(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(Promoted by Colorado Pols) Oil shale is the ‘fuel of the future,’ and it always will be. -Some Colorado Wise Guy from Way, Way Back When This past Tuesday Royal Dutch Shell—for decades considered the leader in oil shale research—made a surprising, although familiar, announcement regarding its ‘unconventional resources’ priorities moving forward. It would […]
Politico reports on the long-awaited vote yesterday in the GOP-controlled U.S. House, on the second relief bill for states affected by Hurricane Sandy:
The House approved nearly $50.6 billion in long-sought emergency aid to help the victims of Hurricane Sandy on Tuesday night, after Northeast lawmakers successfully added tens of billions to bring the package more in line with the White House’s initial request last month…
“While the House bill is not quite as good as the Senate bill, it is certainly close enough,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We will be urging the Senate to speedily pass the House bill and send it to the president’s desk.”
Near-solid Democratic support in the House was pivotal to the whole strategy, together with Christie and his close ally, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), working the phones and mining the Republican ranks for precious votes.
NBC News reports on an unsuccessful attempt by none other than arch-conservative Rep. Cory Gardner to persuade fellow Republicans to fund flood mitigation in other states–including Colorado, where the relief is needed after last year’s devastating wildfires.
Earlier Tuesday Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., defended the bipartisan effort by Colorado members to add to the emergency bill $125 million for watershed protection and flood mitigation, including about $20 million for areas in Colorado burned by last summer’s wildfires.
The watershed protection money was in the Sandy bill that the Senate passed last month. The House Rules Committee rebuffed Gardner’s effort Monday night, but he said he hoped Colorado’s two senators will make efforts to add the money when the Senate debates the emergency bill next week.
“The title of the bill is ‘The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act.’ That’s the name of the bill. It’s not the ‘Sandy Disaster Act.’ It’s not the ‘Sandy Relief Act.’ It’s a disaster relief act. New Yorkers weren’t the only ones who had their homes burned down in a devastating natural disaster. We had over 600 in Colorado alone,” Gardner said.
“If we’re going to have disaster assistance for people in this country who truly need it – because we are all in this together — then we shouldn’t just cherry-pick Northeastern United States versus Southwestern United States,” he added.
Rep. Gardner’s frustration over excluding these funds from the bill that passed the yesterday is echoed by Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, in a statement from his office:
“It is extremely disappointing to see the House of Representatives move forward with a bill that does not include critical resources Colorado needs to recover and protect its water supply – resources that were included in the Senate bill that received bipartisan support,” Bennet said. “While eastern states should have the resources they need to recover from the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, this summer, Coloradans also endured devastating disasters – catastrophic wildfires in the midst of one of the worst droughts in decades.”
“It’s frustrating when you hear people talk about how they’re fiscally responsible while they are creating a set of conditions that are inevitably going to cost more money and much more pain. If we don’t deal with these problems now, we could be facing as much as five times the cost to deal with future flooding and damage,” Bennet added.
Bottom line: the vote approved an amount of aid consistent with what affected states asked for, and what the Senate passed last year before the House’s failure to take up that bill killed it. We haven’t seen statements from other Colorado Republican representatives who voted no on the final package yet to know what their objections were–for Gardner, despite the ideological inconsistency this creates, maybe it really was the failure to include this flood assistance.
Unfortunately, that can’t explain the votes of all but a handful of Republicans against the final bill. Rep. Doug Lamborn’s vote against the first Hurricane Sandy relief bill earlier this month on “fiscal responsibility” grounds is likely to be the explanation for most Republican votes yesterday–he just has more company. Either way, Rep. Gardner’s unsuccessful push for more money as most of his party voted against more disaster relief money, like Rep. Lamborn’s hypocritical vote against the earlier bill after seeking additional FEMA assistance of his own during last year’s fire season, seem to exemplify the GOP’s muddled message coming out of this debate.
It is impossible to reckon from their actions what these men stand for at all.
On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Jan. 9, State Senator Ted Harvey said he likes to refer to “same-day voter registration” as “same-day voter fraud,” and, he added, “it’s a disaster for the Republican Party.”
Hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, didn’t ask Harvey for his evidence that that election-day voter registration results in increased fraud. Maybe because they know there isn’t any, and they didn’t want to embarrass themselves and Harvey.
