Last evening, Marleen, my wife, and I went to Denver’s Civic Center Park to watch fireworks and listen to a performance of the Colorado Symphony.  One of the few perks of being a Colorado legislator is being able to park on the narrow street that circles the state Capitol.  Which, of course, stands on the east side of Civic Center, opposite the Denver City and County building at the far west side.  This being so, Marleen and I decided to park in my spot on the circle drive and watch the show from the steps of the Capitol.

However, when we pulled into our parking place and looked up, we saw people sitting on the second floor balcony of the Capitol, which looks to the west, directly over Civic Center.  One of them was a friend, Wes Skiles, a policy analyst for the House Minority office.  He waved at us and invited us to join him, his family, and some other legislative staffers on the balcony.

The scene from the balcony was spectacular.  Framed by trees in full summer finery, we looked down the Capitol’s west steps, over the Veteran’s obelisk between Lincoln and Broadway, to the crowd gathering in front of the City and County Building, and finally to the sun setting behind the Continental Divide.  It was impossible not to think of “purple mountains’ majesty.”

The music, although punctuated by the occasional roar of a Harley Davidson, was fittingly patriotic.  The fireworks, which soared to life on the heels of the final blasts of the 1812 Overture, were an all-American, crowd pleasing extravaganza.

At home after the show, my thoughts drifted back to an encounter I had earlier in the day at woman’s door step, a house in a nice neighborhood in my district.  Somewhat bitterly, she told me of her Marine Corps son who was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome after two tours of duty in Iraq.  When I asked her how the VA was doing in assisting her son, she said it was so bad he wouldn’t go back.  When I offered to see what I could do to help, she waved me off.  Further, he didn’t want to go back because he was trying to rejoin the Marines and to admit he had a problem would make it that much more difficult.   She concluded by telling me that if the Marines wouldn’t have him, he was going to try to join the Army.

A stark study in contrasts, which is the better picture of our America, this July 4, 2010?  Both pictures are undeniably real-I saw them with my own eyes.  But are they both true?  Was the scene at Civic Center a mere froth, floating on an unlovely reality of war weariness and economic angst that I hear so much of as I march from door to door?

For me, the answer is not “either/or”, but “both/and.”  Yes, our nation is in the throes of a grinding crisis.  We are mired in a war against implacable Islamic terrorists who wish us grievous harm.   At home, we are led by a President who, apparently, has more faith in an omnipotent government than in the resourcefulness and ingenuity of a free and brave people.  But we have emerged victorious from far worse before.  After all, the Civic Center fireworks were set off to celebrate those who pledged their “lives, fortune, and sacred honor”-and who then backed it up by winning a savage war against long odds-to make the evening possible.

A politician’s stock in trade is words.  It’s what we have to “sell”-speeches, bills, and resolutions.  And now, in this electronic age, posts and blogs.

In Matthew 12:34, Jesus says these words: “For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.”  Like a hose filling a bucket, it takes time for those things that fill a heart to overflow in words.  That has certainly been true in my case as, today, we bring to a close my fourth session as the Representative of House District 37.  It has taken me a while to find my footing in this hectic and complex environment, to become identified with an issue about which I speak frequently.

For me, that issue has become the federal deficit and our nearly $8 trillion national debt. I came to the issue because federal spending is virtually impossible to ignore as one becomes familiar with the state budget.  Totaling nearly $20 billion, the Colorado budget can be divided roughly in thirds: 1/3 federal money, 1/3 state taxes that go into the General Fund, and 1/3 fees (state park admissions, licensing fees, etc).

But despite the billions of federal dollars that the state routinely spends, it wasn’t until we were debating a bill last year that added $600 million to the federal deficit to expand the state’s Medicaid rolls that I really became engaged with the issue.  On several occasions, I went to the House well and denounced the bill as being fiscally irresponsible, adding to a national debt that our children will never be able to repay.  The bill was particularly obnoxious to me because it was being debated at about the same time as the “stimulus” bill was going through Congress.

