President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 30, 2009 11:34 PM UTC

Schools Bill Cuts to Heart of Why Dems in Control

  • 55 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As The Denver Post reports:

Lawmakers Sunday unveiled a plan to offer school districts low-interest loans to install solar panels on rooftops, build wind turbines or convert diesel-guzzling buses to battery power…

…House Bill 1312’s architects couldn’t say how many schools might participate or the estimated size of loans. But they said the program would likely start with just a few schools at first, and windswept Eastern Plains school districts are likely candidates.

The proposal heads to the House Education Committee today. It’s one of a handful of recent bills aimed at making alternative energy more affordable for more Coloradans.

The cash for the loans would come from the vast swaths of land set aside to benefit schoolchildren in the 1800s.

The state already invests proceeds from land sales, spends part of the interest and boasts a $581 million balance in the account.

Rather than investing that money as the state typically would, it would lend some to schools at rates that are lower than a bank’s but high enough to match or outstrip the fund’s traditional return. The fund’s rate of return is 5.1 percent at the moment, said state Treasurer Cary Kennedy…

…The wind turbine that Wray School District RD-2 switched on in late January was held up as an example of potential projects.

The district expects the turbine – which churns out an average 11,000 kilowatts a day – to offset most of its $80,000-a-year electricity bill.

Is this bill the solution to all that ails Colorado schools? Of course not, but it is a clever idea for helping schools keep more money while also investing in alternative energy, and it highlights a very real divide right now between Democrats and Republicans at the legislature. While the GOP is busy saying no to everything it can, Democrats are putting together creative pieces of legislation.

This is a very simple difference that cuts to the heart of how each party has chosen to lead in the legislature. There’s no reason Republicans couldn’t come up with ideas like this if they weren’t so head-in-the-sand set on being “The Party of No.” Not only is this good public policy, but politically it is the kind of idea that Kennedy and Kerr can use to run for re-election. It’s how Democrats took control of Colorado in 2004 (by saying they’d work to solve major issues) and it’s how they’ve stayed in control since (by doing what they said they’d do).

The problem for the GOP isn’t that they haven’t been “conservative” enough, or that Democrats have a few rich people on their side – it’s that Republicans don’t do anything with their elected positions, and Democrats do. It’s really not that complicated…but it doesn’t look like the GOP has figured it out yet.

Tweet
Share

Comments

55 thoughts on “Schools Bill Cuts to Heart of Why Dems in Control”

  1. I seem to remember the biggest education reform signed into law since Ritter took office was a Republican (Witwer/Penry) bill: raising science and math graduation requirements.  Republicans are pushing the fiscal and school transparency measures that even many Dems (including the Governor, with respect to the state budget) are now supporting.  Those measures are all much more consequential than putting solar panels on some schools.  When you look at the consequential stuff the Dems have been pushing (oil & gas regs, car tax hikes, hospital bed tax hikes, Medicaid expansion, property tax hikes), it’s all the same johnny-one-note: more taxes, spending and regulation.  Oh, I almost forgot another consequential Dem bill that rises to the solar panel level: putting tracking chips into cats!

      1. …mandating the allowance of leave from work to go to kids’ events, etc.?  Or am I hopelessly confused?  (I realized that the first and second options are not mutually exclusive, but let’s pretend they are, for the sake of argument).

            1. So, a  buddy of mine works as a lobbyist at the Capitol.

              Funniest story about SB 90.

              So, the Dem sponsor goes to the mike to move the bill and she says it’s the Parental Involvement bill.

              Before you can say,”slimeball”, Shawn Mitchell runs up the mike with his  sick self-righteous grin on his face and starts rambling on and on about employer mandates.

              Then silence.

              And then people start laughing their asses off at him.

              He then turns to ask the sponsor.

              Excuse me, can you please tell me what your bill does?  

              He didn’t know what the F he was talking about. Had no clue. Doesn’t know which one is the leave bill and which one is the one dealing with boards. He just marched on down there to throw in his two cents and ended up looking like an ass.

              My buddy says people were talking about it all day. Says this guy goes up to the mike every time on every bill and just basically makes an ass of himself in an amateur sleuth wannabe way. Says the joke at the Capitol is the D’s should run a resolution saying Joseph Smith was a prophet just to go see Mitchell go down there and automatically say no he wasn’t!

          2. …I don’t have the leg streaming in 1 window; I’s ignorant.  Thanks for your answer! I was already to get fired up about special treatment for parents!

              1. swear by her afternoon “orange juice” …

                I’m with Jambalaya on this one. If dog owners also get time off from work to visit their pooches at doggy day care, then we’d be approaching fairness. Otherwise, I’d say parents don’t need any more state-sponsored breaks. You have your babies, you take your consequences.

