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%
March 10, 2009 05:56 PM UTC
40 Comments
I have caught many errors in mainline reporting where the stenographer, er, reporter just took numbers at face value.
The days of having actual real editors is long past. Recent WAPO columnist nationally distributed used “their” for “there.”
And these clowns get paychecks?
These people want to grow the state government by 6% in 2009?
They are cutting $700 million because revenues drop.
Cutting $700 million isn’t growing government, it’s shrinking it.
Now, if in the next year or two revenues skyrocket, we can’t get back to where we were last year since the general fund can only grow by 6%. So we can build more schools with that money but we wouldn’t be allowed to put teachers in them or heat them. Just build stuff. That’s what makes the cap so destructive.
It’s much more complicated than that. But state budgets are like that – who would’ve guessed ?
Maybe do some reading on Arveshoug-Bird and come back later.
When the facts don’t agree with you, all you have to do is lie. It really makes politicking so much easier when you don’t tell the truth.
and revenues come in well under projections (a good bet), Penry will be right on. Bottom line is Ritter appoints a blue ribbon commission (which concludes that the bare minimum in necessary new, annual transportation funding is something like $500 million, if I recall correctly), he signs a bill that allegedly does half the bare minimum, and now he and his party are trying to undo all or most of that supposed progress so they can divert more of the budget to recurring, social programs that will dig us into an ever bigger hole in the future. Can anyone say shell game? As Keith Olberman might say, Bill Ritter is the worst Governor IN THE WORLD!!!!
First, unlike Fastracks, the FASTER (SB 108) bill is based on fees from cars, not the sales tax. The number of cars would have to decrease substantially to see a reduction in fees collected and there is no indication people are giving up their vehicles.
Second, except for the Highway Users Trust Fund (HUTF), there are no dedicated funds for transportation. Under Arveschough/Bird (AV), annual spending can increase only six percent. However, because TABOR allows excess funds to be spent on capitol improvements, like highways and bridges, the legislature passed two bills, SB 1 in 1997 and HB 1310 in 2002.
Read together here is an example as to how this works. Assume the state budget was $100 the last fiscal year. The new budget is governed by the A/B 6% restriction so the budget can be no larger than $106 for the next fiscal year. However, the revenue projections show that the state will collect $126 in tax revenues. In other words an extra $20.
For simplicity assume the extra $20 is from sales and use taxes. The first 4% will be placed in the state’s general fund excess reserve account. After that, SB 1 allows 10% of the excess sales and use taxes to be appropriated to the transportation budget. In this example, transportation will receive an additional $2. Also, under HB 1310 two-thirds of the remainder can be appropriated to transportation or other capital construction projects. Under this example, another $11.46 could be appropriated to transportation.
However, under the present revenue projects for the next three years, there will be no excess revenues that could be appropriated under either SB1 or HB 1310 to the transportation budget. Senator Penry’s assertion that SB 228 will rob and reduce the transportation budget is complete nonsense. Since there is no money available under either SB1 or HB 1310 for any of the next three fiscal years, his position is ludicrious and certainly not based on facts.
If SB 228 passes in its present form, it will give the General Assembly the discretion to appropriate even more money than it has in the past to CDOT for highway and bridge construction and maintenance, not less.
Republican 36 —
If there won’t be money above the 6% in the near term, than WHY DO WE NEED SB 228? If you use the argument of relevance (or lack thereof) to attack Penry, then why is the Legislature even doing it?? You may be right. Poor revenues in the next few years will prevent us from coming close to the 6% threshold. So why are Dems trying to take advantage of challenging times to pass their liberal, anti-infrastructure, pro-recurring social spending agenda?
I didn’t realize we shouldn’t take far-sighted action just because there are troubles in the present. Some in the Legislature may not be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, but that doesn’t mean that others can’t (or shouldn’t, or won’t).
Interesting that you only point out the Dems, since the House sponsor is an R. But facts haven’t seemed to matter much in your prior posts, so I won’t expect them here.
Correction noted. I think SB 228 is clearly unconstitutional (Legislative Legal Services has held the position that A-V is protected by TABOR for something like 15 years), but I also think it’s bad policy. A-V has had a net positive impact on the state. Remember, A-V can be suspended for a year by a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature. So if there is a compelling case to do so, I say go for it. But on balance, A-V has been good for the state.
Steve Bird, of Arveschoug-Bird fame, notes the same thing. He believes the 6 percent is too restrictive, as opposed to the 5% of state personal income (the other half of A-B [I’m not sure what A-V is] which never gets used).
