Rural legislators have cried foul on bills that remove tax exemptions on items important to their businesses. Two bills, HB10-1190, suspending industry fuel sales and use tax exemptions, and HB10-1195, collecting sales tax on agricultural items such as chemicals to protect bull semen, are particularly galling. The bills passed both chambers and the Governor signed them.

HB10-1190 will bring in $7.2 million in '09-'10, $37.6 million in '10-'11, and $40.2 million in '11-'12.  HB10-1195 will gin up $.9 million in '-9-'10, $4.6 million in '10-'11, and $4.6 million in '11-'12.  The state needs the money to close the budget gap in these years and to meet its obligations to k-12 education, higher education, and Medicaid, among many other responsibilities.

Sonnenberg and Brophy lead anti-tax effort

Leading the charge against higher taxes on farmers are Representative Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, and Senator Greg Brophy, R-Wray. They both have railed against the removal of the tax exemptions.

Sonnenberg and Brophy are particularly proud of their anti-tax and small government stands. Sonnenberg has twice received the "Guardian of the Taxpayers" award from the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Sonnenberg, Brophy, Renfroe enjoy their crop payments

And yet. Both Sonnenberg and Brophy receive large federal crop payments for their farm operations. $459,252 of tax dollars have gone to Sonnenberg from 1995-2006 (Sonnenberg crop payment). $83,717 have gone to Brophy from 1999-2006 (Brophy crop payment). Senator Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, is a subsidy piker, receiving only $6566 since 2002 (Renfroe crop payment).

Totaled up, the three lawmakers have taken $549,535 in federal crop subsidies over the years.

Sonnenberg's US treasury tax dollars from 1995 to 2006 include: Wheat subsidies - $269,927; corn subsidies - $27,464; sunflower subsidies - $25,022; barley subsidies -$1,797; sorghum subsidies - $1,606; livestock subsidies - $858. Who would have thought that sunflowers can bring such bounty as well as beauty?

Brophy's subsidies are simpler: $76,858 corn; $1421 wheat.

$549,535 only through '06

The federal database hasn't reported subsidies after 2006. But based on the numbers, it's surprising that these legislators are so anti-tax. To compare, most regular taxpayers were happy to receive their US Treasury tax rebate checks of $500 during the Bush years. Imagine the joy of getting a $59,111 US Treasury check in your mailbox in 2005, which was Sonnenberg's federal crop payment that year.

Sonnenberg, Brophy, and Renfroe may be against big government and taxes, but they've learned how to milk the federal government system, even if they don't get their subsidies for dairy products.

Maybe they justify their dips into the crop payment system because those are federal dollars. But for most people, tax dollars in another person's pocket are tax dollars out of their pocket. And when a person takes tax dollars and then complains about paying taxes, that taxes everyone's patience.PEN, CCW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This post was published on February 28, 2010. Permalink ». Comments are disabled at this time.

Voluntary rent control may come to Colorado with HB10-1017, a bill to allow local governments to negotiate with private owners of housing units to offer affordable rents. The bill responds particularly to housing problems in mountain resort communities where workers receive minimum wage and residences are in the multi-million dollar range.

Some worry about property values

Despite its voluntary structure, some developers and real estate managers object to the bill because it may drive down rents at all properties, not just the rent control units. "Rent control fosters lower tax assessments and property values," said Gordon Von Strough of Highlands Ranch. "Rent control is a failed policy," added Brandon Rich of Real Estate Partners.

Vacancy rates in mountain properties are from 6 percent to 15 percent in the recession, said Rex Gambrall, who manages 3000 apartments in Denver and the mountains. His company is already discounting rents for apartments used for short- term employee housing during ski season. "It's not necessary to have rent control when there are already apartments available through peak season in the mountains."

Elderly need stable rents

Mary Lou Taggert, 83 years old, said she needs the protection of rent control. She's on a fixed income and needs stable rent for her housing. Mike Pappatonakis of Nina Properties in Arvada says that Section 8 is a better housing option because it makes it voluntary for the property owner to offer low income housing. Jenny Pinjuno of Colorado Counties, Inc., says that this bill is also a voluntary tool for local governments to provide affordable housing.