Also, contrary to Harvey’s assertion, same-day voter registration, allowed in eight states last year, does not favor Democrats over Republicans.
SENATOR TED HARVEY: Election reform. They will do same sex – [correcting himself]-same day voter registration. I call it ‘same day voter fraud’ because you’re going to have people registering to vote all over the state multiple times, and voting multiple times. It’s a disaster for the Republican Party. You’re going to see same – you’re going to see all-mail ballots, in all elections. So that even in partisan elections, you’re going to get all-mail ballots. I have a problem with all-mail ballots for primaries because of the potential for fraud. I really have a problem with all-mail ballots in general elections because people can-a lot of people are worried about the fraud that we saw in the last election when we had ballot booth voting. You’re going to see a lot more of it if you have all-mail ballots, I think.
Talk-radio hosts, even the good folks a Grassroots Radio Colorado, shouldn’t throw out accusations of election fraud without evidence to back them up.
And if they have an elected official on the show, they should raise the bar for rational discourse above the low level where it normally rests in the studio.
Don’t we all want elections that are as fair and inclusive as possible? Allowing Harvey to promote hyperbolic and unsubstantiated accusations of potential election fraud won’t help get us there.
PCG Update: Latina journalist Pilar Marrero reports on a national outcry that stopped deportation in this case — the mother was being driven to Mexico when the driver was called and ordered to return her to her Arizona home.
UPDATE– ICE just confirmed, through past AILA president David Leopold, a stay of removal several minutes ago. David is a good friend of mine and I alerted him to the situation a few hours ago.
Obama claims to understand the plight of immigrants, yet his administration raided the home of a prominent DREAM activist last night.
UPDATE: Part 1 of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s speech today courtesy CBS4:
Watch part 2 after the jump.
—–
UPDATE: AP’s Ivan Moreno reports:
Hickenlooper called for more background checks in cases where they don’t currently exist, like when someone buys a gun from a seller on Craigslist.
“Let’s examine our laws and make the changes needed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people,” he said. Some Democrats have indicated they will introduce a ban on assault weapons, but Hickenlooper did not mention that proposal in his speech. He said “it’s not enough to prevent dangerous people from getting weapons.”
“We have to do a better job of identifying and helping people who are a threat to themselves and others. That is why we are requesting your support for a comprehensive overhaul of our state’s mental health system,” he said. Last month, he called for an expansion of services for the mentally ill.
Hickenlooper also renewed a call for the passage of civil unions for same-sex couples – legislation that House Republicans blocked last session when they controlled the chamber. With Democrats controlling both chambers now, Hickenlooper said it’s time to pass the legislation.
“This year, let’s do it. Let’s pass civil unions!” he said.
As FOX 31’s Will Holden reports, Hickenlooper gaffed one good at the end:
Reaching what he would later laughingly refer to as the “crescendo” of his address, Hickenlooper found his tongue in a knot as he tried to describe the Coloradans who have “punched holes in the darkness” over the past year.
“Working together, we can punch holes in some pretty big … We … Oh Jesus,” Hickenlooper said.
—–
Gov. John Hickenlooper stands and delivers. We’ll update with coverage.
In 2013, Illinois public sector unions banded together and prevented governmental and corporate attempts to breach public pension contracts and steal earned public pension benefits. Incredibly, in 2010, Colorado public sector
unions actually supported the theft of earned pension benefits from their retired members . . . Colorado PERA retirees.
In 2013, Illinois public sector union members have fought off an attempt by the State of Illinois to push its debt problem onto the backs of public employees. Contrast this success with the behavior of Colorado public sector unions. In 2010, Colorado public sector unions kicked their retired union brothers and sisters in the teeth.
http://www.ilretirementsecurit…
A record of the treachery of Colorado public sector unions exists on the Colorado PERA website:
“In Colorado, Senate Bill 1 passed with the support of the Colorado Coalition for Retirement Security, which brought together Friends of PERA (which includes PERA members and retirees), the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado School and Public Employees Retirement Association, AFSCME Colorado, the American Federation of Teachers Colorado, the Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals, the Colorado Association of School Executives, and Colorado WINS.”
http://www.copera.org/pera/abo…
In 2010, Colorado PERA argued that it had persuaded some PERA retirees that their pension contracts should be breached. For perspective, here is the testimony of one PERA member to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees at a PERA “Listening Tour” meeting in 2009:
Sue Ellen Quam in 2009:
“I was a legislative liaison for many, many years. I sat in the Joint Budget Committee for many, many years, and I remember legislators saying ‘You know, you don’t get very good salary increases and your benefits really stink, but you’re gonna get a really good retirement and so just hang in there.”
