Governor Hickenlooper has long traded on his reputation for being a brewer and businessman first and politician second. In today’s Denver Post, Hickenlooper does a good job of making clear he’s reversed that order since becoming governor.
In true politician fashion, it is a threat to losing his own job that makes Hickenlooper work harder, not the great challenges this state faces.
Per Lynn Bartels:
“Each time another person decides to get in this campaign,” Hickenlooper said, “it makes me want to work a little harder, listen a little more closely.
Hickenlooper has long led a charmed political life, with little to no sustained political opposition. The fact of the matter is he hasn’t had to work that hard or listen that closely to attain what he has politically.
Now that the chattering classes have begun to dispense with the narrative that Hickenlooper is a moderate, maybe it’s time to start challenging the idea that he’s only a politician second?
Because, after all, that’s what politicians do first — look out for numero uno.
AS A BUSINESSMAN, AS A QUAKER, HOW CAN HICK SUPPORT BREACH OF STATE CONTRACTS?
Governor Hickelooper identifies himself as a practicing Quaker. 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, the "inflation adjustment" you refer to is a contracted benefit. You cannot simply break Colorado state contracts on a whim, because it is your personal preference. How is it that you are unaware of this fact? 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.
BUSINESSMAN HICKENLOOPER: Break the State's Contracts.
Hickenlooper has years of experience in business. He is successful businessman. He holds a graduate degree. 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?
The Colorado Legislature has adopted PROSPECTIVE, LEGAL pension reform for Colorado county governments (in SB12-149), respecting the property rights of county government retirees. Why does the Legislature honor the public pension contracts of county government employees, yet schemes to RETROACTIVELY take the earned, accrued, contracted public pension benefits of Colorado PERA retirees?
Minority Leader and 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: "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 essentially 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!
Too little, too late.