Bill gives local governments housing flexibility

Low income housing and Section 8 housing are federal programs, says Nancy Englecan of Housing Colorado. This bill allows negotiations to work on a local level to help the 40 percent of Colorado residents spending so much on rent that they need food assistance. Englecan says that 1 in 6 Colorado children are growing up in these poverty situations.

Counties are particularly supportive of the bill as it gives them flexibility to encourage affordable housing. "Sixty-seven percent of houses in Summit County are second homes. Our community vitality is affected by people unable to pay rent and move out of town." Well-designed, affordable housing provides value and stitches together "broken communities" where much of the population can't afford to live where they work, says Dennis Humphries, architect.

The Colorado Municipal League also supports the bill because the "rent control is an option, not a mandate." Property owners who enter into rent control arrangements with local governments will receive beneficial zoning and planning requirements. The bill squeaked by on a 6-5 party-line vote. Kiley Larsen, CCW

This post was published on February 23, 2010. Permalink ». Comments are disabled at this time.

"Adverse medical events," in medical speak, happen. Today, the patient at the event may receive an apology from the physician or hospital or other medical provider, but not much more.

Meanwhile, physicians and hospitals may conduct a peer review of the adverse event to determine what happened, but patients will never know the results unless they go to court. That may change with HB10-1283, the Patient Safety Bill.

Big bill may transform handling of medical "adverse events"

Sponsored by Representative Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, the bill is big. Its main provisions include:

• Professional development for physicians, including ongoing professional development activities necessary for continued licensure.
• A requirement that health care providers verify the employment history of health care worker applicants and limits on the liability of health care providers who give out employment history information.
• A protected means by which physicians and patients discuss the causes and corrections to "adverse medical events" without limiting the patient's ability to litigate the event.
• An initiative to explore alternative methods for resolving litigation on adverse medical events, including compiling data on demonstration projects redressing these incidents.

Hospitals must provide health care worker applicant info

Rose Medical Center's experience with the surgery technician who infected patients with Hepatitis C is the immediate cause of the employment history provision. Kristen Parker exposed over 4700 patients at Rose to Hep C when she injected herself with the painkiller fentanyl and put the needles she used, filled with a saline solution, on surgical trays in operating rooms. By the time Rose discovered these "adverse events," Parker had another job at the Audubon Surgery Center in Colorado Springs where another 1300 patients were threatened with infection.

HB10-1283 requires health care providers to verify the employment history of health care worker applicants, including any impairment, drug diversion, patient abuse, and violent crimes.

Doctors can say more than "I'm sorry"

The bill also makes it legally easier for doctors to work with patients who have experienced an adverse event. In today's environment, "I'm sorry" is easy, but an explanation of how an event happened is unlikely due to the threat of malpractice litigation. HB10-1283 makes it possible for doctors to talk to patients about the event, including how it happened.

Any verbal discussion or written summary of an adverse event assessment cannot be used to litigate against the physician. The bill does not prohibit the patient from using documentation underlying the verbal discussion or written assessment summary in court.

Trial lawyers worry about patient's rights

The Colorado Trial Lawyers Association doesn't buy the bill's language. Natalie Brown, an attorney with the CTLA, objects to the language referring to discussion of "assessment of care." In the trial lawyer's view, when a physician reviews "assessment of care" with a patient, anything the doctor and patient discuss after the first visit to the doctor is potentially excluded from litigation. CTLA wants the "assessment of care" language narrowed and made more specific.

CTLA also believes the bill gives too much room for doctors to change their story between when they talk with patients about "assessment of care" and when they are called to court. Two sections of the bill appear contradictory.

Does the bill contradict itself?

In one section, both the patient and health care provider are prohibited from disclosing information obtained through an assessment of care. In the next section, "nothing ...shall prevent the discovery or admissibility of any evidence that is otherwise discoverable, merely because the evidence was presented in an assessment of care."