                1. I love me some babies, but I’d like to take a partially paid sabattical now and then, w/o any baby involved!  The parent v. non-parent trap continues.  Although I suspect there is cross-over into both camps.

      2. Why did Josh vote the way that 99.9% of business owners in Colorado would vote if they were standing on the floor of the Senate?!  What is he thinking?!  Doesn’t he know it’s en vogue in Colorado right now to make business owners bend over?  

        1. But while I have your attention, are you saying that parents should only sacrifice time off without pay if they don’t work for some control-freak boss that considers that a problem?

          I guess when you work for a living, you give up all rights to raise your children.

      3. But I just read the bill summary.  A ‘no’ vote makes a ton of sense to me.  Create a commission to study how to promote parental involvement and then let the Board of Ed write rules?  Don’t we have enough committees, councils and commissions, thanks to Blue Ribbon Bill?  Parental involvement is a good thing, but how the heck can the government mandate something?  Every good idea doesn’t necessitate a bill.  This just sounds like a bunch more bureaucracy.

      1. Spencer Swalm’s bill to allow HMOs to offer affordable, mandate-lite insurance policies to the working poor.  Best idea to ensure some money for capital and infrustructure — limit the growth of the general fund to 6%.  Oh, wait.  The Dems are repealing that.  With the repeal of A-B, we won’t have a single dedicated source of funding for transportation/capital/infrastructure in Colorado!  Best education reform bill and budget reform bills this session — put every check on-line so citizens can keep their elected officials accountable.  Republican bills.  Ritter liked the state budget idea so much he put it into his State of State.  Even if your false statement about a lack of positive ideas were true, Pols, I’d sure prefer more Republicans saying no to the johnny-one-note agenda of the Dems: tax, spend, regulate.  Jobs are dying and that’s the Democrat agenda?

        1. Isn’t the bill we’re talking about one that loans, fosters manufacturing and installation jobs, saves money that would otherwise be spent on coal and natural gas, and doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime? Or is it just invisible because it doesn’t fit your ready-made derisions and you have no talking points on it?

        2. You’re really going to blame the global financial crisis on the Dems in the state legislature?

          Newsflash Daniel-san: jobs are dying everywhere. They have been for some time. The middle class has been shrinking for most of this decade, incomes have dropped significantly, and it’s all Terrance Carroll’s fault, right?

          When you make broad, sweeping accusations like that you not only destroy your own credibility, but you further supplant the notion that your party is bankrupt of ideas.

          The fact of the matter is that this is a good bill, Democrats came up with it, and all you can do is bitch and moan about how the Dems are running the state into the ground.

          Good luck with that position in 2010. I guess you’ll just be hoping that the economy continues to tank. Real nice. If it just happens to be getting better though, and you’ve tied your political future to the state of the economy, then you might end up thinking 2008 was a relatively good GOP year.  

          1. I never said or implied that the state legislature and Governor Ritter were responsible for the financial meltdown. You said that.  But higher taxes, spending and regs reduce jobs / job growth — at least on the margin.  Obviously the oil & gas regs are killing jobs.  Why else would the industry be spending big bucks trying to drive more opposition?  If you want less of something, you tax it or impose heavy-handed regulations against it as Ritter has done to oil and gas workers.  The bottom line is Bill Ritter is a bad and weak Governor who needs to go.

            P.S. When you try and mischaracterize my arguments by saying that I said things that I didn’t, you lose credibility.  

            1. It is now Republican lore that the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 were the basis for the dot.com boom of the 90’s but the facts belie that fable.

              In 1981, the Reagan tax cuts cut personal and corporate tax rates by 25% across the board over a three year period (10% in 1981, 10% in 1982 and 5% in 1983).  By 1986, the decline in tax revenue had made the deficit sore far beyond the deficits run-up by President Carter. The Reagan deficits were historic and resulted from a combination of the tax cuts and a 10% increase in defense spending which was implemented simultaneously with the tax cuts. To cut the deficit, President Reagan agreed to a huge tax increase in 1986.

              In 1989 or 1990, the first President Bush agreed to another tax increase and President Clinton, early in his first term asked for and got Congress to increase taxes.

              And after all of that, the United States of America had the greatest economic boom in it’s history during the 1990’s to the point the annual federal deficit was erased and replaced by a surplus because of the additional tax revenues flowing into the Treasury.

              What happened after that, the second President Bush cut taxes drastically, increased the deficit drastically and ended his eight years with the country in the worst economic mess it has been subjected to since the Great Depression.

              Tax cuts don’t necessarily mean prosperity and tax increases don’t necessarily equate to economic decline.

