Submissions for this blog should be sent via e-mail to the webmaster. Your comments may be in the main body of the e-mail message or in an attachment, and must include the author's name. While opposing views on the issues are welcomed and encouraged, appropriate decorum must be maintained. No profanity or vulgarity will be permitted. All entries will be reviewed for correct spelling and appropriate content by the webmaster prior to being posted. Entries not suitable for publication will be returned to the sender with a full explanation. Submissions are not limited to members of CCM-Denver.

__________________________________________________________

Thoughts on the 2012 Precinct Caucus
February 11, 2012 by Thomas Kelly

Last tuesday was the GOP caucus, it was a low-key event. The night was full of anticipation. Not knowing what to expect, it was as simple as filling out the conviction of the heart. Who to nominate, not by what others plead, but by the cause of one's life experiences. It was supposed to be a circus, but in reality, it was just a fanfare of getting a candidate, to best of knowledge and attraction, to useful ability. The purpose of being there, was to do a civic duty. Instead of talking about certain candidates, it is about going out to serve and recruit neighbors, to enrich the opportunity of improving the census for future reasons. Their was some anxiety throughout the room. The excitement of people in several precints, found hope with the support and encouragement, of fellow neighbors, were profound.

The sole purpose of the night, were the action of volunteering, for the upcoming election season. First, the vote of a presidential GOP candidate. As you know, Rick Santoruim, won the favor, of Colorado. From the contrast, It was about his down to earth, no applied, synical personality,that seem to attract the attention. The evangelical believer's, like his tone. Although, the predicament, was that Romney, would win Colorado.

Then there was the volunteering, in whoever wanted to be a committe person. The job description, is to recruit and give legitimate information, on the selective candidate. It is focusing on the area of the giving precinct. Going door to door, (which is like cold calling) can be intimidating. It is how to go about doing it, without the resentment, of disinterested folks. And getting them to vote, to the Candidate, is a praise, in itself. The hard job, is calling people, especially, during prime time dinner, or interrupting someone's favorite tv show. But, none of the less, the heart and mind of many is, what will the future hold, for America, within the year and such.

The next roll-call, was the picking of delegates. A committed person, has to fill this role. A representative to the candidate. With exuberance, they have unwavering task of putting a good word for the nominated candidate. With some resistance, by the public, the conviction of believing what they do, show's a lasting determination.

This may not be for everyone, but at least, the concerning of where this nation is headed, gets the ball rolling

Feedback and Comments:

The biggest surprise to me was the turnout, at least in South Jefferson County. This was my fourth precinct caucus. The first two, in 2006 and 2008, had 4 to 6 attendees. In 2010 that number jumped to 16, and I thought that was good. This year, however, there were 42 attendees during the main part of the meeting. - Jack Ott

__________________________________________________________

Editor's Note:There is significant controversy going on regarding a bill currently before the State Legislature regarding the establishment of health care exchanges in Colorado. The bill, SB11-200, is often referred to a "Amy's Bill" after one of its two sponsors, Rep. Amy Stephens of Colorado Springs. This propsal is being disputed even within the various state Liberty groups. In the article below, our own Donna Aydelott expresses her opposition to the bill. Following her comments are links to two articles that recently appeared in the Denver Post, one in favor of the bill and one opposed.

Donna Aydelott wrote: (4/29/2011)

This exchange idea just creates another government bureaucracy, albeit on the State level, which I believe we’re opposed to on general principal.  Under the current circumstances with Colorado government split the way it is, Democrats/Progressives will have an overwhelming majority on the appointed board.  This board will have extraordinary power given to it by SB11-200.  If States start implementing Obamacare, (which I believe this is, regardless of Rep Stevens denials) isn’t it more likely for the courts to decide we’re too far down that road to overturn it?  The bill states that “…this act can be implemented within existing appropriations”  and therefore no separate appropriation is needed.  I have trouble believing THAT will be true for the long haul.  These exchanges will, inevitably lead to rationing, because there is no other way a scheme like this can control costs!

 In my opinion, health care reform needs to start with removing the employer responsibility in the first place.   If individuals are shielded from the costs of their decisions, there will NEVER BE cost containment.  The employer paying insurance premiums is also what causes most of “pre-existing condition” problem.  If individuals were to buy their own health insurance just like auto, homeowner’s, renter’s, disability, life etc and insurance companies were just required to not drop sick people who have been insured with them for a period of time most of that problem goes away.  Health insurance premiums should be deductable to individuals instead of companies.  If subsidies are needed for “the poor” so be it.  That can be handled by tax credits or vouchers.