CTLA believes that if a doctor makes a statement to the patient in the assessment of care discussion, and then changes that statement during legal proceedings, the court should know there's a contradiction.

"It's befuddling," said Brown. "On the one hand, stuff is inadmissible, and then in the next section, everything that's discoverable is still discoverable...There needs to be something in the bill that doesn't allow a physician to say one thing to the patient and then another thing in court, with impunity."

Representative Cheri Gerou, R-Gilpin, rejected Brown's objection. "I'm just hearing this is a bad bill. I'm not hearing anything about what you do want. I'm here for the protection of life, safety and health of the public. I'm not seeing anything here that's constructive as it should be."

Brown responded that state law "shouldn't put a blanket protection on every conversation between physician and patient, because that can be interpreted very broadly and it can affect the compensation for injury caused by negligence."

Important for doctors and patients to discuss adverse events

Dr. Mark Laitos, family physician and president of the Colorado Medical Society, supports the bill. "Our goal is to make Colorado the safest state in the nation for medical care... Once in awhile, unintended outcomes or surprised outcomes occur. Our lawyers tell us ‘don't share with patients because it makes you vulnerable.' The Colorado Medical Society wants to change that.

"We want to have a conversation with patients and continue the collaborative relationship. We want to take these situations out of an adversarial environment."

Colorado Medical Association wants alternatives to litigation

To further their commitment to quality care, the Colorado Medical Association commits in the bill to supporting pilot studies on alternatives to traditional malpractice litigation in resolving adverse event litigation. "We want to be a national innovator in professional safety and accountability."

The Colorado Medical Association won this round on the bill. HB10-1283 passed to the Judiciary Committee on an 8-3 vote. PEN  CCW

This post was published on February 22, 2010. Permalink ». Comments are disabled at this time.

State Senator Mike Kopp, R-S.Jeffco, had an ambitious idea that ran aground in the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee last week. The ambitious idea: to study state government and regulations for their efficiency, effectiveness, and cost.

SB10-164 presented as cure for sloppy government
SB10-164 was introduced with some fanfare earlier in the session as the Republican answer to the Democrat's cry that the party of NO offered NO solutions to the state's budget problems. Kopp's bill would create two task forces, one from the Legislative Audit Committee (LAC) to examine state government, and one from the Committee on Legal Services (COLS) to examine state regulations.

The LAC's job would identify essential state services and look for overlapping or duplicative services, fraud, and other inefficiencies. The COLS's job would examine state regulations for their relevance and cost to business.

Task force composition questioned
Business and academic leaders along with two state employees would form the committees. That was the first rub. Senator Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, noted that no committee members were from education, health care, human services, and other non-business enterprises even though many state departments provide services in these areas.

No money to make money, said Bacon
State Senator Bob Bacon, D-Ft. Collins, questioned the committees' composition as well, noting the lack of committee representation from consumers of state services. 

Bacon also cited the roughly $750,000 price tag on the bill's fiscal note. "I know it takes money to make money, but we don't have money to take right now," said Bacon. Kopp said that he would get the money from the old standby, gifts, grants, and donations, but Bacon didn't buy it.

Non partisan committee necessary, said Kopp
Kopp argued that the legislature needed a BRAC type commission to help the state make itself more efficient. The feds used the BRAC as a nonpartisan tool to identify military bases to close. Bacon and Boyd, noting the distinctly "business" orientation of Kopp's task forces, smelled a skunk, and voted that way.

Partisan gamesmanship on both sides kills bill
So a potentially good idea hit the ever-present partisan barrier, with Kopp seeming to load up the task forces with business allies, and no amendments to the bill to correct the suspected bias. The result: the reputed party of NO can say "YES we tried," and the Dems can retort, "But they didN'T really mean it." The bill was postponed indefinitely on a 3-2 party line vote. PEN, CCW

This post was published on February 20, 2010. Permalink ». Comments are disabled at this time.

Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff, Democrats running for US Senate, squared off on the Auraria campus in front of an audience of about 150 supporters eager to see how their candidates would hold up.