“So, I find it to be discouraging that the Legislature may be considering saying, ‘We got you on your salary, we got you on your benefits, and now we’re going to get you on your retirement.”
“I’ve heard rumors that the 3.5 percent increase may be reduced or eliminated and that it’s OK with PERA members. It’s not OK with this PERA member.”
Here are a few news accounts of the battle to protect public pension contracts in Illinois:
From the Sun Times:
“Unions lined up to fight the package, arguing that it would not stand up in court because of constitutional protections against the impairment or diminishment of government pensions. But their criticism didn’t stop it from reaching the floor.”
“‘While there’s truth to the statement the Constitution is not a suicide pact, what we have here is an all-out assault on employees,’ said John Stevens, a lawyer for the We Are One Illinois labor coalition, which opposes the pension deal.”
“The head of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, Dan Montgomery, called the language in the pension bill ‘illegal.'”
“‘You’re considering plunging ahead with an illegal plan from our point of view that we would propose violates your oath of office, does not solve state’s fiscal or pension crisis and disrespects hundreds and thousands of public servants,’ Montgomery told the panel.”
(My comment: In 2010, a majority of the members of the Colorado General Assembly demonstrated that they placed little value on their oaths of office or on the Colorado Constitution. Their honor and morality was sold on the cheap for political expediency.)
“There also have been doubts that Cullerton would allow a Senate vote on the House plan, which would string supporters out on a roll call that labor unions have fought bitterly against because it would freeze cost-of-living increases for state retirees for six years, among other things.”
“Under the 175-page House bill, known as Senate Bill 1673, cost-of-living increases would be frozen for six years and disallowed for retirees until they reach 67.”
http://www.suntimes.com/174466…
From evanstonnow.com:
“Illinois Federation of Teachers’ chief Dan Montgomery accused lawmakers of ‘plunging ahead with an illegal plan that, from our point of view, violates your oath of office.'”
“Illinois AFSCME boss Henry Bayer told lawmakers they are trying to take away what has been ‘earned and is owed’ to public employees.”
“Illinois’ largest public employee unions – the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Education Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the Service Employees International Union – are warning lawmakers that any reform to which the unions do not agree would be met with a lawsuit. Illinois’ constitution specifically protects public pensions.”
“Instead of benefit reductions, the unions want lawmakers to raise taxes on corporations to pay for Illinois’ $93 billion to $130 billion pension gap.”
“‘We don’t have a benefit problem,’ said Cinda Klickna of the IEA. ‘We have a revenue problem.'”
“Illinois’ pension woes go back years and can be partially blamed on lawmakers and governors who did not make the state’s full pension payment.”
(My comment: As we know, the Colorado General
Assembly has skipped $4.3 billion in annual required pension contributions in just the last decade.)
http://evanstonnow.com/story/g…
From Pensions and Investments:
“Representatives of organized labor testified against the proposal. ‘It’s a desperate Hail Mary pass,’ said Michael Carrigan, president of Illinois AFL-CIO, which represents almost 900,000 union members in the state, according to its website.”
http://www.pionline.com/articl…
From We Are One Illinois and the Illinois Federation of Teachers:
“Leaders of the We Are One Illinois coalition released studies today to shed light on the devastating, unfair, and unconstitutional pension cuts in the “Quinn plan” (embodied in HB 1447) and to detail the group’s recommendations to address Illinois’ fiscal dilemma.
Among the key findings of the coalition’s analysis on pension benefit cuts:
– Employees who ‘choose’ the diminished cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) under the Quinn plan would forfeit one-third of their inflation-adjusted purchasing power over the first twenty years of their retirement.
– Because, by design, the diminished COLA is sure to lag inflation, income replacement rates in retirement would fall to 40% to 60% of final pay after twenty years of retirement under the Quinn plan. (Experts recommend income replacement rates of 85% to maintain living standards.)
