Mount Virtus

Yesterday, as reported by the Rocky Mountain News, ballots were mailed out to 21,000 Colorado state employees for the purposes of choosing exclusive representation. Workers vote yes to be represented by the Colorado WINS labor coalition or vote no to keep the status quo and the right to represent themselves if they so choose.

Unfortunately, the Rocky ended their story with a misleading statement:

[Gov. Bill] Ritter has emphasized that his order bans strikes, prohibits binding arbitration and bars unions from charging dues to nonmembers.

It makes you wonder whether Bill Ritter has read his own executive order. The order does not bar unions from charging dues to nonmembers - it leaves the door open to coercive fees being charged on non-members through private bargaining negotiations. I’ve read the order many times: trust me, it isn’t there. At least one national labor expert who read the order strongly noted the danger of this omission.

But you are welcome to look through every jot and tittle of Bill Ritter’s order to find the non-existent prohibition on collecting fees from non-members.

Ballots are likely to start arriving at workers’ homes today, with a deadline of June 10 to return them. It is a majority of ballots cast, not a majority of workers, that will determine the election. Workers who would otherwise vote No but choose not to participate make it easier for the unions to win exclusive representation power.

You can learn more about Bill Ritter’s executive order and its many problems through a number of sources I’ve written or recorded for the Independence Institute:
- Denver Post commentary
- iVoices podcast
- 2-page issue brief
- Full-length issue paper

Two of Colorado’s most established center-right bloggers weigh in on what’s happened to the Republican Party brand and what can be done about it.

Michael at Best Destiny takes a look at a Face The State story on the Republican’s recent plight in Denver’s northwest suburbs and opines loudly about what needs to be done to overcome messaging problems:

. . . .TALK TO EVERYBODY, NOT JUST THE BASE; TALK TO THEM ABOUT KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES, NOT GOP MEAT AND POTATOES; KNOW WHAT MATTERS TO PEOPLE like the economy, stupid; like education, stupid;…

Michael should get paid for his political consultant’s work. I concur that messaging is part of the problem, but in some ways the problem runs even deeper.

Meanwhile, Joshua at View from a Height goes more in-depth to contemplate the life cycle of political parties. While showing he understands the depth of the problem of a Republican Party unmoored from principles and reality, Joshua also advises against what he calls the “worse is better” approach:

The fact is, instead of cynically rooting for disaster, we would be better served to begin rebuilding the party brand now. We should be looking for candidates who stand for something, rather than being happy with the, “well, we’re better than them” line, which has been played out for several elections.

We should be looking for candidates who can begin pushing the Constitutionalist ideals which the rank-and-file expect it to. We should be supporting those candidates.

Agreed. While there may be a cathartic appeal to washing one’s hands of the mess and retiring to cheer for Republicans to be greeted by the electoral woodshed, it’s better to focus positive energy on candidates who have demonstrated a fidelity to “Constitutionalist ideals” - including candidates like Joshua himself.

Build for the future, without needlessly subjecting the nation to extended governance by the Left.

Is this really a story?

A government watchdog group criticized the state’s attorney general for stepping in as legal counsel to the new Independent Ethics Commission, saying in a statement Tuesday that the setup presents unavoidable conflicts of interest.

Attorney General John Suthers on Monday told the commission, responsible for forming ethics rules, that his office would do its lawyering unless lawmakers allow an outside attorney.

Suthers’ office by law acts as counsel for all state agencies, an attorney general spokesman said.

Then we see who the “government watchdog group” is:

Chantell Taylor, head of the nonprofit Colorado Ethics Watch, said the commission should be independent of the executive branch. [emphasis added]

Yes, this Chantell Taylor, whom I blogged on in 2006:

A two-minute Google search would have identified Taylor’s affiliation with the ACLU of Colorado and her active role as a district captain for the Denver Democratic Party. And less than five minutes searching the contribution records on the Colorado Secretary of State Web site would have shown that Taylor is a contributor to Ken Gordon, the Democrats’ candidate for Secretary of State.

Taylor’s resume as a Democrat activist also includes directing the 527 BlueFlower Group, which works to raise money for Democratic women political candidates who favor abortion rights.

