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%
December 20, 2010 05:12 PM UTC
54 Comments
Which piece of legislation does he most regret signing into law?
1. What difference to peoples’ lives does the state government make? How would things be different if state government simply did not exist?
2. What else, besides being governor, did you do to fill your days for the past four years?
Do you get a special discount from Safeway for protecting them from a strike in 2010?
but I think the first one, suggested by Ellie is a good one.
I believe that Ritter has been a very good governor. Hope Hick pursues his green work aggressively. Hope Hick continues the O&G regs.
Our last governor started working on his divorce whilst in office.
How are your doing in that regard?
the pap Lynn Bartels like to write about.
Depending on who the players are.
🙂
because it would speak to serious character issues. But normal family stuff is no one else’s business.
Also, Mrs. Ritter is a tremendously gracious person. They seem like a close family — there are many photos of them taking bike rides together all over town.
There was an article in the Post about the strains of living in the Governor’s mansion. Jeannie Ritter sounded like she was looking forward to not living there anymore. As a mother of three teens/young adults myself, I can imagine the stress of being in a fishbowl, especially with parties and political events downstairs everyday. It will be interesting to see if Gov. Hickenlooper chooses to live there.
I admire the Ritters greatly (even though I disagreed on some union issues with him), and I wish their family all the best in the world!
You would seem to be skating on thin ice.
to recognize snarkiness when it wacks them in the face.
I tend to leave their families out of the snark.
it is just that kind of crap that prevents people from running for office, an assumption that because one person did something wrong that others will.
Several times I saw Governor Ritter absolutely light up when his wife was present. There is NO reason to be making comments like yours and I hope you get sent to the timeout room that I am sure BJ and the other dude left smelling pretty bad.
-What does he see as the major accomplishments of his term in office?
-Given Hick’s victory in an otherwise landslide year, does he think he made the right decision not to run?
What is the most signficant challenge facing Gov. Hick?
What about rural, less populous Colorado? How does a gov make sure their needs are addressed?
What do you think can be done regarding the current constraints on the state budget?
How do you think the (Rox, Avs, Bronx, insert team name) will do next season?
Have you located someone to write your bio yet, ’cause I know a lot of unemployed writers?
And the obligatory – What are you going to do next?
would you have implemented in the past if you could have done so without any fears of political repercussion, and why? What solutions would you implement now?
I’ve been trying to find out what kind of bike he trashed in the accident ever since it happened. All I could get from Evan was “a good bike,” which could mean almost anything. My definition of good bike is something along the lines of what Sen. Brophy rides – a Trek Madone, which can run anywhere from $3k to $5k, depending on the model.
This is a VERY good question to ask 🙂
Governor Ritter, you are an attorney. How is it that an attorney can completely ignore case law and constitutionality when adopting pension reform (i.e. SB1)? Did you simply trust that PERA administrators knew what they were talking about? Did they show you their “secret” legal opinion on which they justified their breach of contracts? Was this all just an elaborate method of delaying the necessity of biting the bullet? pushing the costs further down the road? Did your in-house legal staff actually agree that SB1 was a realsitic plan? What made you think that the US court system would allow Colorado to breach contracts? How does that action fit with your personal moral standards?
WORSE THAN BERNIE MADOFF – COLORADO’S 2010 PENSION THEFT.
What do the Colorado Legislature and Bernie Madoff have in common? Both stole retirement benefits that were earned over many decades.
We have 80-year old widows in Colorado, who worked hard for the State for thirty years, who trusted the State and made their pension contributions like clockwork for decades, only to see their contracted retirement incomes stolen by the State. This money was taken out of their pockets because the State failed to make pension contributions as recommended by their own actuaries, to the tune of $2.7 billion in the last seven years. If the state had responsibly followed the recommendations of its actuaries, the PERA trust funds would now be more than 90 percent funded. The Colorado pension shortfall is primarily a result of legislative action over the last decade, Bill Owens, et al, in 2000 cut contributions and allowed the purchase of cheap service credit, and now the Legislature wants retirees to bear the cost of legislative ineptitude. In testimony to the Legislature even the proponents of the reform bill acknowledged this historic under-funding of the pension. PERA claims that the pension fund was unsustainable without their actions, because the funded ratio of the pension stands at 68 percent. However, the funded ratio of the pension was in the low 50 percent range in the 1970s, and the pension still exists. If a funded ratio of 68 percent this year is unsustainable, how has the pension been sustained since the 1970s when the funded ratio was in the 50s? Not much of a rationale for breaking retiree contracts.
If you find yourself short on funds, you rearrange your spending priorities, or raise additional revenue, YOU DON’T BREAK CONTRACTS! Why would the Colorado Legislature choose to break pension contracts before breaking other contracts, such as construction contracts? How can a state that is in default, that breaks contracts, maintain its credit rating?
