The indirect burden Democrat policy puts on business. Initiatives 85 and 86 are out for signature--like having a choice in how you heat your home? Sign the petition. Like buying the wealthy EV's?
Another (indirect) burden placed on business in this state.
This state, since Democrats have held all the levers of power, has increasingly placed burdens on business. I and others have written (and talked, see for example the discussion between Jon Caldara and NFIB's Tony Gagliardi on YouTube) about the extensive regulatory burden they now shoulder, and how that burden is especially hard on small business.
There is another way that government policy can put burdens on business, albeit indirectly. Oh, and this burden is yet another that is harder on small business.
That is the burden of increased litigation and measures businesses must take to avoid same.
To put some numbers to things, let me take a quote from the op ed below:
"Last year, lawmakers went on a lawsuit binge, introducing a record 25 bills that used private lawsuits for enforcement, rather than entrusting enforcement to a government agency. According to the Common Sense Institute, 43 similar bills have been introduced since 2019."
and, further down:
"Now, Colorado is one of the most expensive states for litigation. U.S. Chamber rates Colorado’s tort system as ninth most-costly in the country at $4,044 per household. That means Colorado residents are needlessly paying more for housing, transportation, health care, insurance and other basic household needs. A study for the American Tort Reform Association found excessive litigation costs reduced personal income of Colorado residents by $5.7 billion in 2020."
Think about this for a minute. Think about how much extra verbiage is on every package, how much extra paperwork, signed releases/waivers, and how much extra hassle are in your daily life as a consumer simply to make it so businesses won't get sued.
Now imagine the effect that these extra bills from last session (in one of the most expensive states for any sort of court action) will have. Fast forward to now and imagine how many more will be coming in this session.
For every new potential lawsuit, a new form or new compliance requirement on a business. For every new trial lawyer that gets his wings by bringing suit, an insurance company who has to settle or hire defense counsel (or worse, a business that must fund this on its own).
All the worse for small operators where the choice comes down to figuring out how to comply and taking precious hours out of an already crowded day to do so or figuring out how to pay for compliance by purchasing it retail (instead of wholesale like the bigger outfits who have whole departments for this sort of thing).
This on top of everything else.
As I've said before, I think the ultimate outcome of this regulatory (and now lawsuit) burden will be that Colorado will see fewer new businesses start here, see fewer smaller companies move here, see fewer companies expand here, and certainly less small business activity.
I.e. stagnation of new wealth and job creation.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/legislators-need-a-lawsuit-diet-podium/article_12b9b69a-a9d0-11ee-8677-034c94c8e38e.html#google_vignette
Related:
A profile of the "gentleman" who has made for himself a little cottage industry of reaching out from Pagosa Springs to hit (usually small, usually rural, usually volunteer instead of paid professionals) school districts with complaints about open meetings law violations.
Rather than letting boards have a chance to cure their violation, he's nice enough to settle for a few thousand before moving on to the next.
This is the kind of plaintiff's attorney the op ed author and I are both referencing above.
https://coloradofoic.org/pagosa-springs-attorney-who-has-filed-nearly-100-open-government-lawsuits-defends-his-role-as-a-private-attorney-general/
Did the recent cold snap last week make you think about how you heat your home?
Maybe, if you're like me the main pressing thought was how much it COSTS to heat during cold snaps, but you should perhaps give some thought to how you will heat your home because I think it will only be a matter of time before the Progressive, Front Range Democrats running this state get around to insinuating themselves and their values into this issue.
One need look no further than the language used by Progressive Front Range "reporter" Sam Brasch from CPR in his article about an initiative to make sure that no law can choose for you what kind of fuel you will use to heat your home or cook your food.
I went on to the Secretary of State's initiative tracker (linked second below the CPR article) to double check, and sure enough as Mr. Brasch has it, there are actually two different measures out for signatures right now to try and get on the 2024 ballot. See numbers 85 and 86 on the tracker if you like.
I emailed the law firm that is sponsoring these initiatives and asked where and when they're collecting signatures. If I hear back, I'll update.
Meantime, if you hear where or when, please add to the comments or message me.
If we do not stand up against forced electrification in this state we will regret it in more ways than one.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/01/04/campaign-to-protect-colorado-natural-gas-gains-momentum/
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/
And speaking of electrification, let me quote the op ed below (the stats on EV ownership):
"Like the other cash our government spends proliferating battery cars, the $13.8 million will benefit owners of 1.1% of cars on Colorado roads."
"A recent report by the Colorado Energy Office found of Colorado’s electric cars, 75% of owners are men, 72% 'hold moderate or conservative views,' 84% own real estate, and 63% report household incomes of $100,000 and up."
"The nonprofit media group CalMatters reports that communities with high concentrations of electric cars 'are affluent, college-educated and at least 75% White and Asian.'"
Mix these three together. What emerges from the soup?
The government is taking money from us all and giving it (via subsidies) to wealthy people so they can buy EV's. I don't think it's accurate to say this happens in every single case, but the numbers above clearly show that it is happening in the vast majority of cases.
I have a request out to our state to see if I can get a breakdown of EV registrations by location which I intend to then see if I can correlate to income (some of the stats above are national and not specific to Colorado--which is where my interest is). I am waiting for the office to compile the data and hope to hear soon. I will share when and if I do.
In the meantime, consider how much of the environmental policy in this state has resulted in, whether by intent or not, taking money from all to give to some with little to no change in the environment.
https://denvergazette.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-we-pay-the-rich-to-buy-green-cars/article_9eebba5e-c4d7-54cc-86fe-09682eb4023f.html