This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://thoughts.cassiclark.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://thoughts.cassiclark.com/feeds/posts/default.

Government & Jobs

Somehow Americans have gone from demanding less government, passing initiatives to tie the hands of government, and electing officials that supposedly believe in less government, to insisting that government protect their jobs since their markets didn't, and create jobs since the economy isn't.

The Federal Government was designed to help us all live together, and protect those that can't protect themselves, which does sometimes including regulating markets. But it is not the job of governments to take over in job creation and protection when the economy slumps. The point of our free market economy is flexibility and adaptability. So if businesses go under and people loose their jobs, it is because the market has changed and those businesses couldn't adapt, but new ones will pop up in their place. Turning every piece of legislation into a jobs issue cripples a government's ability to govern well. For example, should companies be allowed to put carcinogenic chemicals in skin creams? Some would argue that it is the government's job to protect consumers (that is why we have warning labels), but industry people argue that it will cost jobs. I wonder why those companies wouldn't hire more scientists to find new components to put in those products, thereby creating jobs, and potentially increasing their sales! Another Example: There is legislation to increase access for city dwellers to Solar energy through solar gardens. Some people argue this is a good idea, the more alternative energy the better. But industry people argue that it will cost jobs of installers who do individual property installations. I wonder why those companies can't expand to install solar gardens as well!

The government should not be expected to pamper industries and forgo needed change and good governance just because industry won't change.

Another Cool Colorado Tax Website

This one shows you how much you pay in the various Colorado Taxes, and where it goes. Then you get to vote on what you think is too little, just right, or too much.

http://www.colorado.gov/taxtracks/

Random thought of the week

So light posts have been around for a while now, and so have dogs. So how come no one has engineered light post access panels above dog pissing level?

Colorado Students (and everyone else) Should Boycot Amazon.com

In a budget crisis such as the state of Colorado is experiencing now, students are hurt the most. Higher education is one of the first things to be cut and last to be recovered. Tuition rates go up and classroom sizes go up. This year, the legislature passed a law requiring online sales to pay state taxes (a low 2.9%). Upon signing of the bill into law, Amazon.com dropped all their Colorado affiliates, effectively avoiding taxes; tax money that would have gone to education. So now students who pay higher tuition and have to buy books, don't get the help they need.

So students, don't buy your books online!


A letter from the Tattered Cover General Manager:

If you would like to use the following statement or part of the statement, you are welcome to do so.

As independent booksellers in the state, we wish to call your attention to the unfortunate decision made by Amazon.com to fire its Colorado-based online affiliates in the wake of HB10-1193 being signed into law  which was the state's attempt to level the playing field among retailers by establishing sales tax equity. The corporate retailer's actions are nothing short of outrageous coming after the state's good faith efforts to fashion a compromise that sought to take into account the affiliates' concerns.

Unlike sales tax equity legislation in other states, which makes clear that an active network of in-state affiliates establishes nexus -- and requires an out-of-state retailer to collect sales tax for online sales -- our state's law now merely asks these retailers to inform residents of the amount of use tax that they owe for online purchases. Amazon's refusal to do even this clearly shows that it is only interested in maintaining its significant competitive advantage over the bricks-and-mortar retailers in the state -- and that it is more than willing to use its online affiliates as pawns to do so.

To be clear, we supported the original version of HB10-1193, which would have clarified state sales tax laws to require out-of-state retailers with nexus in the state via online affiliates, who act as sales agents for remote retailers, to collect and remit sales tax. The tax avoidance being practiced by out-of-state retailers with online affiliates acting as sales agents in Colorado is putting our businesses at an unfair competitive disadvantage, is cutting into our sales, and is significantly affecting our bottom line and ability to maintain employment levels and create new jobs.


Our argument is not now, nor has it ever been, with online affiliates. If the amended bill had worked to level the playing field for us and had saved online affiliates important sales commissions, then it was win-win, which we would have supported. After the bill's passage, our only request had been that our legislators monitor the situation to determine if use tax revenue was being collected.

Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of the Senate Finance Committee, Amazon went ahead and fired its affiliates anyway. With its latest salvo, it is manifestly clear that Amazon.com will oppose any efforts to enforce existing sales tax laws and that legislators' efforts to bend over backwards to placate this corporate giant in an effort to shield in-state affiliate businesses are pointless.

There are 30,000 retailers in the state that are being hurt by sales tax inequity. Something had to be done to protect Colorado's in-state business and the approximately 438,000 people they employ. We certainly hope Amazon's recent decision doesn't convince anyone otherwise.

Thank you.

Matthew Miller
General Manager
Tattered Cover Book Store

Can you Balance Co's State Budget?

CSU has created this fun tool for you to try to solve Colorado's budget problems. Where do your priorities lie?
http://engagedpublic.com/EPBudgets/dashboard.aspx?tid=6

Budget Balancing by Rep. Levy D-Boulder/Clear Creek/Gilpin

I think Rep. Levy eloquently explained the problems with balancing the budget and party dynamics...without naming names.

