Mount Virtus

Barack Obama has a new television ad that’s airing in 18 states, including here in Colorado. Marc Ambinder has the video and transcript:

OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message. Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law. Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss. Fought for workers’ rights. He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids. As president, he’ll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work.

Very cleverly worded to exaggerate Barack Obama’s role on each of the main points taken from his record as an Illinois state legislator. Of course, someone with only legislative experience couldn’t “pass” bills, unless he provided a decisive vote or decisive support in a close tally. The Washington Post makes it clear that Obama was just a legislative sponsor or co-sponsor for the “tax cuts for workers” (which passed 59-0) and the welfare roll back (which passed 56-1).

In the case of the 2000 Illinois earned income tax credit, Barack Obama signed on as a co-sponsor the day after the bill passed the state senate. The 1997 state law cutting Illinois’ welfare rolls was done to comply with the federal reform passed by President Clinton and a Republican Congress, and Obama dragged his feet in agreeing to the Illinois senate bill: “I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare. Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.”

What about the health insurance program for kids? It’s indisputable that Barack Obama (aka Obamessiah) is responsible for expanding state-sponsored health insurance in Illinois. The bill, passed in 2003, cost the state of Illinois $26 million at a time it faced a very difficult $3.6 billion deficit.

The rest of the story of Barack Obama’s ad? Fiscal responsibility, and honesty, aren’t exactly his strong suits, especially when trying to bolster a very thin record of very limited accomplishments. Something for Coloradans to keep in mind as this ad assaults us on the airwaves in the coming days and weeks. Don’t worry, though … the Obamessiah has promised “hope” and “change”.

The Rocky Mountain News reports today on outgoing House Speaker Andrew Romanoff’s intense efforts to place an initiative on the ballot that would forever end TABOR refunds for Colorado taxpayers. Of course, the skewed way the Rocky describes the ballot measure, you wonder what sensible person could oppose it:

While the rest of Colorado is hiking, rafting, barbecuing or putting in some serious hammock time, Romanoff, D-Denver, and a group of volunteers will hit the streets attempting to gather about 120,000 signatures from registered voters….

The proposal aims to unsnarl the fiscal knot of conflicting spending mandates and limits embedded in the state’s constitution.

Called SAFE (Savings Account for Education), the effort would seek to extend the fiscal relief that voters provided when they approved a 5-year timeout from the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. That timeout is set to expire in 2010.

Ari Armstrong has a better idea for Romanoff’s SAFE acronym:

The older SAFE stood for Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic. Call this one Statist Alternatives to the Freedom Epidemic.

Armstrong also suggests the tag “Referendum C: Part II,” since Romanoff’s new proposal basically concedes the 2005 multi-billion dollar permanent tax and spending increase just wasn’t quite enough. For the tax-consuming bureaucrats in state government, there is no such thing as enough.

Gutting TABOR, as this measure effectively would do, has been on the Democrat agenda for years. Colorado will be better off if Romanoff’s not-so “SAFE” initiative doesn’t qualify for the ballot.

Someone needs to invite Romanoff to go for a hike or to come over for a barbecue.

From Face The State’s latest “Buzz”:

Americans for Prosperity, a center-right grassroots organization currently focusing on encouraging responsible energy policy, has announced that it is opening shop in Colorado with its 22nd chapter. The effort is being headed up by social conservative Jim Pfaff, a former president of the Colorado Family Council known and praised for his ability to make nice with social libertarians.

This can’t be seen as a positive development by Colorado’s liberal Tim Gill-Pat Stryker-Mark Udall-Bill Ritter axis. Whenever the fiscal conservatives and social conservatives start playing nice, working behind a savvy and respected person like Jim Pfaff, that means the Left can’t fall back so easily on its “divide and conquer” strategy.

It’s still a long uphill climb, though, for Colorado supporters of limited government and fiscal responsibility. But the signs of a trend are encouraging.

With a little shameless self-promotion, I tie it all together on the longest day of the calendar year.

First, news broke earlier this week that Gov. Bill Ritter has done the inevitable, by agreeing to appeal a district court ruling that came to the clear and appropriate conclusion that Ritter erred in raising school property taxes without voter permission. Sure, I could link to lots of articles that highlight this news, but only the one in the Denver Daily News quotes the author of this blog:

“I believe the district court judge did the right thing by recognizing that Colorado voters should be asked before they endure a tax increase,” said Ben DeGrow, a policy analyst at the Independence Institute. “It’s simply a matter of honoring the state constitution.”