I also chronicled the need for better transparency concerning the phony “watchdog group” last August.

In writing about one of Taylor’s complaints a few months ago, the Post at least noted that her group is “generally seen as left-leaning.” Today’s story couldn’t even bother to give that much information, but featured the frivolous attack nonetheless.

Powerline has the goods: Within less than 24 hours, the Obama messiah completely contradicts himself:

Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: “They don’t pose a serious threat to us.”

Barack Obama, today, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Powerline also has video.

So which is it: Is Iran a serious threat, or not?

Or is it beyond us mere peons to dare question the great Obama?

Are Coloradans awakened yet to the union takeover of Colorado? On this site, I’ve covered Big Labor’s controlling influence on the legislature (last year’s House Bill 1072) and on Gov. Bill Ritter (union “partnership” executive order, anyone?). One that hasn’t received as much play is the unions’ controlling influence on the Colorado Supreme Court.

What, you say?

There’s hardly any other way to explain the Court’s 5-2 ruling yesterday that the teachers union is exempt from certain campaign finance restrictions in the state constitution.
Read the rest of this entry »

Linda Gorman from the Independence Institute (where I work), in a recent posting on John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog, highlights a myth from the advocacy group Families USA being cited as facts in the current health care policy debate:

Medicaid spending, the group says, creates jobs. By their reasoning, a law diverting the entire GDP of the United States to the Medicaid program would leave the U.S. awash in jobs. By contrast, the group claims the Bush administration’s efforts to rein-in Medicaid spending will leave tens of thousands of people unemployed.

Gorman quickly picks apart the assertion in four points, using a little fact-checking and basic economic analysis. First:

Roughly speaking, for every four jobs created by spending, five jobs (or their equivalent) will be lost by the taxes needed to finance that spending.

Then:

As it turns out, the Bush Administration has not proposed any Medicaid budget cuts!

Next:

Ignoring where the money comes from, if a 0.3% cut leads to a loss of X jobs, the administration’s 7.1% proposed increase must lead to a gain of about 24X jobs.

And finally:

…[E]xpansion of health care spending for the poor often comes at the expense of other services (food, housing, education) they may value more….

Check out the post for more facts and links to sources.

The Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs is back, with a new look:

Some of the original cast remain, strengthened by the fresh blood of some high-quality newcomers. The goal of the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 is to promote our shared conservative vision of limited and accountable government, freedom, and personal responsibility - in Colorado and in our nation, the result of the most brilliant and noble political experiment in human history.

You also may have noticed the updated logo and running feed of latest posts from RMA 2.0 members on my sidebar. Experienced and consistent center-right Colorado bloggers with at least a passing interest in state or local issues who are willing to collaborate with others and improve their effectiveness are invited to apply. Feel free to contact me.

El Presidente has started the 100-day countdown to Denver’s Democratic National Convention, wrapping it up with this teaser:

We’ll see just how many “amateurs” cover the DNC, providing alternate content–the stuff they won’t show you on TV.

If you have any interest in the DNC and the moonbattery it attracts, you simply ought to be making regular stops at Slapstick Politics and The Drunkablog.

From the Rocky Mountain News:

A laptop owned by the former campaign manager that Gov. Bill Ritter publicly disowned has been reported stolen, raising unanswered questions about its contents.

Ritter accused Greg Kolomitz on April 15 of writing himself and his company $83,250 worth of unauthorized checks. The governor also produced an audit finding Kolomitz improperly paid $217,164.56 in campaign bills with money donated for the Democratic governor’s inauguration.

Three days later, on April 18, Kolomitz reported to Denver police that his Dell laptop had been stolen from inside his locked Colfax Avenue political consulting firm, Solutions West, sometime between the afternoon of April 16 and the morning of April 18.

“Unknown suspect(s) took the listed laptop from the victim’s locked office by unknown means and fled in an unknown direction,” the report reads. “The victim stated that only the building cleaning crew had keys to the offices.”

Police said they have no leads, and Kolomitz declined to comment for this story.

