State Representative Jim Reisberg is one of the primary sponsors of HB 1293 the Healthcare provider “fee”.   According to a new report from Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Linda Gorman, the bill adds as much as a 5.5 percent tax to every patients’ hospital bill and could cost Colorado citizens nearly $600 million per year in increased health care costs.

HB 1293 is another example of the Colorado General Assembly’s wanton disregard for the Colorado constitution and the will of voters.  Calling this a “fee” is disingenious as best and unconstitutional at worst.  Yet given the state Supreme Court’s open hostility toward the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, all Colorado taxpayers can do is swallow another bitter tax pill.

To add insult to injury, the legislation forbids hospitals from telling patients how much they are paying.  On page 9 of the 41-page bill is this chilling line:  A HOSPITAL SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY AMOUNT OF THE PROVIDER  FEE AS A SEPERATE LINE ITEM IN ITS BILLING STATEMENTS.

Should any Colorado resident or media outlet want to know how the tax masquerading as a fee is calculated, well they are out of luck because the legislation forbids that too. Reisberg’s bill reads:

The State Board, in consultation with the Advisory Board,  shall promulgate rules on reports that hospitals shall be required to submit for the state department to calculate the amount of the provider fee.  Notwithstanding the provisions of part 2 of article 72 of title 24, C.R.S., information provided to the State Department pursuant to the section shall be considered confidential and shall not be deemed a public record.

In other words, don’t ask any questions about how much you are paying or how the tax is calculated because it is none of your business.

According to the Tribune, Republicans tried to amend the bill to make it more transparent but failed.

One of my favorite intellecutal exercises is to speculate about the unintended consequences of public policy.   Professor Robert Hardaway did just that when testified against HB 1299 – the national popular nightmare.  Prof Hardaway uses the 1960 election, with its very close popular vote between Kennedy and Nixon, as an example.  Had we had a national popular vote rather than the Electoral College  in 1960, Hardaway concludes that America would have endured years of lawsuits and no confirmed president until the 1964 election. 

This view is shared by an Independence Institute sister think tank the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Washington, which is also battling anti-Electoral College forces.  Trent England predicts political instability under the national popular nightmare.

Hardaway’s and England’s predictions aren’t new.  The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) came to the same conclusion in 1979 in his statement about the Electoral College on the floor of the United States Senate.

It would be an election no one understood until the next day or the day after, with recounts that go on forever, and in any event, with no conclusion, and a runoff to come. The drama, the dignity, and decisiveness and finality of the American political system is drained away in an endless sequence of contests, disputed outcomes, and more contests to resolve outcomes already disrupted.

That is how legitimacy is lost. That is how a nation trivializes those solemn events that make for the singlemost important ingredient of a civil society, which is trust.

Imagine Minnesota in 50 states.  Imagine the political instability.  Imagine a banana republic ruled by a small, wealthy and corrupt clique.

Hardaway refers to the national popular vote as the “Koza scheme.”  The name comes from multi-millionaire John Koza, developer of the rub-off lottery ticket , who concocted the scheme to destroy the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote without a constitutional amendment.  According to the New York Times, Koza even acknowledges that he is circumventing the Constitution.  “‘When people complain that it’s an end run,’ Dr. Koza said, I just tell them, ‘Hey, an end run is a legal play in football.’”

After speaking with Prof. Hardaway, he believes the national popular nightmare is unconstitutional on both a state and federal level and that advocates of the Koza scheme really just want to generate publicity for their dangerous cause.

We have to stop this assault on one of the foundations of our republic, of federalism. Right now, the future of the Electoral College is in the hands of the Colorado Senate.  Contact your state senatorsand tell them how you feel.  Also, contact Governor Bill Ritter and tell him the same.

Mail
Bill Ritter, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792

Phone  (303) 866-2471

Fax  (303) 866-2003

Email Governor’s spokesman evan.dreyer@state.co.us

Hardaway collaborated with Professor Jim Riley of Regis University to produce much of the information posted to right of my blog under “Pages.”

HB 1299 undermines federalism

Top Myths of the Koza scheme

Questions for state senators to answers

The Electoral College, the Constitution and the case for federalism

Bad day for the Constitution in Colorado. 