The fact that what Colorado did to public sector employees in this year’s pension reform bill (SB1) cannot be done to private sector employee pensions under I.R.C. Section 411(d)(6), says quite a lot about the moral underpinnings of SB1. This federal “anti-cutback rule” for private sector DB plans permits changes to the plans only if the changes operate on a prospective basis.
Colorado PERA’s actions make it clear that the time has come for the inclusion of public defined benefit plans under all Internal Revenue Code Qualified Plan requirements. It is now obvious that allowing the states to regulate public defined benefit plans does not afford equal protection to state and local government employees.
PERA has put it in writing in pension plan materials over the years, that the COLA “is guaranteed”. Members purchasing service credit gave PERA thousands of dollars based on these materials. Money that they could have left in their 401Ks. PERA officials now claim that the members cannot rely on their pension plan documents regarding their defined benefits. However, Goldman Sachs recently paid a half billion dollar settlement to the SEC based on promises made in plan documents. Apparently, some judges believe that plan documents can set forth contractual terms. In any event, the contractual pension language is set forth clearly in Colorado law.
Colorado’s retiree COLA (and those of 36 other states) are “automatic COLAs” as opposed to “ad hoc COLAs” (which exist in about a dozen states and can be periodically altered.) Colorado’s COLA of 3.5 percent is guaranteed in Colorado law in an identical fashion to the base retirement benefit itself. So, the PERA retiree’s claims are based on both statutory language and plan documents. This 3.5 percent COLA won’t look so hot in the coming years if inflation spikes.
The Colorado pension reform bill’s (SB1) proponents should accept that states cannot legislate away a debt for work that was completed in the past. What the state is attempting is a claw back of deferred pay. The bill’s sponsors should accept that states cannot avoid their contractual obligations simply because they prefer to spend resources on alternative public services or obligations.
Some pension reform advocates argue that public sector pensions should be held to the same standards as private sector pensions. My response to that is “I agree wholeheartedly!” Under the federal Internal Revenue Code reducing accrued pension benefits for private pensions is illegal. If the public sector PERA pension were covered under this I.R.C. law and held to the same standards as private pensions, then last February’s theft of accrued benefits by the Colorado Legislature would not have been attempted. Essentially, federal law provides higher protection to private pensions than it does to public sector pensions. Public pension members are forced to appeal to the courts to prevent the theft of their benefits. (Happening.)
Members of the Legislature pointed out many times, to no avail, that the so called “pension reform bill” was a violation of contracts to which the State was a party. Here are some examples (on tape from the floor debate):
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 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. Delgroso said that it is tough for him to tell people that he is going to break their contract.
Senator Harvey said “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 said “The bill places an unfair burden on retirees.”
Senator Scheffel said “We are breaching our promises to existing retirees.”
Senator Lundberg said “This bill is a deal that was cut before this body met.”
The cavalier abandonment of contractual obligations brings shame to the state of Colorado, aligns Colorado with Third World countries like Bolivia. No person, Republican or Democrat should countenance the breach of contracts. Conservatives support contract law as the foundation of capitalism.
So, why is the SB1 theft more egregious than the Madoff theft? The Colorado Legislature stole money from retirees who are less well off than Madoff’s pre-qualified hedge fund clients.
The Madoff victims were taking risks to seek a higher return on their investments, the Colorado PERA victims simply trusted that their contracts would be honored.
Colorado PERA and the Legislature justified their theft on false premises, citing 2008 market numbers when they knew the markets had recovered approximately 20 percent in 2009. PERA’s General Counsel stated on tape before the 2010 legislative session began that he expected a pension return “north of 15 percent”) for 2009.
It appears that Colorado PERA used the very resources of PERA members to hire a team of lobbyists (up to a dozen) to take earned benefits from those same members. That’s just insane.
Many members of the Legislature acted in ignorance. Spoonfed by the lobbyists, they ignored the legal rights of PERA retirees, and swallowed whole without question the assertions of PERA’s CEO and its chief legal counsel. If the members had read any case law, (for example, the state defined benefit pension case law summary by Prof. Amy Monahan at the University of Minnesota School of Law, Google it!), or even the 2004 Colorado AG opinion on pension benefits (retiree benefits are inviolate) they would not have supported the bill.
PERA’s own General Counsel was quoted in a 2008 Denver Post article as follows: “The attorney general’s opinion seems clear that fully vested employees – those retired or with enough years of service to retire – cannot see any benefits reduced, including cost-of-living adjustments, Smith said.”
Although members of the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees are fiduciaries, charged to act only in the interests of the members and the retirees, they recommended SB1, acting primarily in the interests of PERA employers who were concerned with keeping their contribution rates low.