My focus on the debt became even more intense this year as the federal deficit continued to spiral out of control and the contagion of debt spread to Greece-and beyond to Europe.  Time after time, I railed against legislation that, with little regard for the consequences, expended federal dollars and added to the national debt.  I then sponsored a resolution asking Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As the session drew to a close, several things convinced me that I have been successful in raising the profile of this important issue.  And that I have become recognized as having become its champion in the Colorado House.  On more than one occasion, Democrats have defended a bill by asserting that it doesn’t involve federal spending and so shouldn’t “offend Representative Swalm.”

Even more telling, in a back handed sort of way, was the end of session “Hummers” show that lampoons members of the legislature.   One of the skits, written by a Democrats, depicted me, famished and marooned on a desert island, rejecting a banana because it was a product of federal farm subsidies.  Whether in earnest or in jest, if Democrats are beginning to join Republicans in recognizing the gravity of the problem, it is an effort well worth making.

With this in mind, it was gratifying to see an article in this morning’s Denver Post. It described how the U.S. Senate approved an amendment from Sen. Michael Bennet D-Colo., requiring that the bailout money now being paid back to the federal government by banks and the auto industry be used to pay down the federal debt.  The amendment also prevents the government from using the repaid funds for purposes such as efforts to create jobs. Which, judging by our experience in Colorado, just creates more government jobs.

Taking a line that I could have used myself, Bennet said that the “amendment will ensure that paid-back bailout funds will be used to pay down the deficit, so our kids aren’t saddled with a debt Washington is unable to pay.”

To which I can only say to Senator Bennet, “What took you so long?”

It’s now past 9:30 on the House floor, the second to last day of the 67th General Assembly.  We are here late to debate SB-191, the teacher tenure bill that has been described by some as the most important legislation of the session.  If the bill is to succeed, it needs to pass by midnight.

Widely supported in the press and by an unlikely, bi-partisan coalition of legislators and Governor Ritter, SB-191 bill ends the current practice of near life time job security for public school teachers.  Furiously opposed by the teacher union, the Colorado Education Association (CEA), the bill has splintered the Democrat legislative caucus.  Democrats fighting the bill, who are in constant contact with CEA lobbyists even at this late hour, are pulling out all the stops to talk the measure to death as they mill about the podium.

Earlier today, I returned a call to a constituent, a Cherry Creek District high school teacher, who had left me a message about the bill.  When she answered my call, she was clearly surprised to learn that her Representative was on the other end of the line.

The conversation started with her declaration that she was aware that I was leaning in favor of the bill.  I affirmed that she was correct.

I explained that I have two jobs, neither of which have any job security what so ever.  First, I am a legislator in a competitive district that requires me to run for my political life every two years.  Second, I am an employee benefits/health insurance consultant who works on a straight commission basis.  My constituents can fire me every two years.  My business clients can let me go anytime they aren’t satisfied with the service I provide.

She then explained that she is a good teacher and that she fully supports getting rid of teachers who don’t perform.  “However,” she continued, her voice rising “the bill would allow a principal to get rid of a good teacher for no reason at all.”

At this point, I told her that I believe that a good teacher will always be able to get a job.  And, although I didn’t think to say so at the time, I should have added that I hope that poor teachers will neither get nor keep jobs.

And that is pretty much what SB-191 is about.  Good teachers, who have a greater influence on student performance than any other single factor,  should be recognized, properly rewarded and retained so long as they continue to perform.  Poor teachers, on the other hand, should be similarly identified, compensated accordingly, and, if they fail to improve the performance of their students, let go.

I predict that the bill will pass the House before the midnight witching hour.  Although the drama will continue for the next few hours, an uneasy deal has been struck between leaders on both the Democrat and Republican side of aisle.  I will be a solid “Yes” on the bill.  In the real world, non-performers are let go.  Why should teachers, who have the critical job of educating our kids, be treated any differently?

