U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 07, 2011 09:16 PM UTC

Putting Your Worst Foot Forward

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Pueblo Chieftain’s Patrick Malone reports, the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) teamed up with the Independence Institute yesterday, to offer a vision of the Colorado budget that should make the job of Democrats easier.

Economists from the Independence Institute proposed replacing the Public Employees’ Retirement Association with a defined contribution for new state employees, offering tuition tax credits for students attending private K-12 schools, vouchers as a primary source for college tuition and reducing the Medicaid rolls…

The report also urged a shift in how college funding is distributed. Rather than colleges receiving state funding directly, it recommended that students be given an amount to spend wherever they choose – including private institutions – for a finite amount of time.

University of Colorado economist Barry Poulson, a senior fellow at the Independence Institute, said the change would foster competition between universities to lure students. Similarly, the report recommended tax credits for tuition at private K-12 schools.

Ben DeGrow of the Independence Institute recommended making the credits available primarily for those students who withdrew from public schools to enroll in private ones, and that the credit should be extended to not only families, but also corporations and individuals who fund scholarships to private schools.

The Independence Institute also called for restoring the state’s Medicaid rolls to 2007 levels, before a large surge in enrollment driven by the economic downturn and legislative actions that expanded eligibility.

Part of this is simple: to further reduce funding for public education by funding private schools, at a time when the public schools are already facing cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars, is either a totally unserious proposal, or a proposal deliberately engineered to harm public schools. Either way, it’s the only possible outcome. Only slightly less audacious is the proposal to “restore” the Medicaid rolls to pre-recession levels, which would have the direct effect of cutting off health care to thousands of residents; residents who went on Medicaid both through expanded access, and as a simple consequence of the recession. And what happens if you take those people off of Medicaid and they get sick or injured? They’re still going to go to the emergency room, and those costs are still going to get passed on to everyone else.

And once again, as we’ve said repeatedly in this space, eluding serious discussion is the fact that Colorado’s tax burden, due to constitutional chokeholds on revenue pushed by the same people, remains significantly below the national average.

Why are we talking about these extreme remedies? What created the problem to begin with?

The RSCC and the Independence Institute could be seen as performing a great service to Democrats with these “proposals”–ideas as frightening as any attack ad, which segue directly into a more serious discussion we expect Jon Caldara does not want to have.

Tweet
Share

Comments

29 thoughts on “Putting Your Worst Foot Forward”

  1. They make it sound like this is just a friendly, free-market proposition where the same amount of funding would be distributed according to student choice, but universities aren’t funded by tuition alone. Sounds like the Republicans want either double or triple digit tuition hikes, or the closure of Colorado’s public universities. As a college student in Colorado, I would really like to be talked out of this impression if I’m wrong, Polsters!  

  2. They do say to go back to 2007 Medicaid rolls by kicking off 1000s of the most vulnerable… but then they go on to call for getting out of Medicaid altogether. I would recommend reading their full report, I don’t think it will work in their favor.

  3. from the PERA system, you also remove their prospective contributions from that system.  You “lock in” the PERA deficit at its present level.

    This means that either all future PERA disbursments will have to come from PERA fund investments, or the Colorado taxpayer will be on the hook for those deficits — something that these folks, er disengenuous bastards, know that they won’t support, is untenable, and won’t happen.

      2. when you BEGIN with a conclusion,

        . . . switching to defined contribution will have to happen

        then the details aren’t all that much important anyway.

            1. But I also think defined benefits tend to be more “one size fits all” while defined contribution works better for both people that bounce from job to job (which I think is now the norm) and to allow each person to make their own decision at which age to retire.

              I also think medical costs are driving companies and governments to defined contribution. Because they don’t know how much they’re going to increase and that uncertainty can break and defined benefits plan.

              1. is that people live longer.  Nothing in what you just wrote deals with that root problem any differently in a defined contributions setting than could be dealt with in a defined benefits setting.

                But, further, if the root problem is really people living longer, what will you do with all those folks who you have transferred to a defined contributions plan who attenuate?  How then will you handle those living costs?  (And just a reminder, we’re talking PERA/retirement, not health care.)

                1. If it’s defined contribution then individuals will make their own decision as to how long to keep working vs how much they’ll have when they retire.

                  As to the existing members invested in PERA, we face a problem there regardless. We need to pay that out as we are obligated and that could require some tax money to fund the transition.

                  But the sooner we address this the better as longevity will continue to increase which will make this problem worse.

                  1. I don’t see a lot of support for or desirability for people working into their 80’s and 90’s.  Longevity is a problem either way, forcing folks into a defined contributions plan

                    doesn’t address that, it just kicks that can down the road and a little further out of sight.

                    Defined contributions work well for companies (like yours?) that probably don’t forsee operating another 20 or 30 years into the future and are only concerned about maximizing profits.  Government is another issue however (and that liability won’t go away or disappear regardless.)

                    Lastly, I know why Republicans support defined contributions — it’s a lot easier and a lot more profitable to screw someone out of a lump sum 401K (or similar investment).  And then, once the screwing is complete they can always cast the support for any of the drained, lifeless husks remaining back on the government.

                    1. Because while we plan to have the company around in 30 years, a large chunk of the employees will have moved elsewhere. As a company grows it changes and those changes mean people move on, either because they want to go start their own company or they want to try something else or they want to go to another start-up.

                    2. to defined contributons plans.  PERA has portability for those folks who move on to other places, plus it has the benefit of not attenuating those folks who do participate until retirement.

                      I’m not seeing a whole lot of logical support for your pre-conclusion from you.

  5. We already have a severe shortage of qualified people in this state. We’ve had 4 full-time & 3 paid internships open for several months – and can’t find anyone. And these guys want to reduce those numbers???

    And make no mistake, this will reduce the number of well educated people in the state.

  6. Just the same old Independence Institute policies Caldera and his cronies have been espousing for years.

    II’s plan, summarized:

    1. Destroy Public Education

    2. …Actually, that’s the whole plan.

      1. In Caldera’s America, the first thing that needs to go away is a child’s first interaction with the State. It makes destroying everything else so much easier when that kid turns 18 and can vote.

      2. But if you tried to say that to an II member, they’d tell you that you were making an argument about class warfare which is a de facto losing argument in their eyes. Despite the fact that they are the one waging class warfare.

            2. David Harsanyi, John Andrews and Vincent Carroll. Paid or unpaid staff?

              Are Claremont Institute and Centennial Institute just other divisions of II?

              For that matter, isn’t the Denver Post the PR arm for II?

              1. John Andrews was a founder, and/or perhaps a past president.

                And, yes Stinky’s Fishwrap is the print arm of their publicity operation.  KBDI is the television arm for publicity.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

252 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!