The Electoral College is not officially dead — yet.  But it will be shortly.   HB 1299, which changes how Colorado awards its 9 electoral votes in the presidential election, passed out of the Senate State, Military and Veterans Affairs along a party line vote.  It’s on to the whole Senate where it probably will pass.  The insane legislation forces Colorado into a compact of states that throws its support behind the winner of the national popular vote regardless of the will of Colorado voters.  Coloradans can just watch as New York and California annoint the next president.

Mark Grueskin and Ted Trimpa, two lawyer/lobbyists intimately involved with the infamous Colorado Democracy Alliance, testified in favor of HB 1299.  Grueskin was the first to testify.  When Chairwoman Suzanne Williams asked if there were any questions for Grueskin, Senator Bob Bacon (D-Fort Collins) was almost giddy in agreement, proudly proclaiming he is persuaded to support it.  He didn’t have a question — just an opinion.  It was like a judge telling everyone the outcome of the trial after hearing only one witness.   Bacon couldn’t get enough of Grueskin, smiling and nodding in agreement with every word Grueskin uttered.

Three citizens (including me) and two professors testified against HB 1299.  University of Denver Law Professor Robert Hardaway made a compelling case for the law of unintended consequences.  He predicted that this compact will result a plethora of lawsuits that will make Florida look like a student council election.  But committee members had their minds made up already.

When I testified, Bacon lectured me about the nearly 700,000 Coloradans that voted no on Amendment 36 that I cited during my testimony.   Chairwoman Williams didn’t let me respond.  I nearly choked on the blood as I bit a hole through my tongue.

Senators Suzanne Williams, Betty Boyd and Bob Bacon voted to destroy the Electoral College.  Senator David Schultheis voted to save it.

The nightmare that is the 2009 legislative session can’t end soon enough.

State Representative Jim Reisberg (D-Greeley) is the prime House sponsor of SB09-31.  According to the fiscal note, 

This bill creates the Clean Technology Discovery Grant Program in the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and Trade (OED).  The program will provide grant assistance to aid in the commercialization of renewable technologies (e.g., solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal) or technologies and products that aid in energy efficiency, conservation, or environmental mitigation.

Also according to the fiscal note, these grants will cost the state $5.0 million, but the steep cost doesn’t stop Reisberg.  How does he propose to raise the money?  More than double the “fee” on something unrelated to these grants — old tires.  Every time you replace a tire on your car and have the retailer dispose of the tire for you, the retailer charges you $1.50.  Under Reisberg proposal, that fee will more than double to $3.25 per tire. 

Problem is that the Supreme Court defined the term “fee” in Bloom v. City of Fort Collins:

Unlike a tax, a special fee is not designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of government, but rather is a charge imposed upon persons or property for the purpose of defraying the cost of a particular governmental service…The amount of the special fee must be reasonably related to the overall cost of the service.

Even the Joint Budget Committee staff has a problem with Reisberg’s funding scheme and suggests finding another method.  The JBC Staff Analysis stated:

The funding mechanism provided by the bill is a fee charged on waste motor vehicle tires. While funding projects involving waste tires are allowed, there is no guarantee that any such project will be funded.  The Committee may wish to consider whether a fee on waste tires is an appropriate funding mechanism for a program which appears to be primarily focused on clean energy technology efforts, but does not guarantee that any portion of the money will support such projects directly involving waste tires.

In other words, this new “fee” on waste tires doesn’t fit the definition of what constitutes a “fee” according to the Colorado Supreme Court.  Sadly the bill passed the Senate on an 18-15 vote. 

As this legislative session has proved, the majority of Colorado legislators don’t care about the constitution anyway.  So prepare to pay an extra $3.25 tax for every new tire.  This bill is just another on a long list of  awful and probably unconstitutional legislation that will be forced upon Coloradans. 

Democrat Northern Colorado legislators Jim Riesberg, John Kefalas and Randy Fischer voted to trample on the  US Constitution that has protected the rights of smaller states for over 200 years, render Colorado politically impotent in the next presidential election and ignore the will of Colorado voters.  These legislators gave a thumbs up to Andy Kerr’s anti-Electoral College legislation HB 1299. 