 I heard a story the other day about a person whose son broke a hand playing sports.  This family has an HSA, and so is paying for their own bills.  The Doctors at the clinic told this parent that five $150.00 each X-Rays would be needed to diagnose the extent of the problem.  Once this person explained they were paying the bill themselves, suddenly TWO X-rays were enough and more would only be done if needed.  As far as I’m concerned, this is the ONLY way to reduce health care costs.  We as consumers need to CARE how much health care costs.  If someone else is footing the bill, we never will!   These exchanges are only a way for the government to exert more control over what we can and cannot do and what we can and cannot buy.  They are just flat out WRONG on a visceral level that I have trouble explaining.

As you can tell, this issue is very important to me.  I do not, under any circumstances, want to see Obamacare or anything like it in Colorado!

Donna Aydelott

Pro and Con articles on this issue in Saturday's Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17961123 By Tony Gagliardi, Colorado state director for the National Federation of Independent Business

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17961126 by State Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield)

*****************************

Bill Leck Responded: (5/1/2011)

Hey Donna:

The Freedom groups tend to be non-support of SB11-200; and somewhat more split regarding HB11-1273.  For instance the National organization of the Tea Party Patriots is endorsing HB11-1273.  While FACT is opposed to both Bills.  I have spoken with Robert Ramirez regarding HB11-1273; and he supports the Bill making the same arguments that National TTP and CRBC both make.  However, I too have serious concerns about any conditions that would allow the state to except money from the Federal Government; and then just assume it will come without any strings attached to it.  That is simply naive.  My personal opinion is that CCM should oppose SB11-200.  Anything coming from the Democrats can’t be a good thing; and take a “no position” stand on HB11-1273.  We may want to raise this issue to the membership; and have an open discussion about the merits of each bill.  I know the Legislative session is coming to a close soon; and perhaps by then it will be a moot point by the time we convene.

Bill

__________________________________________________________

Jack Ott wrote: (4/13/2011)

At last night's U.S. Constitution class at Heather Gardens, an interesting comment was made by Gary Hoover who, with his wife Linda, is teaching the class to CCM members as well as members of the general public who found the class's subject to be worthwhile. It was during one of the many discussions that took place regarding a wide variety of constitutional issues. In response to several comments and questions that came for by those in attendance, Gary noted that, and I can only paraphrase it here, that "...it is a great pleasure to be teaching a class in which the students are so well informed, far more so than the average American."

I might have glossed over that comment but it struck me, as I thought back over the discussion, that he was right in his assessment. His comment has stuck in my mind since then, and brought to mind another thought. Given all of the bashing and belittling that conservative groups like CCM have taken from the political Left and the media, it would be interesting if a scientific study were undertaken by a politically neutral group to determine the knowledge of "Tea Party" members regarding a wide range of civic issues, relative to that of the  American public at large.

One such study that comes to mind is the Inter-collegiate Study Institute's CIVICS LITERACY TEST. In a 2008 survey, the average score for all 2,508  Americans taking the test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. The test is a 33-question test covering a variety of issues ranging from the U.S. Constitution to important issues in American history. (Those who wish to take the test to see how they perform can click HERE.)

I strongly suspect that if this test were given to 1,000 randomly-selected members of "Tea Party" groups as well as to 1000 randomly selected people on the street, the former would outscore the later by at least 20%. I also suspect that the media would never publish the results of such a study.

_______________________________________

Jack Ott wrote: (4/9/2011)

The Washington, DC website The Hill is reporting that NY Sen. Dick Schumer called the Tea Party "fleas" on the floor of the Senate. "Schumer, who has been criticizing Republicans all day, said in a floor speech Friday that conservatives were the flea controlling the dog, which he said in this case is a federal government that could shut down at midnight," according to the report.

This came as a total surprise to me, since I was unaware that blood-sucking leeches were even aware that fleas existed. On the other hand, maybe they are aware of professional competition.