Adding insult to injury the Legislature stole more money than it needed. The pension theft bill sought to increase PERA’s funded level to 100 percent, although an 80 percent funded level is considered well-funded among pension experts. You don’t have to pay off your mortgage tomorrow, and PERA doesn’t have to pay off all of its pension obligations tomorrow.
There were many other options available to address the pension shortfall, options that have been adopted, or are under consideration in dozens of states. See the legal, prospective pension reform that was accomplished in Utah this year.
Members of the Legislature have taken an oath to uphold the constitution and yet voted to violate the Contract Clause and the Takings Clause. Proponents of the bill refused to see that the retiree COLA (annual benefit increase) is set forth in Colorado law with the same force, status and weight as is the base retirement benefit. Only tortured legal reasoning, and wishful thinking, lead them to believe otherwise.
The Legislature had the ability to investigate the legality of its actions up front, but chose to act with no legal advice. Throughout the floor and committee debates on SB1 the members displayed an ignorance of, or an intentional disregard for the relevant case law. They failed to conduct the due diligence expected of an elected body. State legislatures across the nation are examining the legal limitations on their actions regarding pension reform, exploring all legal options prior to acting. (PERA claimed to have a legal opinion to justify their actions, but never released it.)
PERA has been disingenuous by claiming that the reform bill represents “shared sacrifice” among employees, employers, and retirees, by not making it clear that retirees bear most of the burden of their proposed reforms, for many retirees the confiscation of benefits will reach one-quarter of their total retirement benefits received over the rest of their lives. In debate, the bill’s sponsors said that retirees would bear 90 percent of the cost of the reform. In any event, I am not relieved of my contractual obligations just because someone else has better terms in their contract. The entire premise is ludicrous.
While ignoring its own contractual pension obligations (underfunding of $2.7 billion in the last seven years according to PERA’s own actuaries) the State of Colorado has pumped half a billion dollars into pension obligations that are not its responsibility, those of local governments (Old Fire Police Pension obligations).
The Legislature made a pact with unions to support the “pension reform bill” (SB1) to protect union jobs. Incredibly, these union members tossed their former members, their retired “brothers” under the bus. From the beginning the plan was “let’s steal the money we need from retirees.”
Finally, Madoff eventually admitted to his crime, but the Colorado General Assembly is still pretending that their theft of pension benefits is something to be celebrated. They tout it as a “bi-partisan accomplishment. This will be a long-standing embarrassment to and black mark on our state.
(depending on how many days you and Ritter have for this interview), either that question or the “where did you get that nice tie? one.
You’ve been holding all 15 screens of this bullshit inside for so long just to post it today?
I applaud your self discipline.
Or whoever is paying you.
Ralphie, thanks for the welcome, and writing advice. Yes, my post is lengthy and some of the rhetoric is over-the-top. When I get time I’ll try to reduce the volume a bit. Rather than making allegations, I look at the article as a record of what has occured with the Colorado PERA DB plan in the last year. Public sector unions in Colorado agreed to support SB1 (with PERA administrators and a majority of legislators) to take resources from retirees that would otherwise have to come from changes to contribution levels and retirement benefits not yet accrued (i.e., legal pension reform as is happening in many states). I agree that this scheme can be described in a gentler fashion than “let’s steal the money we need from retirees.”
The post begins with seven questions for Governor Ritter. There is no need for any eye glazing.
And the crazy extreme one at that?
Hey Shrubhugger:
For some reason it was mostly the Republicans who opposed breaching contracts. There were some Dems who acted honorably, Sal Pace was one, Weissman another, good, intelligent, moral men.
The quotes I put up are the more dramatic ones from the Senate debate on SB1. Most of the Dems had colluded with the public sector unions to force SB1 through the process. Another interesting quotation was made by Joel Judd at the end of the House Finance hearing on SB1. He said essentially that the state was forced to take the retiree assets “because that is where the money is.”
Was it was paying out more then people contributed in. That was not sustainable. (And yes, it got to this point because the legislature over-promised and under-funded.)
You’ll soon learn that a post of this length should be a diary, and possibly front paged by the front page editor.
Your post makes a serious allegation, and my bet is that across the country, other states and municipalities are being accused of something similar.
My advice to you is to avoid hysteria, it doesn’t garner loyalty, but disdain. Sentences like:
tend to diminish your credibililty.
There are many bright, well-informed and resourceful contributors and readers here.
My advice, rewrite this. It doesn’t have to be shorter, as I’m not concerned by its length. Gawd, we hear that enough from Republicans…..”It’s 2000 pages long, how can it possibly be good for our country” bullshit.
Stick to the facts, the broken contract, the actors and their specific roles.