– When compared to Social Security’s fully inflation-indexed system, the Quinn plan’s COLA would leave retirees with a monthly check that is 25% less than an annuity adjusted according to Social Security.
The second study presents the coalition’s way forward to address the state’s fiscal issues, which includes shared sacrifice from public employees. The framework recommendations would:
– codify an ironclad guarantee that compels the state to make actuarially-sound pension payments
– with a guarantee in place, ask employees to gradually pay 2% more of their salaries into their pensions
– close approximately $2 billion in corporate tax loopholes to provide revenue to support critical services and operations, so that the state stops borrowing from its pension systems to pay its operating expenses
http://www.ift-aft.org/news/pr…
From the Illinois Federation of Teachers:
– OPPOSE SB 1673 and any legislation that would cut the retirement benefits the state promised to current and future public employee retirees.
– WORK WITH unions in the We Are One Illinois coalition to find a fair and constitutional solution.
– SUPPORT revenue-generating solutions to the pension crisis like those recommended by the coalition, not cuts that would hurt dedicated public servants who have paid their fair share into the systems.
– OPPOSE all attempts to rush through unconstitutional, unfair legislation without following the appropriate, democratic process.
http://www.ift-
aft.org/legislative/legislativeupdate/13-01-08/Lawmakers_%e2%80%9cPunt%e2%80%9d_Once_Again_on_Pensions.aspx
or to the Calculus of Social Interests.”
In 2010, a majority of Colorado Legislators ignored their oaths to uphold the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions, breached the state’s Colorado PERA pension contractual obligations, and placed our state on a low moral plane.
I recently came across an excellent post from the blog of Illinois writer Glen Brown. The post brings an important moral perspective to the Colorado General Assembly’s pension contract breach in the legislation SB 10-001. Glen Brown is following and writing about the ongoing Illinois pension reform debate. Below, I have provided some of his work and my reactions.
Glen Brown’s thoughts:
“All citizens have rights that must be protected. When legislators swear an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, then citizens of Illinois and the United States have also acquired the right to expect that they will uphold that pledge. This is also a matter of important moral concern for all citizens of a state, for all legal claims will be validated by a moral framework since the concept of justice is grounded in ethics. If citizens’ legal rights are abused, then their dignity and humanity will also be violated.”
(In 2010, a majority of Colorado state legislators and the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees acted with immorality. These legislators and pension officials decided to attempt the theft of contracted Colorado PERA pension benefits from a small group of Coloradans in order to further reduce Colorado taxpayer obligations. Accordingly, the Colorado legislators violated their oaths to uphold the Colorado and U.S. constitutions.)
Links:
http://teacherpoetmusicianglen…
http://www.blogger.com/profile…
In 2010, the Colorado General Assembly Placed Our State on a Low Moral Plane . . . Diminishing Our State.
“What is at stake right now is not a potential adjudication of conflicting claims that public employees will have against policymakers who want changes to public employees’ earned compensation and rights, but to respect the public employees’ contractual and constitutional promises because they are legitimate rights and moral concerns not only for public employees, but for every citizen in Illinois: for any unwarranted acts of cheating a person’s guaranteed rights and earned compensation will violate interests in morality and ethics and the basic principles of both the State and United States Constitutions that protect every one of us.”
“For that reason, it is imperative that policymakers and stakeholders examine their own ethical and moral principles and their conduct in view of the fact that they will have to justify their decisions to the citizens of Illinois. Certainly, moral responsibility and legal obligation to fund the public pension systems should not be ignored.”
Members of the Colorado Legislature Have Taken an Oath to Defend the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. In 2010, the Colorado Legislature Decided to Force this Responsibility Onto Colorado PERA Retirees.
“It is a moral concern and legal duty to address the state’s revenue and pension debt problems through restructuring and to tax the wealthy among us more fairly, so the state can provide services for its citizens and fund the public pension systems of Illinois instead of incriminating public employees and forcing them to defend the State and United States Constitutions. It is the State of Illinois that has the ‘primary responsibility for financing the system of public education’ (Article X, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution). The public employees’ pension is an integral part of ‘the system of public education’ in Illinois.”
Calling Colorado’s 2010 Breach of Contract “Pension Reform” is a Misnomer.
