No Amy Stephens

Show me the Grades

Election season is referred to as the silly season for a lot of reasons and every season has nuances. Of late, it has been in vogue to be a “Conservative”. Rarely is the title defined and when it is, it’s always very narrowly defined. Recently there have been ads from both Marcia Looper and Amy Stephens each saying that the other doesn’t actually have conservative bona fides. Are they both correct that neither is a conservative? Is one correct and the other wrong? Can we use their records to settle this? Marcia Looper majors on Amy Stephens ram-rodding SB200 which is derogatorily referred to as Amycare whereas Amy Stephens talks about a couple of votes that don’t jibe with conservative principles.

If only there was some objective rating agency to help us out. Oh, wait, there is. I really like that the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC) has created a scorecard based on the voting record of the elected representatives in relation to conservative values http://www.rscc.us/front.html. The RSCC details those values and used to have the scorecard available on their website. The rumor is that the RSCC was told that if they publish they scorecard, they would be barred from the Capital. I can certainly understand that some legislators would not like to be held accountable. The scorecard is now available from http://www.facebook.com/notes/principles-of-liberty-colorado/2011-legislative-scorecard/304358676278450 and the format is a little different but the criteria is the same. The upshot of all of this is a rating of each representative and whether their voting record is conservative or not. Does the rhetoric match the reality? Well, according to the scorecard, the voting record of Amy Stephens earns her a whopping F. Obviously, as you would expect, all of the Democrats scored an F. But what about Marcia Looper? Well, she scored a B. Is that perfect? Of course not. Would I prefer someone who scored an A? Of course. But the reality is that perfection is hard to obtain and when we look at our representatives, we hope that they get better than a passing grade.

That brings us to the national election for President. I love the morons who purport the Rick Santorum isn’t a Conservative but rather a big government statist. Did Santorum always vote the way I would like? No, not by a long shot. But is he a big government statist like his critics allege? No, as in the case of Marcia Looper, the smear campaign bears little resemblance to the reality. The Club for Growth (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902) said “Rick Santorum spent sixteen years in Congress – four years in the House followed by 12 years in the Senate – before losing to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006.  In the last two years of his Senate career, he had an average Club for Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period.  In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard.  This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans.  NTU is a non-partisan group that advocates for limited government.” Now the problem with the Club for Growth’s rating is that it contains critiques as well as kudos which are a big no-no in political circles. We can’t have candidates with blemishes, we have to gloss over their record and portray them with a halo over their head or some sort of bright light behind them. We don’t want flesh and blood candidates, we want living gods. The truth of the matter is that Rick Santorum was a conservative before it was in vogue, and he hasn’t moved from that position, even though conservatism has only recently become cool.

SB 200 Costs are mounting

The costs for Queens forced passage of SB 200, which creates the institution known as the Health Exchange, are just now coming in. This boon-doggle will cost a fortune but on the plus side it will also waste a bunch of money on salaries. For example, the Chief Executive will be paid over $200,000 per year. Not a bad gig if you can get it. No sense in being fiscally responsible if you're just spending tax dollars. Of course, if the Chief Executive gets paid well, it stands to reason that the underlings should also be paid well. The Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Communications Officer will each be paid $165,600 annually.

This brand new bureaucracy will start out with just over 24 full-time equivalent employees. The first annual budget is $3,000,000 - or approximately $264,023 a month. For something that's supposed to lower the cost of health insurance? Really. And bureaucracies never grow. And they never cost more that anticipated. Of course we were told (in the Fiscal Impact Statement) that it would cost less than $30,000 a year and less than a half FTE. I'm sure Representative Stephens had nothing to do with perpetuating this lie. I'm also sure that this is the exception, not the rule. It's so hard to imagine a government program costing more than initially projected. EVen more odd that the projection was wrong by so much. The Fiscal Impact Statement issued after passage had the same numbers. We can't call it lieing because that would be politically incorrect and hurtful. I just want to know whose responsible for this lie?

You really should look at the budget, who knows there might be a job listed in there for you.

