U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
March 02, 2010 04:53 PM UTC
83 Comments
Griffith has become a powerful representative of The People’s will. With 90% of Americans relying on over priced healthcare the Dems only solution is more forced used of insurance. The problem is the 90% that have it and that portion of the 10% that don’t who still are net taxpayers, will foot the bill.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer….
Or do you, like most of us, not even really bother to read what you post?
I don’t know html, so why it appeared at the top I do not know.
and learn HTML?
to identify a Liber-turd. Don’t expect any response to comments. He’ll just move on to the next press release from from somewhere over the far right rainbow.
Here’s something that caught my eye and I’d like to hear what some of our smart, financially literate people have to say about it:
Continued at http://www.housingwatch.com/20…
I think Repo and the liquidity market in general is ground zero. It is not the only cause, but it is a significant one.
I have pounded the table for years how financial risk models do not properly account for counterparty risk. Repo is a dual backed security, part of it is the value of the collateral part is the strength of the counterparty. When AAA counterparties such as AIG suddenly become insolvent the value of the underlying securities becomes a real issue.
Also left unsaid was how GLB undoing Glass-Stegall took out the breakpoints that would have stopped a security crisis in the trading portfolios jumping to the general banking crisis.
Let me finish by saying Repo is a great tool and I love it, the problem is the environment it operates in.
someday, off line how and why that worked and why you left?
Happy to.
I had you in mind when I asked for smart financially literate feedback!
in why knowing that you might be wrong, and feeling compelled to defend a position rather than just assert it, even at great length, makes for strong arguments and directs us toward better conceived public policies.
Why increased administrative authority to fire teachers would almost certainly not improve the quality of the teacher pool, and would in fact probably impoverish it:
1) The demand for teachers is not going down, the pool of money with which to pay salaries is not on the verge of going dramatically up, and people respond to the incentives they are faced with.
2) When you put these facts together, increased firing authority to administrators results in a possible reduction of some bad teachers on the margins (though a surprising number of exceptional teachers would probably get the ax as well), but also results in a much more significant reduction in the number of excellent new teachers entering the profession. This is a consequence of imposing a net reduction of incentives for people with the most options to choose to become teachers (something which will result in those most capable of pursuing other professions to do so in larger numbers).
And why increased institutionalized community involvement would be a much more practical and useful step for education reform:
1) We utilize a free and abundant resource (volunteers, particularly retired folks).
2) We increase accountability by increasing transparency: The community is there, seeing how teachers teach, and evaluating them with the “genius of the many” informed by direct observation.
3) We do so without confronting many opposing vested interests, so it is very implementable.
4) And we strengthen communities in the process, which is a social development that we desperately need to make headway on.
From that foundation, we can build toward a model with ever-increasing accountability, and ever more functional incentive structures for all involved.
Teachers are only in it for the tenure? I don’t think so. In just about every other profession, workers are subject to firing. I don’t get why teachers require tenure.
And your idea of education reform rests on the backs of senior volunteers and community involvement?
I presume you have references to support your assertions. I’d be interested in seeing them.
tis a puzzlement.
As to Steve’s idea:
You have that in many schools. The question then is, what do you do when this transparency & accountability makes clear you have an inept teacher?
Apparently nothing:
Steve, I have one simple question for you. Let’s say we create your system exactly how you want. And that system will then make clear what teachers should not be teaching.
How do you fire them under your system?
Libby is the only one he can win an argument against.
You create a process with some distribution of responsibility for review, in which the cases on both sides are presented, and a decision is reached by a panel comprised not solely of administators, in full public view. This provides protections against political and improper removals, while providing a mechanism for removing the incompetent.
To ajb, no one is suggesting that “teachers are only in it for tenure.” Rather, teachers, like all people, are affected by the balance of incentives they are faced with. If you alter the balance so as to decrease the incentives, the choice that is therefore less incentivized is made less often. This is the very basis of economic theory, on which David pretends to rely.
You’re right: Teachers don’t require tenure. But if you move from the current status quo to a new regime in which the only difference is the elimination of tenure, you will, with almost mathematical certainty, attract fewer of the most qualified new applicants to the job than you currently do, because those are precisely the new entrants with the greatest ability to make other choices that are more lucrative.
