The taxpayer-watchdog group annually assesses the taxpayer-friendliness of the General Assembly’s 100 members and the governor.

“The Colorado Legislature once again fails the Colorado taxpayers,” concludes the group in its 2011 report. “The Legislature passed the largest budget EVER, $19.8 Billion, while Colorado citizens are out of work and the economy is in disarray. ”

As has been the case almost every year since the group, known as CUT, was founded in 1976, Republican lawmakers fared better in this year’s report card than did Democratic lawmakers, with a handful of GOP star students at the head of the class and another handful below the 50-percent mark. As usual, the lauded lawmakers welcomed their high ratings while those who got low marks waved them off.

Twenty-seven  bills were used as criteria to rank lawmakers based on their votes on spending and issues involving the overall scope of government.

Democrat Hickenlooper was given extra credit for being  “there for taxpayers” with his support for restoring some business tax breaks that had been suspended or repealed last year. The freshman governor also was criticized by the group, however, for “walking in lock step with the legislature in its health-care entitlement expansion, attacks on citizens’ right to petition, and increased government spending.”

Hailed as “champions” among lawmakers were Sens. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, and Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley.  At the other end of the spectrum were former Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, and Rep. John Soper, D-Thornton, who received the lowest scores.

Soper said he considers his low ranking on the survey to be a badge of honor.

“I’m honored to be at the bottom of the list. I think that’s great,” quipped Soper. “I get fed up with people who say they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Businesses need to pay their fair share—we all need to pay our fair share. Why should Amazon get a tax break and the bookstore down the street doesn’t?”

Renfroe was pleased with his high ranking.

“It is an honor to serve and stand firm against the progressive vision of growing government and controlling our lives with tax increases,” said Renfroe.

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.

House Bill 1081, sponsored by Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D- Snowmass Village, adds a propane and butane mixture commonly known as liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, to the state’s alternative fuel tax credits available to purchasers of new vehicles.

“The measure is important to the state, especially rural parts like southwestern Colorado. Families and small businesses need all the help they can get with gas prices on the rise,” said Brown.  “By extending the alternative fuel tax credit to vehicles that use liquefied petroleum gas, more families and small businesses can use energy-efficient vehicles that are more affordable.”

Yet, when the bill was heard in the House, Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, said extending the credit would exacerbate an already-beleaguered budget. Riesberg said he wholeheartedly supports the inclusion of propane but questions the fiscal wisdom of offering an additional credit. The current credits made available in the last several years have amounted to $280,000 in the first year and $580,000, and $500,000 in the next two years, according to Riesberg.

“We don’t have the money to do this,” said Riesberg. “Rather than putting this (propane) in and forcing it on a legislature to come, we should simply say, ‘Once we have the money, then we should run this bill.’ ”

Vehicles that already qualified for the alternative fuel tax credit are those that run on compressed natural gas or ethanol as well as hybrid gas and electric vehicles.

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.

House Bill 1173 by Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, failed on a party-line vote in the House Health and Environment Committee, with majority Republicans voting to kill the measure. HB1173 would have identified criteria specifying the definition, scope and registration procedure for those who under the title of doctor practice naturopathic medicine.

Currently, the industry is unregulated, with a spectrum of practitioners ranging from consultants to those with a degree from an accredited naturopathic medical school, where the title of doctor is conferred.

Testifying in support of the bill, witness Laura Flanagan shared with the committee what she said can go wrong when trust in a self-titled doctor is misplaced. Her 18-year-old son, a cancer patient, died after 10 days under the care of a self-proclaimed naturopathic doctor. The practitioner had given her son hydrogen peroxide in an IV to treat the cancer.

“We trusted him and believed he was a doctor that could help our son,” said Flanagan. “It helps for people to be held accountable for what they do and what they claim to be.”

Opposing the bill were members of the naturopathic community, many of whom practice without the title of doctor, who say the measure would shut them out.  Kim Green, of the Colorado Citizens for Health Freedom, a consumer group,said the measure would put the naturopathic practitioners they frequent out of business.

“Despite what the bill sponsor says, this would make it illegal for naturopathic practitioners to practice,” said Green. “People who seek out our services would not be able to get the care that they want and need.”

Countered Riesberg, “That’s just not true. Anyone that’s practicing now would be able to continue. They just can’t call themselves doctor.”

Riesberg said his bill could only benefit current practitioners and patients with the added clarity that registration would provide.

“When they use the term doctor, people should know that there is accountability behind the title,” said Riesberg. “Coloradans deserve a broad range of choices, and we should value the term doctor so that it’s only used in Colorado by those who meet the requirements.”

Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, said people should be able to choose naturopathy as an approach to their well-being, but he said he opposed the bill in part because its restrictions on the practice actually also served to legitimize it.

“It may be too soon to go down this path, formally authorizing a non-scientific practice,” Brown said.

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.

