CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 05, 2013 11:41 AM UTC
35 Comments
That's the news in a press release a short while ago from proponents of
Lead balloon. Is Curtis Hubbard a betting man?
Isn't all that tax money just going to bail out PERA?
Yup.
http://gazette.com/tax-increase-not-what-proponents-claim/article/1501623
Boy, PERA must be in really bad shape!
Oh, wait…
Way to cut and paste. Well done.
Colorado Treasurer "Financial Genius" Stapleton "smelled of alcohol," "made belligerent noises," "ignored officers." Today, Stapleton smells of deceit and ignores reality. He continues to make belligerent noises.
After Colorado's State Treasurer Walker Stapleton was arrested for driving under the influence, his honesty and integrity were called into question. Does Treasurer Stapleton exhibit a pattern of personal failings relating to "honesty and integrity" have spilled over into his participation in the Colorado PERA pension reform debate?
Reform of the Colorado PERA pension system is one of our Treasurer's favorite political topics. Perhaps, similar to Rhode Island's State Treasurer, Stapleton believes that public pension contract breach is the route to higher political office (not working out as planned for Treasurer Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island.) Or, given the decline of defined benefit pension plans in the private sector, perhaps our State Treasurer hopes to exploit "PERA pension envy" for personal political gain. I encourage him to advocate prospective PERA pension reforms in conformance with the Contract Clause of the Colorado Constitution, similar to prospective reforms made available to Colorado county governments last year in SB 12-149.
The Colorado PERA pension system has significant unfunded pension liabilities. As documented at saveperacola.com, these liabilities have accumulated due to the failure of the Colorado Legislature to pay its full pension bill for the last decade. Colorado PERA pension liabilities are a contractual obligation of Colorado PERA-affiliated employers, a legal debt obligation of Colorado state and local governments.
Colorado's Treasurer Stapleton has expressed concern regarding Colorado PERA's unfunded liabilities, but why is our State Treasurer so concerned about this one particular form of Colorado state and local government debt, public pension debt? Why do we not see our State Treasurer concerned about all other Colorado governmental debt, all outstanding bonds issued by Colorado state and local governments? What is so special about our public pension debt obligations?
Why do we see our State Treasurer focus on Colorado's public pension debt obligations that will come due over the next 70 years? Why does he leave the impression that PERA unfunded liabilities due over the next 70 years are somehow due immediately? A current financial "crisis," a "shortfall"? Why have we never heard our Treasurer note that Colorado's financial support for public pension obligations consumes less than three percent of all Colorado state and local governmental expenditures? A level far below the national average for the states? Does this key information not comport with his political agenda? Would it not be more "honest" for our State Treasurer to acknowledge this fact?
Why does our State Treasurer see the PERA pension debt service that will be paid by Colorado taxpayers in coming decades as onerous, yet he lacks any corresponding concern for the "burden" of all other Colorado state and local government debt (bonds) on taxpayers that will come due over the next 70 years?
Colorado has not "banked" the three percent of future state and local governmental expenditures that will be required to support future Colorado PERA pension obligations and that is a "crisis" in the mind of our State Treasurer. Yet, Colorado has not banked the 97 percent of state and local governmental expenditures that will be required to support all other public sector programs for the next 70 years and that IS NOT a "crisis" in the mind of our Treasurer. We see our State Treasurer ranting about Colorado PERA public pension debt in particular because this serves a political agenda.
From the Huffington Post:
"In June 1999, GOP candidate state Treasurer Walker Stapleton was charged with DUI and leaving the scene of the accident in San Francisco where two women were injured."
"He blamed the victims. (The reality is that he accepted a plea bargain down to a DUI, with three-year probation, twice weekly AA meetings and court-ordered community work.)"
"That charge was amended several days later, to charges of running a flashing light and hitting a cab in the intersection, causing injuries and leaving the scene."
"One of the victims, Ginger Vasquez of Santa Monica, CA, was alone in the backseat of the cab that was hit by Stapleton. She describes the vehicle spinning after the impact and seeing Stapleton's car driving away."
