It's now officially legislative silly season, when every special interest group tries to claim their share of credit for various legislation that passed. This time it's the Big Government Bell Policy Center using…wait for it…an elementary school class to claim credit for legislation that funded the free school breakfast program for students who qualified for reduced price lunches. Problem is Senator Keith King was the one who did it, not Bell Policy. 

Bell uses its email blast to insinuate it was they, and their “educating” of a fifth grade class, that helped save the school breakfast program that initially did not get initial approval from the Joint Budget Committee:

[The fifth grade class] learned that the Bell Policy Center did some of the research behind Senate Bill 59 in 2007. The bill established the Start Smart breakfast program.  

The students invited Rich Jones, the Bell's director of policy and research, to visit the class and explain how a bill becomes law, and what role research plays in crafting legislation.  

In 2007, the Bell testified in favor of the bill, saying that "research has consistently found that students who participate in (school breakfast programs) have more nutritious diets, do better academically and have fewer behavioral problems."

You see, Bell Policy IS the school breakfast program. But let's take a look back at the legislative record and news coverage of how the legislation to fund the program was ultimately passed.  From the Denver Post's article entitled "Republican Senator Restores Funding for School Breakfast Subsidy":

A Republican state senator who’s also a school principal restored funding today for a program that subsidizes school breakfasts for poor children.  

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, moved an amendment in the Senate Appropriations Committee this morning that approved $124,229 in supplemental funding for the Start Smart Nutrition Program, which makes breakfast free for children who would otherwise have to pay a reduced price of 30 cents.

Or how about Fox 31's coverage:

Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, moved a successful amendment Wednesday to approve the $124,229 in extra funding that the Smart Start program needed to operate through the end of the current school year.

We know that Democrats wanted to be the conquering heroes of the school breakfast subsidy, but the mantle was taken from them when it was Republican Senator Keith King who saved the program. Say what you will about the (tone-deaf) decision to cut funding in the first place, but there is no denying it was Sen. King, and not Bell Policy Center, who saved the program.

Next thing you know, when the economy improves we'll get an email blast from Bell Policy claiming it was really due to all the illegal immigration they argued is a positive economic force. 

Do Democrats never want to win elections on the West Slope again? If so, they've done a remarkable job at poking the West Slope in the eye at every possible opportunity. Last month they got smacked by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel for their harebrained redistricting scheme to pair Boulder with Grand Junction, and today the Sentinel takes them to task for trying to tax the West Slope to fund the Front Range. 

One of the third rails of education politics is trying to mess with local control. That's one of the many reasons why No Child Left Behind has found vociferous opponents on all locations of the political spectrum. Rollie Heath's tax hike proposal steps on the third rail as well by instituting a statewide tax increase that will unequally distribute the revenue gained. From the Sentinel editorial:

"…Heath’s tax plan would leave people in this valley paying higher taxes in part to support school districts in other parts of the state. That’s because, under the school finance formula, School District 51 is perpetually at or near the bottom of the pack in the amount of state revenue it receives. That won’t change if Heath’s plan were to pass.”

We could give you 10,000 additional reasons why Rollie's Tax Hike Team is destined to fail, but this is a pretty compelling one that will cause people to oppose it, regardless of their view on tax increases. 

For a failed Gubernatorial candidate, Rollie Heath sure does have a poor understanding of sentiment outside the People's Republic of Boulder. 

Or maybe it's just that he hails from an area with the 4th highest wages in the Western United States? While the rest of the state suffers from the worst inflation since 2008, Boulder liberals are happy to rob the West Slope to pay for themselves. 

Image: Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Looks like it's back to the drawing board for the creators of those hated 527 Dem hit pieces. The number two Democrat in the House, Rep. Nancy Todd, told the Colorado News Agency that the GOP governed the House fairly during their first session in control of either chamber since 2002.  

“This was a new role for all of us,” said Todd. “It was an adjustment across the board, but I think we all handled it with dignity. Every committee chair treated others with dignity and respect. They recognized that the tables were now turned and that we were now where they sat last year.”    

Despite limitations inherent in being in the minority, Todd says she is pleased she was able to push through a bipartisan bill she says is just good policy—trumping partisan politics. The measure, Senate bill 40, addresses head injuries to children in school athletics.