Currently there are six different categories for annual passes granting admission to state parks.  The Aspen Leaf Annual Pass is available at a 50 percent discount for people 64 and older.  With the passage of Senate Bill 71 by Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley, earlier this year, Colorado residents who are 64 years old or older will have the option of purchasing a lifetime pass starting in January for an as-yet undetermined, one-time fee.  The fee is capped at five times the amount for the annual Aspen Leaf Pass.  To use the pass, the recipient must own the vehicle and be present for entry.

The bill, signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter in May, requires that the Colorado Department of Natural Resources prepare a report for the House and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources committees outlining the financial impact to the state due to the issuance of the lifetime pass before March of 2014.

The fee for an annual Aspen Leaf Pass is currently $30.  The office of Legislative Council, responsible for evaluating the fiscal impact of legislation, in a prepared fiscal analysis, anticipates that the lifetime pass will initially boost state revenue, but it could dwindle in future years as numerous variables kick in over time.

“They (the doctors) want open discussion with the patient, but they’ve been told by lawyers, ‘Don’t you dare,’ which has created a culture of fear rather than openness,” said Riesberg.

Riesberg’s House Bill 1283, heard today in the House Judiciary Committee, would throw open the doors of communication; it first needs to get final approval next week when the committee votes on the measure. Still pending are  several amendments to the bill requested by the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.  The bill has already been approved by the House Health and Human Services  Committee, which is chaired by Riesberg.

Colorado Medical Society President Mark Laitos told the panel that the medical profession wants the reform to enable it to explore other options in helping injured patients, to learn from human and systems errors, and to create a safer health-care system overall.  Litigation does little to foster these goals, according to Laitos.

“Medical liability litigation doesn’t bring about a safer system that reduces the potential for error or unanticipated outcomes. It doesn’t help us learn from mistakes,” said Laitos.

“You can’t fix what went wrong if you are afraid that even acknowledging it and acting to fix it can be used against you in court.”

Most of the House Judiciary panel members, themselves attorneys, expressed support for the intent of the bill, but some had reservations about its potential legal implications.  Committee Chair Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, questioned why doctors should enjoy communication protections under the law that other professions don’t have.

“No other profession gets this kind of incentive in order to have this kind of relationship with their client,” said Levy.

Echoing Levy’s concerns, Natalie Brown, an attorney who spoke on behalf of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, said openness alone isn’t enough for evidence to be admissible in a court proceeding.

“Open communication means nothing without truthfulness,” said Brown.

Brown said while open communication could foster a better outcome for the patient and the medical professional, litigation should remain a viable option.

“It (communication) should be an option along with the judicial system. We don’t want it to be an alternative to the judicial system,” said Brown.

Yet, an attorney siding with the Colorado Medical Society, Kari Hershey, took issue with Brown’s insistence on including the “truthfulness” language, saying it would only shut the door on open communication because any discrepancy could be construed as “untruthful”.

“Fearful that they are going to be involved in years and years of litigation, doctors will be afraid to speak freely about what happened if their words are going to be used against them if new light is shed on the situation after the fact,” said Hershey.  “This language will encourage litigation, and you may be providing a road map for someone to sue you.”

Riesberg said nothing in the measure will negate the ability of anyone to pursue a lawsuit if warranted and that the same standards of care must be met by the medical profession but perhaps, with the passage of the bill, patients will be able to get something they desire more than litigation.

“Patients are asking, ‘Will someone just please tell me what happened?’ We wrote this bill to take some steps in the right direction,” said Riesberg.  “We are moving from nowhere to somewhere. I don’t speak doctor language and I don’t speak lawyer language, but I can speak for patients.”

Renfroe says vehicle-emissions testing is not only unnecessary but also unpopular among his constituents, who have been petitioning local officials to gather more data before moving ahead. Leading the charge against the program are the Weld County commissioners, who are backing Renfroe’s effort. The first-term lawmaker anticipates that Larimer County commissioners will be supportive as well.

“The air in those counties is actually clean and below the standards set by the EPA for 2013,” Renfroe said. “We’re being forced into this program because Denver’s air is not clean, and this is one way to (raise Denver’s average) for a better air-quality rating.”

Today, Renfroe and Greeley Republican Rep. Glenn Vaad introduced Senate Bill 95, which would repeal last year’s legislation expanding the air-quality program. That measure, sponsored by Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins,  and Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, will usher in a vehicle-testing regimen long familiar to Denver area motorists, who can face hours-long waits for their vehicles to undergo treadmill tests at designated facilities before they can renew their auto registration.

However, another Greeley lawmaker, Democratic Rep. Jim Riesberg, maintains that the program should move forward despite data indicating current compliance with the EPA standards, and he said he stands behind his vote for last year’s bill expanding the policy into Weld and Larimer.

“I voted for the bill last year after meeting with the people at Air Quality Control and felt that this was something that we need to do,” said Riesberg, who acknowledged his own county commissioners are adamantly opposed to the program.

Riesberg points to more stringent requirements that the EPA will put into effect in 2013, and he says those could moot today’s clean-air standards.

“More comprehensive testing that includes detection of previously untested pollutants may or may not find us in compliance,” Riesberg said.