Amendments & Referendums
I don’t know about you, but I am tired of people of certain classifications getting jobs because of their color, sex, or other status! Shouldn’t we hire the person for their qualifications? Really if they can’t do the job then they shouldn’t have the job! Arguments Against* are too flimsy to believe could really happen. Let's Move On and start our state off right.
Amendment 47: YES
Colorado has been a Right to Work state. I think that we need to give the unions their due, but unions today are archaic (e.g. no other car companies in the world are union car makers, except for Ford, Chrysler, & GM! This is now a hindrance on competition for these companies). Again this is a Right to Work state. I have no problem with people joining unions, but when you cannot get hired unless you join a union, that is wrong.
Amendment 48: YES
Marilyn Musgrave and I agree you can only eat the elephant one bite at a time! While this is a huge bite, I think we, as Conservative Christians need to support this bill. Will it win? What might be the repercussions? I don’t know. Obviously the other side would like to swing that answer to all kinds of obnoxious endings, but I think it needs to be stated. My question is: There are many people in Colorado driving around with the Respect Life (Columbine) plates, yet are Pro-Choice; Excuse me? If we are trampling on God’s domain…how is it we could pick or choose when we’d like to apply the principal?
Amendment 49: YES
For us in Weld County we may remember a while back this was tried and failed in Greeley. This too is another anti-union issue. At issue the unions feel will trample business growth in Colorado. Hmmm…what I feel tramples business growth in Colorado is unions! My opinion on this is I feel that union dues should be paid by the member and not forced to be collected out of their paychecks…more infinite costs to us! Arguments Against* disagrees with that. The AA* tells us that computers can easily add this line item, no real cost to taxpayers. Hello! Really? The money is collected by the agency and then must payroll a check off to the union…hmmm…a cost!
Amendment 50: YES
Well…since I like to give by example of shooting craps…this would be a natural yes! I would now get to shoot craps here in Colorado! Case solved! Not really, I love how the sponsors of this sugar coated it so that the additional tax revenue goes to colleges. Smart! College age kids like to gamble, so hence they would be helping with their tuition! Okay, maybe a bad illustration. This one tore me up; I wanted it before I didn’t want it. But overall I cannot see this damaging too much. I would think really hard again before another increase. I voted once to bring it in, once to increase the limit. We’re all good for good!
Amendment 51: NO
Democrats loose! More tax…good cause, no more tax! ‘Nuff said!
Amendment 52: NO
Conflicts with 58, and another Democrat tax and spend issue.
Amendment 53: NO
Yes…no…yes…no…Qwest…yes…no… This is interesting to me. Here is a same philosophy. Gay marriage is okay because we are told we cannot legislate morality. Hence in the Arguments For* they want to legislate morality in business so that we can have moral characters running our large businesses. This will foster good employers and bring a good business climate to Colorado.
I agree with the AF* however, I don’t think this is the best way to go about this. I could be wrong. I do know that I wished Kenneth Lay (Enron) had lived to fry and have to return all of his money to the company. In a time of financial uncertainty I think that the executives who we just bailed out should be removed from all of their possessions. Be given a 900 square foot house and a Ford Pinto to drive. Having said that I don’t believe that is the State of Colorado’s job to do. This is a national job to do. Plus we don’t need this rule muddling up our constitution!
Amendment 54: NO
While in principal I agree with this issue, I don’t believe that it is a good move. Like a judge once said when all of the people in court have conflicts, then there are no conflicts. Having had this on the constitution, Scott Renfroe would not have been able to run for office. I like the idea behind this, but I believe we need this written a little different.
Amendment 55: NO
Let business deal with the business of business! ‘Nuff said!
Amendment 56: NO
“A New State Authority,” as outlined*. Yea, we need a new state authority screwing with health care! We also need to be told constitutionally that businesses HAVE to cover healthcare. Poor economic climate + Amendment 56 = total destruction!
Amendment 57: NO
Titled*: Additional Remedies for Injured Employees. Amendment 57 + Frank Azar = No business.
Amendment 58: NO
The Nature Conservancy is spending millions to support this. To Ag people and the like the TNC is a nightmare that is only starting to blossom. I do not have enough time to write here and tell you about TNC and their horrific ideas about our environment. I will let you know though, that they were the driving force behind Pinon Canyon.
Amendment 59: NO
So answer me this…how many billions of dollars to we have to throw at education before they get it right? When TABOR was created it worked, we fooled with it and now it don’t!
Referendum L: NO
Not to offend young people, but at 23 I opened a business and bought property. I thought I new it all. I am finally paying off those mistakes. I have to now agree with my parents that I should have finished college and then started my business. I believe that good intentioned people at that age could severely be led astray.
Referendum M: NO
That bites that I get taxed on trees! I don’t think this is that obsolete…leave it alone.
Referendum N: YES
Impure liquor! Not anymore, we have the FDA and the Health Department overseeing that today
Referendum O: YES
Doesn’t help our ballots, but stops the clutter of conflicting amendments to the constitution. Also helps by allowing the legislature to correct any erroneous flaws in proposals. I like it!
Commentary:
As usual a mixed bag of ideas come before the voters. Now that we are living in a Nanny state of government, it has floated to constitutional amendments. I don’t think that the issues presented would help businesses or assist in Colorado’s economy. Furthermore, if you read both these comments and the blue book and still don’t understand the issue, I’d vote no.
Thanks for reading,
Jim Rohn
* Arguments For (AF), Arguments Against (AA), and titles are quoted come from the State issued Blue Book.