“Like all other citizens, public employees’ legal rights are derived from past political constitutions, legislative enactments, and case law. All citizens of Illinois have a fundamental right to oppose a General Assembly that imposes a violation of their constitutional rights and earned benefits… ‘Any statute which [is] imposed upon [public employees]… in order to redistribute resources and thus benefit some persons at the expense of others [extends] beyond the implicit boundaries of legislative authority. Such laws…violate natural rights of property and contract, rights lying at the very core of the private domain’ (Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law). Current pension reform is without legal and moral justification; furthermore, to call it ‘pension reform’ when it is ‘breaking a contract’ (Diane Ravitch) is a fabrication.”
The Colorado General Assembly’s Theft of Earned Pension Benefits is Intolerable in a Country Where Freedom Prevails.
“Public employees are promised certain retirement compensation. It is earned; it is not a gratuity. They expect and plan their lives based upon these promises. ‘The very idea that [the state can] hold [public employees’ lives], or the means of [their] living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another ‘has been thought’ intolerable in any country where freedom prevails” (John Locke, Two Treatises of Government).
“As citizens, we are advocates of a unification of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, which protects all of us from any violations of human rights and contracts, as much as we would wish others to be motivated by a way of life that is also governed by a complete moral system of thinking. There are no good reasons for legislators’ attack on public employees’ rights and earned compensation and their attempt to equate their lives to an exchange rate in dollar amounts. The General Assembly cannot justify pension reform in accordance with fundamental, constitutional principles of reason and morality.”
“State ‘governments must respect vested rights in property and contract…’ (Tribe). We should be able to assume most legislators in Illinois understand this concept of justice and that lawfulness demands that people keep their ‘covenants’ with one another. Regarding current pension reform, no justice is accomplished when subordinating or diminishing public employees’ rights and earned benefits because of past legislators’ negligence, irresponsibility, and corruption.”
“The keeping of promises is the General Assembly’s legal duty. It is something the United States Constitution requires them to do whether they want to or not. Unfortunately, many legislators are willing to act without moral or ethical principles, even though ‘claims of rights [are] prima facie or presumptively valid-standing claims’ (Beauchamp).”
“‘Any law which changes the intention and legal effect of the original parties, giving to one a greater and to the other a less interest or benefit in the contract, impairs its obligation’ (115 A. 484, 486). State statutes which do so are prohibited by Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.”
“Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override… It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by the many. Therefore, in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests” (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice).
“There is no justice in granting financial benefits for the wealthy among us and attempting to place the burden of financing public pensions upon schools and taxpayers by Illinois policymakers; there is no equality in granting tax breaks for wealthy corporations and, at the same time, legislating cuts to public employees’ constitutionally-promised compensation. It is ethically wrong to perpetuate unfair distributions of debts in Illinois, especially when Illinois legislators give ‘undeserved weight to highly-organized wealthy interest groups, [those groups] tending to ‘drain politics of its moral and intellectual content'” (Tribe).
In 2010, a Majority of Colorado Legislators Demonstrated That They Have No Respect for Individual Rights or the Rule of Law in Colorado.
“It can be inferred that if policymakers do not take individual rights and contracts seriously, but prefer to challenge them in a court of law, then we can assume legislators of the Illinois General Assembly will not take any of their other laws seriously either. To ‘let the courts decide’ (Speaker of the House Michael Madigan) is a travesty of justice, a costly effrontery and negligence of a legislator’s oath of office.”
Link:
Rep. Cory Gardner likes to point his finger at the media when things don’t go his way, blaming Romeny’s loss on “television stations,” and once complaining that the “media” is biased against people like him who allegedly want smaller government.
Reporters have yet to ask Gardner for the evidence supporting his media bashing. They just lie there and let Gardner trash them.
Why not fight back? It would make good content, and it’s the right thing to do.
Gardner provided another opportunity for an entertaining fight with reporters, if journalists are brave enough cast off their chains and step up, this morning in a conversation with Steve Kelley on KNUS’ morning show, Kelley and Company, about the failure of the Republican House to pass full support for the victims of Hurricane Sandy:
KELLEY: It should be scrutinized. But it just looks bad. Doesn’t it? I mean, — and the way it is being played in the media, unfortunately, [is] Boehner, this mean guy doesn’t — and you guys in the House — don’t care about those Hurricane Sandy victims out there.
