President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 16, 2011 11:28 PM UTC
94 Comments
We’re looking at an even worse year for the state budget. Unemployment is still at an effective rate of 17%. And instead of focusing on what the state can do to improve the job picture, we’ve got people voting based on simplistic fantasies.
and explain nicely why his antics are counterproductive. I see on his web site he respects Marilyn Musgrave.
God forbid we’d drive some (probably much needed) traffic to the Sterling Journal Advocate…such nonsense…
To the point, since the GOP took control in the house (by one seat, as a result of 197 votes) I’ve been saying that we’ll either be able to work in a bipartisan way as Hick envisions (looking good so far Guv!) or, absolutely nothing will get done. Becker on the JBC clearly ensures the latter will be the result, and as the inmates continue to overrun the GOP asylum, we can expect more like this from the likes of:
Kathleen “no soup for you” Conti,
Libby “my husband thinks Obama is the literal antichrist” Szabo,
J Paul “I sell Colorado horses to Italy for meat” Brown,
Don “the handicapped are a burden to business” Beezley.
I’m just personally curious how Speaker McNulty plans to balance the budget and keep his promises to those who voted for these lunatics:
FASTER repeal ($250 Million Car Tax, right guys!?)
“Dirty Dozen” tax exemption repeals (There were eleven of them, but GOP voters don’t care about math, as long as you can reduce a $140 million special interest handout repeal to two alliterative catchy words, we’re cool!)
No new fees or tax increases (a billion dollars is a lot of money, where ya gonna get it Frank?)
So, 1 Billion + 250 Million + 140 Million = Actual 1.39 billion if the House GOP keeps its promises. Good luck boys and girls.
Great comment.
Why should the cattle ranchers have to pay for their AG inspections? Why shouldn’t we just subsidize the cows and their owners? Or let the free market figure it out – skip the inspections altogether, keep the beef here in the US (and probably in Colorado) and if anyone gets sick they can switch to chicken or imported beef then.
So Beck doesn’t want a “tax” increase, but he’s OK with government subsidies? If he’s not, he should let the cattlemen pay whatever the cost is.
What a(n hypocritical) ass.
Because that way vegetarians are subsidizing the cost of my steak. But I don’t understand how a small-government conservative wants to tax all residents to cover a specific industry cost of doing business.
Maybe I can get tax funds to pay for our software testers 🙂
Is going to drown government in a bathtub, even if he as to do it all by his damned self.
Somebody needs to remind him that it’s the same government that’s subsidizing the ranchers.
Maybe we should just do away with brand inspectors altogether and go back to shooting cattle rustlers.
a bigger bathtub.
At some point, when the State bounces checks maybe, the tea party will have to end. The goal has been destroy the government, return the U.S. to the good old days of independent family only tribes, so the end of community is for them happiness. No more of the nasty social support system. Of course canines and many other mammals instinctively support their community members when they are ill or old.
But, humans are above all that softy stuff in the new “parsimony is good” Republican party.
The JBC must come up with a Long Bill. What happens when it doesn’t because of this asshole? I’d say that we’ll have a constitutional crisis on our hands. Will his leadership replace him before the end of the session?
Without a budget, the entire State shuts down.
At that point, Becker might discover that exposure is something you die of.
Of course holding out until the legislator is forced to extend the session, rather than end early, only costs the state, what? $15,000 a day?
Unfunded mandates with an extra price tag. Fiscal conservatism at work!
In fact, we’re all in favor of them. But, they are not the responsibility of the government. Private charities, churches, nonprofits, etc. should fill that role. Social support systems are run better by the private sector. If the government is in charge, and the anonymous “tax payer” is on the hook, fiscal irresponsibility inevitably ensues. It’s a matter of government coercion vs. moral persuasion.
You might be surprised to find that those non-government support systems have a checkered history is helping people out. Better to have fiscal irresponsibility* that does the job well than fiscal responsibility and Hoovervilles.
* I’m only hypothetically agreeing with you, not actually agreeing that you are telling the truth here.
1 billion dollar state budget shortfall, $13 trillion national deficit and exploding higher, nothing to worry about. Definitely fiscally responsible.
which isn’t the same as specific social support systems.
Could you at least pretend to pay attention?
Not government as a whole.
Just admit that you don’t know how bad of a job churches did, not only during the Great Depression but also during many other financial crises that preceeded it, and that government has done much better since the New Deal.
