an opinion on the constitutionality of their proposed taking of PERA retiree public pension benefits. The Leadership of the General Assembly did not propose that an interim study committee be appointed to examine potential PERA pension reforms that would comply with the Colorado Constitution. Such actions on the part of the General Assembly's Leadership would have resulted in a level of knowledge of public pension contractual rights on the part of the members sufficient to prevent even 27 statehouse lobbyists from pushing SB10-001 through the legislative process.)

NASBO:

"The yearly . . . employer contribution to the fund comes directly from the state’s operating budget and is called the annual required contribution or (ARC). The ARC represents the level of payment needed for the state to keep pace with the accumulation of benefits."

"When states contribute significantly less than the ARC, assets in the pension fund may not be able to meet the liabilities that accrue, which can necessitate future taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of benefits for services delivered in the past. States must consider the issue of equity because, as the Government Accountability Office points out, 'When the ARC is not paid in full each year, future generations must make up for the costs of benefits that accrued to employees in the past.'"

(My comment: On August 11, 2009, at the Denver meeting of the Colorado PERA “Listening Tour” Colorado PERA’s General Counsel Greg Smith blamed the Colorado General Assembly for the decline PERA’s actuarial funded ratio: “We have not been paid what’s called the actuarially required contribution.” “We’ve not been receiving that full contribution in any of our divisions for many years . . . seven years to be specific.”

Link: http://www.copera.org/pera/about/listeningtour.htm)

This legislative habit of failing to pay annual public pension bills [the ARC deficiency] has been referred to as "taking a pension holiday," or "putting state expenditures on a credit card." Skipping out on required PERA pension bills allowed the Colorado General Assembly to redirect this money to discretionary state programs. Colorado state legislators have racked up their PERA credit card balance on an extended "pension holiday." Rather than acting responsibly and facing the consequences of their negligence, state legislators now seek to raid Grandma's bank account to pay off their credit card debt. These are our state leaders . . . setting a example for today's youth.)

NASBO:

"The amount owed on unfunded liabilities can be paid over time because the obligations are amortized much like a mortgage payment."

(My comment: Colorado PERA Executive Director Meredith Williams in "Setting the Record Straight":

“PERA is a long-term investor with an investment horizon that spans not just 10 years, but 50 or 70 years.”

https://www.copera.org/pera/about/issues.htm

Silver and Gold Record, March 9, 2006:

“Williams noted that most people don't have enough money to pay off their mortgages, and that PERA's assets have exceeded its total liabilities only twice in its 75-year history. ‘We have 74 percent of the mortgage, but some people are making hay out of that,’ he said."

https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/4871.html)

NASBO:

"When a pension plan’s accrued actuarial liability exceeds the actuarial valuation of assets the plan is said to have an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) or unfunded liabilities."

"The ratio of liabilities to assets is depicted as a pension plans’ funding ratio, which indicates the level of funds available for paying accrued benefits. The benchmark for many state and local plans is to maintain an 80 percent funding ratio or enough assets to cover 80 percent of accrued liabilities."

(My comment: “Mr. [Meredith] Williams was quoted in the same report as saying ‘Most pension funds are considered sound at 80 percent funding levels.’”

“Meredith Williams ‘said at the Senate Finance Committee hearing [on SB10-001] in January that PERA needed to be funded at 100 percent. When the PERA representatives were asked by a member of the committee why in view of the fact that PERA had only been funded at 100 percent for about seven of the past thirty years [actually two of the last eighty-one years], it was necessary now. The answer was ‘it just makes things easier.’”

Link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/84960fa73d53e222872576c600712e80/$FILE/10HseFin0210AttachG.pdf

In February 2011, Colorado PERA's General Counsel wrote in the periodical "Government Finance Review," that, in order for a PERA pension reform to be found "reasonable" under the law, changes to the Colorado PERA pension must be "the minimum changes necessary." The next year, June 26, 2012, Colorado PERA’s independent actuary, Cavanaugh MacDonald Consulting, LLC, wrote in the 2011 Colorado PERA CAFR: that the 100 percent funding threshold put into Colorado law by SB10-001 is much stronger than is necessary [i.e., not "the minimum change necessary"] to meet public pension regulatory [GASB] standards. Alteration of the statutory Colorado PERA pension contract in 2010 [SB10-001] by incorporation of this 100 percent PERA pension funding threshold placed unnecessary financial pressure on the PERA pension trust funds, creating the Legislature's desired rationale for breaking pension contracts, and does not represent the "least drastic" reform option available to the Colorado General Assembly.