That kind of quote will make it much harder for Accountability for Colorado and the mish mash of Pat Stryker and Tim Gill funded groups to send out menacing mailers warning of the dictatorial-like grip Republicans held over the House. Add that loss to the biggest blow to Democrat consultants — their inability to attack Republicans over school cuts because Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper proposed bigger cuts than the Republicans passed. We have no doubt they'll still try those lines of attack, but fact-challenged attack ads have a way of boomeranging on the senders. 

While House Democrats felt like they were given a shot to have their voice heard on key issues, it was an entirely different story for Republicans under the flower power of Democrat Senate Prez Brandon Shaffer. Shaffer infuriated Senate Republicans and businesses when he left a large stack of pro-jobs bills to die without even a floor vote in the waning days of the session. Those complaints, including Shaffer's protection of the bipartisan condemned Amazon tax, will get more than their fair share of attention when Flower Boy runs for Congress.

The Amazon tax looks like it could haunt Democrats even more than they originally anticipated with the news out of the South Carolina Legislature today:

The proposal would give [Amazon] the Seattle-based online retailer a five-year exemption on collecting sales tax from online shoppers in South Carolina. In return, the company must create at least 2,000 full-time jobs and invest at least $125 million by the end of 2013.

Tax dollars or jobs? We'll take jobs for 2,000, Alex.

(Photo courtesy of Colorado News Agency)

While Rollie Heath and his Tax Hike Team are busy bamboozling 4th graders into standing behind them for political press conferences and raising money to raise your taxes, they might want to think about investing some of that time and money in remedial math education for themselves. 

When Heath announced his tax hike plan to raise taxes an average of $600 million per year for five years we took out our calculator and realized something didn't add up. The total cuts to education this year were $227 million to K-12 education and a $125 million cut from higher ed. That adds up to $352 million, a far cry from $600 million. Which got us thinking. 

If Heath's tax hike were to pass it could actually be spent on whatever the General Assembly felt like. Nothing prevents the Legislature from taking this new $600 million and putting it to education, and then taking $400 or $500 million of current education funding and spending it on something else. This isn't speculation: it’s what happened with both Referendum C and Bill Ritter's mill levy freeze property tax hike. In both cases, the whole ordeal was a great big money laundering scheme. In the name of education, taxes get raised, but that doesn't mean all that new money actually flows to education.   

But even assuming that they don't follow the path they tread on Ref C and Ritter's mill levy, if they spent that $352 million on education, there would still be nearly $250 million kicking around in a slush fund for the politicians in the Capitol to spend. And there is one thing you can be assured about politicians. If you give it to them, they will find a way to spend it. 

Someone needs to ask Rollie Heath how he does his math. Or at least explain where he plans on spending the additional $250 million of your money he wants. 

Image: Matt Banks / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Rollie Heath is used to sticking it to Coloradans without asking for permission. Last year, he carried a number of bills that raised taxes on Colorado businesses and citizens without asking their permission. And now the Denver Post is reporting that the kids used as political props in Heath's tax hike press conference were there without their parents' permission.

We wondered aloud yesterday whether parents had in fact given permission for Rollie Heath to flesh-peddle their fourth graders to push his tax increase.

WhoSaidYouSaid was first on the case, reporting last night that the Douglas County school system said the teacher made a "misstep" in allowing the kids to be used in that way. The children's parents were apparently so furious that, according to WhoSaidYouSaid, the media relations department for the school system had to call around to all the TV stations and ask that the children's image not be broadcast. 

The Denver Post picked up the story today reporting some interesting details. Looks like the Tax Hike Team convinced the kids' teacher into using the class for the photo op.

Randy Barber, a spokesman for Douglas County schools, said the class had planned a tour of the Capitol long before Heath ever scheduled his press conference the same day in the building. A supporter of the tax increase proposal approached a parent chaperone with the class and asked if the group wanted to participate in the press conference, and the teacher of the class agreed, Barber said.  

“I don’t think they understood what the event was fully about,” Barber said.  

The school district does not permit students to engage in political activities on school time, and certainly not without parental consent, he said.

Nice, real nice. We can imagine it now: some liberal activist feels their argument isn't strong enough on it's own, so they grab a group of harmless children to shove their argument "it's for the kids" down our throat. If you can't make your argument without props, you probably don't have a good argument.  

