Posted 3 months, 25 days ago in 
Loading ...
Amendment 52will aid West Slope
At the request of Club 20, I made an economic review of the two proposed severance-tax initiatives for their potential impact on local governments in western Colorado. My review showed a potential negative impact from Initiative 113 and a positive impact for Amendment 52.
Initiative 113 (backed by Gov. Bill Ritter and others) would increase oil and gas severance taxes while reducing the local government share of the new money from its current 50 percent down to 22 percent.
Applying the new formula to existing severance tax data shows that a net reduction in revenue to local governments would have occurred in six of the past seven years — a total loss to local governments of about $70 million had 113 been in effect.
In future years, local governments dependent on these energy impact funds would then be competing annually for their 22 percent share with state university scholarships, state renewable energy programs, state transportation projects, state water and sewer projects and state Division of Wildlife land acquisitions.
On the other hand, Amendment 52 (sponsored by Sen. Josh Penry and others) would retain the full 50 percent local share for the Local Government Energy Impact Program and protect its intended use by placing it in the state Constitution. Only the Department of Natural Resources share would be capped at its current appropriation level. However, inflation would be allowed, providing for reasonable growth of DNR programs, including water project loans. Surplus DNR funds would then be transferred to a new Transportation Trust Fund, with first priority to relieve congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor, a beneficial economic purpose for local governments in western Colorado. This is an innovative use of state funds without a tax increase!
These are clear reasons for Club 20 to oppose Initiative 113 and support Amendment 52.
JIM EVANS
Grand Junction
Energy industry can take only so much hostility
When I read the article, “Matter of Fairness” in The Daily Sentinel on Aug. 1, I was confused as to what about Gov. Ritter’s plan was fair to anyone.
How can our governor, with what seems to be a completely hostile attitude toward the energy industry, expect to use money to fund anything if the money is not there?
I’m sure the energy industry can only take so much hostility before packing up and going where someone will welcome it with open arms. There are many states that would do just that. It seems Gov. Ritter wants the money that comes from this industry but is not willing to do anything to accommodate it.
The article stated, “Economists have credited the subsidy with severely eating into the amount of money Colorado can use to confront the stresses energy development places on local government.” I wonder if Colorado government has stopped to consider the stresses it will place on the citizens of Colorado if the energy industry decides enough is enough and leaves the state. We simply cannot survive without this industry, especially in an economy that is currently so fragile.
Even if we can keep the energy industry in Colorado, I don’t understand how it can be a matter of fairness to allocate 60 percent of the new revenues to scholarships for low-income Coloradans. How do these scholarships help to reduce the “stresses energy development places on local governments”?
What about taking into consideration the best interest of all Colorado citizens for a change? The amendment drafted by Sen. Josh Penry makes much more sense for Colorado. I commend Sen. Penry and his colleagues for making sensible choices that are in the best interest of the people they represent.
We have enough politicians who are serving their own interests and Gov. Ritter certainly seems to fall into that category.
LAHOMA DRAPER
Grand Junction
Negative comments aren’t helpful
I refer to the question of religious invocations on public property. It is disturbing to live in a community where some apparently religious people express themselves in unhelpful and hurtful terms.
For example the Aug. 3 “You Said It” column contained four opinions that included such words as disgusting, manipulative, whining, ridiculous, spineless jellyfish, losers, close-minded and disrespectful. The authors seem to represent faiths whose tenets do not, on this evidence, include any reference to love of neighbor or even a sanction against anonymous name-calling.
I can only hope leaders of spiritual communities will encourage prayers that include forgiveness of those they think may have trespassed against their faith.
DAVID COOK
Grand Junction
2 Responses to “August 10 printed letters”
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 7:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What Jim Evans (Amendment 52 letter) isn’t disclosing is that he works for Craig Meis at Cordilleran Compliance Services, Inc. and says what Commissioner Meis tells him what to say his - job depends on it.
