Floyd Ciruli, the former Colorado Democratic Party chair and pollster, says Governor Hickenlooper’s recent support of Initiative 22 – a “record-level income tax increase” – serves to “reinforc[e] an image of a tax favoring governor of the liberal state of Colorado.”
The political damage that Ciruli writes of could be a major reason for Hick’s soft launch of his tax hike position, whispered about to CEOs behind closed doors. It also adds to a damaging narrative, Ciruli says, already frustrated by other far left positions, or in the case of Nathan Dunlap, indecisions.
From Hick’s “convoluted death penalty decision” to his “failure to issue a single veto” against the left-wing legislature, Ciruli lists many reason for our state’s chief executive to be worried.
2014 could end up being a great year for Colorado Republicans, after all:
Early candidates are coming up with good lines. Brophy said he’s pro-life for the unborn and Hickenlooper is pro-life for mass murderers. George Brauchler, Arapahoe DA, said Hickenlooper was elected the state’s governor not the state’s bartender. Brauchler is interesting because he engages Hickenlooper on a serious weakness, crime and he has a base in the metro area’s top swing county…
Hickenlooper has to be somewhat worried that President Obama’s sagging approval could be a weight on the party and turnout will be back to the off-year the 1.7 million, down from 2.4 million presidential level. Hickenlooper only won by 51 percent in 2010 against weak opponents, although in a hellacious year for Democrats.
More specifically, Hickenlooper is dealing with his own convoluted death penalty decision and his failure to issue a single veto against the Republican-described out-of-control Denver/Boulder dominated left wing legislature.
Democrats’ total control of the legislature was assumed to be a burden for Hickenlooper in 2012 post-election commentary. It was, and unfortunately for the Democrats, the problem lives on in two recalls of senior legislators and a revolt among rural public officials. In addition, the Governor has committed to the party, the K-12 public education establishment and the progressive business community that he will actively campaign for a record-level income tax increase for education, reinforcing an image of the tax favoring governor of the liberal state of Colorado.
This is what happens when you let the inmates take over the asylum
AS A BUSINESSMAN, AS A QUAKER, HOW CAN HICK SUPPORT BREACH OF CONTRACT?
Hick supports breaking State of Colorado contracts with Colorado PERA retirees. What PERA retirees will vote for him?
How does Hick's support for the breach of the contracts of the State of Colorado constitute "Quaker honesty"?
HICKENLOOPER: Break Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts, seize contracted, accrued, PERA pensioner benefits:
“Hickenlooper told the group that changes two years ago seeking to sustain the Public Employees’ Retirement Association were insufficient…”. ‘I personally think that we probably should go further,’ Hickenlooper said. He said options the state could consider include reducing inflation adjustments for retirees, raising the retirement age for new hires and averaging employees’ last five years of earnings to determine pension payments rather than the last three years.”.
http://www.chieftain.com/hickenlooper-talks-energy-water-pensions/article_25f92ef8-4ef1-11e1-a99f-001871e3ce6c.html
Hick, you never wanted to be a "politician," but you are certainly behaving like one. Why do you believe that you can break the contracts of a small group of Colorado's residents with impunity? Are these people just part of a subclass of Coloradans who have no constitutional rights? Or, have you simply not taken the time to study public pension legal theory and case law? Have you read the work of public pension legal scholar Professor Amy Monahan of the University of Minnesota? Put some time into it prior to advocating breach of PERA pension contracts.
It just doesn't add up. Businessmen support the sanctity of contracts. Corporate America could not function without a general acceptance of the sanctity of contracts. I am confident that, throughout his life, Businessman Hickenlooper has demanded that contracts to which he is a party be honored. Does
Hickenlooper possess some category of constitutional rights that are superior to those possessed by Colorado PERA retirees?
2010 Senate floor debate on SB 10-001:
Rep. Lambert: “I have heard from my constituents, as many of you have, that this proposal will breach retiree’s contracts.”.
Rep. Swalm: “We’re breaking new territory in this state by trying to reduce the COLA. We’re probably going to get a lawsuit out of that. If we cut the 3.5 percent COLA there will be a lawsuit.”.
