One of my more vivid memories as a member of the Colorado House came on a bright March morning in 2010.  On the way from my car to the capital’s north entrance, I heard the sounds of a rally on the west steps.  While a common occurrence, rallies pique my curiosity to to see who is demanding what from the Legislature.  But when I reached a point where I could see who was speaking and what they wanted, I quickly realized this was different.

There, before an enthusiastic crowd, both Republican and Democrat leaders of the General Assembly were lifting clasped, triumphant hands with representatives of the environment community and the natural gas industry.  They were demanding the quick passage of something they called the Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act.

More than surprised by what I saw, such a gathering of odd political bed fellows gave me the creeps. In fact, my first instinct was to grab for my wallet.

Now, nearly two years on in the implementation of this misguided legislation, I urge you to grab for yours as well.  And tell your legislator to reign in Xcel’s out of control utility bills by supporting legislation I am sponsoring to roll back the worst features of this blatant example of crony capitalism.

Also known as HB-1365, the Act mandated that low cost, still useful coal power plants be shuttered and replaced with more costly natural gas units.  The benefits, according to proponents, were obvious and numerous.  A better environment because natural gas is “greener” than coal (unless, of course, you’re concerned about fracking).  A better economy because higher demand for natural gas would create jobs in Colorado’s oil patch (and, incidentally, higher profits for gas companies).

And the best part?  These wonderful environmental and economic benefits would come at a negligible cost to utility customers. On multiple occasions, Excel representatives told legislative committees that utility bills would only increase 4-6% over 10 years, which was the “same electric rate increase that we expect to happen if the bill (HB-1365) does not pass. . .”

With such powerful political, environmental and industry backing, 1356 sailed through the House. Little more than a speed bump, I was 1 of only 12 of the 65 members who voted “No.” While it encountered stiffer opposition in the Senate, Bill “Global Warming” Ritter, eagerly signed it into law. From the Governor’s desk, 1365 quickly went to the PUC for implementation.

That’s where the wheels started falling off.  At Xcel’s urging, the PUC, the supposed consumer guard dog, approved a plan that called for a 24% increase over 10 years.  In other words, a 400-600% increase over the 4-6% estimate that Xcel representatives had given to the General Assembly no more than a few months before.

And, unless something changes, hard pressed Colorado rate payers will be be forced to pay the price for naive politicians who vote like they believe in free lunches.  That “something” is my bill which would roll back Xcel’s 24% rate increase to a more bearable 10%.  Which, while more than the 4-6% increase that Xcel promised, is a far cry better than the outrageous increase granted by Xcel’s lap dog, the PUC.

I am not a big fan of Occupy Wall Street.  But I have to give it credit for turning a spotlight on the cozy relations that too often exist between business and politics.  Crony capitalism at its worst, HB-1365 was passed at the expense of ordinary rate payers to benefit special interests, Xcel and the natural gas industry.   It should not be allowed to stand.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  — Mark Twain

What would you call it if a big oil company ran an expensive marketing campaign trying to justify charging higher gas prices in Colorado based on the fact that our citizens have higher average incomes that folks in most other states? You’d probably call it a load of baloney. And then get out your old hippie gear and join the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Now, what would you call it if some politicians launched an expensive marketing campaign arguing that you should pay more for schools simply because Coloradans earn more, on average, than people in most other states? Again, you might call it a load of baloney. But you would be closer to the mark if you called it Proposition 103.  That’s because the recent, ill-fated attempt to raise taxes was based largely on the argument that we aren’t paying enough for schools because hard working Coloradans have relatively high average incomes.

How does such an argument work? First, you take the average per-pupil spending in Colorado, which, according to a 2008 study done by the non-partisan Legislative Council, is $9,152.  Next, you compare that figure with average incomes in Colorado and all other states. Because of our high average income, we pay a relatively smaller portion of our income for education. Using this approach, the Legislative Council finds that we rank 47th among the states in education funding. Sounds alarming, doesn’t it?