You can see that, in 2010, when Leadership decided to attempt a Colorado PERA pension contract breach, they were determined to "go big." If they were going to use recent [2008/2009] market volatility as a “window” to attempt to slash state and local government pension debt, why not roll the dice and slash the PERA pension debt dramatically? Why not push 90 percent of the cost-shift in their bill, SB10-001, onto PERA retirees? PERA retirees were weak and unrepresented . . . an easy target for PERA’s hired lobbyists. Instead of placing a PERA pension funded ratio of 80 percent in the title of SB10-001, why not bet the farm and stick in a 100 percent funded ratio threshold? [Note that another state that has been condemned for its attempt to take public pension COLA benefits, Rhode Island, proposes to continue its own pension theft until just an 80 percent funding threshold is achieved. The Rhode Island theft is thus, comparatively, the lesser crime.] This is what happens when lobbyists run the legislative show. Greed takes over.

Note this 2012 Fitch Ratings position on public pension funding levels: “Fitch generally considers pensions with funded ratios 80% and above to be well-funded.” Also, in a 2011 Fitch Ratings report, Fitch notes that a 70 percent actuarial funded ratio for public defined benefit pensions is considered an “adequate” actuarial funded ratio.

Link:

http://www.ncpers.org/Files/2011_enhancing_the_analysis_of_state_local_government_pension_obligations.pdf)

Back to NASBO:

"In the past, pension dollars accounted for a much greater share of state budgets than they do today (See the graph on page 4 of the NASBO Issue Brief.)"

"Overall, pension contributions represent a small percentage of states’ operating budgets at roughly 3.8 percent."

(My comment: Jennifer Paquette, Colorado PERA Chief Investment Officer, May 22, 2011, Denver Post:

“In fact, employer contributions to pensions account for just 2.16 percent of all Colorado state and local government spending, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data.”

Note that according to the NASBO graph, in the 1980s, U.S. state and local government expenditures to meet public pension obligations reached six percent of total state and local government expenditures, nearly three times Colorado's public pension burden in 2008 as identified by Colorado PERA's Chief Investment Officer above.)

NASBO:

"Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, October 2010 – Public Pension Contributions as a Percent of State and Local Government Budgets."

NASBO:

"Pension liabilities can also be viewed as a debt structure component, comprising one aspect of a state’s long-term outstanding debt. Therefore, state pension systems are a factor that rating agencies consider before issuing an opinion on a state’s ability to repay debt obligations. The degree to which states consistently pay their ARC indicates that other debt obligations will likely be met through the normal budget process."

"Pension obligations are referred to as 'riskless' because the payments are guaranteed to beneficiaries."

Link to complete NASBO public pension Issue Brief:

http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20State%20Budgeting%20Perspective%20on%20Public%20Pensions.pdf

Colorado PERA active and retired members, the proponents of SB10-001 would have you, and Colorado courts, believe that your accrued pension benefits are a burden on Colorado state and local governments. In reality, pension contributions made by Colorado governments are a fraction of public pension contributions in other states. The Colorado General Assembly and self-interested lobbyists want to conceal many truths from you and the courts. Help bring the truth to light in our state. Do your part to preserve the rule of law in Colorado. Contribute at saveperacola.com. "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!

Full story: National Association of State Budget Officers – the Common Funding Ratio Benchmark for Public Pensions is 80%. So, Why is the Colorado Legislature Trying to Break PERA Pension Contracts Until a 100% Ratio is Attained?

BLM Colorado: Public Has No Need to Know About Public Lands, Public Monies, Public Employees

by: ClubTwitty Wed May 22, 2013 at 7:37 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In a show of arrogance that has become too typical of the Colorado State Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the agency is ignoring a Federal judge, media requests, stakeholders, and the public in denying public information about public activities on the public lands, according to the Durango Herald:

“This isn’t a widespread issue of public concern. It is primarily press that are concerned about oil and gas leasing and activists that are opposed to oil and gas leasing.”

