| |
|
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
|
|
Immigration
Captains Quarters: "Mexico wants to take the border fence authorized by Congress last month to the UN, in order to get it stopped. Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez says that Mexican lawyers will research their cause to determine whether the UN can intervene."
"2008 pres"
6:58:54 PM 
|
|
North Korea and Iran
Bull Moose: "For the past several years, a sane foreign policy discussion has fallen prey to partisan bickering. The Administration is insular and the Democrats are consumed by Bush hatred. Meanwhile, our enemies are exploiting our divisions. Both the elephant and the donkey must get their act together. We have far greater enemies than each other."
"Our true enemies in Pyongyang and Teheran are watching."
"2008 pres"
6:55:07 PM
|
|
Romney for president?
Political Wire: "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is 'emerging as the favorite of hard-core conservative Republicans in South Carolina who want to derail John McCain's straight talk express,' reports the Columbia State. Their first pick, Sen. George Allen (R-VA), 'lost standing when he made highly publicized racial slurs during a heated re-election campaign.'"
"2008 pres"
6:49:04 PM
|
|
Hillman or Kennedy for State Treasurer?
It's very hard to stay current on some statewide races. Weblogs are attempting to fill the void. Here's a nice running diary of a recent debate between candidates for State Treasurer, Republican Mark Hillman and Democrat Cary Kennedy, from Colorado Confidential.
"denver 2006"
7:01:52 AM
|
|
Amendment 42
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff is urging voters to reject Amendment 42. From the editorial, "Have Colorado voters learned anything from this state's recent budget crisis? We'd like to think so, and surely the main lesson is that the constitution is the wrong place for inflexible formulas that affect our economic welfare. Amendment 42 ignores this lesson, which is the biggest reason we oppose it. The authors of 42 don't merely want to raise the minimum wage. They want the wage hike engraved in the constitution. And they also want the constitution to stipulate that future raises will occur once a year no matter what. Amendment 42 is going to test the restraint of Colorado voters perhaps like no other measure in recent years. That's because most voters apparently support the concept of raising the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 for nine years. And they probably also believe that the minimum wage should generally keep pace with inflation. So the question for voters who believe in those goals is whether they should be mandated in the state constitution, where they will be all but impossible to adjust no matter how dire the need becomes for flexibility. Clearly the sensible answer is no. The minimum wage should be raised by statute, not constitutional amendment. The authors of Amendment 42 scoff at the opinion of most economists that raising the minimum wage suppresses creation of entry level jobs. But the reason they can scoff is that the minimum wage has been raised periodically over the years in mostly modest increments, and its disruptions have therefore been equally modest. Moreover, Colorado's minimum wage hikes have occurred in lockstep with the rest of the country's. This state has never chosen to put itself at a unique competitive disadvantage. That will all change if Amendment 42 passes. The minimum wage will immediately leap to $6.85 and be boosted annually by the Denver-Boulder consumer price index. This would be a dubious policy even if inflation remained under control and the economy continued to grow as fast as it has for the past three years. But it could prove to be utterly disastrous if the economy slows while inflation goes on steroids."
"denver 2006"
6:56:07 AM
|
|
Amendment 40
Are you still undecided on which way to vote on Amendment 40? Here's an article from the Rocky Mountain News with some background that may help you decide. They write, "If the amendment becomes law, five of the seven Supreme Court justices and seven of 19 appellate court judges would be replaced in January 2009 then again at least every 10 years. Opponents of the measure say that would create a backlog of cases that could last months. It would delay justice, they say, allowing criminals who are out on bail to wander the streets longer than they otherwise would and postponing everything from contract-mediation to child-custody decisions...
"Opponents of the measure - including the Colorado Bar Association, three former governors, Gov. Bill Owens and all but two of the state's district attorneys - say there's a good reason judges shouldn't be subjected to term limits. Limiting a judge's service to 10 years would discourage top candidates from wanting to serve, they say. It also would allow whoever is governor to appoint a majority of the Supreme Court and a near-majority of the state Court of Appeals once every decade - allowing the chief executives to "stack the deck" with judges who agree with them politically...
"Currently, judges and justices must stand for retention after a two- year provisional term then again every eight years for Court of Appeals judges and every 10 years for Supreme Court justices. They may serve until age 72 if voters retain them. Amendment 40 would require judges to stand for retention after the first two years then again every four years until they hit the maximum of 10 years. The fact that Amendment 40 would be retroactive - kicking off those who've already hit the 10-year limit, even if voters retained them in their last election - ignores the will of voters who cast ballots to keep those judges, opponents say. But proponents of the measure say it is far too rare that bad judges get kicked off the bench. Since 1998 the state's judicial review commissions - a panel of attorneys and nonattorneys who interview judges and others involved in the legal system then issue recommendations - have recommended that 478 of 485 judges be retained. This year, 23 of 131 eligible judges opted not to stand for retention. That may be because they got negative reviews, although the reviews are not made public."