But how do we rank when we just look at how much we spend, without regard to how much we earn?  Here, according to the Legislative Council study, we rank 34th.  While perhaps not great, a far cry from 47th.  And even further from the dead last ranking I heard some Prop 103 proponents make during the campaign.

But, and far more importantly, what difference does it really make how much we spend on schools? Shouldn’t we be far more concerned with how our kids are performing? When summer rolls around, we don’t ask to see our kids’ school budget.  We ask to see their report cards.

And by this measure, Colorado kids, as reported by the same Legislative Council study, are getting a good education. At both the elementary and high school levels, in both reading and math, they are performing above the national average.

In short, Colorado K-12 education is a great value. We spend less than the national average per pupil, but they perform at a level above their peers.

But virtually all we ever hear from proponents of more spending is how Colorado education is in crisis.  But since when is it a crisis when you get more and spend less? In the real world, that’s called a “bargain.” And where I come from, bargains are a good thing.

As Mark Twain said, it’s not easy separating fact from fiction when people start messing with statistics. But it’s important that we make the effort. I can virtually guarantee you that we haven’t seen the last of efforts to raise taxes in this very difficult economic environment.  And while it may, at some point, be desirable to spend more than the nearly 45 percent of the state budget we already spend on K-12 education, we should only do so based on something other than damned lies.

I was in Washington, D.C. recently for a weekend political conference.  By the time I got my rental car at Reagan National Airport and threaded my way through the late Friday rush hour, it was dark as I pulled to the curb in front of my downtown hotel.

As I struggled to figure out how to use the unfamiliar, “hi-tech”door handle, I heard a rapping at my window.  Looking to my left, I expected to see the bell hop.  Instead, I saw a street person-obviously wanting a hand out. With a growing sense of frustration, I waved him off and went back to trying to open the door.  (Only the federal government-or auto makers responding to threats of lawsuits- could devise “safety”regulations that could prevent someone who has been driving for more than 40 years from opening a car door.)

When I finally figured it out and the door cracked open, the panhandler was still there, nearly filling the narrow strip of pavement between the car and the lane of traffic roaring by beyond.  Peering in, he demanded a handout for the “homeless.” By now, my frustration had bested any anxiety I may have had about what the bum might do. I gave him a firm, impatient, “No” and pushed by. Without skipping a beat, he accused me of being “racist.”  He didn’t appear to be very smart, but I have to give him credit for knowing the one word before which, in our cowed, hypersensitive culture, every knee bows and every tongue confesses-to some usually imaginary, multicultural transgression.

Welcome to Washington, D.C.: the city increasingly run by, and for the benefit of, parasites.

On Sunday morning, the conference over, I went to the hotel front desk and asked about nearby churches.  Following the clerk’s directions, I strolled a few blocks up and over and came to the front of a traditional looking, small, and lovely chapel:  St. John’s Episcopal Church.  As beautiful inside as it was out, I scanned the bulletin as I waited for the service to begin.  I quickly learned that I was in “The Church of the Presidents”: since it opened in 1818, every President  has been a regular or occasional attendant.  http://www.stjohns-dc.org/index.php.  The service was memorable; it was the 10th anniversary of 9/11.  The small, but powerful choir flawlessly sang traditional (but difficult) hymns of the faith.  The thoughtful, deliberate liturgy was a welcome change from the barren improvisation that so often prevails at my evangelical, home church.

All in all, a highlight of my D.C. visit.  And, to make it even better, President Obama didn’t show up.  Perhaps he was at his home church that morning, imbibing the tender ministrations of Jeremiah Wright.

But the President wasn’t far from mind as I left the church.  Just to the left, a deep fly ball across Lafayette Park, was the White House.  I walked across the Sunday-morning-quiet park and the stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue that, since 9/11, has been closed to traffic as part of “Fortress White House.”  Grasping the heavy, black bars that stood between the side walk and the lawn that ran up to the north side of the mansion, I gazed for a moment, before turning and walking to the left.  There, within a stone’s throw of the east wing of the White House was the squat, massive Treasury Department building.  Again, I gazed for a moment before turning around.  And, there, directly behind me, across Pennsylvania Avenue, the Bank of America.

