The announcement, delivered by Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, was accompanied by a package of proposals that would do away with what McNulty calls unnecessary and burdensome regulations on businesses and add more accountability for state agencies regulating businesses.

McNulty said he and his colleagues traveled the state talking to businesses, shaping the nine-point jobs agenda.

“These are the things that we are going to target from the beginning,” said McNulty.  “We asked the job creators what they needed, and they consistently told us that creating a more stable regulatory environment would create jobs.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, of Denver, said the Republican agenda has elements worth considering, particularly with regulatory reform.

“I see places for bipartisan support and ways we can work together,” said Ferrandino. “No one wants regulation just for the sake of regulation. As long as consumer protections are in place and consumers aren’t harmed, there are ways we can streamline regulations.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

In order to receive the preferences, which amount to a 5-percent competitive advantage in bidding, companies must demonstrate that at least 90 percent of those employed under the contract are Colorado residents or at least live in Colorado. The contractors employing those workers also must provide them health and retirement benefits under the legislation. If it is a construction project, an opportunity to participate in a U.S. Department of Labor-approved apprentice program must be included.

The pending Senate Bill 1, to be sponsored by Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, and touted at Wednesday’s news conference by Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D- Longmont, should resonate with Coloradans, says Hudak.

“When I knock on doors and speak with my constituents, they tell me they want us to work together to create jobs and improve the economy,” said Hudak in a prepared statement. ”HIRE Colorado will do just that, leveraging public funds to create jobs right here in our own state.”

Shaffer, in his remarks, said he knows Republican lawmakers want the same outcome—job creation—and that he is confident the two parties can come to agreement on the bill.

However, Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland, said the bill may contain too many pitfalls.

“It’s easy to say this is a jobs bill, but the devil’s always in the details,” said Nikkel.

Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, also said the legislation may prove to be a hard sell despite its honest intentions.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, who is one of six lawmakers sitting on the Joint Budget Committee, said she will oppose Hickenlooper’s stance on the exemption, which was added to the state constitution by voters in 2000. The exemption was honored for just two years before lawmakers suspended the tax break, which Gerou says was the wrong thing to do.

“So far, this has been a broken promise and I’m tired of broken promises,” said Gerou. “Part of the role of government is to respect and take care of the vulnerable, particularly our elders.”

The exemption allows homeowners 65 and over who have lived in the same primary residence for at least 10 years to exempt 50 percent of a home’s market value, up to $200,000, from their property taxes.  A provision in the amendment allows it to be suspended by the legislature when necessary to balance the budget. The legislature has agreed to suspend the exemption in recent years as a last-resort budget-balancing move.

In July, Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, declared that “the days of balancing Colorado’s budget on the backs of seniors are over,”  vowing House Republicans would oppose any attempt to suspend the program yet again.

At the time, the Joint Budget Committee’s Rep. Mark Ferandino, D-Denver said he agreed that bringing back the popular tax exemption should be on the table, but he said he would be taking a wait-and-see approach.

“We all want to help seniors, but at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to balance the budget,” said Ferrandino. “We’ll work with the majority (House Republicans), but it’s going to once again take a balanced approach. It’s always about weighing options and protecting the most vulnerable among us.”

Today, Ferrandino applauded Hickenlooper’s overall budget proposal, saying he is ready to roll up his sleeves.

“Gov. Hickenlooper has come forward with a responsible budget proposal that gives our committee a clear path forward,” said Ferrandino. “I’m ready to get to work with the governor’s office and my Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Joint Budget Committee to produce a balanced budget that makes the tough choices and respects the values we cherish as Coloradans.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The brouhaha is over Proposition 103, a measure just certified for the ballot earlier this month that asks voters to approve both an income tax and sales tax increase, for the next five years, to supplement what Democratic lawmakers have been saying is seriously lagging K-12 funding. The proposal was spearheaded by Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, and supported by numerous Democratic lawmakers who helped gather the required number of signatures to allow the measure to reach the ballot.  Republicans have been vocal in their opposition.

