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%
April 18, 2009 03:04 AM UTC
24 Comments
Because it forced nobody to make tough choices. Across-the-board cuts rather than prioritizing spending. Furloughs for State employees. More taxes on smokers.
It did the job for this year.
But it did so because it forced nobody to take a stand on anything.
Gutless bill.
If it was that easy, why wasn’t it done months ago?
I would rather have seen each program gone through individually.
???
Instead the plan ignorantly tried to play chicken with HigherEd and take Pinnacol policy holders money.
Once the stunts ran their course and the game was exposed, leadership went back to what people like King had called for in the beginning.
..even it was bipartisan
Continuing to pile taxes on smokers is a zero-sum game. More smokers will quit and collections will go down.
Like you said, it’ll do the job for the year. Then what?
without some sort of reform this is how it’s going to be every year until we get back to an economy like we had in the 1990s.
I agree with the sentiment that this does nothing for the future, but we needed a budget; and the fact that they were able to keep higher ed intact is incredibly vital.
If you can screw it up enough to where we can’t qualify for the next porkulus package or get Pelosi to mandate that no Tabor state can gets pork, then you’ll force the issue. Then you can blame it on the GOP and take aim at the CSAP.
Libertad rears his wide stance.
Count me in for that coalition.
I’ll agree CSAPs aren’t perfect. But they have done an excellent job of showing that the schools are failing our poor. You want to go back to heads in the sand, la-la-la, everything’s perfect pretend-ville?
Give me a better alternative and then you’ll get my attention. But going back to no measurement and just screwing the poor – no thanks.
I was going for brevity, not accuracy, with that comment.
I agree that the CSAPs have been a fairly competent predictor of where schools far in the spectrum of scholastic achievement. I don’t think they’ve shown the same value in changing many schools’ placements on that spectrum. In Colorado Springs, for example, Academy District 20 remains on top, and Widefield 3 and Harrison 2 remain near the bottom of performance.
…that we’ve now shown who’s doing a lousy job – and no one is acting on it. The answer in this case is not to change the CSAPs, it’s to start firing people. I’d start with the superintendent and other top administrators as well as the principal’s at those schools. Then you’ll see people start taking effective action.
more smokers quitting isn’t so bad. It saves everyone else who pays into insurance pools their unfairly born share of the medical costs of the smokers’ habit.
Just an aside, but taxing things with negative externalities isn’t a bad idea at all. No, it doesn’t solve the budget problem: Nothing does into TABOR finally finds its way to the trash can of stupid libertarian ideas. But, until then, scrapping a few extra bucks from smokers is alright with me.
Why? Smokers die earlier. They don’t collect as much Social Security and Medicare. Ask Dick Lamm or Ben Campbell, the last politicians we’ve had in public office who would tell it like it is with health care costs.
It’s true, they might not live as long as average non-smokers. They also die slower, more painfully, and more expensively.
Smokers die in hospital beds. They die slowly, and they die painfully. I’m as pragmatic as the next person, and I’m (still, regrettably) a smoker, but I will be the first to admit that smoking-related (see: preventable) health care costs would be reduced dramatically if more people quit.
Fewer people smoking leads to fewer people in hospital beds leads to lower health care costs for everyone.
why don’t you quit?
I’m serious. Why not just quit?
You say it is regretable that you are still a smoker.
I’m not trying to be a smart ass, just would like to know.
But every time I do, I eventually slip. I also talk tough here, but I still use cigarettes as a crutch.
My wife smokes too, so it requires us to both be committed to quitting. We both know it’s horrible, but we’re both horribly addicted. It’s going to take 100% commitment from both of us to quit.
Thanks for the question though, Gecko. And welcome back too.
that concludes that the public savings of people dying early and not collecting social security outweighs the public costs of paying for their infirmity before they die, cobmined with their decreased productivity during their usually long, painful, drawn out death. That’s some creative actuarial science!
I don’t suppose it really matters, but the House adopted SB 259, the long budget bill,on third reading and final passage today, actually this morning, and now it goes to the JBC on Monday for review of the House amendments. I’ve heard that it’s highly likely the Senate members will just accept the House amendments and the whole thing will be done in a a couple of days.
I’m surprised you give Gov. Ritter credit for anything, though, as his sole role seems to have been to object to legislative ideas, at the last minute, each time the JBC members came up with an innovative solution. Frankly I found his actions a bit bizarre and anything but quality leadership.
Any use of Pinnacol’s funds would have had to be done with the acquiescence of Pinnacol, or Ritter couldn’t sign off on it. There’s no way Ritter could have run for reelection next year supporting the “forced” transfer of the Pinnacol funds. It would have become a huge albatross for him, solidifying opposition by the business community, and sullying his image as a “moderate” Democrat.
So what we now have is a budget by default, something nobody likes but everybody will vote for just to be done with it.
…not the art of the perfect. I think congrats are in order as this was an incredibly difficult job they faced and it looks like they pulled it off very well.
There’s a number of comments above that we must eliminate TABOR to move forward. Keep in mind there is another alternative, figure out what we need to do on taxes and, under the requirements of TABOR, put it on the ballot asking for approval.
I agree TABOR needs to be fixed. But the bottom line is that this state’s voters does support the basic concept of requiring their approval for a tax increase. That basic conecpt will remain regardless of the “fix.”
So let’s put it on the ballot and sell it.
That’s an oxymoron. Bill Ritter got painted into a corner by the Republicans. Ultimately the majority and Ritter did EXACTLY what Penry was saying for the last three months.
Now you’re bending over backwards not to acknowledge it.
Bill Ritter’s legacy after he rides off into the sunset in January of 2011 will be that he managed to do something that had been impossible for the last 30 years…he finally convinced business to get off its collective asses. He may regret that.