Tancredo tried to eliminate federal Dept. of Education. What chunks of state gov would he ax?

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

You knew Texas Gov. Rick Perry's famous Oops Moment would hurt Perry himself, because it made him look so stupid, but I really thought the substance of Perry's incomplete thought–that is, which federal departments should be shut down–would become more of a recurrent theme in conservative GOP primary circles.

I mean, it separates you from the crowd: Shut down the Commerce Department! The Education Department!

This comes up, just not so often.

For example, in a recent appearance on KLZ 560-AM's new "Wake Up" show with Randy Corporon, Rep. Tom Tancredo, who's running for governor, boasted about his efforts, when he was a regional director of the U.S. Department of Education, to shut down the Department of Education:

TANCREDO: I was elected to the State Legislature in 1976, re-elected two more times. I was appointed by Ronald Reagan to run the U.S. Department of Education’s regional office here, in Colorado – six state region. I did that for him and Bush I [one]. Our purpose was to try and implode the whole thing, because we wanted to get the federal government out of education, as much as possible. We couldn’t even get a Congressman to introduce the bill to abolish it, so we tried to do it administratively, and, um–.

HOST RANDY CORPORON: Starve the beast.

TANCREDO: Starve the beast.

CORPORON: Cut back the budget.

TANCREDO: Exactly. So, I found out that that’s what you had to do. That’s the only way you could actually get rid of people that were extraneous – let’s put it that way. [chuckles] I had 22o people employed at the U.S. Department of Education, in the regional office. Two hundred and twenty-two. Now, I emphasize the word ‘employed’. Some of those people were working there, [but] not many. And, um, it took me four years – and as I say, I had to go back to Washington every year and ask for a budget cut in order to actually work through the process of reducing the staff. And I — and there were other reasons why we ended up moving downward, but we got to the point that we had sixty people left, when I left, out of 222.

Left hanging here is, what departments would Tanc cut, wholesale, from state government? That would've been a more relevant direction for Corporon to steer the conversation, given that Tancredo is running for governor.

Perry, you recall, had three federal departments he'd shut down. You get the feeling, when it comes to state government, a guy like Tancredo can top that. Maybe we'll hear about it next time he's on KLZ.

View the original article here

Talk-radio host should fact check Stephens’ statement that GOP would rally around Stephens but not Buck

("Amycare" haters take note – promoted by Colorado Pols)

KNUS talk show host Dan Caplis sat silently behind his microphone last week while his guest, GOP Senate candidate Amy Stephens, said the Republican Party would not get behind her opponent, Ken Buck, if he wins the Republican nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. But Republicans would rally around her, she said.

Stephens: "I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support." [BigMedia emphasis]

You wish Caplis had asked for the names of the folks who've been telling Stephens, during her national "travels," that they won't back Buck, even if he were the one left standing. Presumably it wasn't anyone associated with the rainmakers at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it's likely Stephens wouldn't have told Caplis about her sources, if he'd asked.

But, at least, Caplis could have fact-checked Stephens on her statement, delivered during a Jan. 15 interview, that "people would rally, come around" and support her if she gets the nomination.

So, to fill in the media gap left by Caplis, I decided to see if Stephens was correct. I didn't think so, because I thought I'd heard Ken Clark, co-host of KLZ 560-AM's flagship Tea-Party talk show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, say that he would not only never support Stephens but would never vote for her as well.

"I will never under any circumstances vote for Amy Stephens," Clark said via email when asked about Stephens. "She is the epitome of what the GrassRoots despises in some Republican Party candidates and elected officials. She is a big government, statist Republican and does not represent Conservative Values. Her arrogance is beyond measure, and I really don't see much difference between her and Udall. The Party had better come up with a candidate that is more palatable to the GrassRoots, or they will deliver yet another loss."

Before I had a chance to ask him about the veracity of Stephens' statement, Randy Corporon, who's hosting a new "Wake Up" show on KLZ (5-7 a.m.) announced Jan. 17 on air that he wouldn't vote for Stephens.

"Amy Stephens is running for Senate in Colorado on the Republican ticket, but she is the mother of Obamacare in Colorado," said Corporon. "I cannot support her. I have said publicly, and I will say again: If she is the Republican nominee, I will find a Libertarian. I won’t vote for the Democrat. But there are certain lesser-of-two-evils choices that I am no longer willing to make. Is the Republican Party paying attention to that?

