Gessler not willing to make cuts in SOS office

20 Comments

by: softie

(We don’t need no stinkin’ budget cuts – promoted by redstateblues)

Scott Gessler is making headlines again, and again, they’re not the good kind. Gessler has concluded that his office will not do its part to balance the budget. As an (assumed) fiscal conservative, he wants the cuts to take place elsewhere, in less important programs, like school breakfasts and K12.

HuffPost reports, but was first reported by Tim Hoover.

At issue: his predecessor Bernie Buscher found efficiencies, and was able to save $3.5 million. This money would go to help the state balance its budget. Gessler now wants to keep the $3.5 million, and not allow the money for general use. This is money that would go towards mitigating the deep cuts the legislature must make this year.

And what does he want to use the $3.5 million for? Apparently he wants to help businesses avoid identity theft. Perhaps an important service (editor’s note: Colorado is third in the nation in identity theft – rsb) but is it really the best investment when we will have to continue to make deep cuts from K12 and Medicaid?

And politically, what is he thinking? Why is it a good time to bring this idea up? I believe that the JBC has authority over the amount of SOS funds in the first place, and I can’t imagine that they are going to want to increase funds to the SOS from what the original request was. That means that Gessler is creating these bad headlines and probably nothing will come out of it.

Does he enjoy negative press?

20 thoughts on “Gessler not willing to make cuts in SOS office”

gertie97 says:

January 26, 2011 at 11:08 pm

Do as I say, not as I do.

Log in to Reply
1. Ralphie says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 1:26 am
  
  Which I’ll write about tonight.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Ralphie says:
    
    January 27, 2011 at 1:26 am
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. gertie97 says:
      
      January 27, 2011 at 1:31 am
      
      Log in to Reply
onebigrepublican says:

January 26, 2011 at 11:32 pm

I mean, as a politician, why wouldn’t you just pretend you were interested in looking into cuts at the SOS Office?

I mean I’d like to see legitimate cuts across the board…but this guy is going down and doing so in relatively quick fashion for really dumb reasons.

Log in to Reply
1. Diogenesdemar says:
  
  January 26, 2011 at 11:50 pm
  
  who wouldn’t be claiming a refund if elected officials came with a 30-day money back guarantee?
  
  Log in to Reply
ajb says:

January 26, 2011 at 11:54 pm

to buy new office furniture.

Log in to Reply
1. ProgressiveCowgirl says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 12:07 am
  
  A Bentley should do nicely for the humble SoS, no?
  
  Log in to Reply
Dan Willis says:

January 27, 2011 at 12:09 am

…that the funding of the SoS’s office comes from its own fees it charges for various services. And any money collected not needed for the SoS’s office would be turned over to JBC.

This would mean the $3.5 million is money that is nor coming out of any other budget (like K12 or Medicaid) but wuld definitely the state as a whole if it were turned over. I believe that was Bernie’s intent for it.

Log in to Reply
Dan Willis says:

January 27, 2011 at 12:13 am

part of that savings was met by not hiring me or any other temps to verify petitions last year. They were done by employees of other state agencies. Probably no tthe most efficient way to go, but it certainly saved money.

But I missed two months of pay.

Okay I’m done whining now.

Log in to Reply
bjwilson83 says:

January 27, 2011 at 1:13 am

Maybe this article had something to do with it. Funny when the Dem smear machine ends up contradicting itself.

Log in to Reply
1. Half Glass Full says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 2:57 am
  
  Was wondering when you’d return.
  
  Of course, suggesting that it’d be better to pay elected representatives higher wages than allow them to engage in conflicts of interest via moonlighting has nothing to do with this thread.
  
  Unless you’re saying that one of the uses Gessler is thinking of for the $3.5 million is to pay himself some sort of bonus. Surely he’s not THAT tone deaf.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. cybersoul says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 9:14 pm
  
  I gotta say: when you’re wrong, you’re very wrong!
  
  The article shows the reality of the situation — something that SO[B] Gessler and the people who voted for him should have known! Colorado doesn’t pay its executives enough (and the fact that executive pay has grown exorbitantly is one of the reasons). Of course, in truth, I don’t think that any of these facts had anything to do with the hypocrisy and self-serving decisions made by Gessler. If it wasn’t this, it would have been (and will be, unless he’s impeached or recalled) some other blatantly misguided act.
  
  But who could have known that you would call an stating of simple but unrelated facts a contradiction of a Re-thuglican’s base, greedy nature? If only I could have predicted that…
  
  Log in to Reply
VanDammer says:

January 27, 2011 at 1:24 am

Apparently he wants to help businesses avoid identity theft. Perhaps an important service (editor’s note: Colorado is third in the nation in identity theft – rsb) but is it really the best investment when we will have to continue to make deep cuts from K12 and Medicaid?

So yes, the FTC rated Colorado as 3rd worst state for reports of fraud and identity theft, but that pertains to PERSONAL identity theft & fraud. WTF Guess?ler! You’re gonna put companies & corporations before the people of Colorado — who elected you?

Who the F*ck does this ASS work for? He sure as hell doesn’t have my best interest at heart. How do we start the recall process?

Log in to Reply
coloradowahine says:

January 27, 2011 at 2:36 am

Greatest pleasure of the post-2010 election season: watching incompetent Rs like Gessler and his disconnected-from-reality idiot show. Painful in the short run, profitable in Nov. 2012.

Seriously, the more I hear about Gessler, the better I feel about Dems next election.

Log in to Reply
1. droll says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 3:35 am
  
  if people paid attention to this race, Gessler wouldn’t be there to fuck up constantly.
  
  I wrote something else here, but the puppy erased it with one paw. Something about how his apparent lack of support isn’t helpful for Dems. I see the silence on the part of the GOP as a bit ominous. For Gessler. Supporting someone in this climate means you did it. (Pouts)
  
  Log in to Reply
Ray Springfield says:

January 27, 2011 at 4:39 am

Tipton doesn’t want to cut the government in half now that he is office either.

Log in to Reply
DavidThi808 says:

January 27, 2011 at 7:49 am

It’s pro-jobs because money that goes to cover fraud is money that cannot go to hire additional people.

However, there’s no way putting a login on the business data requires 3.5 million. I think a good rule of thumb is the state pays at least 10X what is required to get an IT job done. You should be able to put up a gateway, mail all registered agents, and answer initial questions for a couple of hundred K.

So Secretary Gessler, I suggest you keep 350K for the security system, return the rest to the general fund, and hire a Colorado company (yes that violates OIT’s ABC rule) that can do this for a reasonable amount.

Log in to Reply
1. redstateblues says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 8:08 am
  
  That’s exactly what he’d do. Instead, the Republican talking point appears to be that his blatant hypocrisy is justified as a way to get back on all the mean ole Dems who pointed out the potential for a conflict of interest with his moonlighting.
  
  Log in to Reply
2. Ralphie says:
  
  January 27, 2011 at 9:26 pm
  
  Read the article in the paper that shall not be named.
  
  Log in to Reply