Perfect: Welcome to Washington, D.C.: the city increasingly run by, and for the benefit, of parasites.

I could almost see a throbbing transfusion tube, engorged with the life blood of the vast county sprawling to the west, plunging into the bowels of the treasury before dividing, one branch going to suckle the squealing federal leviathan poised beyond the White House, the other crossing Pennsylvania Avenue to batten the crony capitalists of Wall Street.

I flew west, home to Denver, that evening.  Below me, in the gathering darkness, was a still fertile, productive land.  But, increasingly, it is drained, pallid and prostrate.  What happens next, in this the land that Lincoln called the last best hope of earth, all depends on what those productive people, those who aren’t parasites, decide to do with the tube sticking out of their forearm.

Here are my observations on legislative reapportionment as we look forward to the next meeting of the Colorado General Assembly in mid-January, 2012.

• State legislative boundaries are redrawn every 10 years based on population as determined by the US census.  The population of each of the 65 House districts must be within 5%, counting every man, woman and child, when the process is complete.
• The Reapportionment Commission consists of 11 members. Pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, the Senate Majority Leader, House Speaker, Senate Minority Leader, and House Minority Leader all designated one person to serve on the commission. The Governor appointed three members to the commission. The Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appointed the final four members of the commission.
• The Commission’s maps have now been submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court for approval.  In my opinion, there is a good chance that the Court will approve the maps as submitted.  If so, one thing is certain, another likely.
• First, it is certain that my District is going to be dramatically larger geographically and in terms of population.  My current District, which is geographically compact, consists of the city of Centennial west of I-25.  It is also one of the smallest in the state in terms of population. This is because as this portion of Centennial matured, neighborhoods that used to be full of young kids shrank as those kids grew up and moved away.  In response, my District is going to follow the population growth to the east and will expand dramatically, going east of E-470 all the way to the county border!
• Second, it is likely that the political battle to win control of the Colorado House will be competitive.  Which, in my opinion, is a good thing.  While it would have been possible for Governor Hickenlooper and the Chief Justice to stack the commission with liberal Democrats-and so stack the legislature-they did the right thing and appointed a commission that produced a fair, and competitive, set of maps.  As a result, upcoming elections will give both Republicans and Democrats the chance to prevail, provided that they advance worthwhile policy objectives and run good campaigns.
• If you would like more information on the fascinating-albeit somewhat obscure- reapportionment process, I encourage you to look at this website set up by the Commission:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-ReDistrict/CBON/1251581558103 (http://www NULL.colorado NULL.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-ReDistrict/CBON/1251581558103).

• Finally, regardless of how reapportionment turns out, I look forward to representing my constituents, both old and new.  If you have questions or comments, please contact me.

For much of the time I have spent in my car over the last several months, I have listened to an unabridged version of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace.  No less masterful than monumental, it sets the usually frivolous intrigues and romances of the Russian aristocracy against the harrowing backdrop of Napoleon’s brutal and disastrous invasion of that land in 1912.  While it might not be the original historical novel, it is certainly among the grandest.

In one scene, a Russian soldier is being treated for a combat wound by being “bled.”  In other words, rather than doing everything possible to stop the bleeding that threatens the injured man’s life, the attending physician “opens” a vein somewhere else and allows the blood to run into a basin.  With his trademark, sardonic sense of humor, Tolstoy notes that the soldier “survived” the treatment-and the wound.  Although widely used for centuries for “treating” a host of maladies, by the time Tolstoy published his book in 1869, blood letting was recognized as the dangerous and superstitious practice that it really was.

It’s too bad that state Senator Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) still hasn’t gotten the memo.  While Colorado and the nation continues to suffer through the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression, the good Dr. Heath and his fellow liberal quacks are prescribing a tax increase-the equivalent of a blood letting-to get the economy going again.  Proposition 103, the measure for which Heath and his assistants have secured a place for on the September 1 state wide ballot, would raise both state income and sales taxes and generate $3 billion over the next five years.  While Dr. Heath claims the money will go to K-12 and college education, in reality it will go into the state’s General Fund-where the Legislature can do pretty much what ever it pleases with it.