Does the Republican Party understand that they cannot win without the Liberty Movement, without those of us who knock on doors and make phone calls, and write small checks regularly and consistently to try and support the candidates that we believe in? Do they understand that they can’t win without us? And if they promote—if they attack our people, the constitutionally principled conservatives that are running, if they promote the big government, establishment Republican-type candidates over our own, they’re not going to win, because they can’t win without us. Amy Stephens should just get out of the race." Listen to KLZ host Randy Corporon explain why he won't vote for Amy Stephens (1.17.14)

Certainly Stephens could be correct that Republicans will get behind her if she wins the nomination, while Buck would repel fellow Republicans away from him, if he's the nominee. But if you're tuned in to talk radio, and Caplis certainly is, you know there's two sides to that story that deserve to be aired.

View the original article here

What specific border measures would allow Coffman to support citizenship path?

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Over the weekend, The Denver Post's Allison Sherry reported Rep. Mike Coffman's position, as Coffman has said before, that undocumented adults should be given the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship, but only when the U.S. has an “independently verified secure border.”

It’s fair enough to report that Coffman claims to favor citizenship with conditions. But if a reporter like Sherry is going to take Coffman at his word, she owes it to us to report more details on what an “independently verified secure border” means to Coffman.

To her credit, Sherry did report that Coffman does not support the immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate that would beef up border security. Sherry reported:

The Senate bill, which no Colorado House Republican supports, commits $38 billion on border security — 20,000 new agents, 700 miles of new fencing, expensive technology such as drones and infrared cameras. [BigMedia emphasis]

Sherry could easily have asked Coffman what security he wants? Another 10,000 agents? Ten billion dollars more? With respect to verification, Coffman wrote in a Denver Post op-ed that he wants the border certified by "experts outside of the executive branch." Who is Coffman thinking of?

And if Coffman won't provide more details, a journalist could report his non-response.

Or a reporter might conclude that, until Coffman releases more details, it's more fair to say he really doesn't support citizenship for undocumented adults.

After interviewing Coffman about his immigration position in Sept. (Two months after Coffman's Post op-ed appeared.) and trying to understand his position on citizenship, The Post’s Tim Hoover, for example, concluded that Coffman “favors legal residency, but not citizenship, for adult illegal immigrants.”

The importance of providing specific information for the public become obvious when you contrast Coffman's immigration position with his opponent's.

Like Coffman, Democrat Andrew Romanoff says he supports "comprehensive immigration reform" and a path to citizenship. The difference is, Romanoff supports a specific plan, the bill already approved by the Senate.

Coffman doesn't support the Senate bill, but holds up no specific plan of his own, even though he says he supports "comprehensive immigration reform," like Romanoff does.

The public would be forgiven for not seeing much difference between Coffman and Romanoff on this issue because, without more details on what Coffman's thinking, their positions sound close to identical.

And maybe they are similar, but we're all in the dark unless reporters do their job and tell us what Coffman is thinking with enough specificity to make his broad rhetoric meaningful. Then his constituents will be able to make up their own minds.

View the original article here

What Sec of State would ever say that “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there?”

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler told KNUS talk-radio host Steve Kelley yesterday: "Now, apparently, you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd."

Listen to Gessler on KNUS radio 9-18-13

Gessler's comment to Kelley contradicts voting rules issued by Gessler's own office in August. On the subject of residency requirements, Gessler's rule (32.7.3.D) stated that voters must, in fact, reside in the district in which they vote.

Among other things, the rule stated that "intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence." 

AN ELECTOR MUST ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE BEFORE REGISTERING TO VOTE OR CHANGING HIS OR HER RESIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-2-102, C.R.S. AN ELECTOR’S RESIDENCE IS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME TO WHICH HE OR SHE, WHENEVER ABSENT, HAS THE PRESENT INTENT OF RETURNING. AN ELECTOR ESTABLISHES A RESIDENCE EITHER BY MAINTAINING A RESIDENCE AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME OR BY PHYSICALLY MOVING TO A NEW RESIDENCE WITH THE INTENT TO MAINTAIN THAT RESIDENCE AS A PRIMARY HOME. INTENT TO MOVE, IN AND OF ITSELF, DOES NOT ESTABLISH RESIDENCE….