And I’ll ignore David’s desparate baiting. My arguments require no such artificial support.
I agree 100%. That’s why I say we also need to have merit pay for teachers. Even better than that would be drop the base and have bonuses based on how far the kids in a teacher’s class advance that year. (And for administrators, how the school as a whole does.)
to increase the aggregate pay of teachers, and can’t legally simply abrogate existing contracts, we aren’t ready to put a substantial enough merit pay system into place yet. We would first need a realignment of public priorities, with a willingness to rather substantially increase teacher pay, and that’s not on the verge of happening (see my first post).
The sequence of reforms counts, and the vision of what eduction is and can be matters.
So you put the changes into effect today with the stipulation that the new contracts must meet the new rules. That’s why you start today.
1) Set base pay to 80% of where it is today.
2) Teachers who advance their class 90% – 100% of 1 year over the school year get a 20% bonus (ie what they were paid before).
3) Teachers at 80% – 90% get no bonus.
4) Teachers at 60% – 80% are put on probation.
5) Teachers under 60% are fired.
6) And for the teachers at over 100%? They get the 20% plus 1% for each 1% over 100%.
7) School level administrators go to 70% of base and their bonus is based on the school as a whole.
8) District level administrators go to 60% of base and their bonus is based on the district as a whole.
100% of expected improvement is based on the socio-economic status of the school.
And you eliminate the requirement of a teaching certificate to teach. All that’s required is a diploma form an accredited 4 year college.
Aside from the fact that the teacher’s union and the administrators would scream bloody murder (what – pay based on results???), what’s not to like?
outlined in my first post. Playing with the percentages doesn’t significantly alter the earning potential of going into education relative to going into other professions, and, to the extent that you offer competitive salaries to the most competent, you are offering even more non-competitive salaries to those who don’t survive the shark tank than you were offering before. The adverse incentive structure is not eliminated, and may in fact have been made even worse under your scheme.
Not to be harsh but when we’re about to lay off teachers we are not facing a shortage. The present pay scales clearly are sufficient to fill the jobs.
As to those that would see a pay cut under this scenario – good. They either learn to do better or they will leave. I’d prefer they improve but if they don’t then we want them to leave.
but rather because there’s no money. There is a chronic shortage of teachers, and an even more chronic shortage of highly qualified ones. The present pay-scales, combined with the present overall incentive structure, is sufficient to give us teachers of exactly the quantity and quality we currently have, which doesn’t leave a lot room for financing your whole quality-improvement project.
Your last two sentences are too clueless to respond to. But that hasn’t stopped me yet. You admitted at one point that measuring outputs is difficult, “but has to be done.” Now you are ready to throw those intrepid fledgling teachers into the trash on the basis of this unresolved technical hurdle? And you expect high quality applicants to line up for the opportunity to be evaluated according to measures that more often than not are measuring the effects of variables completely outside their control? Yeah. That’s brilliant.
Really not worth responding to at all, and all the attention you give him only gives his stupid ideas credibility.
They are not accepting applications for teaching or substitute teaching – they’re full up. I’d say that’s a clear measure that there’s no shortage of people wanting to teach.
So the applicant needs to cast a wider net – away from BVSD
for teachers or subs in Mesa, Delta and Montrose counties.
It’s not just Boulder.
I also think David is right about eliminating teacher certificates as a job requirement. A bachelor’s degree is sufficient.
BA/BS is enough for quality experienced teachers But not for new grads.
How would you feel about eliminating most of high school?
Say elementary school goes – preK – 7.
Secondary goes 8 & 9 or maybe 10.
Baccalaureate work begins then.
Kinda like 72 hours of posting for a final bill and cariied live on CSPAN, as opposed to no public disclosure, purchases, kickbacks and nightmovements in the whitehouse basement.
Sounds like Obamacare.
Ok Steve, can you name one system that does this that works well? The only place I can think of that comes close is faculty in Universities – where they have a giant problem that people with unpopular views do not get hired.
You also face the problem that this would be illegal. There are a boatload of laws that make personal issues private.