               

              1. Certain types of tax hikes are worse than others, for sure.  And certain types of tax cuts are better than others.  The Reagan tax cuts were so powerful because he cut the top marginal rate way, way down — from an incredibly high 70%!.   The “huge” tax hike in 1986 you refer to was actually a rewrite of the tax code which eliminated a lot of the loopholes and tax credits and simplified the system.  It resulted in a modest net increase in revenues but in fact cut the top marginal tax rates significantly.  The 1990 and 1993 tax hikes were certainly not helpful, but even after 1993 the top marginal rate was much, much lower than it was pre-Reagan.  Here is a link with top marginal rates going back to early 20th Century:  http://www.truthandpolitics.or…  The bottom line is that the Reagan income tax rate cuts are still, to a substantial degree, still in effect.

                The bottom line in my opinion: The best tax system is one that is low, flat (after the exemption), simple, predictable and avoids using the tax code to reward special interests (e.g., corporate welfare).  

              2. Very nice, R36.

                The Clinton tax increase on the wealthy resulting in the surplus to the treasury also resulted in business not competing with the feds for money in the marketplace.  The substantially lower cost of borrowing resulted in businesses and governments having a lower overhead.  This is what led to the boom.

                With the new lower cost of borrowing, billions and billions of interest dollars were saved by business and governments as the refinanced old notes with new ones.  

                This lesson needs to be remembered, that when the feds compete for money, everyone loses.  

            2. after the bill passed the first house.  And as has been pointed out over and over again, your assertion that the new regulations have driven oil and gas jobs out of Colorado is just plain wrong and not supported by anything but hollow and unsubstantiated assertions. If the new regs were actually the cause of the decline in drilling the rigs would be shifted to our neighboring states and we would be seeing a spike in drilling in other states. Instead, we have seen the same major decline in other states.

              The plain fact is the price of natural gas and oil has declined to the point where additional drilling is not economic for the o & g companies at this time.

              The industry doesn’t like some of the new regulations but they have nothing to do with the decline in drilling.

                1. By the way, many people have asked you for proof the new regulations have caused the decline in drilling and you’ve not provided any to this point except unsupported opinion. Please provide some.  Thanks.

                2. Those ads ask you to call your state legislator without saying whether the legislator in question is for or against. The only ones I’ve see have featured Dems Joe Rice and Chris Romer.  Since most people know little if anything about candidates that far down ballot at election time (going door to door I encounter many who don’t even know who their congressperson is) isn’t this just basically providing Romer and Rice with free name recognition advertising?

        3. With the repeal of A-B, we won’t have a single dedicated source of funding for transportation/capital/infrastructure in Colorado!

          You’re so wrong and factually incorrect, it’s actually funny.

          SB 108 gave Colorado transportation a dedicated funding source. No more getting the leftovers from SB1 transfers. And before you start ranting like a raving madman again….You had Joe Blake out there leading the charge for it.  Oh, yeah. And Al White voted for it. Look it up. Oh no…wait. You’d rather keep making it up as you go along.

          And as for all your crocodile tears about transportation, remember that there were NO SCHEDULED SB 1 TRANSFERS  to transportation for the next couple of years.

          As for the A-B argument, you’re using simplistic logic to try to fib your way through this one. 6% growth, huh? What’s 6 % of nothing? Because you forgot to mention the ratchet effect which keeps us at an artificially lowered floor in a recession even after the revenues return.  

          And by the way….

          Oh, wait.  The Dems are repealing that.

          Wrong again. Who’s leading the effort in the House?

          Don Marostica. Oh, yeah. And there’s a draft copy of SB 228 floating around the Capitol with Al White’s name on it as a co-sponsor. Yeah, he was on board with it until Josh-y Boy gave him a talking to and told him to pull his name off of it. Ask Al. Good guy. Just lacks some balls sometimes. Meanwhile, Don has ’em to spare.

          But, hey. Just keep repeating your lies and hoping people won’t notice.

          It’s so easy to sit there and just say no, no no. All day. Every day. It’s a lot harder to actually find answers to the problems facing this state.  

          1. But SB 108 is not dedicated.  It was passed under the auspices of funding transportation, but there’s nothing to prevent the legislature from raiding the fund, like they are doing to all the special funds right now.  It is not dedicated as in protected.  It does not meet the definition of dedicated.  As such, it will be raided to backfill the GF regularly.  Don was wrong to support the bill, but one Republican does not credibly make the bill bipartisan.

            1. Let me get this straight.

              You’re only response is pout, stomp your feet and  say,” It’s not dedicated!!! is not is not is not!!” And then you go on to justify your faulty premise by speculating that sometime in the future…not giving us a date……the legislators will raid the fund. No facts to back it up. Just pure speculation. Hmm, and who will raid this fund? Republicans? Or are you saying that the Democrats will stay in power in Colorado thereby hoping that THEY will do it? While you’re looking in your crystal ball will you please give me the Final Four score…I could make a call to Vegas with the information. I mean, shit. At least make yourself useful with all this omnipotence.

              And then you go on and say that a Republican sponsor does not make a bill bipartisan.

