State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law

By MIKE SACCONE
Saturday, November 15, 2008

Low revenue forecasts and the state’s economic decline could hamstring a push by Western Slope Republican politicians to institute tougher minimum sentences and more oversight of sex offenders.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee said legislation supported by incoming Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and other Republican lawmakers to implement mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters from Jessica’s Law probably will command a steep price tag.

Sen.-elect Al White, R-Hayden, said the merits of implementing Jessica’s Law aside, the measure’s sponsors can expect a “hugely expensive” price tag to accompany their legislation.

White said any bill that increases mandatory prison sentences is sure to drive a multimillion-dollar price tag for the costs of building new prison beds as well as the ongoing expenses of housing and guarding inmates.

Under state law, anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child could face anywhere from two years up to life in prison.

Under Jessica’s Law, someone convicted of sexually assaulting a child 16 years old or younger would have a mandatory minimum 25-year prison term, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.

Penry and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed during the 2007 legislative session to implement mandatory 15-year minimum sentences for sex offenders, but the bill failed to clear the House Judiciary Committee.

McNulty said the bill’s price tag of more than $13 million in its first year contributed to the bill’s defeat.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he likes the idea of cracking down on sex offenders, but the lawmakers behind bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado need to figure out a way to fund their proposal.

“A lot of people have great ideas for spending money, but they don’t come up with ideas for what you cut,” said Pommer, who sits on the budget panel. “I hope if somebody is going to pitch this, they come and say, ‘This is what we want to cut.’ ”

He said lawmakers finding a funding stream is especially important with the economic downturn sapping the state’s tax revenue.

Colorado is one of eight states, including Wyoming, that have not implemented some form of Jessica’s Law.

Penry said if he and his colleagues encounter a fiscal stumbling block, they plan to push to implement Jessica’s Law, even if it takes more than one session.

“The fight to enact Jessica’s Law will be a marathon and not a sprint. … I don’t have any illusion that it will happen quickly or immediately,” Penry said. “It will probably be a multiyear fight to get it enacted, but it’s an issue we have to keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.”

Penry said having public sentiment on the side of enacting tougher sanctions for sex offenders will help.

Rep.-elect Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, who made bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado an issue during her campaign this year, said she plans to support the coalition in any way she can.

State budget constrained by the faltering economy

editorial

The governor's proposed economic stimulus package is a mere $12 million, but we're glad to see more focus on a green economy.

By The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 07:26:14 PM MST

Colorado's upcoming budget is sure to be lean, and even Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to stimulate the state economy underscore how few options the state really has.

Ritter presented his budget request for the fiscal year that begins July 1 to the legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Thursday. He showcased a $12 million economic stimulus package that totaled a mere 0.15 percent of the $7.9 billion in proposed general fund
spending.

We commented on Ritter's overall budget last Sunday. In focusing today on the economic stimulus portion, we're happy to see $2.5 million targeted to "establishing New Energy Economy job-training programs that would be run by community colleges and private
businesses."

Such efforts focus on Colorado's strength in attracting new energy jobs, based on both its abundance of wind and sunshine as well
as the fertile minds of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. As a current example, the governor cited Vestas working closely with the community college in Pueblo to train skilled workers for its advanced wind power manufacturing.

Ritter's second high-priority program — $2.5 million to "create an 'access to capital' initiative to enhance the availability of credit for small businesses" encountered more skepticism from the budget panel. Both Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen.-elect Al White, R-Winter Park, questioned whether so modest a sum would add anything to the $700 billion federal bailout designed to revitalize the
nation's credit markets.

For his part, Ritter noted that the proposal was still being drafted and promised much more detail before the legislature would actually be asked to authorize such funds. We share the skepticism voiced by White and Pommer but note that federal programs are often surrounded by a blizzard of paperwork. If the targeted $2.5 million can seed community college programs to help small businesses navigate that bureaucratic maze, it would be well spent.

Meanwhile, we're happy to see the job creation efforts. That includes a round of seven regional job fairs, an open house Thursday at
the state's 63 Colorado Workforce Centers and a Ritter-led trade mission that will depart for China and Japan Saturday.

Beyond such ongoing efforts, it's clear that any hopes for a major job-creation effort depend on Congress' willingness to finance an
expansion of transportation projects, water supplies, sewage treatment and other infrastructure needs, as we discussed in an Oct. 25
editorial. Ritter noted the state has identified a number of projects that already have passed environmental reviews and can go to bid if and when extra federal funds arrive. Given Colorado's tight revenue picture and constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, being poised to capitalize on any new federal grants is a wise move.

Free up cash for disabled in need

When state lawmakers convene in January, they must find a better way to fund services for a neglected part of our society.

The Denver Post

It's a curiosity that while Colorado voters have transformed the state's political power structure from Republican to Democratic in the last four years, they neglected last week to dismantle the Taxpayers Bill of Rights that has so bedeviled basic government services.

It's possible that the ballot was so long people just started voting "no" to get it over with.  But it's a stretch to suggest that Amendment 59 gave voters a chance to dismantle TABOR. 

For one thing, backers nicknamed Amendment 59 "SAFE:" Savings Account for Education.  That doesn't jump out as a plan for dismantling TABOR. Most of the campaign for 59 emphasized education, not dismantling TABOR.