Not to mention that you want to talk about scaring off people from teaching – “hey all of your imperfections are going to be broadcast on channel 8 every year as a panel of people discuss if you should be retained.” And every student or parent you pissed off is going to get to tell their story in front of your community. Oh yeah, that’s going to bring them in.
it is patterned after an administrative law model. But I am not about to defend one hypothetical answer to a challenge to demonstrate an alternative possibility to authoritarianism in public school firing decisions; your challenge was to demonstrate that there are alternatives, and I demonstrated that there are alternatives. I hadn’t ever given the matter any thought before, and did not give it much now. The point is that we can design alternatives which protect people from political and cosmetic discharges while also creating a process for firing the incompetent.
Or are you going to claim victory because my off-the-cuff disproof of your premise isn’t a perfect solution to all problems?
I could say let flying unicorns make the decision and I will have proposed an alternative. The trick is to find something that works well and can be applied here.
I don’t care about claiming victory – I just want schools that are not a complete disaster like we presently have. If you can come up with a better way to review teachers – I’m in favor of it. But I think it needs to be something that has been shown to work well.
under the same set of circumstances in which that success occurs. This is not the same set of circumstances as your “something with a track record of success,” nor can it quite be, as I’ve laid out in agonizing detail over and over again. You might just as reasonably send in lion tamers, since they have a record of success at taming lions.
The track record of success that you are citing occurs in a completely different context, with different variables and imperatives at play. It is not as fungible as you think it is.
And the goal is not to review teachers; it’s to improve education. Reviewing teachers is one possible (probably essential) component of that goal, but it is not the goal itself. In terms of how better to achieve the actual goal, I have laid out a plan to do so, one which has few or no obstacles to implementation, is not, in fact, yet widely implemented, and sets in motion many positive developments that can then be built on.
Obviously, you meant that I am proposing flying unicorns, and you are proposing a common sensical solution. I think you have it backwards. You are proposing a magical panacea that a close analysis indicates would be flooded with dysfuntional unintended consequences, and would in aggregate accomplish exactly the opposite of what it is intended to accomplish.
You’d be better off with flying unicorns.
I, on the other hand, have proposed something based on an examination of the system we are trying to affect, including consideration of both existing and desired incentive structures. It’s an analysis rather than an assumption. Policies based on sweeping and superficial assumptions just aren’t that great an idea.
Numerous people who have looked for workable solutions have not only proposed what I have listed (that’s where I got it from), but they are doing it. Washington DC as one example.
You’ve proposed a complex untested system that has one Steve Harvey attesting to it’s effectiveness – and that’s it. The fact that you used a lot of big words to describe it does not mean it will work.
You’re right: It’s not the fact that I’ve worked with institutional economic models and in public education that is the reason why someone truly interested in seeking out the best and most viable solutions wouldn’t be so dismissive of my ideas, but rather because, in a world of uncertainty and human imperfection, ideas shouldn’t be dismissed, or embraced, with absolute certainty too precipitously.
By the way, my model is based on a huge body of research and theory, including a multi-million dollar project on which I was a core team member and ethnographer, in how to affect the normative structure of social institutional arrangements. The lion’s share of my academic training and research was devoted to understanding the interactions and trade-offs among, and relative strengths and weaknesses of, hierarchies and markets, and the role that agency problems play in those trade-offs, all of which are strongly implicated in your suggestion. But, you’re right, you undoubtedly know much more about these things than I ever will, because, after all, in your political analytical world knowledge is assumed rather than acquired.
I have stated several times that I don’t dismiss your ideas, but rather am critiquing them in search of the best ideas. Granted, you’ve been such an asshole about it that I started to become loath to feed into your pompous condescensions, but, in a discussion with someone less ideologically entrenched, I would have been far more interested in exploring the merits of what you had to say.
My ideas, unlike yours, are an exploration, not a final certainty. I don’t sit here and say, “This is it! Pack up your bags and go home, ’cause I got the final solution right here in my greasy little fist! Hallalujah!” No, David, I say that …wait for it… the world is a complex and subtle place, and our shared lives are a tangle of complex dynamical systems. There are some simple solutions, but you get to them by understanding complexity, not by ignoring it.
I know that I don’t know, and revel in the challenge of continually discovering, continually pondering, continually considering, and, yes, fighting to implement ideas ripe for experimentation. Trial and error is a vital part of the overall human endeavor. A better constucted and more carefully considered idea that incorporates some of what you are suggesting could be such an idea (and may be such an idea, elsewhere). But in the form you are presenting it, with the certainty you are insisting upon, with the complete lack of qualification or consideration of unintended consequences, it is definitely not ripe for experimentation. If you were writing a grant proposal with even the slightest hint of the inflexibility and arrogance that you have expressed here, it would be in the trash in almost the same motion that it was drawn from the envelope.
