Search Results for: at least

Yesterday we saw Colorado’s Least Successful Senators in passing legislation, and today Colorado Confidential turns its attention the the Least Successful Representatives: 1. Victor Mitchell 2. Debbie Stafford 3. Amy Stephens 4. Stella Hicks 5. Mike May 6. Wes McKinley 7. Bill Cadman 8. Bob Gardner 9. Kent Lambert 10. Kevin Lundberg As Colorado Confidential […]

Through the first half of the legislative session, Colorado Confidential has detailed which legislators are most and least successful in promoting their own legislation. Check out the 10 least successful state senators: 1. Greg Brophy 2. Steve Ward 3. Andy McElhany 4. Shawn Mitchell 5. Scott Renfroe 6. Mike Kopp 7. Ted Harvey 8. Mike […]

The Hill–there’s a chance that we’ll be referring back to this story for a long, long time:

Even as Republican officials maintain the GOP majority is safe, several lawmakers and longtime activists warn of far-reaching political ramifications if voters perceive Republicans as botching consequential talks on the debt ceiling, sequestration and a possible government shutdown.

“Majorities are elected to do things, and if they become dysfunctional, the American people will change what the majority is,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a House deputy majority whip and a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, told The Hill. [Pols emphasis]

Concerns on the right stem from a public perception that House Republicans were to blame – because of poor leadership strategy and rank-and-file dissent – for bringing the country to the edge of the fiscal cliff late last month.

As this fine reporting by The Hill’s Alexandra Jaffe makes clear, the House GOP majority is torn by two competing and mutually exclusive assumptions. On one side, you have an ideologically rigid conservative wing of the majority, still feeling emboldened after large gains made in 2010 and in redistricting in many states, who are absolutely determined to carry out their ideologically-driven agenda–regardless of public opinion, or short-term consequences for the U.S. economy.

On the other side, you have at least some practically-minded Republicans who realize coming out of 2012 that they have already overplayed their hand.

Conventional wisdom, backed by hard numbers, suggests that Republicans have enjoyed enough success with congressional redistricting in recent decades–though not in Colorado–to create an extremely durable GOP House majority. The simplest evidence for this is the 2012 national popular vote, which re-elected Barack Obama by nearly five million votes, while also re-electing 2010’s “Tea Party” GOP House majority more or less intact.

Democrats need to net 17 districts to take back the House in 2014, widely considered a significant hurdle to overcome.

But the party has identified “30 districts where the [GOP] incumbent [won by] less than 10 percent and an additional 18 districts that we think can perform better” in a non-presidential election year, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said recently.

And it’s in those districts – where Republicans don’t have a deep base of voters to rely on – that a repeat disaster like the fiscal-cliff fight could matter. [Pols emphasis]

We haven’t seen the list of 2014 Democratic pickup opportunities mentioned above, but we fully expect it to include both Colorado’s Third and Sixth Districts. Although Republican incumbents held these seats in 2012, every election cycle under the current maps will remain hotly competitive in both. If Democrats picked up one or both of those seats in 2014, and that level of success was replicated across the country in other swing district races…

Seriously, folks, what must happen before conventional wisdom is forced to reassess?

UPDATE: The Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic with more IEC coverage:

The travel expenses charged by Gessler come from attendance at the Republican Party convention in Florida and to a Republican National Lawyers Association meeting this past summer. Gessler was not a delegate to the Republican convention, a fact confirmed for the Independent by Spokesman for the state Republican Party Justin Miller. On his reimbursement forms, Gessler said he was conducting state business.

Peg Perl, staff counsel at Ethics Watch, told the Independent it was gratifying to see the commission stay focused on the substance of the case.

“We’re happy the commission members are taking their responsibility seriously,” she said in a phone interview. “They voted unanimously that this complaint was not frivolous when they took it up and they decided unanimously today to investigate it on the merits. Gessler’s attorneys cast aspersions on Ethics Watch, calling our motives into question, and they attacked the way the Ethics Commission conducts business. But the fact remains that these are questionable transactions with public funds and Coloradans have a right to know what happened.”

Perl added that the complaint filed by her organization was based on published news reports and documents from the secretary of state’s office obtained through an Open Records Act request. She said the commission will have greater investigative power to look into the spending through its subpoena powers.

—–

It’s been a long time coming, reports the Fort Collins Coloradoan’s Patrick Malone:

Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission on Monday denied Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s request to end its investigation of his use of public funds. Gessler’s deputy, in turn, asked the commission for permission to accept monetary donations outside of the constitutional gift limit to defend him against criminal allegations.

Democratically aligned Colorado Ethics Watch filed complaints against Gessler with the Independent Ethics Commission and the Denver district attorney’s office over his use of public funds to pay for part of a trip in August to Florida where Gessler attended a GOP lawyers’ function and the Republican National Convention.

Colorado Ethics Watch also asked the ethics commission and prosecutors to investigate Gessler’s acceptance of personal payments to empty the balance of his office’s discretionary fund.

Malone reports that embattled Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s three high-powered defense lawyers, David Lane, Robert Bruce, and Michael Davis, are being paid by the state to defend Gessler in the Independent Ethics Commission proceedings against him. Not so with Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey’s criminal investigation of Gessler over essentially the same dubious reimbursements, and cleaning out his discretionary account of remaining funds. In a criminal case, even related to his duties, Gessler has to pick up the tab for his own legal defense–unless he can carve out a fresh loophole in Amendment 41:

In the request for an advisory opinion from the ethics commission, Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert advocates allowing donations to a legal defense fund for Gessler. In the document, Staiert argues that political rivals can financially harm public officials whose policies they oppose.

She states that donors to the fund would not curry the influence of a public official, because the public official would not directly benefit from the donations that are paid to his lawyers.

We would be more sympathetic to Gessler’s plight, recognizing that legal harassment is at least hypothetically possible against public officials. Unlike most frivolous legal harassment, though, this isn’t getting dismissed out of hand. In fact, the IEC has decided that the case has merit. That’s not proof of guilt, of course, but citizens must pay for their own criminal defense in most cases–even when they are eventually found not guilty. A criminal investigation (and prosecution, if any) has a much higher standard than, say, a frivolous civil lawsuit. Is Gessler implying that the Denver DA is a “political rival” seeking to “financially harm” him?

Also, it’s not like we’re talking about a policy issue or consequential official action being defended. Although related to his office, the underlying charge boils down to essentially misuse of funds–whatever descriptive term you want to use for that, we’ve heard several.

Either way, how would a donation to Gessler’s legal defense fund not be of “direct benefit” to Gessler, when the alternative is him paying out of pocket? And how then would that be permissible under Amendment 41? That would be awfully hard to swallow even if the circumstances surrounding this alleged malfeasance did inspire much sympathy.

Which, if you haven’t been paying attention, they don’t.

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.