GARDNER: Look, the media is going to criticize the Republicans every time we turn around, because we are not in lock-step with the President. And they are going to criticize any time they get a chance. Now, should this have been handled in a different way? Uh, there’s always going to be speculation about that. But the bottom line is this: John Boehner is not a – nor is the House Republican majority going to turn a blind eye on the victims of a horrible natural disaster.
That’s nut-head nutty, isn’t it? The media wants Gardner to be in lock-step with Obama? What’s he talking about?
It would be fun to hear Gardner explain himself, wouldn’t it?
A press release from Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office today:
Gov. John Hickenlooper announced plans today to save more than $280 million in Medicaid spending over 10 years, permitting the prudent expansion of coverage in Colorado. Projections show the savings, existing provider fee structure and other health-related revenues will more than cover the cost of the expansion.
“We worked diligently over the past several months to find savings in order to expand coverage,” Hickenlooper said. “Not one dollar from the state’s general fund will be used for this expansion, even in 2017 when the federal government begins to reduce its share.”
The new coverage levels are authorized by the federal Affordable Care Act and will expand Medicaid coverage to Coloradans earning up to 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) beginning on Jan. 1, 2014.
The AP via CBS4 adds context:
At least 14 states and Washington, D.C., already have indicated they would try to expand Medicaid, a signature goal of the new health care law. Governors in nine states have said they won’t participate. A Supreme Court ruling last summer made the Medicaid expansion voluntary for states, rather than mandatory.
The Medicaid overhaul is one of the two main ways the federal health law expands coverage to most of the 50 million uninsured U.S. residents.
Here’s a statement from the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative:
We applaud Governor Hickenlooper for supporting the extension of quality, affordable healthcare to 160,000 uninsured Coloradans through Medicaid. This is a crucial investment in the economic security of our state. We look forward to working with the administration to plan the new Medicaid program this year and implement it next year because all Coloradans should be able to get the health coverage they need, when they need it.
And the Colorado Hospital Association:
CHA commends Gov. Hickenlooper for his decision to support Medicaid expansion under the provisions of the ACA. Strengthening and expanding Medicaid will lead to improved physical and economic health for all of Colorado. More than 161,000 Coloradans will now be eligible for health care coverage through Medicaid. That means thousands of Colorado families will have access to the primary and preventative care, early diagnoses and treatment they need in order to live healthier and higher quality lives.
The expansion of Medicaid to cover some 160,000 more uninsured Coloradans is mostly financed, at least in the short term, through the Affordable Care Act a.k.a. “Obamacare,” through 2017 when the state’s share of the cost will gradually increase to 10%. Even then, Hickenlooper says the savings his administration is finding in the system, the hospital Medicaid provider fee passed in 2009, and other changes should account for the expenditure. This will help hospitals struggling to care for uninsured patients, and help all the rest of us who pick up part of those costs, in addition to increasing affordable access to health care.
And again, more people with health coverage means a healthier population generally. If you think about that every time a stranger coughs in your personal space, for example, it should be easy to understand how expanding access to care helps everybody. Somewhere in there that becomes good for the economy, too, a point not lost on Colorado’s pro-business Governor.
One thing we haven’t seen yet is objections from the GOP minority, but no doubt they are coming. Hickenlooper doesn’t need legislative approval for this expansion, which he claims will not impact the general fund, but that’s unlikely to stop Sen. Greg Brophy from complaining about all the extra money poor people will have for air conditioning and lottery tickets now.
UPDATE 9:00PM: House passes Taxpayer Relief Act 257-167. In the Colorado delegation the vote is party line, all Democrats voting in favor, all Republicans voting against.
—–
UPDATE #2: Just when you thought it was safe to exhale, FOX 31’s Eli Stokols:
After House Republicans caucused Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-VA, the second-ranking member of the caucus, stated he was opposing the bill, the first big sign that the Senate compromise may be in serious trouble.
Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, a close confidant of Cantor’s, also confirmed that he’ll oppose the legislation as it’s currently written.