_______________________________________

Bill Leck wrote: (4/5/2011)

No More Taxes for Fast Tracks

Just when you thought the Fast Tracks tax increase question was put to bed for this year, here comes RTD with yet another attempt to revive it. RTD is taking a simple; and yet very unscientific one question poll. The poll has three possible options. Basically paraphrasing, they are 1) Do you support a tax increase in 2011 2) Would you support a tax increase at some point in the future which would increase the overall cost of the project, and delay the completion date, or 3) No tax increase at all, which would delay completion until 2042. It's interesting to note that there is no 4th option: forget the whole fast tracks project altogether. I suspect they're probably afraid to see the answer to that question.

You can access the poll from RTD Denver's Home Page. When you reach the Home Page you will also see a videotaped message from Phillip A. Washington, RTD's General Manager, making a desperate plea for the increase. He presents a lot of information about what RTD has accomplished since Fast Tracks was approved in 2004; and in an effort to make you feel better about whom he is and his ability to live up to his commitments, he tells you that he is a retired US Army soldier, having served for more than 25 years. He doesn't bother to tell us what his rank was, or what he did. He says, "I tell you that fact, because I want you to know that I will display the same commitment, leadership, and selfless service I had then to complete Fast Tracks now." It's sad that his presentation only manages to present half-truths.

He starts out by saying that at RTD, they have their priorities straight; and that is you. He says, they start out every day "thinking about you." He shows a map of all of the routes, and expansions that RTD has undergone; and leads you to believe that this all been accomplished since 2004. Again, not true. For instance, he shows the two southern routes. Neither one of those projects were done using Fast Tracks money. In fact, RTD had to go into debt by selling bonds to finance the T-Rex line (the so-called Southeast corridor). Then T-Rex Project managed its construction not RTD. It was the only RTD project to come in on time and under budget.

It's also interesting to note that no comment is made about how long the tax would stay into effect. When RTD Fast Tracks proponents campaigned for the tax they told us that the .4% increase would stay in effect until the project was completed. They also said that it would stay in effect after its completion. They told us they had the option of evaluating whether or not to remove .1% of the tax after completion if conditions warranted it. It now appears that won't happen. So now they want an additional .4%. Well do they want it just until the project is complete or do they want it in perpetuity? This project was originally supposed to be completed by 2017 with the current .4% increase. Now they are saying they need to double that tax; and it will still be 2 years behind schedule. Really?

In the message, Mr. Washington reports that since 2004 there has been a perfect storm of increased construction costs and a drop of sale tax revenue that have caused the project to be delayed and over budget. He says that, today however, they have far better "cost certainty." Really? How can that be? He truly believes that costs are certain over the next eight year. There will be no new crises in the Middle East that will drive oil prices up? There will be no inflation despite the falling dollar (especially if one is to believe the economy will soon recover)? Then in a deceitful maneuver he pulls out three year old coverage showing gas prices at a service station above $4 a gallon as an RTD bus drives by it, and then says, "Do you want more affordable travel?" Come-on. How stupid do you think we really are?

RTD started hinting they were over budget and behind schedule 3 years ago when you may recall China started hoarding raw materials and oil for the Olympics. Then when the Olympics were over China conducted a fire sale of all of the material and oil they had stockpiled. That fire sale caused a collapse in the commodities market. Prices on raw materials fell to an all-time low; and gas and oil prices dropped like a rock from over $4 a gallon to under $1.5. Did RTD take advantage of that? It sure doesn't appear they did. The plain fact of the matter is they are squandering our tax dollars; and now they want another great big fat infusion to squander.

Guess who else wants this money? Your local city and county government like Arvada who can't get it for themselves. Every regional government in the metro area is licking its chops at the prospect of getting their long living projects funded by this. Don't believe it? Well drive by 52nd and Wadsworth; and view the monstrosity of a bridge that was built using Fast Tracks money. Fast Tracks has never been about transit and light rail; but rather about funding every special pork barrel project on the front range.

Mr. Washington now wants us to believe that they will be responsible with our money, that, somehow, they have tightened their belts, stream-lined their processes, and improved efficiency. Well, if that's true then how did RTD find it necessary to fund billboards across the city bragging about all of the things Fast Tracks has done? How is that efficient? How is that belt tightening? Forgive me if I don't trust you Mr. Washington; but the facts and history are not on your side.