"After Stapleton's car stopped down a steep hill, she says, two cabs boxed in his vehicle to prevent him driving any farther. She has never talked to Stapleton and did not know his name until recently. She does not know the other woman injured in the accident. Stapleton never approached the cab to find out if everyone was all right. Most importantly, she has no motive to lie about events that night."
"Stapleton, who has an obvious motive not to tell the whole truth, continues to shift the blame and will not produce police reports (unavailable to the public) of the accident."
(My comment: Have complete police reports relating to the incident been released by our State Treasurer?)
Hickenlooper on the relationship of the education funding ballot proposal to PERA funding:
"There is no lump sum subsidy of PERA anywhere in this."
Mike Rosen: "I didn't say there was."
Link:
http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html
The Gazette never read SB13-213 which is the bill that the initiative is governed by. If it passes the money will go into a reserve fund for p-12 schools and on an annual basis be appropriated for Tier B funding for special education, capital construction to build new school buildings and repair others; and early chidlhood education, including preschool for 3, 4 and 5 year olds and full day kindergarten. The initiative will also fund special needs programs, including gifted and talented, at-risk programs and English language learners and charter schools. The new funding will be used to bring our school districts up to speed with the latest internet technology. Finally, the funds will be used to insure that the teacher accountability programs establihed by SB08-212, SB09-163, SB10-191 and HB12-1238 will be funded.
Not one dime of the new money will be used to backfill the unfunded PERA liabilities. The only part of these new funds that could go to PERA is where a school district hires a new employee with the funds and of course in that instance, the school district must pay into PERA for the new employee.
If you read the bill, PERA isn't even mentioned. The bill is a detailed presentation of where the funds must be spent and PERA's unfunded liability isn't one of them.
The notion that the funds will be sent to PERA to pay for its unfunded liability is nonsense.
Don't try to confuse them with facts.
However, this is the narrative they will push, and it's hard to combat. What took them one sentance to falsly claim took several paragraphs to prove false – the average voter doesn't have that attention span.
CC2K has a messaging problem, and they need to get a head of it quickly.
Not quite nonsense, R36. Money is a fungible little devil and the fact that PERA isn't mentioned doesn't mean the new money might not displace old money that would then be redirected to PERA. I used to be treasurer of my church and union and often found myself dealing with restricted funds and using them to pay liabilities formerly funded by my general fund. Unless you outlaw the profession of accounting, you can never be certain that earmarked funds won't have this displacement effect. Still, ajb's point is a good one:
Investment returns for the 10-year period were 8.4 percent, exceeding the board-established 8 percent assumed rate of investment return, according to the annual report. PERA's annualized investment returns for the 30-year period have been 9.4 percent.
PERA credited Senate Bill 1, passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2010, for increasing plan assets and reducing PERA"s unfunded liabilities.
I am concerned that an 8 pct assumed rate of return forces an overreliance on equities at a time when T-bills are drawing about 3.6 pct for a 30 year note. The PERA problem can't be ignored, but the 2010 plan is a step toward resassuring it. Most of the old abuses, like "buying" service credits at huge discounts, as Mike Coffman did, have been addressed.
I real concern with this plan is that it doesn't put a nickel into higher education, at a time when Colorado is all but abandoning higher education. Unless I see a fairer distribution of the money raised by this "everthing for preschool and K-12 and nothing for postsecondary " plan, I will be voting no.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. I agree with all your points. But this is a step forward and it is after the K-12 system has made significant changes.
PERA has to switch to defined contribution. That's totally distinct from this. And I'm hopeful that in the next year or two the legislature will gather the courage to do so. (For those that will scream bloody murder – defined benefits is not economically sustainable.)
Higher Education is a mess. But historically increasing funding has directly lead to increased costs. So funding just makes things worse. They need to tame the beast first.
Anything like this should be off the table until PERA gets reformed. Reform PERA first, then come back an ask for increased funding.
