Financial bailout, Denver labor deal set bad precedents for nation, state

Denver Business Journal - by Steve Schuck

Why are so many people across the political spectrum offended by the federal government’s “Troubled Assets Relief Program?”

Because it’s irresponsible, immoral and smacks of the worst kind of cynicism. It’s $700 billion - and growing every day - to recapitalize the same banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown in the first place and will be supervised by the same officials who presided over them.

That money will come out of the pockets of taxpayers who weren’t connected to the FNMA/FMAC debacle. That money also will come out of the pockets of homeowners who continue to pay their mortgages.

And that money will go into the pockets of bankers who made bad loans, as well as those of nonperforming borrowers.

It’s wrong, just plain wrong, to reward irresponsibility while penalizing responsibility.

It’s worse than wrong - it’s immoral.

This is a Wall Street plan, designed by the same Wall Street types who created this fiasco, but who care precious little about Main Street. It will be approved and overseen by the politicians whose agenda was and is - you guessed it - political, not economic. These very politicians refused to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, actually goading them into ever-riskier lending practices.

They refused to privatize those government-spawned monstrosities. They put the U.S. Treasury at risk by failing to heed repeated warnings. They accepted large political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And yes, they’re now picking both winners and losers. Are we somehow to believe that they just got religion and now will demand accountability?

Ironically - even as politicians now want unprecedented expanded federal intervention and regulation - the crisis actually had its origins in the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as New Deal government agencies. In 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act drove the government deep into the housing market. In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand the availability of mortgage loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers.

It didn’t take long for the politicians to seize the opportunity to use Fannie Mae’s money and implicit government guarantees to develop new and expanded constituencies, padding their campaign pockets in the process. Instead of unambiguously repudiating any government guarantees and deferring to the wisdom of the marketplace, our politicians chose to get in deeper and deeper. This debacle was inevitable.

Now, the same kind of irresponsibility and cynicism has made its way to Denver. In an act devoid not only of principle but also of any common sense, some of Colorado’s top business leaders have agreed to give $3 million to organized labor in an attempt to defeat three reasonable, good-government, employee-empowering, choice-providing ballot issues: Amendments 47, 49 and 54.

Amendment 47 provides workers the right to choose whether or not they want to be dues-paying union members; Amendment 49 prohibits governmental entities from collecting dues or fees from the paychecks of its employees; and Amendment 54 prevents those who have government contracts from making political contributions to the same governmental entities.

Why would captains of industry oppose these sensible, moderate and economically sound proposals? Because they were blackmailed in a shakedown orchestrated by Big Labor. Organized labor placed four “poison pill” amendments on the ballot-radical, job killing proposals that likely could not have passed on their merits - and threatened to leave them there unless $3 million of ransom was paid to be used to oppose 47, 49, and 54.

Of course, by giving in to these demands, they’ve set us all up for further blackmail in the future. Those who succumb to extortion by paying ransom are guaranteed, absolutely guaranteed, one thing - the opportunity to do it again, and again, and again.

Moreover, instead of undermining those of us who believe in employee rights and choice, why didn’t they instead convince Gov. Bill Ritter to rescind his executive order of last year allowing collective bargaining for state employees - the action that precipitated all of this?

The deal that went down at the behest of organized labor has a lot in common with the deal inked in Washington. Both have the best of intentions but produce the unintended consequence of penalizing those who act responsibly in the name of rescuing those who act irresponsibly.

That isn’t the American way. Who can blame those citizens who play by the rules for being cynical?

Steve Schuck is a Colorado developer and was a candidate for the GOP nomination for governor in 1986. He can be reached at 719 633-4500 or via e-mail at SMS@theschuckcorporation.com.

Amendment 54: Tapia poster boy for bad behavior

www.facethestate.com
October 16, 2008

Clean Government Colorado launched its first TV ad this week and made Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, the poster boy for why Amendment 54 is needed in Colorado.

A 9News investigation from April found that Tapia spent eight years in the General Assembly advocating greater funding toward the Colorado State Fair. During this same period, his engineering firm received nearly a half-million dollars in fair contracts, none of which were awarded through competitive bids.

Amendment 54 would establish a no-bid searchable database, which would have made Tapia’s contracts more transparent to his constituents and the media. Currently, the only way to uncover such information is through a Colorado Open Records Act request, which is how Tapia’s contracts were discovered.

