During Governor Hickenlooper’s State of the State speech earlier this month he boldly declared “our economy is back.” That “Mission Accomplished”-like proclamation now stands in stark contrast to the news today that the US economy not only didn’t grow in the fourth quarter, it contracted .1%.
Per Business Insider:
The advance estimate for fourth-quarter U.S. GDP is out.
The economy contracted 0.1 percent in Q4 versus economists’ consensus expectations of a 1.1 percent expansion.
If the economy contracts in the first quarter of this year we’ll officially be back in a recession.
Lynn Bartels of The Denver Post reported during Guv Hick’s speech that when he declared the economy as being back, Republicans didn’t buy it.
As we noted at the time, vindicated by today’s news:
Because it’s not yet RT @lynn_bartels: Not a lot of Republicans cheering when governor says “our economy is back.” #coleg
— Colo Peak Politics (@COpeakpolitics) January 10, 2013
IF HICK THINKS COLORADO IS NOT IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS, WHY IS THE STATE CLAIMING A FINANCIAL CRISIS TO BREACH ITS CONTRACTS?
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS CONFIRMS COLORADO PERA PUBLIC PENSION COLA BENEFITS AS CONTRACTUAL.
The Colorado Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded an initial District Court ruling that denied the contractual status of public pension COLAs in Colorado. The Court of Appeals confirmed that Colorado PERA pension COLA benefits are a contractual obligation of the pension plan Colorado PERA and its affiliated public employers. A huge victory for public sector retirees in Colorado! The Colorado Legislature may not breach its contracts and push taxpayer obligations onto the backs of a small group of elderly pensioners.
The lawsuit is continuing. Support pension rights in the U.S. by contributing at saveperacola.com. Friend Save Pera Cola on Facebook!
In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court (in U.S. Trust Co, 431 U.S.) clarified that state attempts to impair their own contracts, ESPECIALLY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, were subject to greater scrutiny and very little deference because the STATE'S SELF-INTEREST IS AT STAKE. As the court bluntly stated:
“A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised. If a state could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all… Thus, a state cannot refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to.
spend the money to promote the public good rather than the private welfare of its creditors."
For more resources to protect public pension benefits visit saveperacola.com.