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%
October 30, 2009 05:54 PM UTC
83 Comments
What ?!
Omg! I guess all the leftie purist here on CPols will now show up to roast Rep DeGette for not leading or being stronger or some such hooey.
Oh wait- she’s a D insider so it’s ok for her to be pragmatic and realistic.
Personally, I’m still waiting for her to endorse Barack Obama. the closest she came last year was “we’re all Democrats now”.
….my absent Rep from CD1 takes every opportunity to mention she’s a Dem Whip, be it in her few appearances or propaganda from her office.
Point blank, she sucks at it. It’s not a position awarded for nice hair or outstanding party loyalty, it’s a freakin; important job requiring skillz to line up votes.
This isn’t the first time she’s failed at this job, it probably won’t be the last….
You must be looking at different pictures.
I think she gets her hair done the same place DEVO does…
They call it whip because even with one you can’t always get all the votes you need.
As my knowledge of the inside game has increased, my opinion of Rep. Degette has increased exponentially.
The house and senate operate in completely different manners and the house is driven by majority management.
The Democrats were in the minority so long individual representatives learned to pick their battles tactically FBO their districts. The 3 year majority position has meant that the Democrats have to unlearn some of the habits they have learned during their time in the minority (i.e. thinking strategically): and I think that Rep Degette really understands the strategic position.
He was on the side of corporate CEOs.
The Blue Dogs actually have legitimate concerns about health care access in rural areas as a result of the criminally low Medicare reimbursement rates. Because of the outdated geographic adjustment formulas many rural doctors and hospitals can only stay in business by either not taking Medicare and Medicaid patients or by cost shifting onto private insurance. They used the best leverage they had to make sure their constituents wouldn’t lose the access to health care they have.
Jared Polis on the other hand was concerned with the millionaires whose tax shelters aren’t up to snuff.
No, I am sticking up for small business, not large business. Corporate CEOs work for “C Corps” which pay a tax rate of 35% that was never on the table during this debate (though it should have been IMHO).
The initial revenue proposal would have put small business at a disadvantage to corporate CEOs. The adjustment to both the size of businesses covered by the pay or play penalty and the surcharge threshold make this bill much more of a positive for small business.
Congressman Jared Polis
If it were advantageous they would do so (sometimes it is)
And more will as a result of this law; that’s not a bad thing on the margins, but another concern of mine with the initial proposal is that so many small businesses would elect to file as a C Corp (35%) as opposed to a S/Corp or LLC (under the initial proposal, 44.6%) that we would have come up shorthanded for revenue to pay for our affordability credits for middle class families.
As you know, an owner can take money out of a S Corp or LLC without any additional taxation, whereas with a C Corp there is an additional income or dividend tax applied (depending on how it is taken out).
One thing this bill does, now more slightly than before, is provide an incentive for S Corps and LLCs, particularly mid-size small businesses in the $1mm+ annual profits/year range, to become C Corps
This is a big fat give away to Insurance Companies. It also protects the wealthy while once again screwing the middleclass. But we are in an era of near real time politics and once the American people realize you have screwed them again they will not forget.
And your pathetic excuse of helping small businesses may play well to a few wealthy Boulderites but it will not play well to the middleclass who now will be forced to buy insurance they can’t afford at costs they can’t pay. You think your explanation is so credible and makes everything you did okay but I don’t even understand what you are saying and I have been in accounting/finance for 20+ years. First off the tax differences between what a Corporation pays and what an S Corporation or LLC pays is complex and not as simplistic as you make it sound. And it worries me that you think you are protecting the wealthy in the first place. You are in fact hurting them by weakening the middleclass. Remember no middleclass, no one to buy the products of the filthy rich or small businesses. This means the middleclass, the group that has sustained our economy since the last Great Depression is weakened even further and they will have no disposable income to support a recovery.
You don’t have to believe what I say just look at what is happening to the banks. They refused to negotiate with homeowners and proceeded to foreclose on properties at a record pace. Now they are stuck with properties no one can afford to buy and homeowners who pay their mortgages or have paid off their mortgages are stuck with properties that are worth less than what they owe or less than what they paid. And the banks are now facing a new wave of foreclosures called strategic foreclosures estimated in the millions. When you deplete the resources of the middleclass and you don’t expect a fall out you are not legislating in real time you are legislating using economic principles that have not only been debunked they have been responsible for the economic abyss we currently find ourselves. I suggest you read The Conscience of a Liberal to gain a better understanding of economics.