You, unlike me, already have the one best idea, and no one knows anything that can affect your certainty. I’m stuck in a more complex world, in which it’s not all quite so simple. You know I’m wrong, because Occam’s razor insists, in your interpretation, that any idea that is simpler must be better.
Okay, David. You win. You, after all, have the unique ability to go straight to the answers. I, with my inferior capacity, have to wrestle with the questions first.
lots and lots of last word actually.
The best and brightest potential new teachers considering entering the profession, I posit, are, on average, confident of their ability to be great teachers, and so would not be very much disincentivized by the prospect of being held accountable for the quality of their teaching. However, they are, I believe (and have observed), a somewhat risk-averse group (because a significant proportion of the brightest and most talented who are not risk-averse choose to bet their talents and intelligence on the riskier whims of the marketplace), some significant proportion of whom would be disincentivized to pursue a career in education if it is held at the whim of one or two individuals who have risen to positions of authority through a highly politicized process (in which case, the scales tip more in favor of the more lucrative market, which offers greater rewards at the same risk).
Yes, the sheer desire to teach is on the scales as well, but it is not alone on the scales. Any factor in isolation tips those scales one way or the other, all other things being equal.
I want to emphasize that ajb’s reduction of these interacting considerations to a simple dichotomy (either they are in it for tenure, or they are not in it for tenure) is not the way to think about it. There is a spectrum of people considering entering the field, and a variety of variables affecting their decisions. Alter the variables, and some of the people at one end or the other of the spectrum fall off. Considering only incoming new teachers (which should not be considered in isolation in the final analysis, but rather in combination with other considerations), the goal is to alter the variables so that the least qualified rather than most qualified fall off, and so that there are still enough new entrants to fill existing and potential vacancies, hopefully enough to replace the less qualified veteran teachers who are removed through a process that protects them against the caprice of a process dominated by attention to appearances.
Ideally, we would want to get to a place where the education becomes depoliticized, and the process runs more smoothly. But you don’t start moving toward that condition by making teachers more vulnerable from the outset. You put other reforms into place first.
Private schools and charter schools both do fine without that requirement. And it opens up the pool of qualified teachers by orders of magnitude.
That increase in the potential labor pool alone would address your worry about not enough superb teachers available.
would be (and is) an improvement over the prior system. That, in fact, is how I entered public education (“teacher-in-residence” program, for people with special skills in high demand). I don’t agree that it is a panacea. In fact, I don’t believe in panaceas. Especially ones that reduce to authorizing some individuals to exercise more caprice over the fate of other individuals. A little due process goes a long way.
Susan Shepherd is running for the City Council for the seat vacated by Rick Garcia.
Susan is one of the hardest workers around and I would bet that she wins.
That anyone other than Paula Sandoval has a shot in hell at this seat?
Yes, I think Susan Shepherd will beat Paula Sandoval
Why isn’t labor backing Sandoval?
I’ve got more responses at Leading by Example. Meanwhile I’ve emailed, written a letter, and left 3 phone messages with Dept of Revenue – still no response.
as opposed to the taxpayers advocate which of course doesn’t exist.
The dingle nuts that work under the Director and Deputy Director have free run of the place so I am not surprised. They consistantly engage in politics and policy making by going around the Director and Deputy Director to enact bad tax policy in the name of more government revenue.
No wonder that tax increase bill they crammed down your throat is causing you problems. Again, it’s just bad tax policy all around when as you pointed out they could have adopted the Boulder model or elements of it.
Now your industry and all businesses that buy from you will fail to create or save thousands of jobs in and around IT … but not in Utah. Trashing Colorado’s competitive advantage is one thing, but driving the job saving and creating to Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska or Georgia is truely sad.
With 40 years of failed NEA policies driving education into the toilet Obama is forced to awaken from a deep slumber. Unfortunately, he staggers to his feet holding the race card and claiming its a minority issue.