Kerr is affiliated with a national organization National Popular Vote, which has a mission to destroy the Electoral College forcing smaller states to succumb to the will of larger states thus assuring a Democrat in the White House in perpetuity.  President National Popular Vote is Barry Fadem who co-authored a book with among others infamous Democrat lawyer Mark Grueskin.

Representatives Jerry Sonnenberg, BJ Nikkel, Don Marostica, and Glenn Vaad.  Two Democrats broke rank with their party and voted no — Representatives Jeanne Labuda and Sal Pace.

This legislation must be stopped in the Senate.

One of the most dangerous pieces of legislation HB 1299 just passed third reading in the Colorado House of Representatives.  Colorado voters are on their way to becoming irrelevant in the next presidential election.  Thank you Representative Andy Kerr. 

As soon as the General Assembly makes the third reading votes available, I will post them.  I intend to hold accountable every legislator who voted against the Electoral College.

More on this as information becomes available.

Congresswoman Betsy Markey got nearly a quarter million dollars from labor unions to help her defeat incumbent Republican Marilyn Musgrave.  Now Markey is paying them back by sponsoring card check legislation.  She’s making a potentially fatal political mistake.  The unions don’t need her vote to win in the House, and they certainly don’t need her as a co-sponsor.  Yes, they gave her a lot of money, but is risking her political future worth the price?

Markey represents a conservative district. Last fall the Colorado Stateman reported that the 4th CD is 38 percent Republican, 27 percent Democrat and 35 percent unaffiliated.   Markey campaigned as business woman who understands the challenges of running a small business. She campaigned on “change.”  She was going to cut spending and restore fiscal discipline.  Check out the campaign ads and decide if she is voting as she campaigned.

Back to Markey’s mistake.  Perhaps she doesn’t remember that binding arbitration couldn’t even get 30 percent support in Fort Collins, but the business community does.  The Fort Collins Coloradoan quoted David May, CEO of the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce: “It would seem that she’s out of step with her constituents. I would point out that the most liberal part of her district is the city of Fort Collins, and city of Fort Collins overwhelming defeated binding arbitration (for municipal employees) by a vote of 71 percent last June.”

Northern Colorado’s business community does not like card check legisation.  One of the most influential business voices in this region is the Northern Colorado Legislative Alliance (NCLA) and it opposes this legislation calling it dangerous.  NCLA has issued a call-to-action in hopes of defeating it.  National Federation of Independent Business, the nation’s leading voice for small business, opposes card check too.

Markey represents a conservative district that doesn’t exactly embrace labor unions.  (Think Monfort) The business community is opposed to card check and still Markey co-sponsors the union-forced issue.  One could argue that Markey is standing on principle. We’ll see if she is still standing next election cycle or will blunder bring her down?

I do wonder something.  Did Markey encourage all her employees to unionize and collectively bargain when she was a business owner?  I ask this in all seriousness because I don’t know.

Sources tell me that the second reading for HB 1299, a disastrous piece of legislation that will render Colorado politically impotent during presidential campaigns, will be Friday, March 13.  If this passes (and sources predict it will)  Colorado will only watch as California and New York annoint our next president. 

This is an absolute assault on the Constitution and must be stopped.   It seems people and news outlets recognize this as well. The Loveland Report Herald is trying to help with this op-ed.  My friend (and fill-in host) Ross Kaminsky posted his letter on Politics West.  Slapstick Politics says,  ”If Colorado is to have an objectively relevant say in the outcome in 2012 and every subsequent presidential election thereafter, HB 1299 and its insidious intentions must be defeated soundly.”   And the Grand Junction Sentinel calls this latest effort to get rid of the Electoral College “illogical.”

I just hope it is not too late.

I feel like I’m reliving a really bad dream.  Every few years, someone thinks he is more enlightened than our Founding Fathers who risked their lives and fortunes to break the shackles of tyranny, declare their independence and then create freedom in a world that did not even know what it looked like.  That someone makes it his mission to decimate the Electoral College and how Colorado’s nine electoral votes are allocated.  I’ve written about this before.  And I will continue to write as long as the Electoral College is threatened.

This time the threat comes from State Rep Andy Kerr (D-Lakewood).  According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Kerr is the primary sponsor of HB-1299 that, if passed, will render Colorado impotent in presidential elections because regardless of the will of Colorado voters, all nine electoral votes will go to the national leader of the popular vote.  

