Printed on 1/12/12
In the final days of this year's legislative session several of my bills and resolutions were passed. They included a resolution sent to Congress concerning healthy forests (HJR 1033), a bill setting up a fund for the State Forest Service to fight the bark beetle infestation (HB 1318) and SB 246, opening the way for better discounts for prescription drugs in Colorado. SB 246 completes the work I started last year on modifying the Unfair Trade Practices Act to allow discounting of gas, prescription drugs and other "loss leader" sales.
Earlier this year three more of my bills and one resolution were passed. These bills dealt with telemedicine for Medicaid mental health services, insuring that courts take into account the adjudication of a sexual predator in another state when determining child custody issues, providing employers information about the Federal E-verify system, and reaffirming the right of parents to teach their children at home without any teacher license requirement.
Despite the successes I had with many of my bills, the general trend this year was not a good direction. Many of the bills eroded the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of Colorado. When principles of good government were threatened, I argued against those measures.
SB 200 adds sexual orientation to the list of groups covered under civil rights legislation. An example given in the debate: a wedding photographer, to conduct business in Colorado, will not be able to decline to shoot a "wedding" on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple. This is just the latest example of identity politics forcing their agenda into public policy.
The legislature put the state in about a billion dollars of debt. SB 206 authorized loans of about $400,000,000 for a new building for the Colorado Supreme Court (replacing the building we built for them thirty years ago.) SB 233 then gave our state colleges and universities the authority to borrow another $400,000,000! These two bills will take over a billion dollars to repay. Neither of these measures will ask the people for a vote to authorize these loans, which the constitution clearly requires.
In the final meeting of the State Affairs committee I helped defeat HCR 1014. This was the ballot question that would have permanently ended TABOR refunds and put state government on an even bigger spending spree than they currently enjoy. Speaker Romanoff's HJR 1014 would have mandated that all TABOR refunds for the tax payers be put in the State Education Fund. This scheme allows the General Assembly to replace money that they are constitutionally obligated to give to K-12 education with money taken from all future TABOR refund checks. HJR 1014 was nothing more than Referendum C on steroids, a permanent tax increase disguised by words about education revealing nothing more than a legislature incapable of controlling it's impulse to spend the people's money.
But wait, there's more... Speaker Romanoff is now trying to put this on the ballot through an initiative petition. Stay tuned, it may be back.
This legislature spent too much, saved very little and grew government as fast and as big as they possibly could. They authorized over 1300 new state employees with a record budget of over $19 billion. Many fees were put on automatic pilot, with individual departments given the authority to raise them whenever they want.
New regulations were created for private colleges, massage therapists, compost (I am not making this stuff up), prohibiting motorized vehicles on most back country roads and too many other regulations to list here.
At least we finally ended the session early - a full day before the deadline. Finally this legislative session will not be able to create any more taxes, fees, or regulations for Colorado's citizens and businesses. Nor will it be setting any more policies that assume the whole "global warming" debate is a settled issue and consequently demands we shut off our energy development, drive up energy costs even higher and eventually cripple our economy in deference to this yet to be proven theory.
There will also not be any more measures that redefine the family or replace the family with more government programs or strip away any more of the few remaining public policies that still support the notion of a free society.
When our unalienable rights of life and liberty are honored individual citizens are understood to be responsible for themselves, parents take the primary authority to raise their own children as they see best and businesses are able to thrive in a competitive, free market. In 2008 the Colorado General Assembly did not give much credence to these ideals, but I assure you, if the voters of House District 49 continue to give me the honor and responsibility, I will continue to work for these principles of good government in our state legislature.
Kevin Lundberg
5/16/08
Back to Top
Transportation is, in my opinion, a high priority for state government. It is also apparent to all who use our roads, bridges and highways that we should do better.
The question is how. Do we increase taxes or increase the priority for transportation spending?
The governor is talking about a $100 car tax. He is calling it a fee, so the people won't be allowed to vote on it, but regardless of what he calls it, it will be a heavy tax on many families who cannot afford it.