State Representative
CLAIRE LEVY
200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol: 303-866-2578
claire.levy.house@state.co.us     Committee Membership:
Chair:
Judiciary
Member:
Legislative Legal Services

COLORADO
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
State Capitol
Denver
80203

How to Balance a Budget (or Not)

So here we are, cutting about $400 million from the fiscal year that has only four and a half months left in it.  This is a painful exercise.  There aren't good options.   The governor and the Joint Budget Committee labored over how to close the gap between what had been budgeted for the 2009-10 fiscal year and the revenue projections.  On Wednesday, the legislature began debating a series of about 30 bills that were a product of months of work.  Those bills scaled back or eliminated programs and services in each department.

Each committee of reference conducted hearings on how the proposed budget balancing measures affected the departments over which the committee had jurisidction.  In my case, as Chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, we questioned the joint budget committee on the budget proposals for the Department of Corrections, the Judicial Branch, the Department of Law, and the Department of Public Safety.  The budget balancing bills proposed surgical, strategic cuts.  I wasn't happy with them.  But I didn't have any better proposal to make.

When the time came to debate the package of bills on the floor of the House with all 65 members, our one Unaffiliated member and the Republicans threw a hand grenade into the process.  They proposed a 1.6% across the board cut from each department's personal services line item.  In effect, that meant cutting people's jobs in every department.

As each department's bill came up, the refrain was repeated:  this is a modest cut that allows the department to implement it as the department head sees fit.  Flexibility was the watch word.

That sounds reasonable until you stop to think about it.  ("Have you ever stopped to think and forgotten to start again?")  The departments are statutorily required to implement and provide certain programs and benefits.  The legislature has not repealed any of those programs.  Nobody has sponsored legislation to eliminate the visiting home nurse program, for example.  Nobody has proposed to scale back the Medicaid programs we fund.  When the legislature considered eliminating the seed inspection program in the Department of Agriculture, for example, the answer was a resounding "no."  So considering the fact that the legislature wasn't considering legislation to eliminate any services currently being provided, we will continue to need parole officers, probation officers, water quality inspectors, and the like.  We don't have wiggle room unless we begin eliminating programs upon which people depend for public safety and welfare, literally.

This "modest proposal" assumed that the State of Colorado is able to provide the same services, the same level of supervision, the same degree of public health and safety, with 1.6% fewer dollars going to each and every department and agency.  The problem is, that isn't possible.  And it wasn't really just 1.6% from each department.  Since we are 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year, the proposal was closer to a 6.4% budget cut as a percent of the remaining budget, .  You cannot pretend that cuts can be made to that extent without impacting the delivery of public services.

The legislature rejected the amendments in hours and hours of debate.  That was a wise decision.  We cannot continue to ask our state departments to do the same job with fewer and fewer employees.  It would have been far more honest to have identified the programs the Republicans no longer thought were necessary and have a debate on the value of those programs.  Instead, they perpetuated the myth that the public should expect the same level of services and protection with a diminishing pool of dollars.

Speaking of which, students and parents are beginning to get a sense of the effect of  cutting $260 million from K-12 education.  It appears that will require elimination of about 5,000 teaching positions state-wide.  My House District includes Clear Creek, Gilpin, St. Vrain and Boulder Valley school districts.  Those cuts will be dearly felt, and they bring into even sharper focus the previous weeks' debates over the merits of imposing the state's 2.9% sales tax on items such as soft drinks, candy, bull semen, downloadable software, on-line retail purchases, the energy used in mining and manufacturing, and the stuff you get from take out restaurants like napkins, paper bags, straws and such.  I realize that paying a 2.9% is money out of everybody's pocket.  The revenues raised will prevent even larger cuts to public education.

--My Thoughts
Before this newsletter came out, I fantasized about sitting down with minority leadership and finding out which services they actually wanted to cut and why. I thought, as a negotiation tactic, government and the people would be better served if we could look at their actual interests, compare them with those of the Dems and then work on a solution rather than the positions of cutting versus taxing since neither of these exist exclusively, and neither party does just one or the other. If the Republicans believe in smaller government, why don't they make meaningful cuts to services that can be privatized rather than as Rep Levy said forcing agencies to provide the same level of service with less people and/or money?

Health Insurance Discrimination

Ah, late night health insurance rants. Nothing better when you have the flu and can't sleep!

So, the Colorado Legislature is working on a bill that would make it illegal for health insurance companies in the state to discriminate against women. What?! Health insurance companies discriminate? No Way!