The state 'Communications Director', one might assume, has the job as a public employee working on public lands issues and spending public monies, of informing the public and managing media relations. The 'press' and public are–this common-sense assumption goes–the PRIMARY purpose of his receiving a Federal salary as a taxpayer-funded public employee.

But apparently not for BLM Colorado–where public information is no such thing, and the public and media are merely distractions from what ever other self-determined more important things, like defending illegal agency actions perhaps, or intentionally seeking to divide communities.

Colorado's North Fork Standing Up

This particular matter has its roots in the BLM Colorado State Office's reckless oil and gas leasing policy that willfully ignores local communities, other federal agencies, state wildlife officials, local businesses and the public, to lease whatever public lands secret industry representatives nominate. This is despite Colorado having the oldest land use plans in the Mountain West, many dating back to the 1980s–like that that governs the public lands in the North Fork–most of which fail completely to properly account for, describe, consider or protect the resources and uses that exist or depend upon these lands today.

Citizens for a Healthy Community–a Delta County based conservation group–partnered with the Western Environmental Law Center to file lawsuit seeking the names of the nominators who put forward the contentious leases in that valley. They won that suit.

Here is what the judge wrote:

“Competition in bidding advances the purpose of getting a fair price for a lease of publicly owned minerals,” Matsch wrote. “Moreover, the identity of the submitter may be relevant to the plaintiff and others who may raise concerns about the stewardship records of that potential owner, a factor relevant to the environmental impact of the proposed sale.”

So, a Federal judge acknowledges that sharing information on public lands and public minerals is in the public interest and orders the public employees at a public agency to release that (public) information.

And the senior staff at BLM Colorado Office responds, to paraphrase: Make us (again).

Following the judge's decision and the BLM Colorado's clear loss in court, others–including the Durango Herald–have now sought identical information regarding contentious leases in their communities. Such as those surrounding Mesa Verde National Park opposed by the BLM's own sister agency in the Department of Interior, the National Park Service.

Now, the Colorado State Office of the BLM, our public employees spending our public monies to manage our public lands and minerals, is refusing to release that information. Again. Because, apparently its Communications Director has better things to do than communicate.

Maybe like spending more time in court defending the indefensible, losing more lawsuits, and greasing the skids for oil and gas in violation of what the Federal courts have found to be in the public's interest.

Full story: BLM Colorado: Public Has No Need to Know About Public Lands, Public Monies, Public Employees

Wednesday Open Thread

by: Colorado Pols Wed May 22, 2013 at 6:15 AM MDT

"To pay attention, this is our endless and proper work."

–Mary Oliver

Full story: Wednesday Open Thread

Nat Gas…Outta Here!

by: Duke Cox Tue May 21, 2013 at 6:13 PM MDT

I caught a piece on NPR just recently by reporter Jackie Northram. She tells the story of a $15 billion expansion project at the Sabine Pass natural gas terminal.

Phase one of the expansion will enable the facility to export (emphasis mine) U.S. natural gas worldwide. 5 LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) storage tanks, each containing 160,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas are nearing completion.

The terminal was built at a time when it was widely believed there would be a deficit of natural gas here in the U.S. Charif Souki, the CEO of Cheniere Energy, says back then it was believed Sabine Pass would be busy and profitable for many years.

During the gas boom, many believed that America would benefit from the enormous reserves of natural gas being unlocked. Some foresaw a future with gas powered cars taking us back and forth to work. The industry would survive nicely and big money would be made. America would be energy independent and T Boone Pickens would be stylin'… he convinced a bunch of investors that the price of methane would be resilient. That hasn't happened.

The Big Five Oil companies don't really focus on the U.S., however. They have bigger fish to fry..and a much more lucrative market "out there".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/30/shell-gazprom-global-cooperation-pact

Ay Caruso, an energy specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the decision was met with a huge amount of skepticism. He says at the time natural gas prices were still high in the U.S. and it was hard to see how the costly process of liquefying and shipping the gas could actually turn a profit.