The government has promised everyone they would be paid for their services. Only one problem – they don’t have the money at all! Bwa ha ha ha.
That’s still beside the point, which your avoidance tells me that you’ve conceded.
Sigh How many times do I have to explain that 13 trillion in debt with a 1 trillion deficit is not paying for anything. It’s promising something you don’t have. This is the problem with entitlement spending.
Yes, churches do a good job with what they have. And if liberals would give as much to charity as conservatives, they could do a lot more.
Like I’ve ever been wrong with you, now or any time. LOL…
I could tell from your screen name that you were probably never going to underestimate your intelligence.
I invited you to read the story behind my handle before. It’s telling that you’d rather stick to your own interpretation (based on internal feelings, not external facts).
BTW, we never want to “quash” your voice. Letting you have free reign is the greatest good the left can have.
If conservatives wanted to give to government more – say, to pay for wars they supported – then government would be doing a lot better, too.
And if churches have the sovereign power to print money and issue bonds on debt, then they, too could be in debt based on commitments voted on by their deacons despite a lack of funds from their members.
There is probably not a single person on this blog that thinks it’s good for the government to rack up this debt. Today’s Democrats want our government to be both effective and fiscally responsible. I’m not sure about Republicans any more – if I had to sum them up from my POV, they want government to be minimal, and fiscal responsibility will come as a result of crushing debt from inadequate revenue.
I believe the vote was unanimous in the senate after 9/11. And I sure haven’t seen Obama do anything but support the wars. There is still fighting going on in Iraq – three soldiers died the other day – and if anything Obama has ramped up operations in Afghanistan. Enough with this stupid conservative=war meme. Also, its hard to get people to give voluntarily to an organization that is forcibly taking their money in the first place.
Thank God churches don’t have the power to print money. But they can indeed go into debt, say in order to build a new building, and they are usually very careful in what debt they take on because they know they will be held directly accountable by the people in the church.
Today’s Democrats have most certainly not shown that they want government to be fiscally responsible. Otherwise, they would not have voted for a failed stimulus and sky high deficits. I’m not sure about the GOP as a whole, but the Tea Party believes that fiscal responsibility will come from cutting spending. And those in the GOP who don’t agree will most likely be primaried.
Uses invalid data and absolutist rhetoric. Not worth any more responses.
Does your adviser know you are fucking off posting to Pols?
I’d be happy to let him know.
Your trillion-dollar talking point is not a part of this discussion.
Why does the tea party want the taxpayers to pay the cattle inspection fee?
No, the tea party wants the exact opposite. This is why they are in favor of ending the subsidy. The cattle owner should probably pay the fee.
Pause…
No, I am not in favor of raising fees. Of course reasonable health controls are necessary. The cost will be passed on to the consumer in the price of beef. I would rather pay a marginally higher price for beef in order to be sure it isn’t going to kill me, rather than paying a tax to let the government handle it. It’s bound to cost more when the government is involved.
Yes, in this case the Tea Party would agree with your attack on the GOP. Government should not be subsidizing private business, including agriculture. I’m sure Pols had only the purest of free-market motives in mind when they posted this article. /snark
Yes- the point of the article is that the ideological …passion of one guy, elected by you and your tp neighbors, who can’t do the math and understand that if the fee exists, and the taxpayers in general pay it instead of the beef producers, it’s a subsidy.
How is it that you conclude the tea party would agree – but for the buy in the seat, he wants to stand in the way?
I never heard of the guy. Obviously, he is mistaken, which is why Kent Lambert had to set him straight. I’m not sure where you get the idea that he is a Tea Party candidate. Do you have a link? Regardless, it is of course understandable why he would defend agricultural subsidies, being from an agricultural district like Fort Morgan. It is also a misuse of the government to reward special interests, and I am glad to see other Republican lawmakers opposing him.
Who is opposing him?
His suport of ag subsidies are ok?
I meant “you” more figuratively than literally. I don’t know where you register and vote. For all I know you vote absentee in Texas.
http://www.akronnewsreporter.c…
I’m sure some enterprising citizen could start a cattle inspecting business. Hey look, a job saved or created!
start participating . . . by paying some property and income taxes. Is it possible that David Chestnut is finally onto something?
Heaven forbid a Christmas tree should ever be set up on public property, but when it comes to government control of churches, you have no problem? What happened to separation of church and state?