For the last two Saturdays, I have spent 5-6 hours going door to door in my District.  Although some (including my wife) might find it odd , I consider visiting with my constituents at their door step to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of running for office.

My past two forays were no exception. The weather on both days was lovely, cool enough on a shaded porch to make the stroll to the next house beneath a bright sun a welcome change.  It is also a welcome change that I no longer need to use the Segway that my failing hip made necessary during the 2008 campaign.  (I had my hip replaced in late November 2008 and have enjoyed many hours of pain free walking since.)

Also welcome is the fact that I am, for the first time, running with a political breeze at my back-rather than a blizzard in my face.  In 2006, I was running against George Bush, his unpopular war, and a Republican Congress that was spending like Democrats.  In 2008, I was running against Obamamania-and his well oiled machine.  In sharp contrast, President Obama, and his misguided policies, is the wind in my sails this year.

How do I know?  Because I’m asking.  Rather than spending most of my limited time at someone’s front door talking about me, I am asking folks this question, “At this point, what is your main concern at either the state or national level?”

By a wide margin, jobs are the top concern among my constituents.  In fact, I met several people over the past two Saturdays who are out of work.  Such economic concerns-combined with a stubbornly high unemployment rate- are never good news for the incumbent party during an election year.

In second place, according to my front porch survey, is federal deficit spending.  Rapidly driving the national debt to $13 trillion, to say that Democrats are spending like drunken sailors is to insult to drunken sailors.  The unholy trio of Obama, Reid and Pelosi  have managed to achieve the almost unthinkable feat of making the prior Republican Congress appear fiscally responsible.  Remember President Obama’s pledge that health care reform won’t add “one dime” to the national deficit.  Not many of my constituents bought that line last summer.  Even fewer are buying it now.  Again, not good news for a Democrat running in my west Centennial district.

At this early stage of the 2010 campaign, I am ringing doorbells only a few days a month.  But soon enough-after Memorial Day-I will be hitting it every Monday through Friday after work and all day Saturday.  (Sunday is an eagerly anticipated day of rest.)  I will keep up that pace-with minor exceptions-until election day on November 2.

There will be days during that stretch I will be dog tired. And have had my fill, and more, of door to door. Nonetheless, it’s important work and well worth doing. As a campaign strategy, nothing can compare to meeting citizens face to face and personally asking them for their vote.  State Representatives are constitutionally required to stand for election every two years because the we are “the Peoples’ House.”  There is no better way of staying in touch with my “People” than by visiting with them on their front porch.  It is my privilege to do so.

My resolution calling on Congress to convene a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution came up for hearing on May 4 in the State Affairs committee. With the exception of Democrat Ed Casso, who broke rank with his caucus, the measure lost on a party line vote.

Despite the loss, I was encouraged by the hearing. First, I had three witnesses who responded to my “Call for Action” and took time out of their busy schedules to come to the Capital to offer very effective testimony in favor of the measure.  One, Chris Davis, is working with Representative Mike Coffman to organize a bi-partisan mass rally this summer in Denver in favor of a balanced budget amendment.  Chris reported that he already has hundreds of volunteers working to pull the event together. The other two witnessed, Grant Whiteside and Scott Nicholson, were equally persuasive.

Coincidentally, I had breakfast the same day with Bruce Alexander, president of Vectra Bank.  Bruce is also a member of the Colorado Forum, a non-partisan group of Colorado business leaders who attempt to influence public policy.  He told me that he, along with many other members of the Colorado Forum, were on a fact finding trip to Washington, D.C., over the last week.  At one of their meetings, they heard from Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the head of the Deficit Reduction Commission recently appointed by President Obama.  Conrad said a few interesting things:

• The national debt, which is now approaching $13 trillion, is the over riding concern of both Democrat and Republican members of Congress.
• Despite this, Conrad reported that neither party has the political will to do anything about it.
• Conrad also said that he believes that the Deficit Reduction Commission has about a 5% chance of making any meaningful progress!