The Legislative Council committee, comprised of 18 lawmakers, has the responsibility of finalizing language for what’s called the “Blue Book,” a pamphlet distributed to voters containing actual ballot language as well as arguments for and against ballot proposals.  Republicans objected to the proposed language drafted by non-partisan staffers on the arguments portion.

Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, a member of the panel, said the Republicans present at the meeting were engaging in partisan antics and being counter-productive.

“The Republicans apparently can’t bring themselves to work in a cooperative, bipartisan manner, even when it comes to giving accurate information to voters about ballot initiatives,” said Boyd.

Senate Democratic Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, accused legislative Republicans of grandstanding.

“When it comes to jobs, helping the poor and students, the (House GOP Speaker Frank) McNulty mantra is, ‘Just say no.’ He and House Republicans are consistently throwing every road block they can to stop Colorado moving forward,” said Morse.

McNulty, from Highlands Ranch, had issued a statement last week deriding the proposal after the Secretary of State’s Office examined and approved the necessary petition signatures needed to place the tax question on the ballot. Under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in the state constitution, taxpayers must approve any increase in revenue.

“Democrats don’t get it.  Colorado’s hardworking families and job creators are struggling to survive in this recession.  The last thing they need right now is Democrats pushing another state tax increase,”  McNulty said. “Republicans believe the best way to fund K-12 education is by creating jobs right here in Colorado, helping to put Colorado families back to work.”

Opposition to the language selected for arguments for and against the tax centered on wording stating certain things “will” happen if the measure is approved and certain things “may” happen if it is not.  Senate Republican Assistant Minority Leader Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, challenged the panel to reconsider the wording on the basis that it unfairly bolstered the arguments to vote for the measure, misleading voters.

“I’m a little curious,” said Cadman, addressing the panel. “Why assertions in the arguments ‘for’ say these things will happen, and the assertions in the arguments ‘against’ say these things may happen? How can something speculative in nature have any language that assures something will happen?”

In a prepared statement, Democratic leadership said of today’s meeting that, “Even the simple task of approving the Blue Book became a forum for Republicans to grandstand and force partisan votes.”

Cadman, also  in a prepared statement, later said it is Democratic lawmakers who are out of synch with  voters.

“This should not be the message we are sending to Colorado employers and families struggling to get by,” said  Cadman. “Today is simply another example of the Democrats’ indifference toward the taxpayers and employers of Colorado.”

The language of the Blue Book was approved and will be sent to voters in a few weeks.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The suit, filed  in May against Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper as the named defendant in the case, was spearheaded by numerous current and former Democratic lawmakers, a variety of public figures, and two former Republican lawmakers.  Their suit maintains that the landmark policy, known as TABOR, amended into the state constitution through the citizens-initiative process in 1992, usurps the legislature’s power by preventing lawmakers from  raising taxes without a popular vote.

Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, applauded the AG’s move as well as the governor’s position on the issue, saying it speaks to the governor’s willingness to advocate for taxpayers.

“I’m encouraged that this administration is defending the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and the rights of Coloradans threatened by this egregious lawsuit,” said McNulty.  “Coloradans voted for the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights to keep their government in check; it’s important that elected officials understand that.”

However, Democratic Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said the suit is not about the initiative process but about the basic tenets of the United States Constitution.

“TABOR is unconstitutional,” said Morse. “We’re not saying that the people don’t have a right to petition. We’re saying that TABOR violates the constitution because it usurps the power of the legislature.”

The legislature, says Morse, is constitutionally enshrined as a republican form of government—representative government, not direct democracy. TABOR, voted in by the electorate, takes constitutionally derived authority away from the legislature, says Morse–to raise revenue.

“What’s the power of the legislature? It’s the purse,” says Morse. “Once you take away the power of the purse you take away republican form of government. TABOR is a huge problem. Every other state has the ability of raising taxes. Colorado doesn’t.”