I am going to go ahead and go with former Supreme Court Justice Dubofsky’s legal opinion, as opposed to “random person on the interwebs.” Call me crazy, but I say I’m being discerning.
Arveschoug-Bird has provided a secondary ratcheting down of state government, in a different albeit similarly detrimental way from TABOR. Getting rid of it provides flexibility along with a more economically-focused style of growth.
for the purpose of passing a “liberal, anti-infrastructure, pro-recurring social spending agenda.” Specifically, what are you talking about? I don’t see any such motives by the Democrats.
From my perspective, we need to begin dismantling all of these budget restrictions found in the state consitution or statutes, except the provision for a balanced budget. We need to return to what the founders of Colorado believed in – representative government and give the legislature the discretion to examine the needs of the state fund them. If the legislature raises taxes and we don’t approve, we can turn them out in the next election.
Those who promoted TABOR don’t believe in representative government. They wanted to insure that first, government became ineffective by starving it to death and second, and more importantly, they never trusted us the voters. The TABOR proponents were afraid that maybe, just maybe, the public would at some point elect legislators who would vote for additional government programs or philosophies they don’t care for. They sold TABOR as a way for the voters to vote on every tax increase but it has become an albatross around the neck of the state, including the general public. It prevents us from adequately funding transportation and higher education. It was a bad idea in 1992 and remains so today.
“Fascist,” “Socialist,” and “Communist.” Come on, man, focus! Wax on, wax on!
Penry wants to play “Let’s Make A Deal.”
“Josh Penry and his crew of increasingly unrepresentative hard-liners see a crisis and look for ways to politically exploit it. Penry isn’t interested in a solution, ‘for him the crisis is the solution’”
Isn’t that a Rahm Emanuel quote? About himself? Nancy Pelosi is also making a pretty good career of doing the same thing. Do you have a government-funded jet to take you on vacation to Italy? I didn’t think so.
Why bash on Penry if you don’t bash on Rahm & Nancy, and oh so many others? Hypocrisy is oh so ugly, Pols.
The more important point is, this whole state & Federal government looks like a cluster and if we don’t get major Federal dollars to build state-of-the-art transportation infrastructure, particularly mass transit, THEN FIRE THEM ALL.
Because this is COLORADO Pols.
We’ll let our readers handle the rest.
Or maybe the time change is really getting to me.
Phenomenal cosmic powers, itty-bitty living space.
You seemed to conveniently leave this part of the story out, and I think it’s a rather important statment on Pres. Groff’s part, considering these legislators take an oath to protect and defend both the Colorado and US Constitutions.
You’re right… this is COLORADO pols, so I don’t expect you to focus on national politics so much, but I do expect some attention to all Colorado politics, not just the negative things that Republicans do… And, before anyone says anything, I realize that Repubs make a lot of poor decisions (and have been making many lately) but I’m sure there are plenty of dems that do too.
P.S. I know this is just one sentence, but the fact that Groff isn’t worried about what they do being constitutional is significant, I think.
…that is pretty silly. He should check his language.
as someone noted below, it is the purview of the courts to uphold the constitutionality of bills/laws. Does your point that legislators take an oath to protect and defend the constitution mean that legislatures cannot support constitutional amendments? Certainly amending the constitution is not defending it.
Legislators are entrusted to legislate, not usurp the power/role of the judicial system.
That said, glad to see an opposing view on Pols, it’s always a welcome breath of air when there is a conservative voice to break the melee of liberal posters here.
But I would argue that we should all hope that the legislators do everything in their power to uphold the constitutions, and abide by their restrictions. I think that a true legislator should be worried about whether or not a law they are about to pass did abide by them. As for the courts, another good point that is their job, but, I would also argue that it should not come down to their decision very often. And no, it’s not because I’m another one of those conservatives that believes that the courts are full of liberal judges, but because we shouldn’t have to worry that are legislators will just pass any law, and let the difficult decision of constitutionality go to someone else.
As for the amendments issue, again you bring up a very valid point. The only real comeback I would have is to say that amendments are a whole other ballgame. They are intended to change the constitution, and in the state of Colorado (and even the U.S.) often need the support of the people to do so.
Your right, advocating for amendments is not really “defending” the constitution, but it’s not really violating it either, it is the support of a proposed to change to make the document better in their minds. Another big difference, if an unconstitutional bill is passed it is unconstitutional, however there is no such thing as an “unconstitutional amendment.” If an amendment passes, it automatically becomes constitutional.