Don’t take my word for it. The Attorney General came to the same conclusion. The only response from the governor’s spokesman?:

But Ritter’s office believes the case is more complex than how the Independence Institute sees it.

“It’s a complex case,” said Evan Dreyer, Ritter’s spokesman. “The supreme court is a more proper venue for a full airing on a constitutional issue like this.” [Link Added]

With supreme court decisions like the one highlighted in my op-ed in today’s Greeley Tribune, you can understand the confidence of our Democrat governor:

Teachers unions and other labor groups do not deserve special treatment under our state’s election laws, even if some judges seem determined to give it to them.

On May 19, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that unions could spend member dues money to provide free services to partisan political campaigns.

My reasoning in the op-ed is better developed, but the conclusion is roughly the same as my initial reaction to the outrageous 5-2 ruling in Rutt v Poudre Education Association:

The state supreme court has just sent a clear signal that it’s okay for Big Labor to coordinate with (overwhelmingly Democrat) political candidates, allowing their campaigns to outsource the cost of electioneering activities to be covered by general union dues collected from members.

More clearly than ever, unions are on the advance in Colorado - and this time at the expense of fair elections and individual rights….

The other thing in common between these two issues? Both are intricately tied into the debate about public education, but actually have nothing to do with education per se: Bill Ritter’s “Colorado Children’s Amendment” property tax hike that guarantees no money for schools, and a labor union built around public education tax dollars with a tilted electoral advantage over the taxpayers who fund the system.

Good thing summertime is here, giving opportunity for longer and more sustained outdoor mental health breaks. Speaking of which, thankfully the weekend is almost here.

A couple days ago I had the pleasure of pointing out the defects in Denver Post editorialist Bob Ewegen’s arguments against Right-to-Work. I wrote:

Even more telling than comparisons of static earnings are rates of growth. In both job growth and in overall economic growth, Right-to-Work states have performed better.

I therefore found it interesting that another insightful blogger only last week posted an analysis of new economic growth data. Here’s the chart Will Franklin produced showing just how much Right-to-Work states outperform states that allow union coercion:

Combined with the other flaws in Bob Ewegen’s argument, this interesting find only makes the case for Right-to-Work look even stronger.

In a column for the Sterling Journal-Advocate, newly elected Republican National Committeeman Mark Hillman (be ready to be greeted by his smiling face) asks the nagging question on the minds of many Colorado taxpayers:

Is it typical political spin or something more tangible that makes Gov. Bill Ritter so incredibly confident that the Colorado Supreme Court will vindicate his strategy to raise your property taxes without your permission?

If you get a chance, read the whole thing.

Last week I similarly asked what Bill Ritter knows about the court’s coming ruling that makes him so confident to wager taxpayer money on the previous ruling being overturned. I’ll second Mark Hillman’s question, but I’m not very confident the governor is going to give an answer.

“Four bucks a gallon”: it’s the catchphrase that hits home all across America. Even putting the best face on it that they can, even federal government officials admit that gasoline prices figure to remain high for the foreseeable future.

Yet on the same day, Democrats on a Congressional committee kill a proposal that would allow the United States to expand its domestic energy supply. I would say they’re stuck on stupid, but it’s far more likely that Nancy Pelosi, Mark Udall, and the Democrats are glad to see gasoline prices high, as they kowtow to radical environmentalist special interest groups.

To top it off, the Democrats’ Presidential candidate Barack Obama makes a ridiculous statement suggesting that rising gasoline prices is a good thing. Obama certainly is struggling to come up with an answer.

On the other hand, Republicans in Congress have come forward with an appealing economic proposal that includes increased domestic energy exploration. But those of us in fly-over country remain skeptical about how serious the GOP is about achieving such reforms. And even if they are serious, it’s not likely they can do much to move the ball forward, especially since the reins of power don’t appear to be theirs for awhile.

Meanwhile, the Republican at the top of the ticket, John McCain, is really struggling to articulate a credible message on the energy issue. Powerline’s John Hinderaker sees an opportunity for the Republican candidate and offers him some sound advice: Will he take it? Don’t hold your breath.

Unless something dramatically changes, the energy issue figures to drive this year’s election. Will Republicans seize or waste the opportunity? Just don’t wager a gallon of gas. It might be worth more than you can afford to lose come November.