Rewarding RTD with a $2 billion check is nothing short of irresponsible; and it sends them the wrong message. It tells them that the status quo; and their wasteful practices are acceptable. If successful, this will be the 3rd tax increase has gotten from the voters since RTD's inception; and the fourth one overall. Recall the State Legislature awarded RTD .1% in the pre-TABOR era to fund the southwest corridor. When Mr. Washington's claim to "Cost Certainty" is proven wrong; and they have wasted even more of our money, they will be back again. Making some other false claim why they are over budget and behind schedule.

We need everyone to logon and vote for option 3. Tell your friends, neighbors, and relatives to do the same. Their supporters will be doing the same for their side. Because this is an uncontrolled survey, they will be doing it multiple times. So go to your browser and vote. Then clear the cookies from your browser, and do it again. Keep doing it every day until the poll ends. Don't let RTD use this as a vehicle to claim the public supports an additional tax.

Go to the RTD Denver web site, select option 3), and just say no. You can also call 303-299-2000 to vote over the phone. You can also text "NONE" to 720-336-3303.

Tell RTD No more taxes for Fast Tracks.

_______________________________________

Bill Leck wrote: (3/22/2011)

The Lofty Goal of Redistricting
A transparent and unified committee

As many of you know, the State legislature has begun the re-districting process.  This process which is mandated by the Constitution, and governed through Federal, and State statute, is conducted once every 10 years.  In 2000, the process was a debacle, a sham, and absolute embarrassment for Colorado.  Bitterness was left on both sides of the aisle.  The fraud of the process was exposed and deepened by an activist State Supreme Court which, as it has so commonly and repeatedly done, usurped its Constitutional authority.

This time the Democrats and Republicans are attempting to correct the ills of 2000 by trying to work in a truly bi-partisan manner.  The committee is comprised of 10 members, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats.  The breakdown works as follows: the majority party in each assembly has the majority representation from their respective caucus.  So from the Senate there are 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans; and from the house there 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.  In addition, the committee is co-chaired by a member of the majority party from each assembly.  For the Democrats, their representative is Senator Rollie Heath from Boulder.  For the Republicans it is Representative David Ballmer from Centennial.

They are also attempting to listen to, and adopt, citizen input through a series of public hearings.  They are currently working on the Congressional redistricting process; and by the time this article is posted, they will have completed a series of 10 scheduled public hearings focused on each of Colorado’s 7 Congressional Districts.

I happened to attend one held specifically for the 7^th Congressional District.   Representative Ballmer opened the session by presenting the many goals of the committee.  The major goals included full transparency and unanimity.  Representative Ballmer indicated that it was the committees desire to work together to achieve a 10 – 0 recommendation to the General Assembly.  These are lofty goals to be certain.  Achieving that goal would almost assuredly prevent the stalemate that occurred 10 years ago; and not place this once again in the Supreme Court’s hands.

In addition to these goals, the committee is attempting to balance each district population wise, as closely as possible, to 718,457.  To that end, they are seeking to meet the following criteria: compactness and contiguity, preservation of local boundaries, and preservation of communities of interest.

So what makes Denver so special?

34 people testified at the 7^th congressional district redistricting hearing that was held at the Taj Mahal in Jefferson County on the 3^rd of March.  Several citizens from Commerce City showed up to speak about their desire to remain within the 7^th CD.  More specifically, they almost begged the committee to not be placed within the 1^st District.  It was interesting to listen to them speak about how they claimed that they would not get fair representation if they were placed in the 1^st Congressional District.  Why?  Well clearly those portions of Adams County have long been suspicious of Denver’s desire to impose its will on them.  As many of you recall, the rhetoric of that conversation heated to massive proportions during the planning of DIA.  We all certainly know that Denver has always considered itself, not the seat of Colorado’s government; but rather its throne.  All too often, those of us in the suburbs have turned over blood, sweat, and tears (as well as our wallets) to the interests of Denver.  They argue their right to that power being not only Colorado’s capitol; but also its largest city.  To them, that position somehow warrants such a special place.  During this testimony the committee reported hearing similar requests from other hearings they had already held.

Well the good news here is, is that things have changed over the last 20 year.  Denver is no longer the center of Colorado’s universe.  The combined citizenry of Denver’s suburbs far out numbers it core; and the interests of Denver are no longer shared by those of its suburbs.

The second, and most dominant theme, was the unification of Jefferson County.  For as long as I’ve lived in Jefferson County, it has been divided amongst two or three Congressional Districts.  In fact, today, it split amongst four Congressional Districts, the first, second, sixth, and seventh.  No other county can claim such a fraud as this.  After the 2000 debacle, it was clear that Jefferson County was targeted by the Supreme Court for Gerrymandering in order to divide, and dilute its vote.