And we’ve seen churches and non-profits squander their money just as well, or perhaps better than, the government.
It’s time to ditch the whole “government is bad” thing. WE are the government – the public as a whole, this country, this state, and your locality make up government. Government as an organization is as responsible as WE make it, as efficient and superlative as WE invest in it, and as innovative as we encourage it to be. Government is just another organization, but one in which We the People have direct ownership in – one that we can influence and improve directly. It has the same problems and the same potential as any other organization.
Trying to paint it as anything more malignant is anti-patriotic IMNSHO.
Let’s be fair, PR – what would the tea party have to say if we take that away from them? And saying “WE” are the government? If it means including them thar commie lib’ruls then that’s just going a bridge too far.
Teabaggers do NOT believe in our representative form of government, because that means that we on the left have a voice in how things are. Let’s always keep this in mind when dealing with them.
I might be infringing on their right to free speech by stating “it’s time to ditch the whole ‘government is bad’ thing”.
Go read the history of the original Tea Party. The whole point was to protest taxation without representation. With liberals in control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, the modern Tea Party was also formed in order to protest taxation without representation. We are all about representation. The left is all about squashing the voice of the right (through, among other things, blood libel). Of course those who get money from the government think government is good. Those from whom the government takes money think government is bad. In reality, the government shouldn’t be favoring any one group of citizens; it should guarantee a level playing field for all.
has as much to do with the asshats parading under that banner as animal husbandry has to do with abstract impressionism.
As to your other comment below, you’ve just proven my point beautifully. You don’t believe in representative government; you and your buddies have to make up some terrible conspiracy rather than face up to the fact that HCR was popularly passed, and its repeal will be popularly defeated. That’s our system, and if you don’t like it it’s because you don’t believe in it.
The House will vote to repeal it. It will be vetoed, of course, by Obama, even if by some miracle it made it through the Senate. But the veto will get him booted out of office in 2012.
Talking out of both sides of your mouth, aren’t you? Is it going to be passed by the Senate (in which case it would be vetoed and maybe – MAYBE – you have something of a point*) or won’t it be (in which case it is popularly defeated)?
* What keeps you from having a point is that VETO power – a constitutionally granted power, don’t forget that – doesn’t mean something is unpopular. Or maybe you’re going to assert that all those vetoes Reagan signed were evidence that he wasn’t all that popular after all?
Has nothing to do with the veto.
Where popularly-elected Dems still hold the majority.
Which is why 2012 will be a great year. The public no longer trusts Democrats.
You haven’t forgotten how your last confident prediction turned out, have you?
This was back when people on this site were laughing at the Tea Party. Well, who’s laughing now?
I’d like to see what you actually wrote. I bet it was something along the lines of “Tea Party mania is SWEEPING THE NATION!!!1!! We’re gonna win EVERY RACE!!”
In other words, you probably said something demonstrably wrong.
It’s still not true. A lone dumbass about to be thrown off a committee if he won’t fold does not a “force” make.
Serious challenge; one tea partier please tell me a success even after the few candidates were elected. At this point we aren’t even talking about what might happen, we’re talking about what their leaders have already taken off the table. Go Tea Party!
The beej is always good for that. (For example, over at redstate he seriously stated that Palin was “promoted” from governor, and that she “creamed” Biden because debate is one of her “strong points.” Hey beej, here are the poll results as to who won the VP debate in 2008.)
Reminds me of Milhouse. I’ll be sure to let you know if I decide to post at some other site so you can get your fix. I’m half starting to think you’re scope or powertothepeople.
if the veto has nothing to do with what’s popular and what isn’t, why did you bring it up? That was the context of your case, after all.
Now I know you’re just a troll. </plonk>
If “WE” were really the government, Obama care would not have passed. In fact, what we have is half of the country beating up the other half, using the government as a tool to steal their money and enrich themselves. People have tried public ownership of wealth before. At best it is called SOCIALISM, and at worst a demagogue seizes power and it becomes COMMUNISM or even the National SOCIALIST Party. If government is not limited, the rights of those in the minority are trampled upon.
As you so gently put it, is that, despite having a 53% majority election on a platform that included health care reform, despite having a majority in both houses of Congress, some people insist that despite being in the minority they are “the will of the People”.