Even the editorial boards of smaller Colorado newspapers, in places that are hardly bastion of rock-ribbed conservatism, are assailing Gov. Bill Ritter for his property tax hike. From an editorial in today’s Vail Daily:

Thanks to the state’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), which stunts the growth of property taxes, those of us who own property in Eagle County shouldn’t expect to see our taxes skyrocket at the same rate as our property values without voter approval.

This year, however, taxpayers’ rights were usurped by Gov. Bill Ritter’s decision to freeze the statewide school district property tax rate. Because Eagle County has enjoyed a significant rise in property values — an average of about 40 percent countywide in the last two years — property owners here saw a spike in their property tax bills.

Not only was Ritter’s move a clear violation of the TABOR Amendment because it effectively raised taxes without voter approval, it didn’t benefit many of the state’s school districts. Funding for the Eagle County School District pretty much stayed the same. That’s because the state determines the amount of money each school district receives every year, then fills in what the districts can’t cover themselves.

What the mill levy freeze did is transfer the burden of funding Eagle County schools to local taxpayers and out of the state’s budget. The result? We paid $8 million more in property taxes to the school district. Meanwhile, the state’s contribution to Eagle County schools dropped by about $8 million.

But it’s for the children, right? The editorial goes on to explain that all Bill Ritter had to do was to ask voters first. Hopefully the Colorado Supreme Court comes down on the side of taxpayers.

It’s not just Democrat Governor Bill Ritter who is presuming to wager more than $100 million in taxpayer funds on his confidence in the state supreme court overturning a decision against his unconstitutional property tax increase. The Grand Junction Free Press reports about the lax attitude of a ranking Democrat incumbent from the Western Slope:

The appeal has not been scheduled, and Democratic Rep. Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction believes it’s too soon to make a plan for a change that may never come.

The article explains that the money collected starts to be spent on July 1. And while Republican lawmakers Rep. Steve King and Sen. Josh Penry want to work quickly to find a prudent solution, Bernie Buescher (pictured) has taken a lackadaisical approach to what to do with taxpayers’ money:

Calling a special session of the Legislature before the Supreme Court appeal is even scheduled would be premature, Buescher said. He speculated the timeline for the court case could be known in the next two weeks.

Buescher said he’s not ruling out finding a solution for dealing with the freeze being deemed unconstitutional May 30, but believes “if the Supreme Court should rule against the governor, the Legislature would have plenty of time to deal with the mill levy freeze.”

“Plenty of time”? I guess it’s “plenty of time” if you consider the money to belong to the government, even though Judge Christine Habas agrees with Attorney General John Suthers that Bill Ritter’s tax hike violates the state constitution. Ritter and the Democrats failed to ask first before collecting additional tax money from property owners, and now they act as if the money is rightfully theirs. How dare we question them!

At the same time, the State Board of Education decides this Thursday whether to appeal the district court decision or to leave Gov. Ritter all alone in defending his unconstitutional property tax hike.

While minority Republican legislators push for pro-active leadership on the property tax funding issue, Gov. Bill Ritter sits on his hands and Bernie Buescher makes excuses. Now you know the reason why Republican challenger Laura Bradford has a decent chance to upset Buescher in this fall’s election.

Yesterday, highlighting Governor Bill Ritter’s arrogant response to the recent court decision finding his property tax hike unconstitutional, Republican leaders in the state legislature Mike May and Andy McElhany dashed off a scathing letter:

It is irresponsible to assume that the Colorado Supreme Court will overturn the decision of the District Court that your property tax proposal from last year is unconstitutional.

A new analysis by Legislative Council shows that the cost of doing nothing to address this possibility, before the budget goes into effect on July 1, 2008, will be $272 million! The price of inaction is too great.

Serving in the justice system, you saw how difficult it is to win on appeal, and must recognize the need for a plan of action should the appeal fail.

It was unwise to ignore the opinion of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers: It is reckless to ignore both the attorney general and our District Court.

We are writing to request that you notify the legislature of your plan to address the unbalanced budget situation created by your unconstitutional property tax hike. As our governor, you have the power to make cuts to the budget or to call us into a special session.

If you refuse to act, we strongly believe you owe the people of Colorado an explanation as to why you are so certain that the Supreme Court will overturn the existing ruling.

We cannot help but wonder if you know something that the rest of Colorado does not, that causes you to be so confident that the Supreme Court, tasked with upholding justice and not agendas, will come down on your side….