I hate to say it, but DPS is pretty white and its dropout rate exceeds 50% … the same goes for public schools across the nation — except in places like Colorado’s own Pueblo where nearly 75% graduate from High School.
Let’s be honest here …. this isn’t a race problem.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
I just emailed the following letter to Senator Bunning:
get to regularly abuse the system owned by the Taxpayers and funded by other business Taxpayers by calling your termination a furlough.
And just what tact has your employer taken with your healthcare?
Get off your lazy ass and find some day work. In Union Halls across America it’s call “side work” or “side jobs”, it is usually performed on weekends and nights.
Do try to be a benefit to society by at least volunteering at Denver general Hospital or some other charity of your choice. Hell call Steve Harvey and go knock on some doors for him.
Socialism for the business that abuses the system and socialism for the lazy worker who lacks the dignity to demand better for himself.
Where is the socialism for the the employers and workers who don’t abuse the system or support policy loopholes that promote socialism?
You wanna know why the Tea Party movement is so cranked up … this is a perfect example. Socialism for the Political Elites and loafers like Willis here.
My job actually has no benefits except a pay check (when I am working).
It is what I do for a living while I seek permanent employment. If I could go out any “find a job” so easily, I would not have this one. Notable one fo the conditions of unemployment is to actively seek employment. I fill out applications and send in resumes nearly daily.
And I do do temp work through temp agencies when my “regular” job is on furlough. My unemployment is then reduced by whatever I earn at these jobs. However, temp work is scarce these days too.
I do hope you find a good paying job.
People are just sick of the corrupt political elite and polically connected business and politically connected unions cutting special deals. So is Steve Wynn, so are the banks, so is everyone else that is sick and tired of the ignorant Democratic policies have abused tax policy and corrupted the fiber and core of America.
Your parties policies and tone are restircting the very job creation we all seek. The business of America is business – its not government and non profit sector growth.
..if Sen. Bunning feels he should take sole responsibility for stopping the release of funds for several things (unemployment just happens to be the one that affects me directly), then he should be also take the sole financial responsibilty for the havoc he is wreaking on people’s lives.
Some of the dollars he is holding up is to pay salaries so those currently working people are now going without; not because they they dont want to work, but they are being sent home as there are no fu’nds to pay them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…
What about socialism that delivers millions of gallons of Colorado River water to Nevada?
http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/…
He employs over 20,000 taxpayers. Your policies are wrong for capital formation, wrong for creating jobs and wrong for his emplooyees.
Your policy outcomes are resulting in the government receiving less tax revenue; this is the policy death spiral your Party has mandated America follow.
And p.s., when his stock is hurt it depresses the holdings of PERA, CALPers, or your mutual fund.
(which you refer to as ‘socialism’). Hell, the massive dam projects were even billed as government stimulus.
Neither of which counters the point I made, that Mr. Wynn’s fortune was built on the backs of US taxpayers that allowed Vegas to ‘bloom.’
But I didn’t expect you, of all people, to provide an intelligent response.
on whether people are using 120 or 240 volts.
Sorry, that’s the only way Libby’s statistic du jour makes sense.
Hoover Dam – powering LA’s textile sweat shops and Illegal Alien paychecks for decades. Not to mention it allowed America to expand and provided a sustainable and renewable power source for Hollywood.
source: wikipedia
Note to Democrats on Hoover Financing:
Whether provided by the REA, TVA, or BuRec, the fact is that powering, and quenching the thirst of, America has been a highly subsidized endeavor. In Vegas, in Colorado, in California, in Kentucky, all across the nation. Me, I’m not bothered. I actually believe that the government has a legitimate role in such, just as I think hard working people deserve unemployment insurance when between jobs.
But it totally demolishes the argument you think you are making, that Mr. Wynn has any credibility in supporting your claims of socialism.
etc. etc. etc.
The pdf is here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…
Want the links to show the water subsidies too? Yes, I have lots of information on this topic. You, Libby, are wrong again. But please engage me some more. I am bored and will gladly school you some more.
Public power projects like WAPA and REA enjoy massive taxpayer subsidies as well as tax exemptions. When used to develop rural areas like the REA originally did, such subsidies may be reasonable. Used to fuel uber growth in Los Angeles and Los Vegas, they are obscene. I guess Libertad doesn’t mind socialism when it is socialism for the rich.