The story about the mismanaged campaign funds broke on April 15. And the public isn’t supposed to be skeptical of the timing of Mr. Kolomitz’s computer disappearance? The formal complaint filed on April 22 very well may be missing access to key evidence.

Exactly what evidence has been lost from the missing laptop computer? Is it evidence that would have hurt Gov. Bill Ritter? Did someone order a cover-up, and if so, who?

Which intrepid journalist is going to follow the leads of this investigation? Which intrepid journalist will even question the governor about it?

Do you live along Colorado’s Front Range, want to contribute to a good cause, perhaps even enjoy playing a round of golf? Then please check out the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Cup Golf Tournament, scheduled to take place on Monday, June 9, at the Rolling Hills Country Club in Golden. Proceeds go to support the Employee Assistance Fund to aid members of the Sheriff’s Office who face serious financial need because of illness or death in their family.

What a great cause - giving back to help those who sacrifice to protect and serve us in Jefferson County.

A friend who is serving as a volunteer fund-raiser for the Tournament brought this to my attention, and I’m glad to help advertise for him. I not only have another friend who serves in the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, but also have a heroic brother who is a police officer in a different Jefferson County.

If you are interested and able to participate in the Sheriff’s Club Golf Tournament, here’s a brochure you can print, fill out, and return. Or read the instructions to find out how to contribute by PayPal.

Calling all Colorado candidates for state and county office! Want to catch up on your policy homework? The Independence Institute (where I work) is sponsoring an important event on June 11:

Want your state legislative candidates to be intellectually well-armed for battle on the campaign trail? Then make sure he or she attends our candidates’ briefing on Wednesday, June 11 from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Independence Institute offices. We gather the state’s leading free market experts on everything from TABOR, to transportation, to education, to property rights, to energy policy and more. Candidates will leave well-prepared to debate issues and field questions from friends and foes alike. This event is free of change and open to all state legislative and county commissioner candidates. Seating is limited.

DATE: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
TIME: 8:30 a.m to 4 p.m.
LOCATION: Independence Institute, 13952 Denver West Parkway (Building 53), Suite 400, Golden Colorado 80401 COST: Free of charge for state legislative and county commissioner candidates; other candidates included as seating allows.

TOPICS: (to include but not limited to) TABOR, health care, education, property rights, energy and environment, transportation, second amendment and grass roots organizing.

The Independence Institute will provide lunch and materials.

For questions contact Amy Oliver at amy@i2i.org. For reservations contact Eileen Mahony at EMMahony@gmail.com.

RSVP for this Event

Please spread the word.

Earlier this evening I asked if the results of recent special elections had thrown enough cold water on Congressional Republicans to get them to wake up and return to their conservative senses. Well, the master satirist Iowahawk has painted the picture of the Congressional GOP’s downfall better than I can with a series of letters from fictional Congressman Jerry Bristol. Check it out.

The other good news to cheer up my day? Fred Thompson is back, with his inspirational and no-nonsense conservative commentary as a Townhall blogger (H/T Michelle Malkin). I was a loyal Fredhead for a couple months there, before the wheels came off his campaign. He wasn’t destined to be President, but perhaps he’ll do much better as an online conservative prophet. It gives me a little more hope.

Just another day of wilderness wanderings….

There’s a great editorial in the Wall Street Journal today:

If there is such a thing as a useful election defeat, then Tuesday’s Republican loss in a special House election in Mississippi would qualify. Maybe this thumping in a heretofore safe GOP seat will finally scare the Members straight, or at least less crooked.

Followed by a reminder that many members of Congress need to figure out what it is they stand for:

In the Mississippi race, the national GOP tried to link Democratic candidate Travis Childers to Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. One TV ad declared: “Travis Childers: He took Obama’s endorsement over our conservative values.” But Mr. Childers was well known as a cultural conservative who favors gun rights and opposes abortion. In a year when Americans are mad as hell, such a negative attack strategy merely reminds voters that Republicans have run out of ideas.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why the cryptic title: Ed is Watching? It’s the name of a new blog I’ve started contributing to as part of the Independence Institute’s Education Policy Center. If you go there now, you’ll already find posts up on charter schools, on Flunked: The Movie’s Colorado debut, and on a new major school choice law in Georgia.