              Please, keep talking. You make our side look even better every time you open your mouth.

              1. . . . of raiding the funds.  The point is, Colorado does not have a dedicated fund.  Sometold me recently that we are one of the few states that has no dedicated capital fund.  I don’t have a way to verify that, but it’s a real problem.  Just look at what is happening right now under the dome.  Legislators are raiding all the funds as a stopgap measure.  They do because they can.  You can argue that they “have to.”  Fair enough.  But you then concede that we don’t have a dedicated capital fund.  It it can be raided to backfill the GF, then it isn’t dedicated.

            1. but died in the House Education Committee.

              Senate Bill 131

              By Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita: Would have added course requirements in math and science as a condition of high school graduation.

              Status:FAILED

              GOP: “The bill made it out of the Senate, but was killed in the House Education Committee when the usual suspects – the public education lobby – shot it down. The fate of such education measures illustrate how the ’07 session was about Democrats’ preference for tax hikes over far-reaching, meaningful reform.”

              Help me out.

              http://www.rockymountainnews.c…

          1. no, the correct bill is 08-212.

            IIRC, the graduation requirements were stricken, or not added (I remember the debate on the House floor, and I remember not being happy about it) to the bipartisan bill.

            No one here will ever complain about the minority party compromising to make a better bill.  So, even if you’re right about the four years making it in, you’re missing the point of the diary.

            On a separate note, the article I linked about the death of the original bill has a bitchy remark from Penry.  According to you it was covered in another bill.  He’s really bad at this.

            1. The history of the idea, as I recall, was that Witwer (prime) and Penry (Senate sponsor) pushed the idea originally in 2007 and the Democrats resisted.  In 2008, they changed course and signed on and thus the bill passed.  I’m thankful they did the right thing, but the only point I was making in response to Pols was that it was originally a Republican idea.

              1. Maybe I’m not following you.  Your “so there!” is based on a bill you know nothing about, that was introduced with dual, bipartisan sponsors and doesn’t fit the description you gave.

                Okey dokey.  But I have to tell you, the tone of this diary is directly related to that kind of crap.

  2. Let’s get a life the liberals are ramming more taxes and less transparency down our throat just because they can. They control everything, it’s socialism in the first stage. WAKE UP COLORADO.

    They have no interest in the people and even the Mexicans are starting to figure it out that the democrats have been using them.

    You have raised our taxes

    Run the oil and gas out of Colorado

    Raised car and fuel taxes this month

    The only ONE business Ritter brought her is failing ( propeller Company)or you call turbine since green doesn’t produce or work

    Raising our energy cost

    And even supporting Obama to stop coal usage, so there goes all our lights. Suppose solar is going to work, Oh maybe it will with Global warming,,, wow how rediculous.  Time to stop this crap

    Are you people stupid or just uneducated, like this paper.

    We had better join the Mexicans who seem smarter than us and get back to a conservative life style with lower taxes, family values and some sense of keeping our money instead of giving it to the government and keep government out of our life. Sure we know the liberal need them in their life to survive but most of us DON’T.

    3. With all due respect to those of low intelligence, what a ‘tard you are.

      Illegal immigration and the return to Mexico of those immigrants is a matter of the economy.  If you’ve not noticed, the economy sucks due to, again, Republican policies.  

      In theory, Mexico is MUCH more socialist than the US.  State owned petroleum from bottom to top, tax supported health care, etc.  So, per your theory they are go TO more socialism, not AWAY.

      But then, facts never matter to your ilk.

  3. It looks terrible for the state to trot out negative NPV capital projects when the businensses and people who are paying for this are forced to cut back on just about everything, including investments that that actually improve profitability.    

  4. enough credit for their creative solutions.

    They constantly find new ways to repackage anti-abortion measures like the cute little personhood gig complete with perky college Christian to goose the fundies in election after election to pull that lever next to the R.  Keeping the fundy base motivated to come out election after election on the promise that this time with God’s help they will free the “Unborn” takes lots of creative imagining.

    Then of course conservatives have a solid record of creative solutions to the horrors of homos by producing resolutions and legislation to restrict the rights of adults by narrowing the definition of “committed”.  That’s as creative a solution as you are going to get from conservatives.

    And don’t forget the famous Pledge of Allegiance effort put forth by the lion of the right John Andrews.

    With such a track record of creative problem solving how can pols be dissing conservatives as stale and unimaginative thinkers?  I can’t wait to see what new solutions they will propose for the complex problems we’re facing now.  Oh wait.  Word is just in that they are unveiling their latest all purpose solution to every ill.  Tax cuts.  What genius’

    1. These people, see above, can make up “facts” out of their flatulence (See: Rush Limbaugh and his draft defying anal cyst) and reconnect the dots to explain ANYthing.  

      I guess that’s what they have to do to avert reality that’s not to their liking.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

48 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!