In 2004, a handful of Democrats bankrolled by a Brazilian millionaire asked Coloradans to change how the state awards its nine electoral votes. In a vote that wasn’t even close, nearly 66 percent of voters said, “NO!” and rejected proposed Amendment 36.

In 2007, Senator Ken Gordon claimed he wanted to make every vote count by directly contradicting the will of the voters.  Gordon sponsored similar legislation that Kerr now sponsors.  Gordon’s legislation passed the Senate but died in the House.  Like Gordon’s bill, Kerr’s legislation takes affect only if a number of other states adopt the same dangerous policy.

Kerr employes the same argument that Gordon did in 2007. He told the Gazette, “Every vote for president by each and every American should count equally.” ( except the 686,000 who voted against changing the electoral college in 2004.)

Implied in this line of argument is that the United States is a democracy but that is a false premise. The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. The difference is crucial. It is the very foundation of our political framework. In a democracy, the majority rules, often at the expense of minority rights. In a republic, power is vested in individuals and is exercised through their elected representatives.

If the United States was a pure democracy, then the will of the states such as New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts would be thrust upon states like Colorado, Kansas, Utah, Tennessee and Kentucky. Our Founding Fathers knew that states had different interests and did not want to see the desires of more populated states forced upon smaller ones. Thus, they created the Electoral College. The Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in a wide variety of areas, rather than concentrating on urban centers with large populations.

In the 2000 presidential election, the Electoral College did exactly what the Founding Fathers designed it to do. It didn’t matter that Al Gore had a popular vote plurality of less than one-half of one percent. (Thanks in part to support from illegal aliens in California.) It didn’t matter that Gore won the popular vote in both California and New York by huge percentages. To be president, he had to win a majority of the electoral votes, which means he had to win the popular vote in a wide variety of states. If Gore had been able to win even a single southern or border state–such as his “home” state of Tennessee, Clinton’s home state of Arkansas), he would have been President. George W. Bush won the popular vote in 30 states, therefore giving him the necessary number of electoral votes to win the presidency. Middle America was able to avoid the tyranny of the East and West Coasts.

Besides, Gore did not win a majority of the popular vote (over 50 percent). He had a mere plurality, meaning that over half the American people voted against him. Only in 1876 (whose results were confused by extensive fraud on both sides) did a candidate with a majority of the popular vote lose in the electoral college. The Electoral College has occasionally resulted in the defeat of a candidate who earned less than half of the popular - in effect punishing a candidate who got most of his votes came from an extremely geographically concentrated area of the country

The Electoral College stands as another example of the political brilliance of our Founding Fathers. It demonstrates their commitment to the protection of minority rights, and the diverse interests of the entire nation–not just the biggest cities or states.

So why hasn’t the Electoral College been changed in over 200 years? The answer is simple: because the system works. Just because some politicians still are bitter about the outcome of the 2000 elections doesn’t mean that the system should be changed, not in Colorado, nor California, nor New York, nor Florida. Without the Electoral College, all a candidate has to do is win a plurality of the popular vote, even if that plurality comes mainly from a handful of mega-cities on the coasts.

To change Colorado’s electoral system would be dangerous. Not only would HB 1299 dilute the state’s power, making it almost irrelevant in a presidential election, but the bill would further energize the movement to eliminate the Electoral College. If that happens Coloradans would only watch as New York, California, and their coastal brethren hand the presidency to a candidate rejected by the majority of Colorado voters.

Come One! Come All!

Want to let Congresswoman Betsy Markey know how you feel about the “stimulus” package, Barack’s bloated budget, bailouts and more.  Then join other motivated freedom fighters for a Greeley Tea Party.  Bring tea bags, signs, voices, children and anything else you want to make your point that you are fed up with the irresponsible federal government.   Organizer “Dale from LaSalle” also encourages everyone to bring a pair of old boots to be dumped in a giant trash can.  Maybe then Congress will get the message that we want to “BOOT THE BUMS OUT!”

If you want to join in the fun, rally at Congresswoman Markey’s office located at 822 7th St in Greeley on Saturday, March 7 from 11:30 to 2 p.m.  For additional information contact Dale at dalelasalle3@aol.com.