Even the message on education was mixed.  It set up a savings account for education, but eliminated the constitutional requirement that the legislature increase education spending by at least the rate of inflation each year. 

The plan was mind-numbingly complicated and I doubt many people even took the time to read through the ballot question, let alone do enough research to really understand it..

An unfortunate reality of that move is that Colorado children and adults with disabilities remain tragically underserved.

Voters actually rejected two ballot initiatives that could have helped. Amendment 51 would have raised the state sales tax from 2.9
percent to 3.1 percent to pay for services that should be available now to 10,000 children and adults on a years-long waiting list for help.

Amendment 59 would have gutted provisions in TABOR that now prevent our elected state lawmakers from crafting a budget that also
could have helped double the disability budget of $185 million. Had voters approved 59, many of the restrictions on Colorado's budget would have been lifted.

We did not endorse Amendment 51, largely because we think the general budget should serve the disabled and not a special, earmarked tax raised during uncertain and difficult economic times.

This is just strange.  And irritating.  If the Post really wants to make sure the state serves people with disabilities, what better way could there be than to have a "special, earmarked tax" to pay for it?  The state would be able to pay for the services, and they wouldn't be competing with everything else in the General Fund -- things like other health care, education, courts and public safety.

It wouldn't be the first earmarked tax.  We've earmarked tax revenue for all kinds of things, like water projects, schools, highways, services for senior citizens, and construction projects.  Sure it limits our fiscal flexibility, but all of the other earmarks limit our flexibility to pay for disability services.  I don't see the moral argument for holding the line on earmarking revenue just before reserving some for developmentally disabled people.

So, now is the time to start fighting for that money.

We hope when state lawmakers convene in January, they can find a solution. Thousands of families have been waiting for help for their
children with disabilities. In some families, one parent has to stay home to care for adult children with disabilities. With the state's
help, those citizens will get the services they need to become more self-sufficient.

The Post was bold enough to tell voters to vote against funding for disability services, but now it's too timid to suggest what existing state service we should cut to pay for the services.  It's easy to suggest spending more on something, but it's hard to suggest spending less on something else to free up the money.

Should we cut financial aid for college students?  Amendment 58 would have eliminated a tax loophole that lets oil and gas companies avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes.  The money would have helped more Coloradans afford college.  The Post told people to vote against that issue too.  Why?  Aren't the oil companies profitable enough?  Do Coloradans have a duty to subsidize the production of oil and gas for people in California and Illinois?  Or do colleges students just use financial aid to buy beer?

I served on a developmental disabilities interim committee two years ago.  One of the real horrors of those hearings was the naivete of parents who were so sure a small increase in the sales tax would get them the services they need.  One mother told us how hard it was to become a prisoner in her own home, constantly caring for a child who, if left alone, would use his teeth to rip off his own skin.  Another described her fear of dying before finding care for her 40-year-old disabled son.  They were absolutely convinced that people who heard their stories would vote for a 2/10ths of a cent sales tax increase to offer them help.

Having been on the Referendum C speakers bureau I had doubts.  Debating that issue around the Front Range I heard all kinds of excuses for opposing taxes.   Shortly after Katrina, one man said taxes just pay for things like disaster relief in places like New Orleans, which just "enables helplessness."  Helplessness in facing a hurricane? 

That's extreme.  Most radical tax-cutters couch their comments in sensible-sounding blather.  "We should eliminate government waste and inefficiency first."  "It would be better to re-prioritize our current spending."  "Surely in a $7 billion budget we can find money for this, without raising taxes."  Or, like the Post, "it's not the money we oppose, it's the method."

Gov. Bill Ritter is to be applauded for his effort to free up some money. His proposed budget allots nearly $6 million to assist 295
people now on the waiting list. But that effort, as well-intentioned as it is, would serve less than 3 percent of the disabled who qualify for
services and who continue to wait in line.

As we said in advance of Election Day, it is a disgrace that our budget for the developmentally disabled and their families excludes
nearly half the disabled population.

So in advance of election day the Post said that Colorado's lack of funding for the developmentally disabled is as "disgrace," while telling people to vote against a tiny tax increase to pay for the services.

We embraced 59, because it would have allowed the state to  keep tax revenue surpluses instead of rebating them to taxpayers,
allowing the state to create a rainy day fund and address the kinds of shameful shortfalls in basic services that we see lacking for the
disabled.

The developmentally disabled include children and adults with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and mental retardation. The
services in question include residential care; physical therapy; medical equipment and treatment; help with personal hygiene; day care;
job training in those cases it is appropriate; transportation; counseling and more.

The problem of not caring for those in our society who cannot care for themselves is a moral one. The problem our state's lawmakers
face is a fiscal one. TABOR's formulas restrict state spending beyond what has proven reasonable.

And I suspect the problem the Post is facing is an embarrassing one. They told people to vote against the tiny tax increase to help people with disabilities, the proposal failed, and families of people with disabilities are asking the Post "what now?" 

Ritter's budget already is hamstrung on badly needed services, such as roads and bridges and funding for high education.

We hope lawmakers can at least adopt the little extra he seeks for the disabled, and find a better way to serve them.

So after all of that talk about a "moral" problem and the "disgrace" of our "shameful shortfall" in spending,the Post is only asking for enough money to serve 295 people?  Out of the 10,000 people it says need services?   We've added a lot more than $6 million to the DD budget over the past few years and I'm sure we'll pass the Governor's request.