Sorry for such a long post, I tried to explain my viewpoints as thouroghly as possible. Thanks for welcoming me, I’ve been reading this site for the last year or so, contributing every so often. I’ll be sure to add my voice in as much as I can.
That does make some sense. But the point is still valid.
The readers didn’t produce much criticism. Becasue they know I’m right. Keep it real, it’s better that way.
Can we try to go one entire day without anyone making any mention of Josh Penry?
If that’s not possible, then I’d like to make a plea for equal time (or more accurately, an equal # of threads) for Holtzy, Tank, Marostica and Ritter.
When Holtzman, Marostica and Tancredo start making more noise, so will we. Ritter figures in pretty much every conversation somehow, if not explicitly.
…in all fairness, Marostica did get some coverage when the wing nuts were threatening to kick him off JBC.
Is it possible that neither Holtzy nor Tank will run next year? Maybe they should be dumped off the big line unless they start making noise.
The serious contenders will declare late. Get your taxes done. You have time.
Of course I can’t prove it, but makes sense when you consider the types of stories they manufacture (yet still won’t post the Channel 7 expose on Big Bucks Business Class Bill Ritter from last night):
http://www.thedenverchannel.co…
And who is paying us? Seriously, we’d like to know so we can ask where the hell the check is.
What’s that??? The big shiny thing in the corner!?!
I’m all for you, man, but try to be a bit more nuanced.
No? Gee, I guess you’re trying to hide the story too.
“manufacture?”
Penry said that this bill would “actually cut funding for transportation more than FASTER will increase funding.”
Penry estimated that cut to be $500 million.
The Tribune reporter is the one that noted the correct figure of how much FASTER will produce, $700 million, which shows Penry is either a liar or incapable of basic arithmetic. Pols didn’t write that, the Greeley Tribune did.
Can somebody please explain why it is that every time a media outlet exposes a falsehood told by a Republican, it is somehow this one blog’s fault? Because that seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I’d just like to point out that Penry is not necessarily incorrect based on the information presented.
Penry claims net transportation funding will decrease $500 million over three years due to A-B, etc. Meanwhile FASTER will, all else equal, increase transportation funding $700 million over three years. If the independent effect of A-B is a reduction of transportation by $1.2 billion, then both facts offered are correct. I’m guessing that isn’t the case though.
Can Penry go an entire day without sticking his foot in his mouth? If the people you mention screw-up as much as Penry does or have accomplishments worth mentioning, feel free to post it.
“I fear the GOP will come to resemble a bitter old man, sitting alone in the corner, mumbling about all that is wrong with the world today, while everyone ignores him.” – Bob Silbernagel, Conservative
Penry’s foot in his mouth when quoted in The Daily Sentinel on Sunday as saying that Repulicans “need to got to get out of this harsh, judgmental routine.” This coming from the guy who lost the Sentinel support by using his “harsh, judgmental routine” on reporter Mike Saccone. Hypocrites like Penry need to be exposed.
“…how can GOP leaders possibly expect to reach young supporters by staying the course they have been on these past eight years? Where has our extreme thinking gotten us? President Bush will go down as one the least popular presidents in history.” -Meghgan McCain, Conservative
I wasn’t sure what Sen. Groff meant by other branches of government, but as far as the constitutionality of the bill goes all acts of the legislature are presumed to be constitutional until found otherwise.
Because we get the facts right and they don’t?
Look, I wish we weren’t seeing all the papers dying (the Post is next). But doing a crappy job just hastens the day of their demise.
I’m not sure what your comment was in reference to. The Greeley Tribune got it right by correcting Penry’s statement.
Was I missing something else about a paper getting the facts wrong?
Did they point out that Penry was off elsewhere?
These are the last few paragraphs that come after the sentence that “disputes” Penry’s claim.
After reading this part, I don’t doubt that $700 million is more than $500 million, but it seems that maybe Penry had a poor choice of words. I think he may have meant that there would have been some negating effect to transportation if SB228 were to pass, that $500 million intended to be spent on transportaion would be used for other things, and therefore only $200 million would be available for it, not nearly as much as the FASTER bill would be intended to raise, and probably not enough to accomplish its goals.
I don’t know that this is what he intended to say, I can’t put words in his mouth for him, but I just thought I’d give him a little benefit of the doubt.