“But [Gardner] will consider an amendment that meets the test of cutting spending, growing the economy (through responsible tax policy) and not burdening an ever growing deficit,” Rachel George, Gardner’s spokeswoman, told FOX31 Denver in a statement Tuesday afternoon.
The very latest word is that a vote will be held tonight on an unmodified version of the deal passed by the Senate early this morning. It should then pass, with support of Democrats and some number of moderate Republicans in favor. We’ll update when and if that happens.
—–
UPDATE: Politico’s Seung Min Kim has more from dissenting Sen. Michael Bennet:
“While I do support many of the items in this proposal – for example, extending unemployment insurance, the wind production tax credit and tax cuts for most Americans – I believe they should have come in the context of a comprehensive deficit reduction package,” Bennet said. “Without a serious mechanism to reduce the debt, I cannot support this bill.”
“Putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path and bringing our debt under control is incredibly important to our economy and our standing in the world and is a top priority for me,” Bennet continued. “I remain committed to continue working with any Republican or Democrat willing to address this problem in a serious way. Colorado’s kids deserve no less.”
After a rare holiday session that lasted through the New Year’s Eve celebration and two hours into New Year’s Day, senators voted 89-8 to approve the proposal. Three Democrats and five Republicans dissented, most prominently Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
“It took an imperfect solution to prevent our constituents from very real financial pain,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said before the vote. “This shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country.”
President Obama, in a statement released by the White House early Tuesday morning, said, “While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay.”
One of those three dissenting Democrats was Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado:
In addition to Rubio, the dissenters to the deal in the Senate were Democrats Tom Harkin (Iowa), Thomas R. Carper (Del.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.), and Republicans Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Richard Shelby (Ala.).
CNN has a statement from Sen. Bennet:
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, is the incoming chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the group tasked with electing Democrats to the upper chamber. He created his own plan to avert the fiscal cliff in November alongside Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (who voted for the compromise measure early Tuesday).
He wrote in a statement Tuesday: “Washington once again has lived up to its reputation as the ‘Land of Flickering Lights.’ For four years in my townhall meetings across the state Coloradans have told me they want a plan that materially reduces the deficit. This proposal does not meet that standard and does not put in place a real process to reduce the debt down the road.”
Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa also voted against the deal, calling it “grossly unfair” to the middle class after the ceiling on income remaining eligible for the Bush tax cuts was raised to accomodate Republicans. It’s possible Bennet’s objection is similarly progressive in nature, but we’ll have to see more details than this brief statement to know for sure.
Poltico reports the deal is off to the House, sped by its overwhelming bipartisan passage in the Senate. Despite the Senate vote, a number of conservative House Republicans have already come out against the measure, meaning it will likely pass only with the help of the Democratic minority–which could force Speaker John Boehner to abandon his standing rule that bills should only come to a vote with the support of “the majority of the majority.”
Although Republican leaders have been non-committal about when the bill will come to the floor, and whether it will be amended, there could be implications if a vote slips to Wednesday. Financial markets are closed Tuesday for New Year’s Day, and reopen Wednesday. If the Senate bill isn’t signed into law, that could shake market confidence.
For the time being, Congress has sent the nation over the fiscal cliff. The Senate passed its bill after 2 a.m. on New Year’s Eve, so over the cliff the country went – though perhaps for only a day or two and, assuming no snags, without incurring the double whammy of another recession and higher unemployment.
The $620 billion agreement was a major breakthrough in a partisan standoff that has dragged on for months, spooking Wall Street and threatening to hobble the economic recovery. It turned back the GOP’s two-decade-long refusal to raise tax rates, delivering a major win for President Barack Obama, who has said he would sign this legislation.
We’ll update when the House takes action (or not).
BY: The realist
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Dave Williams Triumphs In Colorado Republican Party Leadership Battle
BY: JeffcoBlue
IN: Gabe Evans Will “Check The Box,” And That’s Why He Can’t Be Trusted
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: davebarnes
IN: Where Do You Buy One Of Dan Woog’s $25 Burgers?
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Where Do You Buy One Of Dan Woog’s $25 Burgers?
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Where Do You Buy One Of Dan Woog’s $25 Burgers?
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Where Do You Buy One Of Dan Woog’s $25 Burgers?
BY: bullshit!
IN: Gabe Evans Will “Check The Box,” And That’s Why He Can’t Be Trusted
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!