In my opinion, the three finest Congressmen in the nation are Mike Coffman, Doug Lamborn, and Jared Polis
Love them or hate them – these three guys actively host town halls, they are active in their communities, and they are CONSTANTLY visible – I have yet to find someone in their Congressional districts who hasn’t either met them or been invited to meet them – thus, when they speak, they represent what America truly wants
It’s more than “acceptable” to follow their good leads
As far as other terrific Congressmen/women, gotta give shout outs to David Dreier, Diana Degette (for NOT supporting the Patriot Act), Darrell Issa, Dana Rohrabacher, Keith Ellison, and Andre Carson
I can see some of the others–those make sense–but Lamborn? Honestly? What has he done since 2006 that is remotely memorable, that has made a difference for anyone in this country or in Colorado?
….Good Old Chickenhawk Doug has NEVER made a deployment or re-deployment ceremony at any of the bases in the Springs.
He voted against the GI Bill, and his office still has no clue how to handle the most basic problems with TriCare or the VBA.
Most Repubs I know in the Springs hold their nose and vote for Doug out of weariness that borders on battered spouse syndrome.
Seriously, this is the guy who replaced Joel Hefley?
Because it’s a horrible insult to stupid people.
but former state senator Ed Jones set the bar for “stupid” among El Paso County legislators, and it’s a tough one to clear. Lamborn is mainly just ideological, arrogant, angry, and hostile.
Remember Maryanne Tebedo? Or Charlie “Sometimes I Hear the Voice of Beast” Duke? Or Bill “the Fister” Cadman? Or Schlutheis? Or the Kicker?
Refresh my recollection; exactly how stupid was Ed Jones compared to these others?
between “stupid” and “insane”. Ed Jones was not particularly insane. He was just honest-to-goodness stupid. So I can’t point to anything as crazy as Schultheis or Charlie Duke. I can just say that, having called and talked to him as a constituent multiple times before eventually supporting John Morse, he never knew what the legislation was about, and he basically followed orders from Republican leadership without thought or understanding.
Example: I called him four times about the bill last year to extend the compulsory attendance age, asking him to do something about a few unintended consequences (e.g., postponing eligibility of students for alternative education programs, such as the family program at one district in the Springs that caters to students with young children). He consistently agreed with me, and then promptly forgot, and then couldn’t even recall the conversation sometimes the very next day. I finally had to wait for the bill to pass the Senate, and then call Merrifield, who introduced an amendment to fix the problem in committee.
I mean that in the perplexing way, not in the insulting way.
I won’t comment on your opinion, other than to say I disagree and you are wrong on some verifiable facts (rather than just opinion), but I find myself fascinated by your politics.
is one word to use.
The very fact that you lump Polis in with Coffman and Lamborn should tell Polis something.
On behalf of most sane people, I don’t think most of us are, no matter how much we disagree with him on net neutrality or HRC.
🙂
You claim that because they are so engaged and accessible in their districts, they therefore represent what America actually wants.
to make the more general case- what if an elected official was accessible, and present and totally engaged, but still voted his/her own heart and mind instead of what the voters of his/her consttuency really wanted?
Never mind America. The nation has proved we are not a right leaning electorate. No way Lamborn & Coffman speak for all of America -let alone Rohrbacher.
Your logic is incomplete.
I can’t speak to Lamborn’s fidelity, but I’m pretty sure most of the voters of CD2 would have been just fine with the tax proposal that drove Polis to embarrass himself by trying to embarrass his own party.
Coffman is apparently a decent guy. CD6 is solidly R, though I suspect there are more than a few CD6 R’s that would side with the property owners in PiГ±on Canyon.
I would never say that Polis/Coffman/Lamborn speak for America – they speak for their districts – I admire that – they’ll never sell their districts out for their Party
We need more Congressmen/women like that – that’s my point
…I have yet to find someone in their Congressional districts who hasn’t either met them or been invited to meet them – thus, when they speak, they represent what America truly wants…
Maybe I’m reading that wrong.
They speak for themselves – you haven’t convinced me otherwise- and we don’t need more congressional representation like that.
…and I’ll say it again –
Doug Lamborn set the standard for Conservative street fighters in Colorado
I don’t agree with everything Congressman Lamborn does, but he has held a leadership position for a long time with the Republican Party – he’s not one of the guys that jumps on board whenever we (Republicans) get popular – he’s been fighting for the Party for a long long long time and he’ll stay fighting, no matter the odds – that’s been proven
I recognize him as one of my favorite Congressmen because he set a great standard for Republican leadership, in setting up and maintaining grassroots relationships – something that many Congressmen/women can learn from him
In that regard – Congressman Lamborn KNOWS his people and represents them well – I admire that – again, I don’t agree with every opinion of his, but he’s a phenomenal leader and a good example of leadership for the entire Party
Is that secret code for “abusing his franking privileges?”