As is usual with a political question, proponents and opponents of the measure are trotting out conflicting claims to support their positions.  Heath and his supporters argue that schools have suffered significant funding cuts over the last several years and that these reductions have made for a less attractive business climate in Colorado because we don’t have enough educated workers.

Like virtually all areas of state government, education has taken significant cuts since the recession began in the fall of 2008.  But to make the leap from this to the conclusion that our economy is suffering because of a lack of educated workers borders on the preposterous.  In fact, Colorado is well known for ranking high among the states in terms of a college educated population.  Moreover, while Colorado per pupil K-12 spending, in absolute dollars, falls somewhere in the middle among the states, our students perform at an above average level nationally.  Rather than bad mouthing the educational achievements of Colorado students and attempting to use it as a ploy to raise taxes, I urge Senator Heath to accurately describe Colorado education for what it is: a great value.

Opponents of Proposition 103 have a very different and persuasive story.  They rely on a study done by Dr. Eric Fruits who teaches at Portland State University and runs a firm called Economics International Corp.  While the proponents and opponents of the tax increase have argued at length about the best way to interpret Dr. Fruits research, this is his bottom line: higher tax rates will hamper the economy, discourage job creation and lead to fewer people moving into Colorado. While the precise numbers are difficult to measure, Fruits is emphatic in concluding that raising taxes will slow economic growth, investment, formation of new firms, and numerous other processes necessary to jump-start a weakened economy.

When Leo Tolstoy mocked physicians who bled their patients, he did so with gentle good humor because he understood that that they didn’t know any better.  Rollie Heath, on the other hand, can’t plead ignorance.  A business owner himself, he, of all people, should understand that raising taxes in the midst of our current recession is rank economic quackery and the equivalent of a blood letting.

On Friday morning, I attended the funeral of Chief Warrant Officer David R. Carter at Eastern Hills Community Church.  A member of the Colorado National Guard, he was the pilot of the helicopter shot down by the Taliban in early August. The crashed resulted not only in Carter’s death, but also of 38 others, many of whom were members of the Navy’s elite SEAL unit.  It was the largest loss of life, to date, in a single incident in a war that has now stretched on for 10 years.

Eastern Hills, where Officer Carter and his family are members, is a big, evangelical church off Smokey Hill Road.  Easily visible from the parking lot is a large radar dome that guides planes into nearby Buckley Air Field where Officer Carter was based.  As I got out of my car, two F-16s drifted overhead, making their final approach to the runway.  While the church was not full to capacity, the crowd was large.  Needless to say, the military was well represented.  I expect the military is well represented on most Sunday mornings.

Officer Carter is survived by a widow, Laura, and two teenage kids, son, Kyle, and a younger a daughter, Kaitlen.  In the midst of such an ordeal, I was surprised when Laura went to the mic to eulogize her husband.  A bit less so when Kyle played the man of the family and spoke.  I was stunned when Kaitlen got up.  All three spoke well.  By the time they finished, there couldn’t have been many dry eyes in the crowd-certainly not mine.  This is a family who knows, first hand and from bitter experience, the meaning of courage as grace under pressure.

The pastor, I am sure, gave a good sermon.  But, to be honest, by then I was numb; I don’t remember much of it.  But I am glad I went to Officer Carter’s funeral; it was the least I could do to show my respect for the terrible price that he and his family have paid.

However, I no longer believe in what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are countries that have been dysfunctional since Alexander the Great passed through.  Our military, best in the world though it may be, won’t change that.  Our military is best in the world precisely because of men like Chief Warrant Officer David R. Carter.  And their heroic families.  It is time we reserved their noble sacrifices for the purpose that we have a military: to fight and win wars necessary to protect this country.  Not trying to build nations that have no desire to be built.

Most Coloradans, regardless of political persuasion, can agree on a few things.   Most of all, we agree that it is a great place to live, work and raise a family.

Unfortunately, our current economic circumstances create a host of less happy things we also agree on.   We all agree the economy is lousy. For the first time in many years, our unemployment rate-at 9.7%-exceeds the national average.