This residency rule was part of a set of election guidelines that also included a measure, later thrown out by a judge, that would have made it harder for military families and students to vote.

Rather than just rescind the portion rejected by the courts, Gessler's office struck all of the guidelines in the rule, including the portion on residency requirements. So the SOS' residency guidelines are now off the books. Still, it's the last word we'd gotten from Gessler's office on the residency topic, and it contradicts what Gessler told Kelley yesterday.

And, re-focusing on the bigger picture, it's Alice-and-Wonderland logic to assert that Colorado's new election law allows you to vote anywhere you want in the entire state, regardless of where you live. And it's Mad Hatter-like for Secretary of State to say this, especially when his office contradicted him a couple months ago.

In a conversation with The Colorado Independent's Mike Littwin Tuesday, Gessler hinted that he knows deep down that you're required to vote where you reside. Gessler seemed to praise Jon Caldara for "staying in El Paso" after he voted there as part of a media stunt that's gotten Caldara in legal trouble. But as Littwin pointed out, Caldara has announced that he will continue to reside in Boulder.

But the day after he talked to Littwin, Gessler stepped up his rhetoric, saying on the radio if "you say you intend to live there then I guess that’s good enough." Then he went into full attack mode on the election law, forgetting that it was promoted by a bipartisan group of county clerks from across the state:

Gessler: But it just goes to show that the pull behind this bill really didn’t care about fairness. They didn’t care about listening to any other opinions except their own. They didn’t care about anything except, in my view a ruthless partisan power play. And that’s what they did. And when they froze everyone out, anyone who might disagree with them, they froze them out and refused to even talk to them about it. It shows you they were up to something, and you see the result. Apparently, you don’t have to live in the district anymore to be able to vote there. And that’s absurd.

What's really absurd would be if Gessler's comments go uncorrected in Denver media circles.

View the original article here

DelGrosso falsely claims Amendment 66 would increase taxes on small businesses

(We suspect there will be a high demand for fact checking this fall – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

On a Sept. 5 show, KFKA talk-radio host Tom Lucero told Colorado House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso that government shouldn't be an obstacle to small business.

Agreed. But talk-radio hosts shouldn't be an obstacle to small business either. Or to educating our children.

But Lucero established himself as such an obstruction by failing to correct DelGrosso when the new Colorado House Minority leader claimed that Amendment 66, which would raise income tax to support education, would be a burdensome tax on small businesses:

DelGrosso: Well, the reality is, I think it’s mid- to upper eighty percent of all businesses in Colorado are small businesses. And close to eighty percent of those small businesses are set up either as a sole proprietorship, an LLC, or an S Corp., which means that their taxes that their business makes flows through onto their personal income tax. So, you will see about 80% of businesses in Colorado see a tax increase as a result of this. [Listen here.]

But Amendment 66 doesn't affect Colorado taxes on businesses. It's a tax on "individuals, estates, and trusts."

It's true that some business owners (like me) choose to take profit from their businesses (e.g., in the form of dividends) and account for it on their personal income tax filings. But that's because it's their income! So they pay personal income tax on it, just like they would income from any other source or employment.

If you make income from a business, whether you own the business or not, you pay income tax. The individual would be taxed, not the business, under Amendment 66, and no one will be taxed twice. 

With Lucero apparently agape at the fictitious thought that small businesses could be facing a new tax, DelGrosso went on to say:

DelGrosso: When the taxes go up, not only does that get passed along to the consumer, another way that that affects folks is that affects pay raises for the business. So maybe, because the taxes went up, I’m not going to be able to give pay raises this year. I’m not going to be able to hire somebody, or I’m going to have to let somebody go, or I can’t expand.

It's hard to imagine a small business owner who would look over his personal budget, including the income from his LLC or S Corp, and decide not to invest more in his business due to the tax increase under Amendment 66.

ColoradoCommitsToKids calculates that an individual making the gross median income of $57,000, will pay an additional $211 in tax. A small businessperson who claims gross income on his individual income tax return of $150,000 will pay an additional $24 per week. Double that and it's still not enough for the greediest capitalist to do much with.

But, collectively, it's enough to give our kids the opportunity they deserve to succeed on Colorado.

That's why media figures like Lucero, whose background as a former CU Regent should sensitize him to the educational needs of our kids, should counter DelGrosso's misinformation with facts. Or have an educator on the show who can.

View the original article here