SERIOUSLY?
CD2 is military and veteran first, except for Rev Dobson’s whackjob compound.
And the Congressman who has never seen ANY military member off to war, or welcomed him back ” KNOWS his people and represents them well?”
A Congressman that voted against one of the best rewards we’ve EVER given our military (The 9/11 GI Bill) “set(s) a great standard for Republican leadership, in setting up and maintaining grassroots relationships?”
Did you go and get a Medical MJ card today?
I always appreciate the dialogue
….normally, your posts are not this much of a reach. The ideological ones on GOP politics, yes. But normally not when it comes to actual people.
I’ve found Congressman Lamborn to be very well reasoned on his positions and I stand by that opinion
Yes, it seems that I’m reaching, but as a Colorado GOP activist myself, I can attest that we would be in terrible shape without Lamborn’s good leadership
….I can only imagine what you think “terrible” means…
I said we’d be in “terrible” shape without Congressman Lamborn
Then there’d only be two Republicans out of 14 statewide and federal offices in Colorado. So at least Lamborn’s got that going for him.
….you oughta put more sugar in your drinks and less vinegar, RedGreen….
🙂
**blush**
being equated with Lamborn is embarassing
🙂
Comments like that is why you won’t ever get elected to anything more than county dog catcher.
But where you live in Beaver Creek, they don’t use county dog catchers do they? That would be well below your econo/socio class…
That of being called a traitor to his class.
I am SO glad that due to geography I didn’t vote for him, which I would have if I was in CD 2.
Now, Barack? He’s doing pretty much what I expected. Again, the lesser of evils.
How come all we hear about is how much HC reform is going to cost. Oh, yeah, a few shekels to be saved by computerization of records.
But why is it our costs are double those of all the other HC systems?
Why?
Oh, maybe cuz the insurers are still in this?
In the last thread on this topic, Polis talked about his concerns over taxes on small businesses to pay the health care reform bill, to which I responded that I think the general concern is legitimate, though the particular application (scuttling a vital bill) was horribly misguided.
But that is a completely different matter from a surtax on the personal income of the wealthiest Americans. I do not think that there is any legitimate issue there: Such a tax is long overdue. It has very marginal economic repurcussions, imposes no hardship on anybody, and supplies much needed revenues. Opposing such a tax, and doing so at such a critical juncture in such a destructive way, is indefensible.
is that it was a tax that specifically applied to individuals who are owners of small businesses, hence it’s a little bit of both.
I remember David and someone else explaining it well when it first came up.
My concern was regarding S Corps and LLCs (typically small businesses) that pay that rate. Wealthy individuals are less important economicly than small businesses for which the tax rate directly impacts job creation.
I am thrilled with these developments in the bill, and particularly excited that health care reform allows small businesses access to the exchange, effectively giving them the same buying power that large corporations have always enjoyed.
a small business owner(s) chooses to pay taxes as an individual. Both S corps and LLCs filing as S corps (LLCs can file as C corps) are taxably indistinct from individuals. If it was advantageous to pay taxes as a C corp, they would. Why should we protect a specific class of people making $450,000 (I think that was the number) a year if it means a) killing health care or b) putting that cost on to people that are unemployed, underemployed or just getting by?
As to the “jobs” argument: Small business is a job creation engine, but labor costs are a deduction and would bring an S-corp AGI down so this would actually create an incentive to hire more people if people change their business practice to avoid paying taxes. They would also offer more generous benefit packages since a benefit packages offered to all employees become above the line deductions.
That clarifies a lot.
End of last year we paid a boatload of taxes compared to profit (due to stuff over the last 3 years that frankly, I don’t understand at all).
If we had not paid it, it would have not gone in my pocket, it would have been used to hire 2 additional people this year. It could go direct to my pocket with no additional taxes taken out – but it would not have.
That is the core issue Jared is concerned with. I think the root problem is not so much the rate, but when it is assessed. If money I kept in the company was not taxed, then I could invest more in my business.
and I know that for you it is, perhaps you should consult your tax advisor, maybe you are large enough that C is the way to go. It is easier to do some things that qualify as growing/reinvesting in the business.
Then you would pay yourself in options, salary and bonus, just the way you would when you worked for microsoft.
I assume your business is closely held (you and maybe a few key employees) because S’s are forced to do it that way.