GUY CARUSO: In fact, when he first mentioned that idea, some of us were wondering how he could possibly think it would work. And now he's considered to be, you know, prescient and, you know, with a great vision. And…

Federal permission has been given to sell American natural gas to the Dominican Republic, Columbia, potentially Brazil, Chile, Uruguay. The next step geographically would be to go to Europe…home of both Royal Dutch/Shell AND Gazprom…neat.

The first tanker of LNG is expected to ship out of the Sabine Pass terminal in late 2015 or early 2016; it will mark the U.S. entry into the export market for natural gas – which until now has been dominated by countries such as Qatar and Russia.

I hope all the "Drill, Baby, Drill", patriots are ready to pay a LOT more to heat their gunsheds. America is being "fracked" to pieces in order to line the pockets of people like Rex Tillerson, Peter Voser, et al. A few jobs?…sure…a few trillion gallons of poisoned water? Count on it…

More lies from the "Lady in the Black Pantsuit"?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Full story: Nat Gas…Outta Here!

Betty Boyd for Lakewood City Council in Interesting Matchup

by: Colorado Pols Tue May 21, 2013 at 12:57 PM MDT

Former Lakewood legislator Betty Boyd

Longtime legislator Betty Boyd, a Lakewood Democrat who served in both the House and Senate before term-limits forced her out of office in 2012, has decided to continue her political career with a run for Lakewood City Council in Ward 4. From Our Colorado News:

Boyd served 12 years in the state legislature, starting in the house in 2000. She was reelected twice, and in 2006 Boyd was elected to fill the vacancy in the Senate District 21 seat. She ran again and won in 2008.

“I was in the first class of leadership in Lakewood, and was first interested in running for city council, but due to urging of others, I went to the state level and my focus changed to work there,” she said. “Now it’s coming full circle, because I’m back to try for council.”

Incumbent Wiechman has his sights set on Mayor in 2015

Boyd's candidacy is certainly bad news for incumbent councilman David Wiechman, who desperately wants to run for Lakewood Mayor in 2015 but would be hampered significantly if he loses his bid for re-election.

Wiechman is a bit of an odd bird to say the least. He was in the news earlier this year for an "IT problem" related to pornography on his iPad, and in 2011 he drew the ire of fellow council members for basically offering to underwrite the campaign of anyone who ran against a handful of people Wiechman didn't like.

One of the people who took him up on the offer, Pete Roybal, did get elected; his campaign committee was later fined for improper reporting around a loan from Wiechman. Several other potential candidates reportedly declined Wiechman's overtures.

Full story: Betty Boyd for Lakewood City Council in Interesting Matchup

McLachlan Recall Effort Sputters Out

by: Colorado Pols Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM MDT

From Lynn Bartels at "The Spot":

The first of four efforts to recall Democratic lawmakers over their gun votes has failed, with the secretary of state’s office reporting no signatures will be turned in an effort to oust Rep. Mike McLachlan of Durango.

Today was the deadline to turn in signatures for the first-term lawmaker’s recall, but the secretary of state’s office was informed that no signatures will be forthcoming. Those spearheading the recall effort against McLachlan needed to collect 10,586 signatures in order to force a recall election.

If you’re going to take a big swing…you had better connect.

It's true that a recall of Senate President John Morse is the primary target for RMGO, Dudley Brown and crew (as well as the NRA), and recall efforts against Democrat Senators Evie Hudak (Arvada) and Angela Giron (Pueblo) also continue. But that doesn't mean that such a poor effort on the McLachlan recall is not important. In fact, failing to turn in any signatures in a recall effort against McLachlan will have political repercussions beyond 2013.

As we've discussed before, it is incredibly difficult to succeed in a recall effort, which is why threatening such a maneuver carries so much risk. The threats from Brown and his RMGO lobbyists during the 2013 legislative session (threats like this one) only work if there is a real risk that a recall will succeed. Next time, for McLachlan and other "threatened" legislators, they'll have some recent history to consider when another "threat" comes their way.

