http://www.whosaidyousaid.com/2012/01/colo-state-rep-ramirez-rips-pres-obama-on-failure-to-lead/

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” – Barack Obama, July 3, 2008

CBS News, August 23, 2011:

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch. The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion. It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama’s four-year term…The Gross National Debt now stands at 97.6 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – the total value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the U.S.

“Are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago?”

— former presidential candidate Rick PerryIt’s the campaign line of the year, and while the author won’t be carrying it into the general election, the eventual nominee will.

The charge is straightforward: President Obama’s reckless spending has dangerously increased the national debt while leaving unemployment high and the economy stagnant. Concurrently, he has vastly increased the scope and reach of government with new entitlements and oppressive regulation, with higher taxes to come (to offset the unprecedented spending).

In 2010, that narrative carried the Republicans to historic electoral success. Through most of 2011, it dominated Washington discourse. The air was filled with debt talk: ceilings, supercommittees, Simpson-Bowles.

What’s the incumbent to do? He admits current conditions are bad. He knows that his major legislative initiatives — Obamacare, the near-trillion-dollar stimulus, (the rejected) cap-and-trade — are unpopular. If you can’t run on stewardship or policy, how do you win reelection?

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing, protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his Dec. 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this reelection narrative.

Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for the president to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.

For the first few weeks, the class-envy gambit had some effect, bumping Obama’s numbers slightly. But the story was still lagging, suffering in part from its association with an Occupy rabble that had widely worn out its welcome.

Then came the twist. Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by .?.?. Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama’s class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.

Suddenly Romney’s wealth, practices and taxes take center stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occurring at a time of economic distress?

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage reelection by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) Barely noticed. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-legitimize-obamas-reelection-rhetoric/2012/01/19/gIQA5pB5BQ_story.html

In Perry v. Perez, the Justices rejected a series of election maps redrawn by a lower court in Texas to replace a map created by the Texas legislature to account for population growth and four new Congressional seats. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had “exceeded its mission” and it sent the maps back to the drawing board.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Texas is one of nine states required to get preclearance from a federal court or the Justice Department for any changes in election law. While that petition was pending, the maps drawn by lawmakers were challenged on grounds that they diluted minority voting strength. A federal court in San Antonio then drew up interim maps that differed radically from the original set, creating a scenario more favorable to Democrats. 

Then Mr. Holder piled on, arguing that any court-drawn plans are preferable to one that violates Section 5. The only problem is that no court has found that the original Texas maps violated any law.

In its decision yesterday, the Justices said redistricting is “‘primarily the duty and responsibility of the State,’” and that when faced with drawing an interim plan, a court should take its cues from the version done by lawmakers, with whom authority properly lies. That is a resounding and welcome note for federalism, or deference to state prerogatives, and bodes well for a serious hearing on ObamaCare.

“This Court has observed before,” the Justices wrote, that “‘faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court . . . should be guided by the legislative policies underlying’ a state plan,” as long as those policies don’t violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution.

Constitutional challenges to Section 5, including a facial challenge to the law now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, may eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. The Perez decision is notable, however, because even though the constitutionality of the law was not directly presented to the High Court, the Justices took the opportunity to remind litigants that “This Court recently noted the ‘serious constitutional questions’ raised by Section 5′s intrusion on state sovereignty” in 2009′s Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No 1 v. Holder. In other words, watch this space.

The case now returns to the lower court in San Antonio for further proceedings, and the judges there have been instructed to use the original legislative maps as the basis for their redrawing. The result is a big victory for Texas, and a reminder to the Justice Department that federal intrusions into state law may end up causing more political headaches than they solve.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577173030198183616.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h&_nocache=1327169229963&user=welcome&mg=id-wsj

The state legislative session started this week, and lawmakers representing Adams County are ready with bills reflecting their political and personal outlooks.

Democratic Rep. John Soper, facing term limits in House District 34, has a proposal born of his own frustration.  ”I went to pay a deposit for my daughter and they said they wouldn’t take currency,” Soper said. “It’s just a petty little thing but it rubbed me wrong.”  Under Soper’s plan, if someone incurred fees for a cashier’s check or money order because a business refused to accept legal tender, the business would be responsible for paying those extra costs.  ”Usually I run bills for other folks,” said the outgoing lawmaker. “This year I’m going to run one for me.”

Republican Rep. Kevin Priola also is ready with a bill stemming from personal experience. Priola, an off-road-vehicle enthusiast who represents House District 30, wants to allow the titling and plating of such vehicles so they can be used on dirt roads in the wilderness.  As the situation exists now, an off-road vehicle rider can go four or five miles along a permitted trail, then be legally prevented from riding a short distance to the next trail. “It’s a real barrier to access,” Priola said. “Look at the map. It’s almost like a Swiss cheese effect.”

“I’ve personally dealt with this up where I like to go hunting and camping,” said Priola, who like many Coloradans was reluctant to give the locations of his favorite getaway spots.  Off-road vehicles would still face restrictions on paved streets and in cities or counties of a certain size, and farmers could still exempt themselves from plating vehicles. But for others, Priola said, his proposal would be a boon to tourists; would make the theft of such vehicles more than just a personal-property case; and would address a basic equity issue.  ”We’ve got a situation where a 1974 Gremlin car can legally drive on mountain dirt roads,” he said, “but a brand-new four-wheel-drive ATV with knobby tires, braking, and independent suspension legally can’t drive on that same road.”