We must wonder aloud again: Who was the "tax hike supporter" referenced in the Post article? Any enterprising folks out there want to look into that?  

While some liberals have tried to misconstrue our disgust with this case, saying we are against discussing kids at all in regards to education, that's clearly not our point. We are against using kids as props to make your point. And it's even worse to do it with someone else's kids, especially when they don't know you're doing it.  

The race for Denver Mayor is getting hostile quickly. Yesterday, at a press conference announcing the endorsement of Chris Romer by former Denver Mayor Frederico Pena, staffers from Michael Hancock's campaign showed up and started heckling Pena.

There is a time and a place for trying to fluster your opponent. But there are two rules above all else that should be followed when employing that tactic:

1. Don't send a paid staffer. Unless the opponent says something truly insane, the news story will be about your campaign staff behaving like jerks. That's not a good thing, especially when you are trying to claim the mantle of the clean, positive campaign. 
2. Don't do it at an event you'd like swept under the rug. The Pena endorsement was a major boost to Romer. Some even said it was the last important endorsement left in the race. Pena is popular with progressives and Hispanics, the two constituencies that the candidates are fighting over right now. You want less people to know about it, not more. The heckling just ensured way more people will hear about it.

While polls generally find Hancock to be the more personally likeable candidate, his campaign is quickly muddying that image. We thought his latest ad would be a real blow to the more typical, attack ad based strategy of Romer. Check it out after the jump, or by clicking here.

At the same time Hancock staffers are heckling Romer's endorsers, Romer is busy heckling Hancock over his "Big Bang Flip Flop." During a debate last week Hancock said he was for teaching creationism and intelligent design in school, but quickly retracted that statement as soon as his campaign staff could find a reporter to retract it to.

In an election dominated by urban progressives, Hancock's prevarications on a social issue like this are sure to give the liberal electorate some pause. Romer smelled blood in the water and his campaign and supporters have been pushing the story relentlessly. In a sign of how much it's begun to define the race, Westword's political cartoonist Kenny Be skewered Hancock ruthlessly over it today. Check it out here.

Only last week we thought Hancock had the momentum and better narrative in this race, but the latest tactical moves by both campaigns have re-jiggered this race. The runoff election, all mail-in just like the first round, is on June 7, so there is still time for the race to flip again. Keep checking back at the Peak for continuing coverage. 

We're not joking. American folk hero Tom Tancredo actually won a debate on immigration in front of an audience in New York City. Whereas former Governor Bill Ritter brought shame to Colorado when he had his ass handed to him at the same Intelligence Squared debate series in March, Tancredo brought his A-Game and mopped the floor with his opposition.

When we first heard of the debate topic and who Tancredo was going to be debating we thought he was crazy for even considering it. But as everyone in Colorado has learned many times before — never underestimate the Tanc.

The resolution that Tancredo and the Secretary of State of Kansas, Kris Kobach, were arguing for, only miles from Ellis Island, was "don't give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses." They were arguing against Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio, TX, and Tamar Jacoby, a journalist and head of an immigration reform group. The audience was polled at the beginning and then again at the completion of the debate.

The final result: Blowout. Tancredo not only gained every undecided that switched their vote after the debate was over, but his opposition actually lost two percent who agreed with them at the beginning of the debate.

The debate had some interesting moments of agreement on key facts. Both sides agreed that there are slightly over 11 million illegal immigrants in the country and that the negative effect of illegal immigration on wages is about 7-8% in the short term and 3-4% in the long term for every 10% growth of illegal workers that move into an employment sector. 

Perhaps the most striking part of the debate was how the crowd behaved towards each side versus the end result. Over the course of the two hours, liberals in the audience booed Tancredo's side and the host had to ask questioners to stop their ad hominem attacks, as it wasn't benefiting anyone. It was nothing new to Tancredo and his teammate, and they plowed ahead making their case. Based on crowd reaction you would have thought Tancredo was in for a shellacking when they re-polled the audience at the end. But, as anyone who has been around politics knows, loudest support is not always a sign of widest support.