What could make the difference in the remaining recall attempt, against Senate President John Morse in Colorado Springs, is the presence of paid petition gatherers and growing national interest in the effort. Due in part to Morse's last election being in the 2010 off-year, Morse always represented the lowest hurdle for recall organizers, and the highest-profile target as Senate President. It's worth nothing that the first, stillborn recall question against Morse technically failed last week–but that doesn't matter now that the NRA-endorsed, fully funded signature gathering campaign is on the ground, and they can try again and again if they wish. In interviews this past week, Morse appears to accept the fact that his recall will probably go to the ballot, and he vows to fight–not just for his seat, but to defend all of the many policy goals the General Assembly accomplished this year.

Full story: McLachlan Recall Effort Sputters Out

No justification for journalists to label Coffman a “moderate”

by: Jason Salzman Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:29 AM MDT

The jaw of anyone who’s followed the career of Rep. Mike Coffman dropped upon reading the National Journal’s characterization of Coffman yesterday as a “moderate who sometimes refers to himself as an independent.”

It’s true that Coffman refers to himself as a moderate. Most endangered politicians trying to appeal to independent voters do so.

But for a reporter to state as a fact that Coffman is a “moderate?” Where’s that come from?

Objectively, the word “moderate” does not come to mind if you look at the majority of Coffman’s record. He’s clearly way to the right on social as well as fiscal issues.

On the social side, Coffman does not hide the fact that he’s against all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. (Just last year, Personhood USA labeled Coffman a “statesman” for standing firm against abortion for any reason.) He voted in Congress to change the definition of rape, adding “forcible” as an clarifying adjective.

On fiscal issues, Coffman, who endorsed Gov. Rick Perry for President, has said the flat tax has “tremendous value.”

Coffman has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” and has never retracted the statement.

On immigration, Coffman has expressed an open mind about immigration reform lately. But his record stands in opposition to his recent tone. Coffman introduced a bill mandating English-only ballots, even for areas with large numbers of Spanish-speaking voters who aren’t proficient in English. Coffman has long stood with (and endorsed) Rep. Tom Tancredo, who symbolizes American extremism toward undocumented immigrants and immigration reform.

Coffman has called the expansion of Medicare under Obamacare “very radical.”

Famously, Coffman said doesn’t know if Obama “was born in the United States of America,” but Coffman did know that Obama “in his heart, he’s not an American.” Coffman apologized, but Coffman thinks too big a deal was made of the Obama comment, and it was taken out of context.

If you look at the totality of Coffman’s record, you can say he’s taken an independent view on military spending. But that’s it.

There’s no justification for journalists to label him as a “moderate.”

Full story: No justification for journalists to label Coffman a “moderate”

Attention Journalists: Mike Coffman is NOT a “Moderate”

by: Colorado Pols Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM MDT

endangeredcoffman UPDATE: Jason Salzman weighs in with a similar conclusion.

—–

Somebody help out Tim Alberta at National Journal, please:

Heritage Action, an influential group that works closely with the Republican Study Committee and its conservative members, wrote a letter Thursday to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., urging them not to bring two bills to the floor…

But the notion that House Republicans should steer clear of any potentially discordant votes did not sit well with some lawmakers.

“This is the House of Representatives,” said Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona, a conservative RSC member who said he normally supports Heritage Action’s efforts. “We need to step up and do our work.”

At the opposite end of the GOP’s ideological spectrum, Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., a moderate who sometimes refers to himself as an independent, [Pols emphasis] scoffed at the suggestion…

Okay, obviously, full stop. We don't claim to know who Tim Alberta is, whether he's been a political reporter for decades, just graduated from college or what. We could find out, of course, but we frankly aren't going to bother. What we will do is say again, as succinctly as we can, that Rep. Mike Coffman is no "moderate"–and that this reporter is facilitating an underway wholesale reinvention that Coffman is trying desperately to pull off without too much scrutiny. Little aside references like this one slowly aggregate into a body of such references, and presto!

The guy who only last year told fellow Republicans that President Barack Obama "is not an American," who co-sponsored Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" bill, H.R.3 in 2011, who tried to restrict the delivery of bilingual ballots to U.S. citizens, who called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme," and who served as loony-right Rick Perry's campaign chair in Colorado is now a "moderate who sometimes refers to himself as an independent."