Point: Steve Wynn got to be one of the wealthiest men in the world by investing in cheap real estate in a city that could only exist because of one of the biggest federal gov’t giveaways ever.
that’s the kind of ‘socialism’ any Republican could support!
I do hope you fore go any government support when you peddle you tricycle down the socialist sidewalk.
At least you admit you paving the socialist sidewalk. 😉
This is a good one – and easy
1/4 cup olive oil
1/4 cup sage leaves, loosely packed
1 tablespoon coarse salt, more for tossing
3 heads cauliflower, cut into florets
About 1 teaspoon table salt
6 tablespoons unsalted butter
1 lemon, zest finely grated.
1. Heat oil in a small pan until rippling. Add sage and cook, stirring, just until crisped, about 2 minutes. Lift out sage and drain on paper towels; transfer oil to a large bowl. Let sage cool and crumble with fingers into a small bowl. Stir in coarse salt and set aside.
2. Heat oven to 375 degrees. Place roasting pan with an inch of water in oven bottom. Add cauliflower to bowl with oil, add about 1 teaspoon table salt, and toss gently until coated. Spread out on two large baking sheets. Bake until browned, 20 to 30 minutes.
3. Melt butter in a small pan over medium heat. When foam subsides, watch closely and stir often. When white solids are brown and butter smells toasty, turn off heat, squeeze in juice of lemon and stir well.
4. Transfer cauliflower to a bowl, pour butter over, and add lemon zest. Add half the sage salt and toss. Taste and season with remaining salt as needed.
Yield: 10 to 12 servings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11…
Seriously, you’re such an asshole!
Seriously, L: scolding someone on furlough “Get off your lazy ass…”??? Didn’t you get the memo from GW Bush that all conservatives have to pretend they’re sympathetic, not condescendingly indifferent, to those in needful positions?
.
funded by DOD.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=op…
.
http://crestoneeagle.com/wp/?p…
…Defund Planned Parenthood.
The path to prosperity…
…28.5393 does not equal 24 or 48.
That was for turd up above.
About time. Now, if he’d just voluntarily give up his seat…
He’s just taking a “leave of absence”.
Thank God for rational Dems like MOR and RedGreen. This is seriously freaking ridiculous. I actually hope he stays – it will be great play in November.
Looks like Rep. Stark might be the interim chair while Rangel awaits final rulings on his ethical issues.
I hope, personally, that he steps aside and lets someone else take over the seat. Even in the worst of years, that will remain a Democratic seat – unless Rangel becomes so damaged that he loses a general election he’s not willing to walk away from.
Updated at Leading by Example.
Big news, we have a 2nd person who has paid this – Bernie Buescher! So Bernie & Rollie are now the Terrific Two – know the law and have been following it for years.
And still no call back from the Department of Revenue.
as opposed to the taxpayers advocate which of course doesn’t exist.
At the end of the day it is just bad tax policy all around when as you pointed out they could have adopted the Boulder model or elements of it for the Software tax increase.
Now your industry and all businesses that buy from you will fail to create or save thousands of jobs in and around IT … but not in Utah. Trashing Colorado’s competitive advantage is one thing, but driving the job saving and creating to Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska or Georgia is truely sad.
p.s congratulations on the New Sales and Use Tax Exemption for the Software Industry that can be found in House Bill 10-1192. I love it, you pass on taxes to your customers and the end consumers; but get a “Coders Kickback” baked into the bill via a S&U Tax Exemption for yourself – how special.
Location of the “Coders Kickback”, page 4: http://www.leg.state.co.us/cli…
who have their taxes prepared by accountants, instead of using Turbo Tax or H&R Block, are more likely to pay it, since their accountants ought to catch it.
Did you come across any figures on actual compliance with this use tax? Are Heath and Buescher the only ones in the state who actually pay it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Conservation and efficiency can go a long way to reducing US energy demand, making us less reliant on dirty fuels like coal. And while this would be good for Americans, Big Coal might not make as large of profits if people were saving energy in their homes, which are one of the greatest drain on the energy we use and provide some of the greatest potential gains in increased efficiency.
But how would you feel about eliminating most of high school?
Say elementary school goes – preK – 7.
Secondary goes 8 & 9 or maybe 10.
Baccalaureate work begins then.