“I highly resent this,” Tapia said in reference to the ad, also voicing his opposition to the transparency Amendment 54 would provide.

Tapia claims that he had to compete for his contracts. According to reports in The Denver Post and Tom Lucero, campaign manager for Amendment 54, however, Tapia recieved at least 15 no-bid contracts from 1999 until 2008.

“If Amendment 54 was around in 1999, Tapia’s contracts would have been transparent at the time they were awarded,” Lucero said.

Amendment 54, if passed, would not bring an end to no-bid government contracts, but it would prohibit certain political contributions from recipients.

CORA requests are important tools when it comes to keeping government honest, and to Tapia’s credit he complied when issued with one. But not every government agency is as cooperative, and database of no-bid government contracts is just one more smart way to keep our lawmakers honest.

OPINION: Why vote for Amendment 54

October 10, 2008

Some of the decision on the Nov. 4 ballot are easy. Among the easiest is Amendment 54, which would do nothing other than clean up government and politics in Colorado by eliminating common kickbacks of taxpayer money to fund special interests.

Amendment 54 would amend the Colorado Constitution so that it forbids Contractors, with no-bid government contracts of $100,000 or more, from making political contributions within two years of the contract.

Here’s the way it works today, in Colorado. If a government entity - city, state, county, school, etc. - needs a new building or road or sidewalk or roof, it can contract with a firm, let’s just say Acme Contractors, Inc., to do the work. It can do this without taking bids from competing construction firms.

So, with a no bid process, how do politicians decide which company should get the work? Sometimes they decide on a basis of who’s most willing to fund a favorite cause.

Imagine Mayor Billy Bob, for example, from Podunksville Colorado USA. Let’s say Billy Bob wants a new ice skating rink for the children of Podunksville. Lots of people can build the skating rink. But Billy Bob can go to his good friend Mr. Acme, who owns Acme Contractors. Over a few beers, Mayor Billy Bob can say something like this: “You contribute $5,000 to the Keep Electing Democrats Committee, and I’ll be sure you get that contract for the new skating rink.

At the next town council meeting, Mayor Billy Bob moves to award the contract, a buddy on the council seconds the move, and the council votes. The town treasurer issues a check to Acme Construction, Mr. Acme makes his dutiful donation, and everyone lives happily ever after.

The problem with this, of course, is that it’s a corrupt funding mechanism that channels taxpayer money to special interests. It also rewards contractors who are willing to play political games, at the unfair expense of those who are not.

Along with eliminating these kickbacks, Amendment 54 would require government contractors to submit an electronic summary of their contract that anyone could review on the Internet. It would direct the State Department of Personnel to maintain a searchable, web-based database containing all government contracts. In essence, it would shine a giant spotlight on the projects public officials spend our money on.

The measure would make it a crime for a contractor to give a political contribution, and it would make it a crime for anyone to “intentionally” accept such a contribution.

We’re living at a time in history when the taxpaying public is paying enormously for the crimes, misconduct, stupidity, arrogance, and selfishness of an entitled few. It has to stop, and Amendment 54 is one small step in the right direction. If enacted, the people who sit in power at all levels of government will no longer be able to reward their friends and acquaintances with big dollar contracts in return for special interest political kickbacks.

This one is just plain common sense. By all means, vote “yes” on Amendment 54 - a simple, non controversial vote in favor of cleaner, fairer and better government for all.

WHEAT RIDGE, CO - Amendment 54 today released the first in a series of hard-hitting television commercials that highlight the need for governmental transparency that would end the NO-BID culture of corruption in Colorado.

The first commercial in the series features Senator Abel Tapia and his secretive NO-BID government contracts. The facts are these:   for years this powerful Senator had direct oversight of funding for the State Fair.  During that time, his engineering firm received hundreds of thousands of dollars in NO-BID contracts from the State Fair.  Additionally, Senator Tapia received hundreds of thousands of dollars from state agencies over which he had oversight responsibility.

Amendment 54 would establish a NO-BID searchable database that would have brought scrutiny to Tapia’s practices much earlier. If the searchable database had been in place, it is likely public pressure would have forced those contracts to be competitively bid which would have resulted in savings for the taxpayers.

Amendment 54 Chair Tom Lucero said, “Frankly, we shouldn’t have to wait for a 9News Investigation to find out how our tax dollars are being spent.   The public has a right to know these matters and YES on 54 will open up the government contracting process.  Coloradans are tired of footing the bill for backroom deals for political insiders.”