It's painfully obvious to everyone who knows the history here that Coffman's breakneck-speed reinvention from hard-right to "moderate" is happening to facilitate his continued survival in a district that is no longer overwhelmingly conservative, as his seat was prior to the 2010 redistricting cycle in Colorado–the extremist Rep. Tom Tancredo's former district, in fact. The only question is whether or not he will be allowed by the media to get away with it.

Full story: Attention Journalists: Mike Coffman is NOT a “Moderate”

IRS troubles light up CO Springs talk radio

by: Jason Salzman Tue May 21, 2013 at 9:56 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Jeff Crank works for Koch-Brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity and doubles as a poster child for conservative talk-radio host, holding forth on KVOR in Colorado Springs.

I offer Crank's comments below, from Saturday's show, to illustrate how the troubles at the IRS give echoers like Crank the perfect springboard to reach for their deepest anti-government rhetoric, while demonizing Obama at the same time in the most extreme and shadowy ways.

Crank: “This is the moment to stand up and say we need to rip the IRS out by its roots! Grab it and throw it away and eliminate it! Get RID of the IRS! Throw it out the window! Let it be—throw it on the ash heap of history! Make it be the Soviet Union! Something that we remember in the disant past! No federal agency should be feared like this – and bureaucrats should never ever have this kind of power. It’s sickening! It’s absolutely sickening to see this kind of thing.”

He added that it’s sicker that we don’t have a leader in the White House who will stand up and get rid of these Jack Booted thugs at the IRS. Then later, he got more specific about Obama:

Caller (Mrs. Youngblood): "The reason I thought why the IRS is attacking most of the religious organizations was that to silence them because he [Obama] is wanting to establish a One World Religion…which would be Muslim. These religious organizations just didn’t meet his standards. [he’s trying to] Keep them from growing. I know he’s Muslim."

Crank: "…Some people will argue, 'Oh, he’s not Muslim.' Whatever, I’ll tell you this — He’s no friend of Christianity. When you’re attacking churches left and right and their tax status… there’s not one mosque that’s come forward and said, 'You know what? The IRS is really attacking us' Did you notice that, Mrs. Youngblood?"

Asked via Twitter if Crank really thinks Obama is "no friend of Christianity," Crank replied: "I said there weren't any Mosques that got an IRS root canal. Christian ministries did. True?"

Full story: IRS troubles light up CO Springs talk radio

What Happens When You Have No Candidate

by: Colorado Pols Tue May 21, 2013 at 8:42 AM MDT

They too would like to be Governor.

FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

If Colorado Republicans are looking for a fresh face to take on Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper next year, one of them just appeared.

Out of nowhere.

Well, Rhode Island, really.

Steve Laffey, a former mayor and GOP Senate candidate who moved to Colorado just three years ago, has filed papers to run for governor in 2014.

Laffey’s campaign manager, Patrick Davis, began dropping hints on Facebook Monday night. Laffey is expected to officially announce his campaign Tuesday morning on the Amy Oliver Show.

We wrote yesterday about Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call's surprisingly frank admission this weekend in the Durango Herald that the Republican bench of eligible candidates for high office has "suffered" after years of losses. Yesterday afternoon, FOX 31 put up a story with Call speculating about as many as five candidates, and a "robust primary" to include such GOP luminaries as Secretary of State Scott Gessler, Sen. Greg Brophy, and perhaps even Attorney General John Suthers–though the story notes later that Suthers has already ruled this out.

Well folks, now you know why Call was so eager to get other names out there. Back in the real world, outside observers are increasingly confused as to why nobody has formally jumped into either of the two top-ticket races in Colorado for 2014. It's incongruous, especially given presumptions about having "awakened the sleeping giant" over gun control, that nobody is serious about taking on Hickenlooper. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Brophy, the likeliest candidate so far along with the polarizing Gessler, has no appreciable chance.

Bottom line: something had better happen, and soon, because the Dan Maes clown car is en route.

Full story: What Happens When You Have No Candidate