What is wrong is that we get people throwing around slogans like Communism and Nazi and “government steal[ing] their money and enrich[ing] themselves” without comprehending the basics inconsistencies involved in calling something both Communism and Nazism, assigning a criminal theft charge to a government with the legitimate, People-derived power to tax.
If you want limited government, then I suggest starting from a position where our government has been established legitimately, where our elections are honored, and where you as a person can contribute to the productive criticism and reform of it. You sound more like you’re starting from a position where everything since the Civil War is illegitimate.
Sure, if you ask someone “do you think support health care reform?”, everyone would say yes. But the actual bill Democrats passed was not what people wanted, in fact made health care worse by raising premiums, etc. The last elections proved that, yes indeed, we represent the will of the majority of the American people.
I’m not just throwing around slogans, I’m dealing in reality. Communism and Nazism are both alike in that they are totalitarian. They are not the same, but they are both the result of a collectivist mentality. Anybody supporting freedom is equally opposed to both. Finally, there is a point at which private property rights must be taken into consideration. The majority should not be able to simply enslave the minority, living off taxes they impose on them. And you can’t say they pay those taxes too. They only want to tax the “rich”, i.e. they want to be excluded from paying taxes.
I never said that our government was not established legitimately. I do think they have twisted the words of the Constitution a bit. What do you think I’ve been doing all this time but “contribut[ing] to the productive critcism and reform of [government]”?
As many others have told you, words mean things. And they don’t mean what you say they do.
Still waiting to hear what the GOP, or the teabaggers, would rather have done than pass HCR. Funny how none of them will say that things were fine the way they were. You suppose that means that they know better?
Government control of health care is very much socialism at the very least. At the very worst sterilization, euthanasia, or worse can occur when the government is in charge of health care – see Nazi Germany.
Of course we won’t say things were fine they were because that’s not true at all. Everybody agreed that healthcare had problems. We just wanted them actually fixed. That’s why we say “repeal and REPLACE”. There are many market based reforms that should be implemented. Tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, and just getting government out from in between the doctor and the patient in the first place. Doctors have to spend hours and hours dealing with unnecessary paperwork due to bureaucratic regulations, which drives their costs up. Yes, we do know better. The current bill does nothing but drive up the cost of health insurance, push doctors out of business, and bankrupt the country.
That’s what that argument is. That, and a complete and total ignorance of what socialism actually is.
Repeal and “replace,” eh? With WHAT? Tort reform? Don’t make me laugh. Let people buy across state lines? What about states’ rights?
I come from a medical family, and I’ve never heard about any mysterious “government” getting between the doctor and patient. I don’t hear that happening under HCR, except from the desperate right. I DO hear, however, about all the paperwork and bureaucracy they have to deal with – not from the government, but from meddling insurance companies. You know, created by the free market and all that jazz.
Reality doesn’t mesh with your fantasies, once again.
Why do you think insurance companies have so much paperwork? Government overregulation. (And by the way, I don’t know why you’d rather insurance companies get out of the way. You’d rather have people die because they can’t afford surgery?)
I had no idea that the insurance companies’ desire to maximize profits and nitpick every procedure to avoid paying for them was mandated by the government. Link?
/sarcasm
You should ask that last question to the insurance companies and HMO’s, BTW, since their actions and policies are the ones directly affecting it. I support health care reform as a way to ensure everyone gets the care they need. Those who oppose it – well, who knows what they’re motivated by, but it sure isn’t a desire to see everyone get that care.
I support health care reform too. Health care was already broken, and Obama care made it worse.
… then once again I take that as concession. Insurance company greed, not some nonexistant gov’t regulation, is responsible for the health care mess. Thanks, beej!
“nonexistant[sic] gov’t regulation”
Always criticize the grammatical and spelling errors after you’ve made the best argument against your opponent’s point.
Oh, wait, you did that, didn’t you? Carry on.
I think you’ll agree that I’m a liberal, and I think you’ll agree that you’re a conservative.
I am a net donor to the government. I pay them more than they pay to help me live my life. If you assume I am in the majority (which you seem to be saying above), then I am the data point that disproves your over-simplified (and otherwise blatantly hateful and false) hypothesis.
You are a net receiver of government funds. You work at a public institution, deriving your salary and benefits from public monies. You also disprove your hypothesis.
Between this and the rest of your responses above, I’m left wondering if the “other” bjwilson hijacked your account to make you look bad. This thread could be its own parody of Tea Party supporters.