There is also no argument that the state budget is in a hole. With so many folks out of work, tax receipts have plummeted.   While the economy has shown some signs of life recently, projected growth is anemic and, unless something changes, will likely saddle the state with deficits for years to come.

Finally, it goes without saying that everyone wants to see both the economy and the state’s budget change for the better-quickly.

It is here, however, where the consensus breaks down.

From the left, there are proposals to raise state revenues by replacing our current flat 4.63% income tax with a progressive system and increasing the sales tax rate.

To me, this is a non-starter from both a policy and political perspective.  First, it only addresses the state budget problem.  It does nothing to help our economy, and, in fact, may very well hurt it.  There is persuasive research suggesting that states who rely on a progressive income tax perform significantly less well economically than states that don’t.

Moreover, it has no political legs.  Polls indicate that the last thing Colorado voters want in the midst of the worst recession for decades is a tax increase.  Nor is there the political leadership to attempt to overcome the opposition; Governor Hickenlooper has stated that he that he doesn’t support the progressive income tax proposals that have been floated.

And, from the right, there comes-nothing. I wholeheartedly agree with my Republican legislative colleagues that the state must live within its means and cut spending to comply with our Constitutional obligation to balance  the budget. But while responsible budgeting is a crucial foundation, it alone is not enough to create the robust economic growth we need to both foster opportunity and fill state coffers.

To achieve this happy combination, the authors of Rich States, Poor States, present a wealth of data to make the case that we should look to the 9 states that rely on a broad based sales tax and have no income taxes.

For example, the nine states with no income taxes grew their economies by an average of 86.28% between 1998 and 2008.  By contrast, the average of all states over the same time frame was nearly 20 points lower at 66.34%.  Even more dramatic was the under performance of the 9 states with the highest and most progressive income tax rates who, over the same time span, grew their economies by only 59.81%.

And, if the goal is to refill state coffers, the numbers tell a similar story of the advantages enjoyed by states who rely on a broad based consumption tax over income taxes.  Between 1998 and 2008, the average growth in tax receipts in the states that without an income tax was 96.12%.  Over the same period, the US average was 74.20%.  And, again, the contrast was even sharper in states with the most progressive income taxes: 73.86%.

Another advantage of consumption taxes over income taxes is that they are more stable and reliable. Case in point is the recent recession, when average personal and corporate income taxes across the 50 states fell, respectively, by 13.37% and 11.7% from June ’08 to June ’09.  By contrast, state sales tax receipts were down only 4.63% during the same time frame.  A predictable source of revenue is a huge advantage when setting a state budget.

To have a chance of putting together the kind of broad, bi-partisan coalition that would be necessary to head our state in this hopeful new direction, I believe that a compromise must contain something like the following elements:

• Get rid of Colorado’s individual and corporate income tax and replace them with a sales tax that applies to both goods and services.  The right will like this, the left won’t.
• Set the sales tax rate at a level high enough to produce a modest revenue gain from the start.  The left will like this, the right won’t.
• Offset the regressive nature of the sales tax by giving a rebate to families living near the federal poverty level.  While there may be argument about the details of the rebate, there should be agreement on the general principal.
• Mandate that any new exemptions from the sales tax require a two-thirds affirmative vote of the General Assembly and the Governor’s signature.  To prevent both the right and the left from carving out tax breaks for special interests.

As a place to call home, Colorado is unrivaled. But with an unemployment rates that exceeds the national average and a state budget in shambles, we can no longer afford to rest on our laurels of natural beauty and recreational opportunity.  We need good jobs for Colorado families.  We also need the robust state revenues that those jobs will produce to provide the essential services Coloradans rely on.  Exchanging our current income tax system with one that relies on a broad based consumption tax holds the promise of delivering both.

In his recent book, The Original Constitution, former law professor and now Independence Institute Senior Fellow Rob Natelson observes:

” . . . federal officeholders and judges (have) altered the Constitution into an essentially unitary national system in which the central government has nearly unlimited claims on citizens.”