I don’t know what your succession plan is, but C or S can have an impact on that as well.
BTW I know enough about this to know that I don’t know enough about most of it.
Danny, yes the structure is a pass-through, but so what? Claiming $450K doesn’t mean the owner is taking home $450K. For us, if we made $450K, we’d take a fraction of it in personal income and put the rest into growing the business.
Correct me if I’m wrong (really, please do): I think you’re arguing that wealthy people are protecting themselves through creative use of the corp codes (making it look like they are struggling small businesses when they’re really just successful individuals) and they shouldn’t be protected. I think JP is arguing that this is about the operations of small businesses, and regardless of annual profit they should be allowed to keep as much of their profit (not revenue, profit) as possible to encourage them to grow.
The $450k is not a revenue number it is a Profit/income number.
putting money back in to the business is an expense, and reduces the AGI.
If you are speaking of phantom income, this is not putting money back in to the business, it is holding income at the corporate level. If the money were being used to grow the business it would be an expense.
There are some legitimate reasons for holding money at the corporate level unused (rainy day fund), but I’ve more commonly seen it used for illegitimate ones (reducing personal income in child support matters, avoiding payment of personal creditors). If it is important there are options available (C corp).
LLC’s that are actually securities/property investment vehicles.
This really isn’t about reinvesting in a business that generates jobs, but rather about creating tax shelters for speculators. I don’t want to get in to that issue however.
include the surtax on the personal income of the wealthiest Americans, or did that fall by the wayside along with the tax on S Corps and LLCs? And what are the costs to the extent and robustness of the reform itself?
If a scalpal was taken to the bill to avoid an economically detrimental provision without cutting out another well-conceived source of funding, and if the scope of reform and probability of passing were not substantially diminished in the process, then it was a praise-worthy move. But if the cost of this protection of small business was either the robustness or probability of passage of the bill, then it’s way too high a cost to have incurred.
How revenue is gathered is independent of the total amount of revenue gathered. The bill because slightly smaller in scope primarily because President Obama requested that it be under $900 billion. Our initial House bill was over one trillion. Once the size is determined, we work on a various combination of methods of paying for it.
I am glad to say that the most important and largest expenditures in the bill, the affordability credits to help people pay for health care insurance (up to an income level of over $80k/year for a family of four) are still intact, although they are weaker in the Senate version.
Aren’t those credits simply a subsidy to the insurance industry?
The public option in the bill is now the same version that is one of the two Senate Bills. It has no trigger, it has no state opt-out, it is a strong public option.
We tried hard to get the votes for the medicare-pegged public option, but we topped out around 200 (we need 218 to pass anything). The Speaker engaged and really tried to get the votes for the more robust version.
If we had gotten the more robust version, which saves over $80billion more than the current version of the public option, the bill could have raised taxes even less and reduced the deficit even more!
Hopefully it can be fixed.
Let me suggest that you aren’t going to get rid of me that easily.
You support a bill that, by your own admission, costs the taxpayers $80 billion more than it needs to.
That sounds like waste to me, and certainly deserves an explanation.
Are you saying that you are in favor of pissing away $80,000,000,000? Zeroes are included for emphasis. Sometimes people forget how much money we are talking about.
I don’t understand why some people are opposed to the medicare-pegged public option either. It saves a lot more money and provides better patient choice.
From the rumblings in the caucus it seemed like some members thought it would be unfair to providers, but providers are allowed to opt out if they wanted.
I would have much rather we saved the extra money, raised taxes less, and offered patients a more robust choice.
And no, it is highly unlikely that Congress will now move towards the robust option. Our real chance was two weeks ago through last week. Now the focus is on keeping the public option in. Even the negotiated rates version of the public option saves (not as much) money, around $30 billion.
Even Howard Dean is opposed to pegging at Medicare rates. The broken geographic multipliers are already he leading cause of the mass exodus of doctors from rural areas because unfortunately all the S-Corp tax shelters in the world aren’t going to make $36 an hour before expenses pay for $500k in student loan debt. Of course half a million dollars in student loan debt probably doesn’t mean much to you.
Here’s what John Nichols of The Nation wrote about the house version of the plan.
And thanks for your back-and-forth with Danny clarifying some of the variables. It’s always a plus to get an education out of the deal!
And an insurance company like Aetna or BCBS administer the plans. This enables the large corporations to keep the profits they make off their employees.
Steve is right. The wealthy have been given a free-ride for long enough. It’s unconscionable that today a secretary pays more in taxes than the CEO she works for.
