Archive for February, 2010

Pueblo’s steel industry & my vote against HB 1190

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Today I voted against House Bill 1190 on final reading and re-adoption in the House of Representatives.  Unfortunately, the bill still passed by a 35-30 margin.  I had previously voted against 1190 in the Appropriations Committee.  I have concerns about the effect that HB 1190 will have on manufacturing in Pueblo – specifically the Steel Mill.  Because of my concerns, I even pushed for an amendment that would have exempted the steel mill out of this bill.  That amendment unfortunately failed due to a Republican filibuster tactic.

It’s true that we at the Colorado General Assembly have had to make some tough decisions in the last two years to balance our state budget.  None of them have been easy. Cuts have been made to schools, universities, health care, and seniors. In recent weeks I supported a majority of the tax exemption bills – like eliminating the tax exemption on sales tax for soda, candy, and junk mail.  When I voted for the elimination of the exemption for candy and sodas I felt confident that I would not put the candy & soda industry out of business.  During the course of my life I’ve purchased a lot of candy and soda, and my decision about buying soda and candy was never affected by whether I had the pay the regular 2.9% sales tax for the sweets (I actually never knew that candy and soda was exempted from sales taxes until I was in the legislature).  I supported eliminating most of the tax exemptions, with the exception of HB 1190, which imposed a sales tax on energy consumption.

I felt compelled to oppose House Bill 1190 because of its negative affect on the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in Pueblo.  While I opposed the bill, I worked with stakeholders, and was successful placing an amendment to prevent a double tax affecting the mill – so that an additional 2.9% sales tax would not be passed onto the mill from Xcel energy for the coal they purchase.  This amendment cut the cost of this bill to the Rocky Mountain Steel Mill in half.  Ultimately, though, I could not support the bill, especially with the volatility of the US steel industry.  Drive through Pennsylvania or Ohio and you will see the old steel mill towns that have closed down in recent decades.  The Chinese do not have labor or environmental standards and have been flooding the American steel market with poorly made product for years.  As members of United Steelworkers 2102 can attest, furloughs have hit them hard over the past year.  The steel industry is a volatile market, and that is why I opposed HB 1190.

This is a difficult time for Coloradans as well as the State of Colorado.  We are tightening our belt at the State of Colorado, just like the citizens of Colorado.  As a legislator I try to work in the best interest of the citizens of this state. I am committed to passing a balanced budget, while protecting our most vulnerable citizens.  It is important that we do not balance the budget on the backs of our schools, kids, seniors and our safety-net programs any more than we already have.  I do realize that more cuts have to be made to our state budget, which is why I’m doing more than just opposing this budget measure.  I’m coming up with real alternatives.  Here are some of my ideas for proposed budget cuts to our state budget:

  • I’m running a bill to cut back on the amount of time that technical parole violators spend incarcerated after breaking rules of their parole.  These are circumstances where a new crime was not committed.  We spend roughly $50 million to re-incarcerate these offenders.  My bill would use some of that savings for mental health and addiction counseling, while sending most of the savings back to the state.
  • I support a higher tax on the sale of medical marijuana.  This would have to be referred to the voters.  I do not believe the 2.9% regular sales tax is sufficient.  The state should generate at least $50 million annually with a tax of 10% on medical marijuana sales.
  • I support a sentencing reform bill being introduced by Representative Mark Waller (Republican-Colorado Springs) that would utilize evidence based research to cut back on the amount of time drug offenders spend incarcerated.  Research shows that treatment is more important to preventing recidivism than the length of their stay in prison.  When introduced, this bill will save the state tens of millions of dollars.
  • I support HB 1263 which would limit how much money corporations could deduct off their taxes for a CEO’s salary and bonuses to no more than $250,000 annually.  Currently, corporations can deduct the salary & bonuses of their top 4 highest earners up to $1 million annually.  This bill would generate $25 million annually.
  • I support transferring money from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.  DOW is virtually the only division or agency in state government that has been held harmless in budget cuts in recent years.  The state, to date, has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars from cash accounts to the general fund, but none of that has come from Wildlife.  DOW has been held harmless because the state would not qualify for future Federal wildlife grants without paying back our Federal wildlife matching money.  However, of DOW’s $115 million budget, only $18 million has come from the Federal government.  I think it’s time to transfer some of that money to the state to help with schools and senior services.  I love our habitat programs.  But, right now I think we have to focus on kids and seniors first.
  • Finally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment to divert some of the money that goes to parks and open space from the Colorado Lottery to schools and seniors’ programs in tough budgetary times.  Again, I love parks, but I want to see fully funded classrooms ahead of fully funded parks.