Lucero concluded, “YES on 54 is just good common sense: having a searchable database is the perfect disinfectant for corrupt NO-BID contracts. A searchable database will put elected officials on notice that every time a NO-BID contract goes out the door, taxpayers will be watching. Ultimately, the goal is for every government contract to be competitively bid. YES on 54 makes taxpayers the real winners.”

###

Denver Post Opinion
10/10/08

Re: “Amendment 54 not what it says,” Oct. 1 editorial.

In its opposition editorial, The Denver Post did manage to point out the heart of Amendment 54: “fair and transparent” government contracts.

Amendment 54 seeks fair and clean government by prohibiting those who have no-bid government contracts from funding the political campaigns of those who dole out or negotiate those contracts. While many argue these contributions do not necessarily influence the awarding of such contracts, most Coloradans just find these cozy relationships highly suspect and borderline unethical.

Amendment 54 provides transparency and accountability by requiring summary information on no-bid contracts to be published. Coloradans will have more transparency in how their taxes are being spent, and with whom.

Every time a no-bid contract goes out the door, taxpayers lose. No-bid contracts awarded by the state of Colorado total almost $400 million; in Adams County, $12 million; by RTD, $158 million; and in Colorado Springs, $1.2 million. We requested information from all 64 counties and 25 other government agencies. Most refused to cooperate, and not one provided details of their no-bid contracts.

Despite supporting these goals that The Post refers to as “sacrosanct,” they focus on the apparently more important goal of preserving political contributions by utility-monopolies and public employee labor unions.

We strongly disagree; there should be a line drawn to preserve the interest of Colorado taxpayers.

Tom Lucero, Loveland

The writer is chair of the Amendment 54 campaign and a member of the University of Colorado Board of Regents.

54 would correct no-bid contract abuses

By Tom Lucero, Special to the Rocky
October 10, 2008

Coloradans are tired of cozy, backroom deals where government contracts are handed out to political insiders. When government bypasses the competitive bidding process the taxpayer picks up the tab for these insider deals.

Most Coloradans seem surprised to find out that all public contracts are not already required to be competitively bid. We have heard over and over: “What do you mean government awards no-bid contracts? I just assumed all contracts are competitively bid.” Unfortunately that is not the case. We have identified nearly $400 million in state no-bid contracts and more than $158 million by the Regional Transportation District. We know there are likely millions more in no-bid contracts. We sent open-records requests to more than 90 government agencies and counties; not one could give us even summary information upon request.

Amendment 54 provides transparency and accountability by requiring information on all no-bid contracts to be published in a searchable database. When Amendment 54 passes, Coloradans will know how their tax dollars are being spent with regard to no-bid contracts.

The Rocky Mountain News editorial on Amendment 54 - “The gag amendment” (Oct. 1) - was certainly filled with “the sky is falling” rhetoric. The Clean Government Colorado campaign would like to set the record straight.

First, we do believe there’s a “presumption of impropriety between contributions to any campaign and sole-source government contracts.” With no transparency and oversight in no-bid contracts, there is too much room for backroom dealing. Voters only have to look at the situation with Sen. Abel Tapia receiving no-bid contracts from agencies he oversaw. Or how about the Adams County commissioners who received big campaign contributions from the paving contractor that received millions of dollars in no-bid contracts.

Second, Amendment 54 in no way muzzles individuals from making political contributions unless they are a no-bid contractor with a government contract in excess of $100,000.  As long as family members or business partners are not acting as financial “conduits” for the no-bid contractor, they are free to make political contributions to a candidate or party of their choice. Additionally, this measure in no way prohibits individual union members from making political contributions to candidates or political parties. Amendment 54 would simply put unions on equal footing with businesses by prohibiting a union with exclusive bargaining agreements from making PAC contributions to candidates or political parties.

Third, the concept behind Amendment 54 is being practiced in seven other states. New Jersey is the latest state to enact this contractual prohibition and it was recently found by their courts to be constitutional. By making this a contractual prohibition - that is, one that the government contractor agrees to in his or her contract - constitutional arguments are off the table.

Finally, the Rocky opines that Amendment 54 is “a poorly crafted measure with potentially far-reaching consequences . . . ” We disagree with the first part of their premise but agree wholeheartedly with them when they say Amendment 54 will have far-reaching consequences.