Sad, but true. In the committee testimony for this bill, when asked why insurance companies charge as much as 2 times more to cover women than men, the said because they always have. God bless tradition. Turns out they did not have any empirical evidence that shows that women cost more. In fact, studies show that women cost more in the beginning (because apparently we do preventative care more than men) and men cost more in the end, evening out overall costs to insurance companies. I could maybe understand paying more if they covered birth control and pre-natal, but most don't. So now, if this bill passes (and seriously, what legislator who wants to get re-elected is going to vote against a bill even the insurance companies can't refute) women might actually pay a "fair" amount of health insurance.

Perhaps that will help the woman in my previous rant be able to afford health insurance... not that companies will actually cover birth control or anything else that might keep her from becoming a stereotype.

Health Care Culture Crisis

A friend of mine sent me a forwarded email a couple days ago that argued that we don't need to reform the health care system, we need to reform our culture. In it a white doctor treated a low-income black patient with tattoos, a gold tooth and piercings, who drank and smoked and ate junk food. He claimed that it wasn't fair that we have to pay for her health care since she doesn't take care of herself. Now, I am a big believer in taking responsibility for oneself, but this example bothered me. It's easy to look at someone who doesn't match us and say they are living wrong and so we shouldn't help them. But it is unfair and incorrect. Take this woman. Should she have shown up in the hospital in raggedy clothes, defeated and without any self worth because she income is low? Would the doctor then have felt bad about treating her?

Let's look at her life. She probably eats junk food because it is 2 to 3 times cheaper than healthy food. And while it would be better for her to eat well in the long run, in the short run paying bills is the fact of life she faces. Smoking is bad. But did she grow up in a world where smoking is bad? Did she grow up in a world where people live long enough to die of cancer? Is smoking the worst thing people in her neighborhood do? And if she started as a kid, where can she go to get help quitting...that she can afford? Her doctor? Oh wait, we don't want to pay for that. And she drinks. So do I. In fact a lot of people I know drink. Sometimes it's because we enjoy it, sometimes it's because our friends are, and sometimes it helps us forget our stresses even for a little while. What do you do to cope? Should she not be allowed to partake in vices the rest of us enjoy? Now these are all bad things, and she probably doesn't exercise. Studies show that exercise increases with economic stability. If you're working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet, your probably not going to have a lot of time to exercise, and since most of your friends work that hard too, it's not a part of your culture. And if you're working that many jobs you're probably not going to pay for a gym membership. That is a luxury item.

So this woman drinks and smokes to have a little pleasure in her life and deal with the stresses of being poor, and she got tattoos and a gold tooth. Last month I spent a little more than I should have on a few pairs of shoes. They made me feel good. They made me feel like I fit in. Did you know 1 gold tooth runs between $50 and $500? And tattoos can be expensive, but most people who have a lot, have friends who do them for them, or work our trades. But for the fun of it, let's say she spent $2000 on all her tattoos, and $500 on her tooth. And for the sake of argument, let's say she waited till she was 18 to get them, and is now 25. She spent $2500 over 6 years for her enhancements (which help her fit in in her neighborhood, show off her aesthetics [like my shoes] and make her feel good about herself); that's $416 a year, or $35 a month. Now, it is safe to assume her jobs aren't providing her with health insurance since this doctor was upset about paying for her care. I, a healthy non-smoking women of 31, pay $79 a month for coverage that doesn't cover any preventative med (no nutrition counseling, no help quitting smoking, etc), doesn't cover my yearly pap, or any other general doctor visits.

I agree we need to change our culture. But perhaps it will take more than suggesting this woman give up the only lifestyle she's known for her white doctor's culture. Perhaps it will take making junk food more expensive than healthy food, and making preventative and general health care affordable to people who don't exist in insurance pools, and don't make enough money to pay for it but who need it the most.

Power and the People, poor people

I read in Conflict Resolved, by Alan Tidwell, "To be powerful is not only to carry a gun, but to be able to exclude others from resources, both real and symbolic, and this is done through language." This made me think of the correlation between obesity and low-income. Is it corporations, or the food machine that desire to keep nutritious resources from poor people? They use advertisements to propagandize junk foods and vilify healthy foods as "rich people food." But why? Does this example work, or am I stretching the idea to accidental circumstances?

Town Hall Meeting

Boulder, Clear Creek and Gilpin county residents please join Representatives Claire Levy and Dickey Lee Hullinghorst at a Town Hall meeting on Feb 6th from 10 to noon. They will be discussing higher education in Colorado with guest speakers from the University of Colorado. The event will be held on the CU campus in Boulder at the University Memorial Center, room 247.
Your comments and questions are always welcome.

How taxes really work, the PG13 version

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14289798

Sales tax exemption arguments

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14298635

While we were sleeping? I think not! Everyone is suffering right now, so businesses should take their small hit too. It is very short sighted of them to think that continuing to cut education will be good for them or drawing new business to the state in the long run...no business will want to be here if we have an uneducated employee pool. And 3% sales tax on some things should not break businesses. If it does they're not very good at being business owners.