"denver 2006"
6:50:42 AM
|
|
Amendment 44 - Legal Marijuana?
Here's an update on the campaign to pass Amendment 44 by targeting voters on college campuses, from the Rocky Mountain News. From the article, "For weeks, SAFER - the driving force behind Amendment 44 - has been showing up on college campuses registering students to vote. According to Mason Tvert, the campaign director, it's part of a concerted effort to target younger voters who, he said, are ignored and could be a big factor in the election. 'There is no question we're going after them,' Tvert said. 'We're not relying solely on them, but they're very, very important.' The campaign has also been using means that appeal to younger voters - blogs on Myspace.com tout the initiative, and bright green T-shirts with a marijuana leaf on them are handed out to college students for a $5 or $10 donation, while cigarette lighters are doled out for free. The campaign is also running commercials on 93.3 FM, an alternative rock station whose demographic is 18-to-34-year-olds."
"denver 2006"
6:42:15 AM
|
|
Referendum H and Referendum K
The Denver Post editorial staff is urging voters to approve Referendums H and K. From the opinion piece, "At a special legislative session last July, Colorado lawmakers intent on making a dent in the illegal immigration problem passed two measures that require voter action in this election. Referendum H would penalize employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers. Referendum K directs the state attorney general to sue the federal government to demand that existing immigration laws be enforced. We urge a "yes" vote on both measures...
"Referendum H would punish employers who hire unauthorized workers by prohibiting them from deducting wages paid to illegals as a business expense. The measure requires a business to disclose the compensation paid to unauthorized workers that it deducted as an expense on its federal tax return. H would then increase the business' state taxable income by that amount, pushing up the employer's state income tax bill...
"We view Referendum K as a sensible protest by state lawmakers anxious to nudge Washington into action. States cannot impose penalties for violations of federal immigration law. They can pass laws to prohibit spending tax dollars to provide illegal immigrants with government services. Colorado passed just such a law this summer. But more needs to be done."
"denver 2006"
6:35:42 AM
|
|
Beauprez for governor?
U.S. Representative Bob Beauprez is on a statewide tour to boost his business credentials, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "Republicans Gov. Bill Owens and Rep. Bob Beauprez crisscrossed the state Monday touting Beauprez's pro-business credentials and firing up the party's base as his bid for governor heads into the final month. The two-term congressman continued to present himself as the candidate who understands business and economic development by highlighting his successful ventures as a dairy farmer, real estate developer and banker. An economy must be balanced between employer and employee interests, he said. 'If the businesses are doing well, they're hiring more people, and paying more wages, and providing more benefits and there's growth and choice and career opportunities out there,' he said. The swing was made shortly after a Denver Post poll showed Beauprez trailing Democratic rival Bill Ritter by 15 percentage points."
Here's the coverage from the Rocky Mountain News. They write, "Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said Monday that he would give more money to energy- impacted counties on the Western Slope to fix roads and build schools. Beauprez said he opposes raising the severance tax and 'will fight tooth and nail' for money to be directed to counties that need it. Beauprez, accompanied by Gov. Bill Owens, brought his stump speech to a group of about 60 Mesa County Republicans at Mesa State College, many of them GOP candidates and elected officials. Under current law, the Department of Natural Resources receives 50 percent of severance tax money for the state water board, oil and gas commission and other uses. The other half goes to the Department of Local Affairs, which sends 15 percent of the money it gets directly to counties, towns and cities on a per-energy-employee basis. The remaining 85 percent of the Department of Local Affairs money is awarded through grants and loans to areas affected by energy development."
Meanwhile, the Denver Post (and Bill Ritter's campaign) are pointing to an apparent flip-flop by the congressman over in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants. From the article, "Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez once supported granting in-state college tuition to an illegal immigrant - a position at odds with his recent attacks on Democrat Bill Ritter. In 2002, Beauprez said he thought the state should make an exception for Jesus Apodaca, an Aurora honor student whom Rep. Tom Tancredo wanted to deport. The Ritter campaign on Monday highlighted the congressman's changing position as the biggest example of his political grandstanding in the governor's race. 'The hypocrisy of his position - supporting Jesus Apodaca four years ago and completely flip-flopping around this issue for political gain - is shameful,' Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said."
"denver 2006"
6:24:16 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/14/09; 8:39:13 PM.
|
|
|
