Random header image... Refresh for more!

Category — Bills

Picked clean

May 11th, 2010 — Bills, Budget

Ever wonder what happens when a cow falls into piranha-infested waters?  It's probably something like what happened when HB 10-1338 moved through the legislature.

If you haven't noticed, we're broke.  That makes it pretty hard for legislators to pass bills that cost money — "bills with a fiscal note" in legislative jargon.  As a result, a lot of legislators are positioned to pounce on any money that becomes available.

HB10- 1338 increased eligibility for parole, and that saves prison costs: $2.3 million according to the bill's fiscal note.  Think fat cow carcass.

Rep. Judd saw it coming; in House Approps he took $300,000 to to pay for a bill he passed last year (HB 09-1137) that had been languishing for lack of funding.  The money will pay the IT costs of intercepting casino payouts to people who owe restitution from old crimes.

That started the feeding frenzy.  JBC analyst Carolyn Kampman started worrying that we might overfeed and spend more than the bill is saving.  She started keeping track.  The negative (red) numbers are savings.

Bill Expenditures "Tied" to Savings in H.B. 10-1338
    GF Impact
Bill No Short Title FY 2010-11
     
H.B. 10-1338 Probation Eligible Two Prior Felony (2,233,182)
     
H.B. 09-1137 Approp to implement HB 09-1137 336,057
  Approp for child welfare services 1,020,806
H.B. 10-1081 Money Laundering Criminal Fraud 91,370
H.B. 10-1176 Require Government Recovery Audits 161,643
H.B. 10-1277 Sexual Conduct in Correctional Facility 83,861
H.B. 10-1347 DUI Penalties 438,518
H.B. 10-1364 Sex Offender Management Board 100,926
     
TOTALS:   (1)

 

Extravagant?  No way, we stopped appropriating with a dollar to spare.

May 11, 2010   No Comments

Senate update on tax break accountability bill

May 8th, 2010 — Bills, Taxes & Fees

In the Senate, accountability doesn't extend to us or businesses that get tax breaks and subsidies.  The Senate on Friday killed a bill that would have taken the first step toward verifying whether our supposedly job-creating incentives actually create any jobs.

No surprise really.  The Governor and the so-called business committee hated the bill.  They, along with some House members went so far as to call it anti-business.

May 8, 2010   No Comments

Even asking is anti-job

April 28th, 2010 — Bills, Labor, Taxes & Fees

The anti-job attacks have hit a new level of absurdity.  Now, even asking if a job-creation plan actually creates any jobs has become anti-job.  Seriously.

We were considering a bill (HB10-1350) today that asks the Colorado Economic Development Commission to come up with a plan for determining if our supposedly job-creating subsidies and tax breaks really create jobs.  Yes, that's asking the foxes to report on their success in guarding the hen house (more on that after the break), but even that was too much for the Governor and the Republicans.

While the Governor's crew and the chamber of commerce lobbyists were frantically trying to kill the bill from the lobby, Republicans on the House floor were calling the proposal anti-business and anti-job.

It wasn't clear from their comments if requiring job incentives to create jobs is anti-job, or if just asking if they create jobs is anti-job, but, does it matter?  

Another argument against the bill was that it would send the wrong message to business.  Really?  What message would it send?  That when he hand over money to businesses so they'll create jobs, we expect them to create jobs with it?  That seems like the right message.

I think the wrong message would be that we're handing out subsidies and tax breaks and don't care if they create jobs or not.

Keep in mind that we hand over hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks every year in the name of creating jobs.  Those tax breaks are why we have to cut school funding, raise tuition at colleges and universities and suspend the senior property tax exemption.

With those kinds of consequences, asking if we're getting our money's worth seems like a good idea.

The most discouraging part of the debate was that the Governor and the business lobby had already gutted the bill.