Both candidates have reputations as the "smartest man in the room." Both are reputed to be policy wonks. Both are in their forties. And both reject nicknames - there's no informal Mike Bennet or Andy Romanoff.

Current Senate has brought change to a screeching halt

Both did well in pretty much the same way, sticking in the sharp knife rather than throwing punches. And the knife was most often stuck into the heart of the Senate rather than into each others' backs.

The US Senate is dysfunctional, they agreed, and is not serving the people. "If you like the way the Senate works, don't vote for me," said Romanoff. "I don't need to defend the US Senate," said Bennet. "I can't stand the process, just like Andrew."

Romanoff says he'll get things done

Romanoff stated that he is the man who can get things done. "Washington needs someone with the courage and conviction to fix the Senate. People are losing their jobs, health care, their homes. The US Senate is a place where change goes to die. We have to break out by not taking money from the special interests." Romanoff has chosen not to take special interest PAC money.

Oh really, responds Bennet

Bennet countered that Romanoff hasn't always been so pure. "When you were Speaker of the House, you had your own PAC, with other PAC's giving to your PAC. I didn't even know you could do that."

Bennet, the incumbent US Senator, has traveled across the state "to red, blue, and purple towns and cities." "People are completely discouraged by what's going on in the Senate," he said. "We need to construct politics that go past the dysfunction. It's not the time to give up, but to keep fighting."

Two men agree on country's problems

Both men agree on the country's principal problems: job loss, health care loss, huge deficits, greedy Wall Street, climate change, and an energy economy still too much based on fossil fuels.

Bennet noted that the deficit went up from $5 trillion in 2000 to $12 trillion in 2010, mostly because of inept policies from the Bush administration. He supports jobs bills but recognizes that the deficit is a dark shadow on the economy. Even his ten- year-old daughter understands the threat. "Let me make something clear, daddy," Bennet said of his daughter Caroline. "I'm not going to be the one paying off that debt."

Romanoff and Bennet agree too many cents, not enough sense in Senate

Romanoff said that the Senate is out to lunch. There are too many millionaires, 68 percent, and not enough members who experience the world the way the average person does. "I will do what Sherrod Brown is doing," said Romanoff, "and not take government health insurance until everyone in America also has health care."

Bennet didn't have many kind words for his fellow members of the Senate Banking Committee. "It's painful," he said, "that only 5 or 6 senators on the committee have ever been involved in the financial markets. There was nothing inevitable about this recession. Banks made decisions that were not good business decisions, but short-term, greedy decisions." He supports rules to increase capital requirements to reduce leverage and to set up a consumer protection agency.

Bennet also feels that Congress doesn't grasp the impact of its "well intentioned" laws on schools. "Washington has no clue what's going on in the classrooms of this country."

Filibuster has got to go

Both Bennet and Romanoff agree that the filibuster rule has to go. They both agree that it's impossible to be a fiscal hawk without trimming health care costs in Medicare and Medicaid. Both will increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas. They both want to deliver higher quality health care at lower cost.

"Republicans are supporting the most expensive way of doing health care," said Bennet. "Insurers made $12 billion in profits as they dumped 12 million off the health care rolls."

It's the next generation that matters most

Bennet's key focus is on the legacy this generation is leaving for its children and grandchildren. "My daughter Caroline believes that if we don't do something about climate change by 2013, we're all doomed." "As I drive across the state," reflected Bennet, "I've gone over bridges and roads built in the 1930s, and rail lines built in the last century, and I realize how previous generations worked for us. Now it's our turn. "

"At the end of the day," summed up Romanoff, "it's not about my job or Michael's job, but about the people of Colorado who have lost their jobs. It's not about anyone's net worth, but about their human worth."

Given the low regard both men have for the sad sack state of the current US Senate, it's stunning that they'd want this job at all. At one point, Bennet said of their primary battle, "I love you, Andrew, but I just wish you'd run against the people causing all this problem." Paula Noonan, Colorado Capitol Watch

This post was published on February 16, 2010. Permalink ». Comments are disabled at this time.