The motion filed on behalf of the governor rejects that reasoning. It contends that the court does not have the authority to even hear the case, asserting the dispute is a distinctly political one involving policy making and not a constitutional one requiring interpretation of the law–better suited for the court of public opinion.

“Whether representative and direct democracy are actually incompatible, as Plaintiffs argue, or whether they are simply two complementary ways of carrying out a republican government, as the American experience shows, is an interesting subject for philosophic and academic debate, but cannot be resolved in this case,” states the motion.

Hickenlooper’s attorneys further state that if the case went forward, the court could be forced to invalidate the initiative process as outlined in Colorado’s constitution.

“Plaintiffs make clear that this case is an effort to have the courts remove what they see as an obstacle to their policy agenda: direct citizen participation in lawmaking,” states the motion, reasoning that “….. their arguments ultimately would require the Court to hold unconstitutional all forms of direct citizen lawmaking.”

Republican Assistant Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, says the lawsuit is a misguided attempt to resolve money problems and agrees that attempts asking the judicial branch to strike down TABOR would be an assault on the constitution.

“Abolishing TABOR in the courts would be a crushing blow to the people’s right to form and reform our constitutional government,” said Cadman. “TABOR is not to blame for the state’s financial woes, period.  What the proponents of this lawsuit fail to acknowledge is that mandated entitlement spending is what’s draining the state’s coffers.”

Still, Morse remains undeterred, contending that the motion is just a bump in the road—a road that will eventually lead to the Supreme Court.

“This thing’s going to end up being presented to the Supreme Court before all is said and done,” said Morse. “I’m fairly confident of that.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

When it was put on the 2000 ballot, the author of the TABOR amendment called it a “redistribution of wealth” that would divert “the tax refunds of 100 percent of the population to 1 percent of the population.”

He also noted it’s unfair even to many seniors, since it discriminates in favor of stick-in-the-muds who haven’t had the ambition to move in the past 10 years.

People like me, for instance.

The exemption was in the news the other day because House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, told the Colorado Commission on Aging that his party wouldn’t support a continued suspension of the exemption in fiscal year 2012-2013.

“The days of balancing the budget on the backs of seniors are over,” he said, in a classic pander to a voting bloc.

The senior tax break, approved by voters in 2000, applies to Coloradans 65 and older who have lived in their current home for at least 10 years.  It reduces their property taxes by one-half for up to $200,000 of their home’s assessed value.

But the law allows the legislature to suspend the senior tax credit annually, which it does every time there’s a budget crunch.  Since it was approved it has applied only to property taxes payable in 2003, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

If reinstated it will cost the state almost $100 million.

The Democrats criticized McNulty’s suggestions—but for all the wrong reasons.  House Minority Leader Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, said he liked the exemption but managed to figure out a way to blame the Republicans for its most recent suspension.

Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, doesn’t want the exemption returned because it would “blow another $99 million hole in a budget that already will be difficult to balance.”

But that’s not the point either.  The point is fairness.  The exemption isn’t fair to many seniors.

“What if you have arthritis and can’t climb stairs and have to move out of the home you’ve had for 30 years and find a one-level home?” said Bruce before the issue was approved by voters.  “All of a sudden you’re ineligible and your property taxes double for the next 10 years.”

And what about seniors who in the last 10 years have chosen to downsize once the children have grown and gone—or upsize to make room for visiting grandchildren?

There is no means test applied.  If you’re otherwise qualified for the exemption, it doesn’t matter how rich or poor you might be.

Am I eligible for the exemption, and have I availed myself of it in the years in which it operates?  You bet. I can nurse a nickel as carefully as the next guy.  But that doesn’t make it good public policy.

What about those seniors who may really need a tax break? I said at the top that the exemption is unnecessary as well as unfair.  That’s because there’s been another state program since the early 1970s that allows seniors to escape property taxes altogether.

Run out of the state treasurer’s office, it allows homeowners over 65 to have the state treasurer’s office pay their entire property tax to the appropriate county.  Application to the county treasurer must be made each year between Jan. 1 and April 1.  There are a few caveats:

• It must be your primary residence, not a rental.
• Mortgages, deeds of trust and other liens cannot exceed 100 percent of the home’s market value.
• All prior property taxes must have been fully paid.

