"Kudos" for What? Being Losers?

10 thoughts on ““Kudos” for What? Being Losers?”

1. One of the two paths illustrated by these press events ends in another disaster at the polls in 2008. Which will the Colorado GOP take?

   They’ll go with the disaster. What do I win?

   Log in to Reply

2. Last year’s “Homeowner Protection Act” was anything but that.  It benefited no one except trial attorneys.  It didn’t do a damn thing for homeowners except pass on higher costs as a result of significantly higher liability premiums for home builders.

   And it was NOT a “major strike-out with the voting public”.  On the contrary, when the “voting public” had a chance to weigh on this topic, Amendment 34 in 2004, they overwellmingly rejected it.  They saw it for what it was: a get rich (or actually, get richer) scheme for the trial attorneys.  Knowing that they couldn’t fool the public, they relied on the legislature to do their dirty work.

   Want consumer protection when you buy a house?  Fine, do your homework and get a reputable builder.  Want to pay more for your house and get nothing in return?  Your wish there was already granted.    

   Log in to Reply
   1. Log in to Reply

3. I disagree with the statement  “Republicans …stood on the same podium with statehouse Democrats explaining how neither side had plans to get crazy in 2008 with big tax hikes or suicidal budget cuts.”

   Nice promises pre-session, but let’s see what actually happens.

   My prediction is that the Democrats will propose a multibillion dollar tax increase in the form of health care reform.  It will either be the $1.1 billion increase from the 208 Commission (which also carries a $1.2 billion cost shift for businesses that provide health insurance to their employees) or, a $15 billion increase from a single payor plan.

   Likewise, Colorado Democrats will propose several tax increases to combat global warming (e.g., Levy’s tax on SUVs).  I suspect that Ds are ideologically opposed to considering creative ideas that don’t involve a tax increase.

   I believe those proposed tax increases will be on top of tax increases proposed for schools and transportation.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Since it would save the people of the state $1.4b per year overall.  But I suspect they won’t be able to get it passed.

      Log in to Reply

      1. I agree that a $15B tax increase is politically DOA irrespective of the claimed benefits.

         The TOTAL state budget is $17B.

         $7.1B comes from the feds

         $2.9B comes from cash funds (gaming taxes, severance taxes, gas taxes) already earmarked for something

         $7B comes from general state taxes (income, sales, estate)

         A $15B increase would mean TRIPLING the state tax burden.  Saying “Oh, but it will save you $1.4B in health care premiums” will be utterly lost in the mix.

         While Colorado voters elected Dems in 2006, I can’t imagine them voting to triple their tax burden.

         But, that said, my personal prediction is that there are enough single-payor true believers among Colorado Dems that there will be a push to propose just that and throw political reality to the wind.  If so, voters may well react by making Ritter a one-term Governor.

         Log in to Reply

         1. But it won’t amount to much because of the difficulties you and I both see.  Nevermind the actual monetary savings, tripling the state tax rate would be political suicide.

            I suppose they could implement it as a tax on employers (based on number of employees), but even with exemptions for small businesses, farmers, etc. that’s going to be a hard sell.  And I suspect that in the end analysis, it would require some exemptions from the Federal Government at a time when the Administration is denying all kinds of state exemptions.

            Log in to Reply

         2. but like UI, a fee.  Now, I know that many will scream that it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.  But just like UI, it doesn’t walk like a duck. Just like UI, it is a risk pool with mandated participation. Taxes are set by legislative action, a risk pool fee, by the managers/board.

            In most states this difference wouldn’t even be a topic, but we have TABOR.  

            Log in to Reply

4. “The Colorado Civil Justice League is your advocate for lawsuit sanity.

   We are the only state-wide coalition dedicated exclusively to ending abusive lawsuits and creating a fair civil justice system in Colorado.

   We believe in helping those with legitimate harms gain access to the courts. But we also believe in protecting those who create jobs, innovate new technologies and provide needed goods and services from being tied up in expensive and groundless litigation.”

   What is wrong with receiving an award for backing this?

   Log in to Reply

5. The Colorado Civil Justice League is nothing but a shill group for the insurance industry, manufacturers, big pharma etc.  Since when did those companies care about the safety of consumers?  They claim they are all for attempting to curb lawsuit abuse but what they really want is to close the courthouse doors to anyone screwed by the above.  The tort laws in Colorado are so skewed towards these polluters, consumer abusers and rich, powerful, interests that balancing those unfair laws should be every consumers goal.  This group wants the seesaw to remain unbalanced.  They never saw a law suit they deemed justified, unless of course, it was filed by one of their members to ensure they get richer and more powerful.  Their idea of “fair” is that they never pay a dime to the consumers they injure in their greedy race to overcommensate their executives and to build even bigger headquarter buildings.   There is nothing wrong with receiving an award from them as long as the rest of us know what the group making the award really stands for.

   Log in to Reply