I agree with Senator Conrad’s gloomy assessment. And it is precisely for this reason that my resolution asking for a convention to enact a balanced budget convention is so important.  Under Article V of the Constitution, if Congress refuses to act, the states can.  I believe that if enough states call for a convention for a balanced budget amendment, Congress will feel the heat, steel itself, and take long overdue action. To date, 19 state legislatures have introduced resolutions calling for a balanced budget convention.  Three have been passed.

With this in mind, I have already filed for a similar resolution in the 2011 meeting of the Legislature.  I am heartened that I already have a Democrat co-sponsor, Rep. Casso.    I pledge that I will be ready to come back next year-loaded for bear.

The Hospital Tax, Parts I & II, is complex legislation that dramatically expands Colorado’s Medicaid rolls.  Simultaneously, it adds more than $600 million to our nation’s staggering national debt.  On many levels, this is a bad policy and bad law.  Nonetheless, it passed on a party-line vote with all Republicans in opposition.

The Hospital Tax, Part I, passed in the 2009 session as HB-1293.  It set up a system whereby all Colorado hospitals pay a “fee,” (a tax increase in disguise) to the state Medicaid program – the government paid health insurance plan for the poor.  In total, the tax/fee amounts to about $600 million.  The federal government then, within a matter of days, matches the hospitals’ fees with a like amount.  The net effect is that the $600 million hospital tax is “magically” doubled by the federal dollars to $1.2 billion.

The state Medicaid department then, within a matter of days,  sends the hospitals’ $600 million back to the them – but not in the same amounts that they paid into the fund.  Hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid patients get back more than they paid; hospitals that serve fewer get less.  (Medicaid only pays about 60% of what it costs a hospital to provide a service.)  For example, Littleton Hospital, which serves my district, loses over $3 million in the deal.  The biggest winner is Denver Health, which gains about $15.5 million.  In general, suburban hospitals subsidize urban hospitals under the scheme.

Part II, SB-169, which is pending this session, adds to the spending spree because the hospital tax/fee generated $40 million more than expected last year.  So, of course, Democrat politicians want to spend it.

The second $600 million – the federal dollars – are then used to expand Colorado’s Medicaid rolls by about 150,000 people.  This expansion is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates not only shortchange hospitals, but also the family doctors that are our health care system’s “first responders.”  As a result, many family physicians are already refusing to take Medicaid patients on which they know they will lose money.  The upshot is that many of those already on Medicaid find it virtually impossible to get in to see a doctor when they have a minor problem – and so wind up going to a hospital emergency room, the most expensive possible setting to take care of a minor medical issue. The hospital tax does nothing to address this problem – it doesn’t raise reimbursement rates for family docs.  In fact, it only makes the problem worse by putting tens of thousands of more people on a Medicaid system that doesn’t deliver primary care to current beneficiaries.  It will only make the waiting lists – another name for rationing – longer.

Second, the expansion is problematic because it dramatically expands government at the worst possible time  -in the throes of the worst economic crisis our nation has faced since the Great Depression.  If Colorado government cannot pay for all the obligations it has already assumed – and, trust me, it can’t – how can it afford to expand enormously its Medicaid rolls now?  The short answer is that it can’t – and shouldn’t.

Even more troubling is the legislation’s implications for our national debt.  It adds hundreds of millions of dollars to this year’s deficit and, ultimately, to the national debt, which is now spiraling toward $13 trillion. Even worse, when you count the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the national debt exceeds $100 trillion! Which is more than the gross domestic product of the entire world.  What are we leaving to our children and grandchildren?  The kind of mess that is being played out in the streets of Greece, a nation rapidly being brought to its knees by its crushing national debt and reckless spending?

In the final analysis, the Hospital Tax is a forerunner of government-run health care, which will expand Medicaid far beyond what is contemplated in HB-1293 and SB-169.  Which makes government-run health care just that much more alarming.  It will put millions of new beneficiaries on Medicaid without addressing the underlying problems of cost, too few primary care providers, low reimbursement rates – and the many other profound structural problems of health care.  Moreover, I predict that, before it is said and done, government-run health care will add trillions of dollars to our already crushing national debt.