Sounds like an outlandish subsidy.  But it’s not.  The state gets its money back when the home is sold or transferred, plus some interest.

Sounds like a good deal, doesn’t it?  So how many seniors avail themselves of this program?  In the current year, deep in a recession, the total is still only 645.  During the past five years the number has ranged from 293 to 525.

Why isn’t the number higher? Apparently most seniors don’t want anything subtracted from the value of their homes when they pass them on to their heirs, even though avoiding taxes might enable them to buy a few luxuries.

The program is so simple, so fair and so inexpensive to run it’s no wonder it doesn’t get promoted by state and local governments.

Longtime Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

One of the two lawmakers who serve on the aging commission, Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, rapped McNulty for pledging to bring back the homestead exemption in the face of the state’s continuing fiscal straits.

“Speaker McNulty was quick to make a promise that he knows the General Assembly cannot deliver,” said Guzman. “The restoration of the Homestead exemption would blow another $99 million hole in a budget that already will be difficult to balance.”

The Joint Budget Committee’s Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, agreed, saying McNulty was ignoring key factors that go into writing the budget.

“These types of comments are premature, and they disrespect the Joint Budget Committee and the entire budgeting process,” said Steadman.

Yet, the aging commission’s other legislative member, Republican Rep. Tom Massey, of Poncha Springs, stood with McNulty.

“I thought it was appropriate for the Speaker to address theColorado Commission on Aging concerning the discussion as it is of interest to seniors,” said Massey. “None of us in the Legislature speak for the Commission. However, personally I feel that our senior population, particularly those living on a fixed income would benefit from a reinstatement of the exemption. Therefore, I hope serious consideration is given when we enter into our budget balancing negotiations.”

Vivian Stovall, chair of the commission, said today that the speaker’s statement was his prerogative to make, and anyone is welcome to come and speak at commission meetings.

“The speaker has a right to come and address our commission and say whatever he wants to say. He told us in his speech what he was planning to do and that’s fine,” said Stovall.  “We don’t have a problem with the appropriateness of what he said. The suspension of the homestead exemption is a matter between the governor and the parties in the legislature. We don’t take sides.”

Debera Stewart, a Republican appointee to the commission, also was nonchalant.

“As a commission we listen and learn. We’ve had plenty of speakers advocating one thing or another,” said Stewart. “His comments were political in nature because of his position as speaker. He was just giving us information on where they (House Republicans) were planning on going with this issue. It’s always useful to know what direction the legislature is taking.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The 3-3 split, during today’s Executive Committee of the General Assembly, fell along party lines with support for TABOR among Republicans and opposition to TABOR coming from the committee’s Democrats. Democrats hold a majority in the Senate while Republicans control the House, so the parties are equally represented on the committee.

Critics of TABOR, approved by voters nearly two decades ago, recently filed suit against the policy, contending it is unconstitutional. It is often cited as a primary cause of budgetary woes by some even as it is revered by others who view TABOR as a necessary limit on government spending. Under TABOR, voters must approve any increase in taxes.

Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said today’s vote was little more than political posturing reminiscent of Washington.

“This is precisely the type of political grandstanding Coloradans despise,” said Shaffer. “We need to focus on Colorado solutions, not Washington-style gridlock and partisanship.”

McNulty, who called for the vote in light of the pending lawsuit that has brought the debate to a boiling point, says that what Coloradans really want is embodied in TABOR.

“I’m disappointed that Democrats in the General Assembly would not support Coloradans’ right to vote on all tax increases,” said McNulty.  “The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights passed because Coloradans wanted to keep their government in check.”

Republican House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, of Monument, also said the vote is indicative of party differences and gave her side of the aisle a pat on the back for their fiscal constraint.

“For years, Democrats in the General Assembly worked to push through tax increase after tax increase, to pay for their big government agenda,” said Stephens. “That time has come to an end thanks to House Republicans.”