"and ask" – stupid typo
also, secure the border.
Militarizing the border has little to nothing to do with the legal immigration reforms that are needed. Becuse reforming PERA is significantly related to needed educational funding changes, your analogy thus fails.
Yes, the engine of the car is shot to hell, but we should fix the tires first.
Brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VifZkwOI8dM
And leave Scott Gessler alone!
Nothing says you care about education like holding it hostage to your demands on tangential policy issues.
We can do better! Let's also shut down all police departments until we can completely rid ourselves of any police officer abuses. Close hospitals until we eliminate medical malpractice. Defund the military until we figure out a plan for Guantanamo Bay.
CDSmithus, you can provide no assurances that the money here will simply not go to prop up PERA. As such it isn't holding children's education hostage. Its simply refusing to bailout a pension system based on unsustainable expectations.
Is that LEGAL ADVICE?
By "reform PERA" you mean "break contracts", right?
Isn't that legal advice?
Whoops. Great minds and all that.
Let's turn the tables here.
What evidence do you have that the funds from this initiative will be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?
What evidence do you have that CDOT's budget won't be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?
What evidence do you have that the Colorado Department of Corrections budget won't be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?
You can see where I'm going with this. The idea that the funds from this initiative will be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability is a red herring and nothing more. By applying that logic one could make a case that nothing in government should be funded because it could be used for a different purpose. This logic is even more ridiculous when applied to Intiative 22 where the funds are earred marked for specific educational purposes.
PERA's unfunded liability and Intiative 22 are not even remotely connected.
Hey Voyager, the "2010 plan" is unconstitutional. Colorado state and local governments will not successfully shift their debts onto a small group of Colorado residents (PERA retirees.)
On October 11, 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed the contractual, "automatic" nature of the Colorado PERA COLA benefit. Colorado Court of Appeals 2012 decision in the case Justus v. State: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive (indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy) of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.”
http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2012-10-11-judgment-reversed-and-case.pdf
I'm with you, V. To ignore higher ed is crazy. This tax measure is one I'd vote for if it inluded even a few nibbles for higher ed.
Should we fix our entire state with a single vote, then? Given the history of ballot measures, a targeted change has a chance of success, but a broad-based overhaul is likely to fail.
Cripes. Why is the lack of the perfect always the enemy of the good for people who want to make things better?
Elliot, accrued PERA benefits are contractual obligations of Colorado PERA-affiliated employers. It doesn't matter if all of the new revenue went directly into the PERA trust funds. The debt will be paid in any event. Meeting one's contractual obligations is not a "bail out." When you pay off your mortgage will you be "bailing out" your mortgage company?
PERA related issues are currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Some interesting reading on the subject I want to do when I get time:
http://www.aei.org/files/2013/05/29/-understanding-the-legal-limits-on-public-pension-reform_104816268458.pdf
We've got to come together and fight for this. All of us.
I keep referring people to the University of Denver study on the economic health of Colorado. The biggest reasons why we need to support this initiative is in the study. It can be found here: http://www.du.edu/economicfuture/
This initiative has 2 major problems:
1. It raises taxes.
2. It establishes 2 tax brackets.
Both of these have NOTHING to do with the merits of helping education.
Both of these mean this is DOA.
Yes they do>
For example, part of the funds will be expended on capital construction projects by building new schools or repairing existing buildings. The school district in Antonito needs $9 million to repair existing buildings. That school districts total bonding authority, based on property taxes, is $4 million. By itself, the Antonito school district cannot possibly repair its existing buildings and make them safe. Funds from Amendment 22 will be used to take care of those kind of problems.
Many school districts can't afford to upgrade the facilities to the internet age. Initiative 22 will fund those kind of projects, especially in rural areas.
Please take the time to read SB13-213 and I believe you will find there is a lot more to Initiative 22 than money. The bill tells you where the money will be spent.
Damned lack of a Recommend button… +4.0