Rep. Gerou: in committee, said that it is a disservice to the state to rush a bill through when her committee knew that it will go to litigation, and said what we are doing to the retirees is wrong.
Rep. DelGrosso: said that it is “tough” for him to tell people that he is going to break their contract.
Senator Harvey: “We have made a commitment. We have a contract with current retirees. That is already.
in place. Reforms should be made for new hires. We do not have that commitment to new hires.”.
Senator Spence: “The bill places an unfair burden on retirees.”.
Senator Scheffel: “We are breaching our promises to existing retirees.”.
Senator Lundberg: “This bill is a deal that was cut before this body met.”.
House Finance Committee Chairman Brian DelGrosso, February 23, 2012:
"I voted against Senate Bill1, and I voted against Senate Bill 1 not because I felt like we didn't need to fix PERA, I agreed with that part of it, but I voted against Senate Bill1 for the fact that it did adjust some of the COLAs and it did adjust stuff for folks that were already retired and people that were about ready to retire, and to me I felt like that was violating a contract that those people had got into… they played by the rules that were of the game at the time, and these folks… got up to where they about to retire or were retired, and now all of a sudden we were going to change the rules of game on them after they were done playing. So to me, that was why I voted against Senate Bill 1, because I felt like that violated some of the contractual issues that we had."
Rep. DelGrosso: "The problem that we ran into with Senate Bill 1… is that when they start adjusting things like the COLA… that's where it opens us up to lawsuits, because people are like 'hey, I'm five years away from retirement, I'm ten years away from retirement, I'm one year away, I am retired,' and then we go and make changes that's where we have lawsuits, because hey this a violating a contract… "
Rep. DelGrosso: "These new hires know what their retirement will be, so when they're getting into the system they can choose to accept the job or not knowing what their retirement benefits will be."
"We are still involved in lawsuits over Senate Bill 1 on whether or not those were constitutional because we made changes to people that are currently in the system that were vested, current retirees. So, Senate Bill 1 did affect people's current retirements and those that were retired."
Rep. DelGrosso: "We have to look 25 to 30 years into the future to avoid the lawsuits that we are currently involved in because of Senate Bill 1."
"We're forced to, to avoid lawsuits, to look that far into the future."
(My comment: Here Rep. DelGrosso notes that prospective, legal public pension reform options are available to the Colorado General Assembly. In fact, just six weeks after Rep. DelGrosso made these remarks, the House Finance Committee [on April 19, 2012] adopted such legal, prospective pension reform options for thousands of members of Colorado county public pension systems [when the committee referred out SB12-149.]
As we have seen, the State of Colorado has not paid its bills for a decade; instead, the Colorado Legislature has placed expenditures for state programs on a "credit card." The Colorado Legislature has funded state programs for the last ten years by borrowing from the state pension trust fund, Colorado PERA.
But, the Colorado PERA pension trust funds are not the property of the State of Colorado. These trust funds are owned by the beneficiaries of the trust, active and retired workers who have paid into the PERA pension system. Having failed to pay its Colorado PERA pension bills, and racked up its debt, the Colorado Legislature is seeking to push this debt onto others. In 2010, the Colorado Legislature enacted a bill SB10-001, that breaks Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts, taking their earned, accrued, "fully-vested" public pension benefits to pay off the state's debt.
Colorado PERA active and retired members, we live in a state where many representatives of the Executive and Legislative branches do not respect our contracts, or our property. They ask that the Judicial Branch of Colorado state government join them in setting aside the contract clauses of the Colorado and U.S. constitutions. They ask that the debts of the State of Colorado be shifted onto the backs of a relatively small group of the state's elderly.
We have arrived at this point. Only the Judicial Branch of the State of Colorado has the power to preserve justice in our state. Support public pension contractual rights and the rule of law in Colorado. Contribute at saveperacola.com. "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!
Income tax code needs to focus on U.S. job creation.
Chris
Owner Cel Financial Services.
IRS Registered Tax Return Preparer.
Registered bonded California CTEC Tax Preparer.
Please visit my website for all your Fillmore Income Tax needs.
http://www.taxprepfillmore.com/