[Read more →]

April 28, 2010   2 Comments

Collectively Wrong

April 25th, 2010 — Bills, Education

If you've been following education you know that Gov. Ritter's biggest efforts have been to continue previous Gov. Owen's failed policies: more testing and increasing privatization of public schools.  

One area where Ritter has exceeded Owens is in funding cuts.  Despite verbally attacking Amendment 23, Gov. Owens never actually recommended violating it.  
 
Gov. Ritter this year built his entire budget around cuts to schools.  He and his lawyers reinterpreted Amendment 23; in their view Coloradans who supported 23 were authorizing massive cuts to K-12.  (It's not clear that people who voted against Amendment 23 wanted big cuts.  They may have simply opposed a constitutional mandate to increase school funding).
 
Now Ritter, Owens and two others former governors have joined together to push for a bill that would grade teachers based on their students' academic growth.  It sounds great, and teachers should be responsible (and held responsible) for teaching their students.  
 
The trouble with the bill is its over-reliance on student achievement as a measure.  There's overwhelming evidence that a lot of factors influence how much students learn — some much more than the quality of the teacher.  For instance, Ritter's massive cuts to schools are bound to hurt student achievement and, at a minimum, complicate any effort to single out other factors, like the quality of the teacher, for measurement.  Finally, our method of measuring student achievement is flawed.
 
That last point is especially pertinent to the governors' letter.  At least the last three of them pushed changes they called education reforms, but steadfastly opposed measuring the result of those changes.  We've never checked to see of the CSAPs, for example, have lived up to their initial promise.
 
Their letter begins: "Over the 36 years we collectively governed this state…"  You might expect the rest of the line to list their achievements in education policy, possibly with some data to support their claims.  It didn't.  
 
In fact, the only reference to their education policies is oddly vague: "As governors, we each worked to improve public schools because we know a high quality education system is the key to Colorado's economic future."  It's disconcerting, too.  There are more reasons to support education than just the state's economic future.  That line reflects their narrow, chamber-of-commerce view of the world.
 
The simple fact is that their efforts to improve public education have accomplished very little, according to their own measurement scheme.  Worse, their efforts have economically segregated schools, wasted tens of millions of dollars and discouraged parents, students and teachers alike — all without improving education.
 
In that sense, they may as well have collectively governed.  (Well, maybe not include Lamm.  I don't remember much about this education policy).
 
Their reasons for supporting the bill range from obtuse ("Teachers will need to continue to demonstrate effectiveness to keep their non-probationary status) to dishonest (High-performing teachers and principals could have access to career ladders that would offer additional pay for additional responsibility that could support all educators in improvement).
 
The first one is a round-about way of saying that teachers with low evaluations would get fired.  The second ignores the fact that Ritter's K-12 cuts will force the firing of thousands of teachers (regardless of their ability) and make it unlikely that any employees of Colorado schools will have career ladders or significantly higher pay.
 
There's another line in the letter that is both dishonest and insidious:  "This bill also offers protections to ensure fairness. Evaluations are linked to how much a student has grown, not to their final score, so there is no penalty to teachers and principals who work with struggling students."
 
This is flat-out false.  (It's ungrammatical as well, reflecting the four governors' grasp of the English language.  I rarely notice, care about, or point out grammatical errors, but this one seems apposite).  The bill's emphasis on student academic growth will hold teachers accountable for things that are outside their control.  
 
A student could miss dozens of days of school, with his parent's consent, and the evaluations would hold the student's teacher responsible.  The evaluations will be based on CSAP results, but the legislature and the governors have refused to require students to take the tests, or have the tests count toward a student's grade.  That means students have no reason to care about their test results, but teachers' careers will depend on them.  
 
For those reasons, and some I mentioned earlier, these evaluations will penalize teachers for working with struggling students.  In fact, any teacher who's counting on the career to support his or her family would be foolish to work with struggling students.
 