1) Don’t beat up Jared Polis for the one true thing to come out of his mouth in almost two years. That tax would’ve hurt the producers in our economy, and therefore the economy as a whole.
2) LOL @ the “several people” who “expect the new House bill to be pretty close to what we’ll see in the final package that gets sent to President Obama.” I can’t believe you guys still think ANYTHING is going to pass through Congress. Give it up already…America doesn’t want more bureaucracy. There’s enough as it is…
your speaking for it, when America speaks for itself it says something completely different. That creates a difficult conundrum: Whether to believe a single, unwavering ideologue’s depiction of what America wants, coincidentally identical to what he wants; or should we believe what America itself declares that it wants in numerous scientifically conducted polls? So hard to choose….
…if Americans really wanted a public option, Congress would’ve passed it by now. They’re only having difficulty because Democrats from swing states/districts are, Betsy Markey not withstanding, shying away from it.
The best proof you’ll get that the country is turning away from Obama and Democrats is when you see a big green check mark next week next to the names Chris Christie, Doug Hoffman, and Bob McDonnell. I wont try to challenge your “scientific” polls. There’s no better proof than losing elections. And don’t bother with “Yeah, but last year…”
The reason why Congress is not acting in accord with the majority of Americans is because of the anomalies of regional representation, and the power (sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing) of a minority to obstruct the will of the majority in American politics.
57% of Americans want a public option (a far larger majority wants significant health care reform of some kind). You don’t. I get it. And, again, you don’t.
then the fact that both houses of congress, the white house, the Colorado governor’s office, our two senators and five out of seven of our congresspeople, as well as majorities in both houses of our state legislature, are all in Democratic hands, seems to disprove your own assertion more handily than my scientific polls. Against all of that objective evidence, of the very form that you suggest is most compelling, is your arbitrary and completely unsupported assertion to the contrary.
…much like a Democrat, fiscally anyway (see: TARP). Socially in some ways too (see: Medicare Part D). The Republican led Congress rubber stamped that agenda, and they paid for it. Notice that when Democrats won all those elections, they didn’t do it by talking about a public option. They did it by not being Republicans.
Now, maybe (just maybe), but I doubt it, when the Republicans regain control of all three branches, they’ll actually govern on the platforms on which they get elected.
governed much like a Republican fiscally, since throughout the past thirty years our deficit has grown most rapidly under Republican administrations.
It’s well known that people tend to perceive all evidence in ways which support what they already hold to be true. It’s nevertheless astonishing when they go through such fantastic contortions to do so. Enjoy your reality.
So what did I say that pissed you off Congressman? I know it wasn’t my comments on that “egotistical, ill-advised revolt” you led a few months ago or you would have blocked me at that time?
My last tweets to you were
And
Surely it wasn’t this tweet
Unless you don’t like your name associated with our two Senators.
My husbands very small business, in profit and employees, could no longer afford health insurance premiums and we all lost our coverage over a year ago. They have not been able to hire any new employees or give more hours to current part-time employees. What have you done to help us?? What are you doing to help us??
I don’t expect a reply as I didn’t even get a reply from you or your staff regarding the letter I sent to you a few months ago. The same letter I sent to both Senators Udall and Bennet and Udall was the only one that sent me a letter acknowledging my letter and addressing the issues I wrote about.
I can’t even begin to say how very disappointed my husband and I are in you. You can block me all you want but you can’t block our votes; I can guarantee we will be rethinking our next vote.
No idea why you are blocked, what’s your tweetname? I’ll unblock you
The only blocking I’ve done is out of district tweetbombers, but I never block anyone in district.
And thank you for replying!
What I should have typed after that 3rd tweet quote was Unless you were upset that you weren’t mentioned with our two Senators.
I’m not accusing you of such, because you seem to have legitimate concerns.
I’m merely suggesting that you consider how you are perceived.
You have asked, “What have you done to help us?” Many people might ask, “What have you done for yourselves?”
Pesky, I know. But I am, after all, from Mesa County.
It is unfair to look down upon a man merely because he loves himself and all that he surrounds himself with more than those he has sworn to steward, but Polis’ motivations become clearer with each passing day, do they not?
As I’ve said before, Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. Polis has nothing no fear in history’s gaze, as his lust for power and materialism at the expense of principle will never afford him greatness. And, what does he care? He aspires to naught but to satiate his own thirst for more.
Un ministre est excusable du mal qu’il fait, lorsque le gouvernail de l’Г‰tat est forcГ© dans sa main par les tempГЄtes; mais dans le calme il est coupable de tout le bien qu’il ne fait pas.