Democratic Sen. Lois Tochtrop is passionate about her consumer-protection bill focused on unscrupulous roofers.  Colorado gets a lot of hailstorms, bringing out “these travelers who come in and promise to fix the roof,” said the lawmaker from Senate District 24.  Some roofers promise to pay a homeowner’s insurance deductible, then build the deductible into the price, Tochtrop said. “The roofs are often shoddy,” she added.  ”You don’t know where these roofers are and this type of thing,” said Tochtrop, who was still ironing out specifics last week.

Republican Rep. Don Beezley of House District 33 wants to see a “parent trigger” for families whose children attend low-performing schools.  Under current law, it takes five years of low rankings before the state board of education will step in to review a school. Beezley’s proposal would change that, giving parents the power to hold a vote after three years. If a majority voted to call in the state board, the review would begin then.  The proposal would “give parents a voice” and shed light on the law, he said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Solano, a retired teacher serving House District 31, has a proposal to better serve poor students.  ”I have one bill that will be looking at making sure that our most high-risk kids in the lowest-performing schools get the most effective teachers,” she said.  A teacher-evaluation law opened the door to Solano’s plan, which would tackle the problem of children in high-needs schools being taught by a revolving cast of first-year teachers.  Solano’s bill would set up an incentive compensation fund for teachers to work in the neediest schools, and the highest-rated teachers would be offered jobs first.  ”If I can get some private support or donations for a compensation fund, that’s kind of what I’m looking at,” she said. “High-poverty schools often get the short end of the stick.”

Democratic Rep. Cherylin Peniston, another former teacher, also is keeping a light on education. “Children are my passion,” she said.  Peniston is a member of the legislature’s early childhood and school readiness commission. “That commission is about ready to sunset,” she said. “I’m carrying a bill to repeal the sunset provision for that bill and also to make it an official interim committee so it has a higher lever of stability and focus.”  The move would give the committee more resources and a staff member, raising its profile and bringing in more collaboration from others, Peniston said.

“Our mission is to promote the understanding that early childhood is where we need to concentrate our resources to give kids the kind of start they need so they don’t fall behind from the very beginning,” she said.  Children who fall behind early in school have a hard time ever catching up, said Peniston, who believes her proposal would help ensure “that we not drop behind in that progress we’ve made in early childhood and continue pushing forward.”

http://www.great8newspapers.com/Articles-Adams-County-News-c-2012-01-12-223477.114125-sub17478.114125-Lawmakers-share-ideas-for-session.html

1/12/2012

As a commissioner representing the county’s District 1, Fischer did manage to avoid many of the scandals that plagued current commissioner Alice Nichol and former commissioner Larry Pace.  Fischer however was intimately involved and voted on many questionable deals that have come to light.

The list of scandals that have disgraced the county in recent years is long and not-so distinguished.  While Nichol and Pace were truly the bad seeds on the board, Fischer found himself caught in the middle.

Fischer was aware of what was going on and he certainly was complicit, casting votes without dissention on many key issues like the no bid contracts received by Quality Paving.  However it is our impression that he wanted to do the right thing but simply did not know how to or did not have the guts to take a stand.

Following on Pace’s loss in November 2010, Erik Hansen assumed a seat on the dais and has been working on pushing through reforms to clean up county government.  The moves are commendable but have been slow to take shape and not as extensive as what they should be – likely due to the old guard Fischer and Nichol still maintaining control.

Fischer’s exit opens the door for Adams Count y voters to continue the process of cleaning up the mess in Brighton and install politicians that are worthy of the office.  Voters will need to be wary of who they cast their vote for as they are plenty of members of the Adams Family waiting in the wings to take Fischer’s place and this cannot be allowed.

Will Alice run?

There has not been any official word as to whether or not disgraced Commissioner Alice Nichol will seek reelection.  The rumor mill has it that she is seriously considering running, apparently thinking that Adams County voters are stupid enough to return the ethically challenged commissioner to office.

Challengers are already lining up to knock Nichol off should she decide to seek a third term.  Hanging over her head as well is an investigation being conducted by the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office into her dealings.

The outcome of the investigation matters little as Nichol’s role has been well documented.  She would do well to step aside and save voters the trouble of kicking her butt out.

http://www.tonysrants.com/thornton/old-regime-county-commissioner-to-leave-office-rather-than-face-voters-again/

Democratic Sen. Michael Johnston of Denver is introducing the legislation Wednesday. Five previous attempts have failed but lawmakers have made modifications over the years to make the proposal more appealing to Republicans. This time the bill would give colleges the option to opt-out of giving illegal immigrants in-state tuition.

The out-of-state tuition rate can be three times more expensive than the in-state rate. Supporters of the legislation say the higher rates illegal immigrant students have to pay is a roadblock to education. Republicans say the bill incentivizes illegal immigration.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30188333/detail.html