There is a better way. Control our spending, find more cost effective ways to conduct the rest of state government and direct more of our $18 billion dollar budget to transportation.
That is why I ran bills this year to find efficiencies in Medicaid and education funding. Unfortunately this year's legislature rejected both bills. Later this session I will be joining Senator McElhany and Representative May in sponsoring a bill that increases the transportation funding priority for sales tax revenues related to auto product sales.
If the legislature would get serious about controlling spending and give transportation a higher priority we could fix our roads and bridges.
In any event I will not support a car tax. It would not fix the problem, it would feed the spending problem we have yet to come to terms with.
Rep. Kevin Lundberg
February 17, 2008
Back to Top
I support Mike Huckabee.
Without giving specific contrasts with the other three remaining Republican candidates, which could become counter productive to the general election, this is why I believe Governor Huckabee is the best choice:
Character counts the most.
Our President must be someone who we can depend upon to be consistent in principles and honorable in actions. In his personal life and public life I see Mike Huckabee as a man whose faith and principles guide his every step.
Communication skills are essential for our President.
Mike Huckabees ability to communicate his message has been the strength of his campaign. The other Republican candidates have had overwhelming money, significant organizations and long-standing national reputations. Mike started with none of these advantages, but his message has resonated with millions of Americans because of his ability to communicate a clear and reasonable message.
Conservative values must never be abandoned.
Despite all of the campaign rhetoric that has been thrown against Mike Huckabee, and unfortunately by many people who I have a high regard for, I see Mike Huckabee as clearly the most consistent, conservative candidate. I have carefully reviewed the issues in this campaign and when you get down to the facts, they point to Mike Huckabee as being the man who has the most reliable and reasonable conservative values.
In matters of defending life and preserving the institution of marriage he is unquestionably head and shoulders above the rest.
With respect to national security, his commitment to maintaining a strong defense is at least equal to any of the candidates. Huckabee also has a firm resolve to complete our mission in Iraq and successfully wage the war on terror.
Concerning taxes, he is committed to eliminating the IRS and has formally pledged to not raise taxes. These are aggressive goals and commitments that are consistent with principles of limited government.
I have strong confidence in his policies and judgment concerning parental authority and school choice. He understands that parents have the first responsibility to direct their childrens education. Any criticisms I have seen of his policies on school choice have, in my opinion, been without merit.
His nine point plan for securing our borders and controlling the immigration issue is the most specific plan that any candidate has put forth. While I do not concur in every detail, I do see his commitment to seriously fix this problem as the most comprehensive solution among all the presidential candidates.
Mike Huckabee is an innovative thinker with conservative principles. This comes out clearly in his policies concerning our medical system. He understands we need a better road to take but it cannot be a road that leads to any form of socialized medicine.
He is also calling on our nation to implement a plan for energy independence. He knows it is imperative that we aggressively develop all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable, to have a healthy and strong economy.
Through my legislative experience I have come to understand that character counts first. It is not what a candidate says, it is what they have done that tells us who they are. Mike Huckabees actions are consistent with his words. He is, in my opinion, the best conservative candidate for President in 2008.
Kevin Lundberg
February 1, 2008
Back to Top
The 2008 election will be a significant decision for our nation and our state. Its outcome will shape our future in many ways. We cannot afford to get it wrong.
Here in Colorado the challenge is not only for the candidates who will be chosen but this year our election systems are also under scrutiny.
Due to Congresss Help American Vote Act (HAVA), new voting equipment and registration software HAVA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forced on our state and counties and a resulting lawsuit, the legislature must take action to insure a fair and accurate election in 2008.
In previous elections we have had several choices in how to vote and it has been a reasonably secure system of voting. Mail absetee ballots, early voting and election day voting gave the people of Colorado opportunities to vote in the manner they chose and had the most confidence in.