Posted August 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Change We Can Believe In
As we approach the eve of the ’08 Democratic Convention to be held in Denver, we are bombarded by television ads touting the democratic mantra; “Change we can believe in”. Alas, the liberal wing of the Democratic party (they prefer to be called progressives) have coined a motto with validity. Truly the Democratic Party has changed, over the past hundred years. One only needs to compare the Democratic Convention held in Denver in 1908, to understand just how radically the Democratic Party has changed. In 1908, the Democratic nominee was the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian, orator, William Jennings Bryan. Compare to the 2008 ultra-liberal candidate, Barack Obama, that’s definitely a change.
The Democratic issue in 1908 was the economy, and their proposal then was to expand the US currency base by replacing the gold standard with the silver standard. Their choice of this issue sought to benefit the big Silver Mining Corporations, and their efforts were applauded by the Silver Mining Industry in Colorado. In contrast, today’s Democratic Party platform is based on opposition to big oil companies and gas and oil resource development. There is a big change there.
In 1908, the conservative Democratic Party was proclaiming their undying loyalty to Christian values and their opposition to the teaching of Darwinism, better known as the theory of evolution. Their candidate, William Jennings Bryan was introduced to the 1908 convention by a man from Oklahoma whose last name just happened to be Gore. I guess some things just never change. William Jennings Bryan later became famous for his defense of the teaching of creationism in public schools, in what is known today as the Scopes, Monkey Trial. He was defeated in the 1908 election by William Howard Taft, the opposition party candidate. Not much change there.
Apparently, the issue of evolution, unlike Mr. William Jennings Bryan, is alive and well and is expected to make an appearance at the 2008 Democratic Convention. But evolution won’t be putting on its show cold turkey. “Western Colorado Atheists and Free Thinkers” have been rehearsing their version of evolution on the public stage in Grand Junction for the past several months. And the review critics are reporting that the atheist’s evolution is performing like a well oiled machine. What began as a request letter by thirteen atheists and/or free thinkers, addressed to the Grand Junction City Council, accompanied by a public explanation and declaration that the atheist’s motive was to request that the City Council “bring its invocation policy into compliance” and that was the opening act, the beginning if you will, of the evolution of an issue. Very rapidly the request was followed by a denial from atheists that they were even contemplating a law suit against the city. Then the evolution progressed with local with local retired Attorney Bill Hugenberg grabbing the limelight with carefully worded hints that if the city council did not comply with the request, there was the possibility that lawsuits could result. The evolution continued with statements by local atheists that they weren’t associated with any national atheist group and had not contacted the ACLU or any other litigation oriented associations. This statement was quickly followed by statements to the effect that several national atheist groups, by name, had taken an interest in Grand Junction’s prayer wars. Then came the capitulation by the Mesa County Fair Board, and their cancellation of a scheduled prayer service at the Fair Grounds. That was followed by the atheist’s denial that they had anything to do with creating the climate that resulted in the Fair Boards decision. Next, the Grand Junction City Council took its turn at caving into the demands of the atheists. It was believed by many that achieving that victory would bring an end to the evolution of atheist demands, but the invocation issue was not to die that easily. Enter, stage left, the editorial by atheist leader Anne Landman in today’s Daily Sentinel, proclaiming new outrage and offense. “Even when the prayers are non-denominational”, also declaring that “there is no conceivable way that a governmental body can conduct the prayers that won’t inevitably exclude, isolate or embarrass various groups of constituents”. And then the atheist evolution continues with renewed demands for their solution of choice, a moment of silence. All of this evolution is accompanied, of course, by the atheists statement that “religion is a personal matter that we feel should not be paraded in front of others”. The Democratic (progressive) adoption of the motto “change we can believe in” appears to be appropriate and applicable to the evolution of that party over the last one hundred years. The only thing I can see that hasn’t changed is the Democrats innate ability to choose issues that enable them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And that is something we can believe in.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.