Those who spoke about the unification of Jefferson County into a single district reminded the committee, that this Gerrymandering, in no way, met the stated objectives of: compactness and contiguity, preservation of local boundaries, and preservation of communities of interest.  Many of them also stated that Jefferson County should belong, in whole, within the 7^th CD.   I am not sure I necessarily share that sentiment; but I definitely concur that the county must belong to a single congressional district.

The final witness of the night was a woman from Federal Heights who echoed the sentiments of her counterparts with Commerce City to not be a member of District 1 as well.  It was at this point that I was struck with this one intriguing question, “What makes Denver so special?”

Colorado’s most populous counties include the Greater Denver metropolitan area.  In order to achieve the delicate and desired population balance from redistricting the committee is striving for, there can be no question that some counties are going to have to be split amongst the various congressional districts.   The population numbers simply won’t accommodate anything otherwise.  CD 1 must add 56,418 citizens as stated in the committees own documentation.  If Denver is to remain within a single congressional district, then it must absorb those citizens from another county.

The committee must also decide what to do with multi-county cities like Westminster and Aurora.   These cities dynamic and visionary leaders have caused these cities to grow and meander across multiple counties.  How can the committee contain these cities within in a single congressional district; and yet, not split a county?  Clearly they can’t.

So why then should Denver, despite being both a County and a City, have an expectation of district commonality?  The fact is it shouldn’t.  When you look at the themes of: compactness and contiguity, preservation of local boundaries, and preservation of communities of interest, it’s obvious that Denver can be split and still achieve that standard.  Do the citizens of Barnum really share the same interests as those of Washington Park?  Do those from Cheesman Park share the interests of Bear Valley?   Clearly they don’t.  If no one really wants to be a part of Denver’s congressional district, and if its citizens truly don’t share common interests, then perhaps it’s time for Denver to recognize it true position within the state; and no longer have an expectation of enjoying its own Congressional member.

The reality is, is that having more than one congressional representative is within the City and County of Denver is actually good for it.  Instead of having one vote it could have two or more; and those votes will also be a better reflection of the citizens that share its borders.  Sure, you could make that argument for Jefferson County.  Sadly, the Gerrymandering efforts of 2010 weren’t done to expand Jefferson County’s sphere of influence.  Rather, it was meant to dilute it.  Yet, if properly done, the goal of bringing a more powerful voice for the entire Greater Denver Metropolitan area can be achieved if Denver is split.

E-mail the committee at today at CongRedist2011@State.co.us and tell them to not Gerrymander the suburban counties; and tell them to consider splitting Denver for the betterment of all of Colorado’s citizens.  Do so right away as it must complete its work and submit its report to the General Assembly by April 14.

I truly wish the committee the best of luck in achieving the lofty goals and awesome responsibility they have set before them.

********************

Jack Ott wrote: (2/21/2011)

The following has made the rounds on the internet before, but bears repeating, if for no other reason than to make sure that we keep a sense of humor with the world seemingly falling apart around us. It comes at the expense of our "cousins" on the other side of the big pond. (H.T. to Ron Michel)

I would suspect that even the Arab countries are getting into the act, but they are far more verbose. Any day now the level will rise from 'Let's go demonstrate in the square; we have nothing else to do." to "The Jews are coming, the Jews are coming." The third level is, "Death to the infidel!", and the highest level is, "Allah, get the virgins ready, we're a'comin' home."

********************

Jack Ott wrote: (10/24/2010)

I received the following e-mail today from a friend in Wisconsin. The article presents a clear and concise response to the ridiculous arguments often heard coming from Democrats, that the economic problems that we are encountering today were inherited from the Bush Administration.

I have heard Congressman Ed Perlmutter use this ridiculous excuse on numerous occasions, including in debates with Ryan Frazier. Along with responses that I have received from the good congressman on other issues that I raised with him, I am convinced that he truly believes that his constituents in the 7th District are all ignorant know-nothings who are not intelligent enough to understand the issues. Then again, he may be right, as it applies to the 1/3 or so that keep voting to send him back to Congress.

Links to other
Conservative blogs

APATHETIC-USA.COM
(formerly USA Wake up.org)

CONSERVATIVE'S FORUM