In short, if the Hospital Tax is bad for Colorado – and it is – government run health care is that much worse for our nation.

George Washington once said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!  It is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.”

I used our founding father’s words this morning as I argued against a bill that unconstitutionally raises taxes – for a worthy cause.  The cause is children with disabilities.

There is no denying that the need is genuine.  The heroic parents who are raising these children face enormous challenges, not least of which are the often crippling expenses that are an inseparable part of taking care of one of these children.

The bill, HB-1103, imposes  a one dollar tax (although the bill disingenuously refers to the charge as a “fee”) on every person in the state who is covered by a health or dental insurance policy.  The money is directed to the “Relief Fund for Children with a Catastrophic Medical Condition.”

There were plenty of reasons I felt this was a bad bill and bad policy.  First, it is a tax increase without the popular vote  required by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.  Second, there are hundreds of children across the state whose needs for assistance will dwarf the $2.9 million raised by the legislation. For many families needing help, HB-1103 is a false hope, a mirage.  Moreover, it does absolutely nothing for the many people on our state’s disability waiting list who are over age 21.

But what really set me off against the bill was a comment the sponsor, Rep. Nancy Todd, made during our debate on the House floor.

Rep. Todd, who attends the same church as I, argued that it is “compassionate legislation.”  Although this measure, along with many other like bills that are carried along by their emotional appeal, is well intentioned, it has absolutely nothing to do with compassion.

Compassion, a selfless act of caring, is something done voluntarily. Taxes, on the contrary, are paid under coercion.  Or, as President Washington might have said, government is about force, not eloquence, not reason.  Nor, he may have added, compassion.

Moreover, compassion is like a muscle – if it isn’t exercised, it wastes away.  To the extent that politicians force citizens to be “compassionate,” those same citizens are less able to display the genuine compassion that is so crucial to a nation of self-governing people.  I believe this may have been, in part, what Washington had in mind when he described government as a “terrible master.”

There is no question that children with disabilities and their families face terrific challenges.  But addressing those problems with a bill that raises taxes without a vote of the people – and that has nothing to do with genuine compassion – is a bad idea.

This morning, by a lopsided margin, the House gave final approval to HB-1284, the bill regulating the medical marijuana dispensary business.

Although I did so with some hesitation, I voted “Yes.”  I feel I owe my constituents an explanation.

Colorado’s medical marijuana saga began in 2000 with voter approval of Amendment 20, which allowed for the use of the substance to treat a limited number of debilitating medical conditions. The Amendment also made allowance for “caregivers” to provide the drug to those who had a legitimate medical need for it.  Before 2007, the state issued only a handful marijuana permission cards pursuant to the requirements of Amendment 20.

Since then, the number has exploded to well over 30,000 cardholders.   Many of the cardholders are men between the ages of 25-35 whose only, self-reported condition is “chronic pain”-which, in my estimation, is usually code for someone who wants to use the drug recreationally.  There is no doubt that many younger people are also accessing marijuana through older friends with legitimate cards-or with illegitimate cards of their own.  Hand in hand with the explosion in cardholders, came a corresponding explosion in “caregivers”-in other words, the marijuana dispensaries that you have seen springing up on so many street corners.

Why the dramatic change over the last year and a half?  To be brief, the election of President Barack Obama.  Early in his term, the President issued an executive order saying that federal authorities would not enforce US laws against marijuana in states that had legalized its use for medical purposes.  That, in combination with the fact that Colorado had been lax in issuing adequate rules for enforcing Amendment 20, created an opening that the nascent marijuana “industry” has been quick to exploit.

The genie, in short, is out of the bottle.  The question, now, is what to do about it?