From Jon Caldara’s blog:

Ed’s job is to keep an eye on, “… legislators, state officials, school boards, administrators, principals, teachers, and other people and groups that have an influence on public education in this great state.” So to get your daily education fix, check in with Ed and see what he has to say.

Please stop by the site, bookmark it for regular visits, and tell all your friends!

Today’s Wall Street Journal takes notice of Colorado’s brewing battle between Big Labor and the state’s economic well-being:

A labor-union campaign in Colorado to tighten restrictions on layoffs and crack down on corporate fraud could put Democrats in an awkward position as they gather here in August for their presidential convention.

Unions are pushing to get a total of six measures on the fall ballot, all of them opposed by small-business owners and corporate interests.

“If they pass, it would be like putting a big ‘Do Not Locate Your Business Here’ sign on Colorado,” said John Brackney, president of the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce.

Don’t believe the unions’ initiatives would harm the economy? How about this opinion from a normally reliable pro-union academic:

But others said they would impose an unprecedented burden on businesses of all sizes. “I think they would turn the lights out in the state,” said Ray Hogler, a professor of labor law at Colorado State University.

The major point overlooked by the Journal? That though Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter has sought to get business and labor interests to avoid the “mutually assured destruction” of a costly ballot battle this fall, it is Ritter who owns the responsibility for setting this fight in motion.

If Democrats in general will be in an “awkward position” with this political fight going on in their national convention’s backyard, then no one will be in a more “awkward position” than the state’s chief executive: Bill Ritter.

A quick glance at Politico this morning …

Bad news for Barack Obama: A stinging blowout defeat in the West Virginia primary holds a lot of evidence that the Leftist Illinois Senator faces serious demographic challenges beyond the bellwether state.

Not-so-bad news for Barack Obama: All signs point to another bad national election season for Republican candidates.

Flunked: The Movie - an Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF) production - comes to Colorado next Wednesday, May 21. The Independence Institute (where I work) is sponsoring the showing of this spectacular 47-minute film about the success stories that should inspire transformational change in our nation’s education system. The film, narrated by Joe Mantegna, is more engaging and entertaining than your average documentary. Here’s a preview:

Also, you can listen to this iVoices podcast recorded today with EFF’s Steve Maggi to learn more about the film. And go here to find out how to sign up for the May 21 event.

Update, Part Deux: Sources have contacted me to correct my update. The Act hasn’t officially passed the Senate yet. The final vote will be later this week. The first vote was a procedural motion that appears to be a strong indicator of a final vote. Anyway, there is hope for this bad legislation to die yet.

Update: Just as I was publishing this post, it looks like the Act has passed the Senate, with a lot of so-called Republicans also enabling the legislation. So goes the world…

Unsurprisingly, the Democrats in Congress haven’t accomplished much since they took over. Most notably, Nancy Pelosi’s 2006 “plan” to bring down gas prices is still in the works.

One special interest group to which Democrats have been busy pandering is Big Labor. They keep trying to take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot (aka the “Employee Free Choice Act”) as a means of growing private-sector union membership.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington have been trying to coerce the growth of union clout in the public sector, too. The issue at hand is the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act of 2007 (S. 2123), which has made its reappearance in the Senate, having initially stalled there after passing the House:

Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce. In some states, police, firefighters and paramedics belong to unions that collectively bargain for their contracts. In others, unions representing public-security workers can bargain over pay, but not over benefits or work rules. And in some others, these workers can choose not to belong to a union.

Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything — pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.

A top-down dictum to small local governments to mandate union recognition for police, fire, and other public safety workers? It’s a lot more efficient for Big Labor leaders to push the change at the federal level than to wade through the various laws of different states that have different prevailing views about public-sector labor relations. And Congressional Democrats are enabling them, without any compelling reason in the public interest and, in fact, many potential harms to the public interest.

If you want more information, the Alliance for Worker Freedom has a ton of resources on the issue. There’s also a great brief written by James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation.

Last year, when this issue was first hot, I interviewed Weld County Sheriff John Cooke for an iVoices podcast to discuss the potential local impact of the federal legislation.