Yet, Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, who also happens to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging TABOR, said what Coloradans really want is jobs and for the parties to set aside their differences.

“The people of Colorado want us to focus on creating jobs and getting people back to work, not fight over petty ideological differences,” said Morse. “They want real solutions that involve cooperation and collaboration.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Seven years ago, Colorado voters approved Amendment 35,  allowing for the taxation of  tobacco products to fund early detection and treatment of cancer, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases; comprehensive primary care; children’s health care, and prevention and cessation programs.  A provision of the measure allowed the state to redirect those dollars when a fiscal emergency is declared. In each of the last several years, just such an emergency has been declared amid back-to-back budget woes.

This year, says McNulty, the tobacco dollars will be “off-the-table” when it comes to budget negotiations next year as far as the House Republicans are concerned.

“We all recognize that the state has struggled over the past few years,” said McNulty. “But the programs that receive Amendment 35 funding have paid more than their fair share to balance the budget.  It is time these funds go where our state constitution directs them to go—to advance the health and well-being of Coloradans.”

House Health and Environment Committee Chair Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, a cancer survivor, said he agrees wholeheartedly.

“Cancer is something that has touched everyone.  I’ve personally lost several family members and even recently a friend to cancer,” said Summers.

Yet, some lawmakers across the aisle say the Republicans’ pledge on tobacco taxes might turn out to be more than they can deliver. Directing the money toward its intended use—cancer treatment and prevention—rather than shoring up a sagging budget would be ideal, says Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Betty Boyd, of Lakewood, but as a practical matter, cannot always be done.

“Sometimes we get stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said Boyd. “When two good things are equally needed, it’s difficult to choose. Unfortunately, it’s a choice that we are forced to make. As painful as it is, we have to balance the budget.”

Boyd says she has seen up close the devastating blow to programs that would normally be receiving the money, but she has also seen the realities of balancing a budget with gaping holes.

“I hate the fact that the grant programs aren’t getting the funds they need—they’re losing a large amount of money—but when we get to the budget, it’s always a matter of negotiation,” said Boyd. “In a perfect world we would fund the cancer programs no matter what, but we’ve got to be pragmatic.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

“The days of balancing Colorado’s budget on the backs of seniors are over,” said McNulty.

The constitutional tax exemption allows homeowners 65 and over who have lived in the same primary residence for at least 10 years to exempt 50 percent of a home’s market value, up to $200,000, from their property taxes.  The exemption was placed in the state constitution by voters in 2000. A provision in the amendment allows it to be suspended by the legislature when necessary to balance the budget. Lawmakers have agreed to suspend the exemption in recent years as a last-resort budget-balancing move.

One of the Joint Budget Committee’s Republican members, Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, said he believes the restoration of the tax exemption will come as a relief to many seniors who struggle to pay their property taxes on fixed incomes.

“House Republicans believe that the Greatest Generation has paid their due.  It is time for us to respect our seniors and the will of Colorado voters as our state budget situation slowly improves,” said Becker. “By not suspending the homestead exemption, seniors who depend on a fixed income will have a little more money in their pockets.   That means a lot during this recession.”

McNulty said the last two revenue forecasts prompted him to say the restoration is warranted.

“Tough budget times led to the suspension of the senior homestead exemption,” he said.  “That meant less money for seniors to spend on medicine and food during this economic crisis.  This is money we can now get back to them.”

Yet, Democratic JBC member Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, says it may be too soon to make such a promise with three more quarterly forecasts yet to come before the 2012 budget is finalized in March.

“Two forecasts are a decent sign, but we need to see a longer trend,” said Ferrandino.

Ferrandino said he agrees that bringing back the popular tax exemption should be on the table, but a wait-and-see approach is more prudent.

“We all want to help seniors, but at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to balance the budget,” said Ferrandino. “We’ll work with the majority, but it’s going to once again take a balanced approach. It’s always about weighing options and protecting the most vulnerable among us.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.