My vote on PERA today

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Today I voted against Senate Bill 001, on third reading and final passage, regarding changes to the state’s pension program, the Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA).  Unfortunately, the bill still passed by a 36-29 margin.  Over 440,000 state, school and local government employees count on PERA for their retirement benefits.  Pueblo has some of the highest concentration of PERA members and retirees in the entire state.

In the end, I voted against the proposal because I don’t believe that the problems with PERA need an immediate fix and the solutions proposed unduly placed a burden on our seniors.

A closer look at solvency:

PERA lost a lot of money during 2008 and into 2009.  Most of the losses to the PERA savings were related to the global financial crisis and devalued assets.  However, the models projecting PERA’s future solvency do not take into account the likelihood of an economic rebound.  The markets ebb and flow.  Ultimately, we should see them rebound.  Also, under the worst-case projections, just one of PERA’s divisions will be insolvent in twenty-seven years.  That’s just one division that would have to pay as it goes if this Great Recession never ends.  We have time before twenty-seven years from now to reassess the solvency of PERA.  Why rush now, when we can reevaluate in a couple years?  In fact, since the PERA board has come up with the projections that are being used to support SB 001, the PERA fund has recovered roughly $4 billion.  Finally, I think SB 001 goes too far demanding that PERA have no unfounded liability in 30 years.  A target date of 50 or 60 years would be less onerous and more fair.

Retirees’ unfair burden:

Under SB 001, retirees bare the brunt of the cost savings measures.  The bill eliminates the annual 3.5% benefit increase to our retirees.  These are the Coloradans who typically can’t return to work.  A vast majority of the cost saving measures for PERA come from the cut to the retiree benefit.  Retirees tend to be older and tend to have some of the smaller payouts from the retirement fund.  I do not believe that retirees should have to bare the brunt of the burden, especially if they’re living on a fixed income. I am committed to making sure PERA remains healthy for the long run so current, past and future public employees can continue to count on it when they retire.  However, at the end of the day, I could not support a plan to balance PERA on the back of our seniors without being certain that a fix is eminently needed.

Protecting Injured Workers’ Rights

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

I’ve been working hard this session on a bill to protect the privacy of injured workers.

I was proud to serve as the vice-chair of the Pinnacol Interim Committee, which met over the summer.  The committee examined issues related to Colorado’s quasi-government workers’ compensation insurance company.  The committee met six times and discovered several problem areas with Pinnacol, including: small businesses are paying workers comp insurance rates 10% higher than they should, Pinnacol has a bonus incentive system to deny claims, and Pinnacol spent $4.7 million to spy on thousands of injured workers even though only 11 were convicted of fraud.

We passed seven bills to address those specific concerns among others.  I passed a bill through the interim committee to limit spying by workers’ comp insurance companies of injured workers to only cases where the insurer has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud.  Currently, Pinnacol initiates spying even if there is no suspicion of a worker conducting fraud.  We heard testimony from several injured workers who believe that Pinnacol has been abusing its ability to spy, perhaps even using it as an intimidation technique to help secure a settlement.  Many injured workers felt treated like criminals after being spied on by Pinnacol. We should remember that these are injured workers; and a videotape of someone does not compensate for a medical care.  While Pinnacol spent $4.7 million in surveillance on thousands of workers, only 10 (out of 50,000+ claims) were actually convicted of fraud in 2008 (0.02%).   The bill would:

  • Require that surveillance may only occur in cases where the insurer or employer has a reasonable basis to suspect fraud or the worker made a material misstatement concerning the claim
  • If surveillance is taking place that the injured worker may request an expedited hearing before a pre-administrative law judge where the insurer must provide the injured worker with copies of materials collected
  • In the expedited hearing, the Pre-ALJ may put an injunction against the surveillance if there’s no reasonable basis shown or if the worker didn’t make a material misstatement or if the insurer didn’t have a reasonable basis to initiate surveillance
  • If surveillance material is collected without a reasonable basis, a $1000 fine would be charged for unauthorized surveillance
  • Finally, the bill provides for protecting the identity for a witness of whistleblower who provides evidence used to prove fraud.