Through their logical and well-argued case, Tancredo and Kobach effectively won over every persuadable audience member. The case they made was based on the idea that the US should be able to accept "the cream of the crop," not just anyone who wants to come. They argued that America is an immigration nation, but one that has succeeded by having immigration levels and types of immigrants based on the country's needs at the time. The large wave of unskilled labor that immigrated in the early 20th century made sense because of the industrial revolution, but America's periods of low immigration have also made sense to allow time for immigrants already here to assimilate. 

The opposing side made some fair points about immigration, but mostly seemed to make the point that immigrants are more likely to start businesses and be doctors and scientists than natural born citizens. A fair point, but one that actually helped Tancredo's case more than it helped theirs. 

No matter what you believe on immigration you will learn something interesting by watching the debate.

If you want to learn more about the Intelligence Squared debate series, check it out here.

Check out the full debate:

DEBATE: DON’T GIVE US YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES (iq2us.org) from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.

Now that the legislative session has wrapped up, every piece of passed legislation is in Governor Hickenlooper's hands. He has until June 10 to veto, sign or ignore legislation, in which case it automatically becomes law. This period should provide some interesting insight into the Guv, and will set the tone for next year's session. 

A big question that remains to be settled is whether he will live up to his word on legislation and sign bills he promised he would. We warned last week that Hick was reportedly reconsidering his support of a bill that capped the bipartisan budget deal. 

The bill dealt with the Children's Basic Healthcare Plan (CHP+), a government healthcare program for children. Legislation passed that would require families in the program making between 205 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level to pay a nominal $25/month per child premium, capped at $50/month. It was supported by members of both parties in both chambers. It is currently awaiting action from Hickenlooper.

Now a member of the liberal special interest set, the Bell Policy Center, is urging Hickenlooper to go back on his word and veto the provision. And yesterday, all the liberal twits on Twitter were urging people to call Hickenlooper’s office and push him to go back on his word. From Bell’s email:

We are confident that more effective options for implementing cost sharing across higher income CHP+ families can be found. Those alternatives should be explored.  

However, the approach provided by Senate Bill 213 is one that the Bell Policy Center cannot support. As a result, we respectfully request that you veto this legislation.

It's nice that the Bell Policy Center wants to discuss alternatives, but it's a little late. The bill was passed and the legislature adjourned for sine die. It's up to Hick to live up to his word, something he seems to value in his legislative interlocutors, Speaker McNulty and Senate President Shaffer. Here's Hick in the Pueblo Chieftain:    

"I have great respect for both of them," he said. "Both of them, I feel that if I shake hands with them and I look them in the eye and we have an agreement, that they'll follow through with it. Again and again, when they said they were going to do something, they did it."

ColoradoPols recently analyzed Hick's tenure and talked about his "rarely used clout."  Sadly, we agree with their analysis that Hick is a little too hesitant to use his office and popularity to break legislative impasses.

We just hope that he lives up to his end of the bargain on one of the rare issues he did use his clout.  

A lot of candidates for the Republican nomination are going to have a tough time supporting past votes and past positions. In any Presidential contest, this is so.  

It is one thing to be wrong in the past, but it is a very different beast to be wrong on one of the greatest issues confronting the country today.  

Taking a bad vote or supporting a boneheaded position in the past may be disqualifying. Being wrong on the great issues confronting our country in the present is disqualifying, at least for many serious minded conservatives.  

Newt Gingrich, we suspect, is learning all this the hard way this week. Here's him spouting off on Paul Ryan's plan to reform entitlement spending:  

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” Gingrich told host David Gregory Sunday on Meet the Press. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”  He added, “I think that that is too big a jump.”

This is the political equivalent of cutting your own Achilles tendon before running a marathon. While Gingrich was supposed to be basking in the glow of his announcement, instead he was groveling for forgiveness. Politico puts it best:

Monday was supposed to be the day Newt Gingrich kicked off a 17-stop barnstorming tour through Iowa to debut his newly launched presidential campaign.  Instead, he got kicked in the teeth.

Long time observers of Newt, including his former House colleagues, all seemed to agree that Newt's biggest problem was going to be his propensity for gaffes. And insulting Paul Ryan and the Republican's bold plan to cut the deficit is the Mother of all primary gaffes.  

We're not sure he can survive it. Like Biden's gaffe about Barack Obama being the first clean, well spoken black guy to run for President days after entering the race back in 2007, Gingrich's gaffe may have effectively squelched any chance he might have had.