Cleaning up the backroom, political insider deals will have far-reaching positive consequences for Colorado taxpayers who are struggling under the burden of paying higher gas prices and shrinking retirement accounts from the Wall Street collapse. Voting yes on 54 will save taxpayers millions of dollars by encouraging state and local governments to competitively bid all government services.

Sunshine on no-bid contracts will have far-reaching positive consequences for the taxpayer as well. Voting yes on 54 will make government more transparent so we don’t have to rely on the news media to break stories on political insider deals. With a searchable, statewide database, taxpayers will know how their tax dollars are being spent.

If Colorado taxpayers like paying a premium for government services and believe expensive no-bid contracts should be allowed, then follow the Rocky’s recommendation. If, on the other hand, Coloradans believe competitive bidding is good for taxpayers and they want the tools to know how their tax dollars are being spent, then please vote yes on 54.

Tom Lucero, a University of Colorado regent, is the campaign manager of Clean Government Colorado, which is backing Amendment 54.

Aspen Times 10/8/08

Colorado’s election ballot is long and confusing, but late last week it got a little bit simpler when four measures were withdrawn. Voters needn’t waste their time studying or voting on Amendments 53, 55, 56 and 57 because they have been pulled from the ballot by the labor groups that supported them.

The amendments might still appear on your ballot, depending on where you live, but any votes cast on these measures will not be counted by the Secretary of State. So don’t worry about them.

Whew.

Now here’s where it gets a little thorny. The four canceled measures were withdrawn from the ballot as part of a deal last week between business and labor groups in Denver. In exchange for pulling the pro-labor measures from the ballot, the labor groups have accepted $3 million from business groups to fight Amendment 47, the so-called right-to-work measure that would bar employers from requiring new workers to join unions as a condition of their employment. That’s right - business and labor interests struck a somewhat bizarre deal (some have already called it an unholy alliance) to remove several onerous measures from the state ballot; the good news for voters is that there are fewer complex issues to consider.

Amendments 47, 49 and 54 all remain on the ballot, and are all seen as union-busting measures, but 47 is by far the most damaging. Unions fear the amendment will erode their membership rolls and coffers by making membership completely voluntary. Amendment 49 would prohibit government agencies from collecting union dues in the form of automatic payroll deductions; Amendment 54 would restrict recipients of no-bid government contracts from making political contributions.

To us, the first question to ask about all these measures is whether they merit a constitutional amendment. There should be a compelling reason to amend the Colorado Constitution, and we don’t think a tug-of-war between business and labor belongs in the state’s most fundamental guiding document - regardless of which side you’re on.

We actually see some merit in Amendment 47, which despite its anti-union roots would nonetheless protect workers’ freedom of choice, and Amendment 49, which would take the government out of the union dues-collecting business. But we don’t believe these issues deserve treatment in the state Constitution.

Vote no on amendments 47 and 49.

The only measure in this group that addresses a basic aspect of governmental operation is 54, which would bar certain government contractors from making political contributions during the terms of their contracts and for two years thereafter.

The idea here is to prevent payoffs to government officials in exchange for no-bid government contracts, which we feel is a common-sense move toward clean government. Isn’t that what constitutions are for?

Vote yes on Amendment 54.

OPPOSITION GROUP CALLED OUT ON THEIR INACCURATE AD CAMPAIGN : In a rebuke to a recent slime campaign by Protect Colorado’s Future (better known as Protect Colorado’s Unions) 9News and Channel 4 recently put the smack down on PCF’s ad campaign…

Click here to watch CBS 4 New’s Reality Check

9News Truth Test Article available here and video from 9News below:

The Denver Chamber of Commerce, Governor Bill Ritter, and Union groups have formed an alliance to defeat Colorado Amendment 54.  Amendment 54 would help clean up Colorado government and prohibit contractors with government contracts over $100,000 from contributing to politicians. Amendment 54 would also establish a searchable database so Colorado citizens can research how their tax dollars are being spent.

Click the play button below to hear more about this “Unholy Alliance” between the Denver Chamber, Governor Bill Ritter, and these Union groups:

Would you please help “the Clean Team” stand up to these powerful groups by contributing to the campaign? By contributing just $40 you can help us pay for one radio spot and send a message to this “Unholy Alliance” that we no longer want corruption in Colorado government.

Please click the contribute button to the right and help us keep pace with the already $3.3 million spent by these groups and the pledged $5 million more they say they will spend. You can see why it is more important than ever to clean up Colorado government.