Using PERA retirement as a political football, an open letter to Sen Fenberg re. his remarks on guns, and a guide on enrolling in CO's Universal Preschool
I don't want PERA retirement to be your political football thank you.
This post is a tangentially-related follow up to the one I did yesterday on the greenhouse gas reduction bill (see the link below).
I have posted in the past about ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) criteria and finance. I won't go into the whole history of that movement, suffice it to say that the bill linked below is a major step in that direction here in Colorado.
I took screenshots of the relevant bits of the bill's text (as of 1/15) and attached in order (i.e. #1 is the higher up in the bill than #2).
**NOTE THAT CHANGES TO CURRENT LAW ARE IN ALL CAPS IN THE BILL (JUST LIKE THIS).
What is the upshot? This bill, in addition to moving up greenhouse gas emission reduction targets makes some pretty substantial changes to PERA retirements, bringing in a "mini ESG" flavor to it.
In other words, this bill injects Progressive climate goals into PERA's retirement. Funny, as one who is in PERA, I guess I would prefer that what PERA worry about is making sure that it's solvent and serving the people who pay into it, not be getting involved in the politics of climate.
In other words, don't make my retirement your political football.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-016
An open letter to Senate President Fenberg re. his recent remarks on gun control
Senator Fenberg,
My name is Cory and I am a resident of Logan County. I'm writing today in regard to your remarks made to Mr. Paul of the Colorado Sun during your interview (the video of which is linked below).
For other readers' convenience, I'm going to type out a few quotes of yours. The first below comes from about the 4:44 mark in the video, and the second from the 9:02 mark.
"We are not talking about a complete assault on the Second Amendment. We are not talking about taking away people's firearms that, um, are law-abiding citizens. We are talking about providing basic public safety."
"All I am interested in, on this topic, is it, is it going to be a policy that is going to be effective and is it going to result in more lives being saved."
Then later, at about the 12:07 mark,
"...for me it [presumably "it" here is gun control policy, but you are welcome to correct me if I've misunderstood what you mean here] just has to be based on science and data and what is actually going to result in the best policy to save lives."
I found your conversation as a whole to be interesting, but I chose these three quotes because I think they together give a picture as to the reasonable-sounding words you use to describe your policy. You'll notice that I was careful to say words, however, because I think the effect, the actual impact, of policy enacted and supported by you and your fellow Democrats has been quite different than your words.
You see, sir, I do not need to assume that you or any other Democratic politician needs to have ill intent (nor do I need to assume what you later casually refer to as "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories" about your policy) to take away my rights or my guns to be concerned about what you are doing.
Would my crushing someone's leg by hitting them with a car involve any less pain or difficulty if I meant it vs. it being an accident?
Nor does the issue of preventing violence need to be, as you seem to hint in your quotes above, solely an issue of guns. As a matter of fact, if you look at how the Progressive Democrats have clamped down with gun control policy over the past three or four years, we should expect some proportionate response in terms of a decrease in violence (either to others to one's self). Do we see that? I'd argue we don't and thus question whether or not more gun regulation will lead to a different outcome than we have already.
After all, our state is among the highest in suicides by firearm (above the national average), and, putting aside suicide, I don't see criminals or those who are desperate to have firearms for evil purposes stopping to ask themselves whether or not what they are doing is legal. They haven't thus far. Despite your claims of following "science and data" there is little to no data backing most gun control measures as violence prevention. That's not an empty claim either. I urge you to look up the recent analysis by the RAND group for more information (as opposed to being fed "facts" as sound bites by gun control advocates to toss out as "The Science" or "The Data").
All this has happened at the same times as your policy progressively winnows away the rights we as Americans guaranteed in the Second Amendment. I ask you, would you do the same for abortion? Would you legislate for the extreme cases at the risk that you'd prevent someone you felt should have an abortion from getting one? Considering that you have voted to allow abortion up until the moment of birth with almost no restrictions, my guess is you would not. I suppose all rights have equal weight in your eyes, it's just that some are more equal than others.
I am no Second Amendment absolutist. I am for sensible, reasonable policy that prevents those that are dangerous from both legally buying or owning, legally and otherwise, firearms. I also believe that it is possible to reconcile the rights of Americans with same.
These two goals, however, cannot continue to be met if you and the others in your party continue to regulate guns to the exclusion of any and all other ideas. Right now, we are at a tipping point where you must decide between pursuing different, possibly more effective means, of reducing gun violence and encroaching even more on Americans' rights.
I will not tolerate my rights being taken away quietly. I do not want my tax dollars being spent to defend laws in the courts that you and other Democrats put forward simply to look good to your political bases.
Be sensible in your policy. Get out of your bubble and genuinely (not just by lip service) seek ideas from across the political spectrum. Go read up on RAND's meta-analysis and actively seek out contrary voices about the validity of gun control preventing violence.
Until and unless you do, your reasonable-sounding words above, will be just empty noises.
Cory
Have a pre-school aged child and wanting to get them into Colorado's new Universal Preschool Program?
As you might imagine with any state program, the application looks (at least by what I can see in the article below) ... complicated.
There are so many rules and exceptions and terms, that it's probably easiest (at least from what I could gather in the article linked first below) to just apply and see what you can get.
I linked to the application second below.
Give it a look and a share to someone you think might be wanting/needing it. Regardless of what you think of the program and how it was funded, it's here and you should take advantage of it if you qualify.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/17/colorado-universal-preschool-applications/
https://upk.colorado.gov/