Read the rest of this entry »

From Face The State today:

While Gov. Bill Ritter has eagerly insisted that he will appeal a Friday court ruling establishing that a mill levy freeze amounts to an unconstitutional tax increase under Colorado law, members of the state Board of Education, a defendant in the case, remain undecided about whether they will formally join in support of Ritter’s challenge.

It appears the District Court ruling may have emboldened the two Republicans on the State Board to change their mind. The Board meets in executive session tomorrow:

Vice Chairman Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins, introduced in April a motion for the board to take a formal position, by way of public vote, on whether the department would “defend the lawsuit or [agree with] the claims against the state.”

Schaffer’s only support came from Littleton. Fellow Republicans Randy DeHoff, D-Littleton, and Chairwoman Pamela Jo Suckla, R-Slickrock, sided with Democrats and voted to defend the lawsuit. At the time, Suckla said, “It is not in the best interest of this board to debate the issue and the case’s merits in a public forum. That is not our job.”

Littleton believes that Friday’s ruling will be enough to persuade Suckla and DeHoff to change their positions. Hudak did not disagree.

Switching from their original votes would mean the State Board would NOT appeal the legal decision to protect the rights of taxpayers from Bill Ritter’s unconstitutional property tax increase.

And Ritter, who intervened to become a defendant in the case, would be defending it all alone.

I haven’t written much about Senate Bill 200, so-called “anti-discrimination” legislation, recently signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter. But I certainly took notice when libertarian Ross Kaminsky assailed it in his latest Human Events column:

In the quadrennial marathon to see who can be the nation’s worst governor, Colorado’s Bill Ritter is in a full sprint. On Thursday, Ritter signed Senate Bill 200 which expands “anti-discrimination” law to cover sexual orientation, meaning not only homosexuality or bisexuality, but also “transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.”

The bill is so ripe for abuse and creates so much risk for private business that it’s no surprise the ordinarily media-hungry Ritter signed the bill late in the afternoon (too late for most newspapers to cover the story) with no fanfare (although he frequently has bill-signing ceremonies and particularly for measures such as this which have received this much media attention). It isn’t even mentioned on his Web site, whereas a look at the page shows that he routinely issues press releases on bills he signs into law.

It’s hard to disagree with the notion that this new law is bad public policy and represents government overstep and intrusion.

Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday’s Colorado Republican State Convention - with key video at Slapstick Politics and a great recap from Night Twister - was bolstered by the announcement of the taxpayers’ legal victory against Gov. Bill Ritter for his unconstitutional property tax hike.

But Michael at Best Destiny has some sage cautionary advice for Colorado Republicans on how to respond to Friday’s courtroom decision:

Republicans MUST NOT go out in public and seem too giddy about this. They should talk about checks and balances, and limiting the governor’s ability to act unilaterally, and the majority’s clear disregard for the Constitution.

But if they seem like they’re just glad to have the money taken back by the general public, it’ll be a lot harder to convince the electorate that it’s not about handicapping the schools. We’ve seen the Dems win with just such arguments, before–and this time they have Douglas Bruce in the legislature as a target for their ire.

Republicans have to Jiu-Jitsu this and start talking about school innovations, about schools that are succeeding very nicely on the old budget, about New York and Washington schools that get almost twice as much money but are miserable failures, and about how the Dems have voted to remove accountability while turning over more money to schools and a system that is not showing any results. If we get bogged down strictly on the issue of money for the schools, we lose; if we can turn it into a discussion of genuine education reform, I think we can hold our ground on this issue.

Speaking of school innovations, another Denver school seeking autonomy has run into a roadblock from the local teachers union. Bruce Randolph redux, anyone?

From the GOP Convention in Broomfield…

The Rocky Mountain News reports on yesterday’s taxpayer victory in the courtroom:

A law expected to raise $1.7 billion for Colorado schools over the next 11 years is unconstitutional because it gives the state more tax revenue without required approval from voters, a judge ruled Friday.

Latest estimates are actually $3.8 billion, not $1.7 billion, but the news is good just the same.

In his introductory remarks, state party chair Dick Wadhams’ mention of the court ruling against Gov. Bill Ritter’s tax hike earned perhaps the biggest applause from the Republican faithful gathered here at the Broomfield Event Center. If you don’t think this is going to be a major GOP campaign theme heading into November, you haven’t been paying attention.

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.