Updating an amendment by Sen Winter altering transportation funding, using unemployment monies as a slush fund, and making some in the media 1st class citizens while we stay 2nd class.
An update to an amendment on a seemingly-innocuous bill that gave rural transportation planners heartburn.
I posted a while back about how Sen Winter tried a quiet change to a bill about giving vouchers to people for transit during the ozone season in Denver. The amendment would have revamped how transportation money is allocated: it would have injected yet more climate change policy into yet more of our state's rules, and possibly strip influence from rural areas in how transit money is allocated.
Saw the below earlier in the week. Apparently this idea has been turned into a study. I think enough people and municipal leaders complained to make Sen Winter rethink it.
If you think it's dead, however, don't. As I have written before, to turn a law into a study is to merely delay it (for at least a year).
Expect this to return.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/21/colorado-rural-transportation-funding-update/
Believe you me, if there is a source of money in the government and it can be used for things it was not originally intended for, it WILL be used.
The subject of the article below is a little bit arcane and thus it's tempting to ignore it. I think we as taxpayers need to be careful about that because while we ignore things like this those we elect are playing fast and loose with monies that we may not think of as free for them to play with.
This would be bad enough just for the bad taste in the mouth it leaves, but when it comes to things like the Unemployment Insurance Fund (such as the case below does) it has the potential to be a way for politicians to cost us more money without asking or being upfront.
Let's talk specifics.
When employers pay into the unemployment system, some of those dollars go to the Unemployment Support Fund (USF).
The USF is a supplemental fund that is supposed to help the main unemployment "savings account" by funding those that administer funds and create programs to help the system stay solvent.
**Going to make a quick aside here and mention a connection to earlier posts about Colorado's TERRIBLE record of both paying out unemployment insurance claims and rising costs to employers due to our unemployment system being short of money and needing to pay it back.
A bill passed back in 2001 allows lawmakers to dip into this fund to (quoting the article) "...go toward labor standards, labor relations and the Colorado works grievance procedure."
And now fast forward with me to 2023 where our current crop of politicians have figured out creative ways to fund their laws using this money--to a degree and at a pace much higher than in the previous 22 years. If you want to look at the laws where legislators are eyeing this dough, see the attached screenshot for the list.
This money grab leaves me with a couple questions.
If we can't pay our unemployment insurance claims on time and part of the money in the USF is supposed to go to helping administer the unemployment funds, how in the world is it a good idea to draw down this account to pay for pet projects that might otherwise die due to lack of funding?
Do the politicians not realize that businesses have already had their rates hiked up lately? Do they understand that frittering away this money will mean more costs?
I suppose both of the questions above could fall under a bigger, overarching one: do you think they care?
https://tsscolorado.com/unemployment-taxes-could-fund-new-labor-regulations/
Under Sen Hansen's draft bill, if you don't meet the government's definition of a "journalist", you are a second-class citizen.
I have written here and in an op ed about the draft bill to change up open records requests by Sen Hansen. The bill has yet to be released (I'm watching his page and will update if and when I see it), but as that time draws closer, more details are coming out.
They do not alleviate any of the concerns I had back when; in fact, they make the bill even more concerning. This is especially the case if you don't want your government defining media and you don't want to be second-class compared to those who they do define as media.
I illustrated with some quotes taken as screenshots from the CFOIC article linked first below. I also included a radio interview with CompleteColorado's Sherie Pief below if you prefer to listen instead of read.
Screenshot 1:
No press pass and don't know what the law defines as "commercial use" (and thus leery to sign an affidavit)? You're not among the bill's preferred group.
Screenshot 2:
If you're not in the in crowd, commercial use or no, you go to the back of the line and get to wait longer to hear. It's even worse if you're from out of state.
Screenshot 3:
Want to know who's communicating with elected officials (and possibly who they represent by their email domains)? Better hope the records custodian likes you because under the bill they could choose not to share at their discretion.
This is, if Sen Hansen runs it and does so without significant changes, bad policy. I have, as I said above, added it to my list of bills to watch and advocate on. I will update as I hear.
In the meantime, if you watch reporters on social media or elsewhere, I want you to take note of who speaks out against this and who does not. In my view someone's silence on this will be telling: any journalist who believes in transparency and accountability in the larger sense, any journalist who doesn't view themselves as better than the general population will be speaking out against this.
https://coloradofoic.org/proposed-cora-bill-gives-news-media-a-break-on-fees-governments-more-time-to-respond-to-many-records-requests/
http://omny.fm/shows/the-george-show/brauchler-3-21-23-7am?in_playlist=podcast