Humor in Colorado

Our illustrious Representative Amy Stephens clearly has a great sense of humor. Yesterday she released a very amusing statement. She said She also said “I applaud the court for their decision and continue to support Attorney General John Suthers as he fights to overturn Obamacare.” And would you support the court ruling that Amycare is unconstitutional? Or is it just that since the State took a bunch of Federal money to implement Obamacare you felt like you had to do something to accomodate your master?

http://coloradohousegop.com/page6/page6.php?id=8300720652741674084

Democrat Pete Webb Backs Representative Amy Stephens

Pete Webb, Democrat writer for The Colorado Statesman has come to the defense of one of the great liberal leaders. In the August 8, 2011 edition, Pete defends his own Amy Stephens. Yeah for the Knight in Shining Armor coming to the rescue of that fair damsel in distress who is being picked on by those meanies who don’t think Representative Amy Stephens acts in a manner consistent with Republican or conservative values. To read the article in its entirety, go to http://coloradostatesman.com/content/992961-standing-circle-and-firing-will.

Pete says “What have always been thought of as rock solid Republican principles — small government, balanced budgets, a strong defense posture, less government regulation and interference in our personal lives, more personal freedoms — are now forgotten by these new factions. The biggest effort is made to dislodge the established leadership, and denigrate the practices of negotiation and compromise, to try to effect change, or simply be disruptive to hear their points made.” This is partly true. The rock solid Republican values are fairly represented. However, his inference that the “factions” have forgotten those values is completely specious. The problem is that these “factions” are actually trying to hold the Republicans to the stated goals not the rest of the BS in his sentence about the "factions" actions. Compromise that starts off holding one side hostage doesn’t constitute compromise. What happens is that conservatives come to the bargaining table with a middle of the road proposition seeking middle ground and the Progressives come with an extreme left demand. Then compromise is always a leftist extreme. Compromise would be fine if conservatives came to the table with real demands.

Then he actually brings up the illustrious Damsel in Distress. Poor Representative Stephens who just is trod upon for no reason. Webb writes “Amy Stephens wears her Republican philosophy as a badge of honor. She’s respected by business leaders, because she respects the role of business. Her roles in establishing moral values are beyond question. (Even a career at Focus for the Family Standing in a Circle-2 doesn’t appear to be enough bona fides.) She has earned the respect of her House colleagues by keeping her wordCan you make a black and whit.” Can’t speak to the typo because a vacant mind is so hard to read but let’s look at what we can read and understand. He says that she wears her Republican philosophy as a badge of honor – see above for the core Republican values and then see if our Royal Queen does indeed possess a Republican philosophy. Small government? No, not if it impedes her lust for power. Balanced budgets? obviously not if she’s proposing anything that costs additional money. A strong defense posture? Probably but not really a State issue. Less government regulation and interference in our personal lives, more personal freedoms – well that one is completely out the window. Clearly everything that we’ve written as well as all the other criticism have been mostly because of her violating this tenet. You cannot propose a free market government solution. Fre market and government dictated are completely at odds. Totally absurd.

Webb goes on to write “Yet her actions in the past legislative session, primarily as sponsor of the health care exchange bill (emphasis added), have put a target on her back. Half a dozen groups, some claiming to be “tea party-like,” others with “more conservative agendas,” have spun up to vilify and harass this legislator. You’d think these conservatives would be proud to have a solid GOP leader representing them. Guess again.” So the Democrat approves of her actions, maybe that’s why the Democrats were so eager to pass Amycare. All of a sudden intrusive, know-it-all big government is a “Republican” value. We should ignore the Tax Payer’s Union’s ratings (more coming soon) that consistently give her a failing grade (well failing by the old standards, not by the new standards where everyone passes so that their feelings don’t get hurt) for all her years as an elected official. We should be grateful to have someone taking care of ignorant, red-necked hillbillies. Aw shucks.

Mr. Webb has met Representative Stephens (I mean Madame Speaker) twice and yet feels like he knows her intimately. It is amazing how perceptions differ. Mr. Webb found her to listen to input, and address forthrightly what she could or couldn’t support, wasn’t disingenuous (Disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere).

When I met representative Stephens she was completely the opposite. She was aggressive, intolerant, and abusive. While I found Representative Stephens frank – rude even, she certainly did not demonstrate sincerity, and candor is definitely not in Representative Stephens repertoire.

Then Webb, in his infinite Democratic mind reading capability, takes a magical imaginary flight through Representative Stephens mind. It’s hilarious and thoroughly worth reading. It could be the best part of the whole article. It’s very “Through the Looking Glass”.