This proposal is just another ideologically-motivated attempt to divert attention from the real problems in Colorado schools and our refusal to fix them.  Fortunately, there's a lawsuit working its way through the judicial system that will cut through the nonsense and go to the heart of the matter.  It will also offer a judgment on the governors' education policies.

April 25, 2010   No Comments

Tax Pervasion

January 31st, 2010 — Bills, Budget, Taxes & Fees

We've been trying to suspend or eliminate some tax breaks to help balance the state budget.  The so-called "business community" is fighting tooth and nail to keep them.  I say "so-called" because I don't think groups like the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry really represent the interests of all businesses.

In any case, the people who have come to testify against the bills have kept to a couple of common themes: cutting the tax breaks will eliminate jobs and cause companies to move out of state.

One business owner testified in committee that if he lost a special tax break for companies that sell software, he'd move his business to Utah.  He's headquartered in Colorado, but has another office in Salt Lake City.  

I said: "Utah already taxes software sales, why would you move?"

"Why not?" was his answer.

He got a laugh from other people who'd come to testify against the bill, and let it go.  It still doesn't make sense.  If we eliminate the special tax break Colorado's had since 2005, we'll collect the regular 2.9% state sales tax on certain kinds of software.  Utah charges 4.7%.   Maybe he'd move, and pay higher taxes, just for spite.

The fact is, Colorado's state sales tax, 2.9%, is the lowest of any state that has a sales tax.  A few states don't tax sales, but they raise revenue other ways.

When Coke and Pepsi testify that charging our 2.9% tax on soda will ruin their businesses and cost jobs, they're ignoring the fact that a lot of states charge higher taxes on soft drinks, and people still buy them.

The same is true of our corporate income tax.  It's a flat 4.63%.  Here's how it compares to other states:

chart of corporate income tax rates

Colorado's not on that chart because I had to split it in half to include all of the states.  Here are the rest:

chart of corporate income tax rates

Yeah, that's Colorado over on the right.  We're the lowest of any state that has a corporate income tax.  I left off the states that don't have a corporate tax.  I also left off Ohio, which has one, but it's unique and hard to compare.

The non-partisan Tax Foundation ranks us 13th in lowest state and local taxes for businesses.  One, two and three are South Dakota, Wyoming and Alaska.  When you throw in quality of life, Colorado's pretty competitive.

The problem with complaining about taxes in Colorado is the tax in every other state.

January 31, 2010   No Comments

Revenue is Driving the Budget

April 12th, 2009 — Bills, Budget, Taxes & Fees

General Fund (GF) revenue is driving the big changes in the Fiscal Year 2009-10 budget.   The amount of revenue is plummeting and writing a state budget for next year has been a process of paring state services down to what we can afford.  Over and over again.

We learned during the last recession (2001-1005) that it’s better to cut the budget early than to hope for the best and wait.  On the other hand, the latest round of cuts is doing real damage to the state — probably permanent, or at least long-term damage.  Cutting deeper unnecessarily would be awful.

[Read more →]

April 12, 2009   No Comments

Perverse Incentive

April 7th, 2009 — Bills, Health

Lost a bill yesterday that I had high hopes for. It would have made it an unfair trade practice for insurance companies to offer employees bonuses for denying claims.

Yes, I know how powerful insurance companies and their lobbyists are, but this bill seemed possible. For one things, even the insurance companies agree that claims adjusters should base their decisions on facts, not bonuses.

I also thought the bill stood a chance because the Senate had amended the bill to address the insurance company’s concerns. In committee they even agreed that the rewritten bill was OK. But then they pulled the old big industry switch trick: the lobbyists who testified in the Senate didn’t testify in the House committee; we got a new set of lobbyists who could not speak to what other lobbyists may have agreed to in the Senate. They just said the bill was bad for their business, and won.

The bill which passed the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with just one "no" vote died House HHS 6-5 (the vote in House HHS was to kill the bill, so a "yes" vote is against the bill and a "no" vote is for it.

April 7, 2009   No Comments