There’s been plenty of losses in pension funds globally, and it wasn’t the fault of some politician in Denver. Keep digging.
I read a similar screed in a So Fla daily just yesterday. Hmm…
“$1/2 trillion in CA alone in the beginning of 2010. Washington Post, New York Times, … (left newspapers by the way). Easily found online. Now add the 1/2 Trillion to the other 49 States and Fed unfunded pensions.
Guess what – trillions of unfunded pension liabilities to be paid for by those the are not entitled to these obscene taxpayer guaranteed pensions.
Still blaming Bush I see. For some reason you forget to mention Chris Dodd (D), Barney Frank (D), Maxine Waters (D) all who are 100% responsible for the mortgage crisis and all who personally benefited from it.”
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/201…
Got it….you’re another inaccurate poster. For you to say that the Miami Herald story represents a “similar screed” is beyond any reasonable persons conclusion.
You’ve now lost all credibility with me.
BTW, where did I “blame Bush”?
wahine’s ‘comment’ is a quote form someone else who is sounding an awful lot like “argy”
Inartfully posted – I understand the confusion. Sorry.
I saw the long post about government pensions and some sort of malfeasance, and it rang a bell. Yesterday’s story about a new city manager in the Miami Herald had this comment posted, saying that there are trillions of dollars of unfunded government pension liabilities. Plus, haven’t right-wing punsters been firing up their base with complaints about “fat government salaries and pensions”? No cites here, I haven’t been tracking but I have been hearing it. And the “blame Bush” refers to an exchange between 2 commenters.
Sigh. Short story very long. All I meant to say is, what is up with government pensions? Is there a big story there, or is this the new “death panel” story?
My daughter is at CU now, having just finished her 3rd semester, and was talking over the dinner table last night about her fascination with language resulting from an excellent professor she has. The gist of the discussion was how language is an attempt (better from some than others) to understand each other.
It’s difficult enough face to face, and clearly difficult at times here:-)
Sometimes you just have to keep hanging in and trying. Thanks for sticking with me, and I will try to be more clear.
On another thread discussing marijuana policy, I referred to “privately owned” farms which coloradowahine construed as “state run”.
Hopefully he can enroll in a reading comprehension course at his local community college before we have to shut them down for lack of funding.
There was an article I read somewhere today saying Pat Robertson is in favor of legalizing weed. Seriously.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…
Is this the same Pat Robertson who claimed he leg pressed 1000 lbs. when he was 78 years old?
Seems to me he’s been hittin’ the old bong for quite some time.
I’ll never accuse Steve, or the blogger formerly known as Steve, of writing obscenely long posts again… 😛
I let my glazed eyes skim, seemingly endlessly, over the many paragraphs.
nice tie as backup
Gov Ritter spent much of his political capital backing the new oil-and-gas regulations that now protect health and the environment as much as the industry’s right to drill. Perhaps, it had a lot to do with his decision not to run (the O&G fueled PACs were targeting his campaign.)
Does Gov. Ritter regret that decision considering he might have sacrificed his political career to do so?
I had a chance last week to ask Gov. Ritter about his perspective on the O&G rules. He seemed to be pretty proud of what was accomplished. He even pointed out that as other states, such as Pennsylvania and New York, contemplate new rules, the O&G industry reps in those states are promoting the Colorado rules as a reasonable alternative!
The move to initiate changes in how O&G development proceeded in Colorado had broad support across the state – it likely contributed to Ritter’s easy win* (even though he rightly deserves considerable praise for his major roles in executing the legislation).
Recall that the legislation authorizing the rule making was passed with strong support of the General Assembly in 2007.
HB07-1341 (changing who’s on the commission) passed the House 37:27 and passed the Senate 29:6 (and it ended up with 29 sponsors/cosponsors).
HB07-1298 (the wildlife habitat act) passed the House 65:0 and passed the Senate 34:0:1 (and it ended up with 54 sponsors/cosponsors.
1298 passed after 1341, so legislators knew that there would be an entirely different commission overseeing the rulemaking. Still, 1298 passed unanimously and over half the GA wanted their name on the Act as cosponsors!
*Janet “Marry-a-sheep” Rowland and Both Ways Bob also played a significant role in Ritter’s easy win!
The “regs that will kill/are killing/have killed the industry” cries from the right are clubs that can be used to beat them sensible.
During yesterday’s presentation of the December revenue forecasts, Rep. Balmer asked if the economists had any revenue comparisons between the regulations and the change in the number of rigs since 2007-08.
The council’s economists replied that they didn’t have that kind of comparison but could tell Balmer that the number of natural gas rigs in Colorado is increasing at a much faster rate than in Wyoming and New Mexico.
It was all his freakin’ fault.