The law enforcement position is that we go back to where we were before President Obama issued his executive order.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe that is realistic.  The marijuana industry is well funded and has many vocal adherents.  As we were voting in the House chambers on HB-1284, thousands of pot supporters were boisterously demonstrating across the street in the Civic Center park.  (You may have seen the picture in yesterday’s Denver Post showing the clearly visible haze that hung over their gathering.)

So if going back in time is not realistic, what do we do?  In my opinion, take the regulatory path laid out by HB-1284 and its companion measure, SB-109.  The former measure tightly regulates the dispensaries, including giving local authorities the ability to oversee and even ban dispensaries in their jurisdictions.  This is an element that was crucial for the city I represent, Centennial.

SB-109 addresses the patient/doctor aspect of the issue, mandating that there be a legitimate need for the drug, that the physician authorizing the permission card be in good standing and that there be a continuing relationship with the patient.  These provisions should dramatically cut down on the sham permission cards that have been issued en mass, for a fee, by doctors whose license is under a cloud.

At a recent public forum, the large crowd responded with a roar when I asserted that “illegal drugs is the only industry that President Barack Obama has deregulated!”  Unfortunately, there is more than a grain of truth in my remark.  With very little apparent forethought, the president issued an executive order that has unleashed a host of undesirable consequences for our state.  And, given that re-winding the clock is not a viable option, I voted “Yes” on HB-1284, believing that our next best option is to regulate a business that, by all appearances, is here to stay.

When considering our country’s national debt, the figure most frequently heard is about $13 trillion.

And that, indeed, was the figure I used until former US Senator Hank Brown corrected me last December.  During a discussion over lunch, I mentioned my concern with reckless federal spending and our $13 trillion debt.  He pointed out that the staggering number does not include unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.  “When you add those in,” Senator Brown said, “the total comes to around $100 trillion. Which is more than the gross domestic product of the entire world.”

The national debt that we are piling up for ourselves,  children and grand children has long been a concern of mine at the Capital.  Too many state programs are heavily dependent on federal spending.  Moreover, too many state legislators act as if federal dollars are “free” dollars.  I don’t.  Like you, I am acutely aware that every federal dollar we spend adds to the national debt.

But beyond voting against federally funded state programs at every reasonable opportunity, what can a state legislator do about the federal deficit?

In point of fact, quite a bit, according to the US Constitution.  Article V, in part, reads as follows: “Congress . . . on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which . . . shall be valid . . . when ratified by . . . three fourths of the several States . . .”

Accordingly, I am sponsoring a Resolution calling on Congress to convene a Convention for the sole purpose of considering an amendment requiring that the federal budget be balanced except during times of declared war or national emergency.

I fully understand that there are risks that such a Constitutional Convention could “go rogue.”  In other words, that the assembly will go beyond the issue of a balanced budget and begin amending the Constitution in entirely unintended-and undesirable-ways.

To these legitimate concerns, I offer the following rebuttal:

• First, and most importantly, I believe that we have reached a point where the risks of doing nothing outweigh the risks of taking action to reign in a federal government that has gone completely off the rails.
• Second, the bar is set very high to ratify any “rogue” amendment that might emerge from such a Convention: three fourths of the states.
• Third, and finally, my resolution declares that it will be “rescinded and of no effect” if the Convention goes beyond the scope of considering a balanced budget amendment.

The most compelling argument I have heard recently for a balanced budget amendment came from a constituent I met going door to door this spring.  After introducing myself to the young woman who met me at her front door, I asked,  “What is your number one concern at the state or federal level at this point?”

“My husband and I are worried about the national debt we are leaving our children,” was her unhesitating response.

“I share your concerns,” was my reply.  Making conversation, I continued by asking, “How many children do you have?”

“None,” she replied, laying her hand on her stomach, “but we have a baby on the way.”

It’s my belief that when a young mother’s main worry is the unbearable national debt that is being left to her as yet to be born child, it is time-and past time-to do something.  Colorado, along with every other state in the Union, has to balance its budget every year.  It’s time for Congress to do likewise.  It’s time for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.