While there are countless examples of how the 50 states have, in effect, become mere administrative agencies of the federal government, a recent bill dealing with unemployment insurance illustrates the point.

Senate Bill 10 is the Colorado legislation implementing the deal the Obama administration negotiated with Congress to continue the Bush era tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment benefits to nearly 2 years.  Established in the 1930′s as part of the New Deal, in recent years the program has relied on funding from a bewildering array of employer contributions and federal grants and loans.  Now, like virtually all federal entitlement programs, the unemployment insurance fund is bankrupt.  The recent benefit extension relies entirely on the federal deficit spending that is rapidly adding trillions to our national debt.

I was the only legislator who spoke against the bill. Only a few Republican members of the House joined me in casting “No” votes.  Why is it so difficult to vote against legislation like this?  In a word: money.  Unless Colorado succumbs and goes along with the federal “suggestion” that benefits be extended, the millions that we would receive from the feds go to other states.

“Well,” you might ask, “if Colorado loses that money to other states, why did you vote against it?”  A few reasons:

• First, on principal.  It’s time we say “NO!” to the golden yoke that the federal government has hung on our citizens and state.
• Second, because, according to a study by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank, the extended unemployment benefits are likely to add about 1% to our already record high unemployment rate.  Given a choice between seeing thousands of Coloradans go back to work and spending millions more of ineffectual “stimulus” dollars, the decision was easy.

When the founders of our nation drafted our Constitution, they had in mind their bitter memories of life under an overweening central government, the British monarchy.  While there were many safeguards that the founders incorporated into the Constitution to guard against a too powerful central government, one of the most important was the concept of state sovereignty as embodied in the 10th Amendment.  With each state able to empowered to make the decisions most affecting the daily welfare of its citizens, they stood as a bulwark between the federal government and the citizens of that state.  Moreover, should an individual state become oppressive, citizens of that state had the option of moving to another state they considered more hospitable.

However, under a “unitary” government now dominated by an overweening federal leviathan, where can a citizen take refuge from the long arm of federal authority?  Nowhere, according to Natelson.  Unless “We the People” decide that we want our real Constitution back.

Given that we are currently suffering the highest unemployment rate since records have been kept,  there is a bi-partisan consensus that this session of the Colorado General Assembly is supposed to be all about jobs.  However,  a recent bill that came before the House Business Development Committee (on which I serve), persuades me that at least some Democrats primarily have in mind the creation of government jobs.

HB-1266 was sponsored by Democrat freshman Pete Lee of Colorado Springs.  Twenty three tortuous pages long (not counting several complex amendments), the bill aimed to create a “small business capital authority” to raise $100 million to make loans to small Colorado companies.  During the course of lengthy testimony from both the sponsor and several “investors” who wanted to be involved with the project, some basic questions were never answered to my satisfaction:

• Why do we need to set up another government bureaucracy to do what banks, venture capital firms, and other private entities already do?
• Why should the entity potentially pay 2%, plus fees, of the $100 million to one of the witnesses testifying in favor of the bill who admitted to me that he was planning on applying for the position of heading up the bureaucracy?  $2 million plus!  Not bad work, if you can get it.

The final straw for me was when Fred Joseph, the Colorado Securities Commissioner, testified in opposition to the bill and declared that regulating this Rube Goldberg investment scheme would cost the state millions and force the hiring of who knows how many additional regulators.  Great-more state bureaucrats to look over the shoulders of other bureaucrats!

Although I don’t know Representative Lee well, I assume he is well intentioned-at least by his own liberal lights.  However, it was disconcerting to observe him deliver his concluding remarks in favor of the bill.  His eyes burning with intensity, he was adamant that the bill would help small businesses and grow the economy.  The startling testimony of one of his own witnesses who clearly saw it as an opportunity for personal enrichment did nothing to cool his ardor.  Nor did the opposition of Commissioner Joseph who, in so many words, dismissed it as a bureaucratic boondoggle.

The bill died on a party line vote. It was with some satisfaction that I said “No” when my turn came.  I am not confident, however, that the outcome did anything to dampen the enthusiasm of a Representative who, judging by appearances, is a true believer in government.