1) only about 25% of the population attends a worship service on a regular basis. Why is just that 1/4 of the population that is responsible for caring for the poor?
2) even throwing in other charities, once you get past people giving to faith communities and their former colleges, the percentage who actually give to the types of charitiable groups you are assuming will take care of the poor is still less than 50% of the population.
3) charities and churches can discriminate on their services based on whatever criteria they choose, meaning that for many options will be limited if even available.
SO because I think it is everyone’s responsibility to care for the poor – the system we have in place where everyone pays in to care for them is government. Charities and churches should supplement the government run programs to help fill in gaps in service, not the other way around.
Yes the “grownups” that Democrats have put in charge of the budget have done a great job… of driving it into the ground. If they had responsibly cut government back as revenue fell in previous years, we wouldn’t be in the situation we are today.
Colorado would be in better shape if it were run by pissants like you instead of grownups.
All the best.
It’s better than Barack “8% unemployment” Obama’s understanding, so that’s got to count for something.
You confuse politics with reality.
Let’s make a pact bj, you and me.
I’ll be honest, if you’ll join me.
What should I expect? That my President would actually deal in reality? Hopenchange and unicorns are so much more fun.
The “8% unemployment” figure that was created as a joint effort of both Republican and Democratic leadership over the years to make their numbers look better.
If we were using the same measures we used under Carter and the start of Reagan, our unemployment would be around 23%. Thank you, George W. Bush and the people who helped repeal Glass-Steagall.
BTW, Obama, perhaps in an effort to address some of this ridiculousness, has recently ordered the BLS to change its reporting of long-term unemployed workers. We’ll see how that goes – I think it still goes in to the U-6 numbers, so we won’t see it reported daily, but it might help actual economists who do read the broader U-6.
I’m referring to the 8% unemployment Obama said would occur if we passed the stimulus. I don’t recall the GOP ever supporting the stimulus.
At least now I know where you’re starting from.
The 8% number was discounted right around the time the stimulus passed, based on updated economic forecasts that hadn’t yet included stimulus money.
I suppose, being an opponent of the stimulus, you’d rather see us at about 12% U-3 unemployment now? With correspondingly lower tax revenues at all levels?
Given that the left was wrong about where we would be if we passed the stimulus, I don’t believe for a second their estimate of where we would be if we hadn’t passed it. Most likely, that money would have instead been available in the private sector, promoting job growth.
Oh, wait – the CBO is conveniently a tool of the Left when it suits the Tea Party.
It makes no sense to put a freshman on the JBC (Bernie Buescher was an exceptional exception), especially an ideologue. Perhaps NcNulty will realize what a mistake this was and replace him?? Not holding my breath, the tea party scares Repub leaders. A more subtle and creative way might be having Leadership start giving extra bill titles to the other members of the JBC to co-sponsor together if he keeps being idiotic.
It’s funny how R leadership has gotten so upset with its members of the JBC-after a few months, the R members start realizing what it really costs to run the state government and they become more centrist (Marostica, White). Turns out it is quite difficult to stay true to your rhetoric and pass a balanced budget.
People walk in assuming that everyone preceding them was incompetent and they can easily provide all necessary services under budget with a tax-cut on top.
And during the process while they learn that no, there really is a giant problem. That there isn’t enough money to even cover the essentials, they do a lot of collateral damage.
The JBC is where campaign slogans meet reality – and reality demolishes the slogans.
…and that is the collaterol damage caused by term limits. I still don’t understand why so many people think that anyone can be a legislator and that’s “fair” to let someone else “have a turn.” This isn’t the playground swingset. It’s difficult work requiring at least a little knowledge of the law, state finances and obligations, and what is truly possible. You can’t govern with slogans.
While the JBC must have unanimous agreement to carry a budget bill, there is nothing stopping another legislator, or even a JBC member, from carrying their own separate bill that mirrors something the JBC cannot agree on.
I’m still at The Colorado Statesman. But during the legislative session, I also run a rural syndication service for nine newspapers in Northeastern and Eastern Colorado, with the very kind permission of my Statesman editor. What runs in the Statesman doesn’t appear in the rurals, and vice versa.
For those of you who have been around the block a time or two, this is basically the syndication service that KC Mason used to operate. I started doing it last year.
But as a freelancer for the rural papers, I don’t have any say on linking articles, which become their property once I send them up. If that’s MediaNews policy, so be it.