This current dilema, driven by Federal mandates and the court order that we are now facing is causing some to call for a scraping of our system of general election voting and simply mailing out ballots to everyone weeks before the election.
I share the deep concern of many others that this simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution is an even bigger problem. Shipping out all of the ballots to the last known address of all active registered voters will cast a huge cloud of uncertainty to many citizens of Colorado.
Confidence in the voting process is essential. A sweeping change to an all mail ballot election will strain that confidence too much. We should not play such a risky game.
As the legislature wrestles with the many facets of this situation I will do all I can to preserve a trustworthy voting system that includes the full range of voting options for the 2008 election.
The decisons we will make next November are too important to be compromised by inadequate voting systems in Colorado.
We must get it right.
Kevin Lundberg
January 2008
Back to Top
Governor Ritter's recently announced climate action plan is supposed to protect our way of life from the dire predictions that some have made about global warming, but the actual details of his initiative are more likely to head us in the opposite direction.
Ritter's entire argument is based on the yet-to-be-proven theory that carbon dioxide is the major source of temperature increases observed over the past 30 years (never mind the fact that temperatures were cooling in the previous 30 years). It also assumes that the carbon we can eliminate or lock up will be enough to offset the explosive growth (and carbon emissions) of China and other developing countries. Finally, it does not take into account the huge direct cost of his action plan, nor the consequent drag it will have on our state's economy as we develop this new game of avoiding carbon emissions at virtually any price.
Let me be clear on one important point. I do believe we should be careful stewards of our land, air and water. We should aggressively move forward with renewable energy solutions for housing, transportation, government and industry. For my own family I designed, built, and we continue to live in, a house that produces its own heat and power from the sun and wind. I am convinced that the opportunities for a healthy and prosperous future do include an increasing reliance on renewable energy.
The problem I have with the governors plan is not that it encourages renewable energy, but that it forces our state to convert to renewable energy solutions before they are economically viable. In addition, because his plan has only skepticism for oil shale, nuclear and large hydro-electric solutions, and the governor has already been dragging his heels when it comes to the development of our traditional oil, gas and coal resources, his claim that this plan will increase our energy security rings hollow.
Ritter's plan calls for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions: 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. These may be laudable goals for efficiency targets, but they will become draconian vices on our state when government mandates ratchet our lives and our industries into compliance.
Colorado has incredible prospects for a very bright future. We are rich in energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Our people are aggressive and forward looking. God has blessed us with every possibility to live prosperous and healthy lives here in Colorado. We should not be misguided into heavy handed government policies that could stifle these opportunities for our children.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
November 7, 2007
Back to Top
Recently governor Ritter's blue ribbon panel on future transportation funding held a meeting in Windsor.
The only solutions under serious consideration involved extracting more money from the taxpayer: sales tax on gas, increase vehicle registration fees, tolls on roads and tunnels, "new wheels" tax, visitor tax, roadway maintenance fees, sales tax on deliveries, per-mile driven tax, weight-distance tax...
Nowhere to be found was a serious discussion of living within our current means by prioritizing highway construction over ultra-expensive mass transit programs, or limiting other state programs or even cutting out some of the waste, inefficiencies and low priority spending that currently exists in transportation funding systems.
This attitude is typical for government bureaucracies. In contrast, we the people are more realistic. We know that for every $100 the government adds in taxes and fees we will have to eliminate that much more in our personal budget.
It is the economic reality of priorities.
Yet the call for more from the taxpayer is increasing to a crescendo.
Another commission, concerning medical costs, is looking at proposals that might double or triple our income tax. Last session the legislature approved a property tax increase (without the constitutionaly mandated vote of the people) and, when the real numbers came out they were double what was quoted during the legislative session. The originally quoted price tag for Referendum C was $3.2 billion. The current estimate is now $5.99 billion and counting.
The burden on the taxper is already too high for the robust economy of which our state is capable.
The good news is that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) is still a part of our state constitution. All we now need is a legislature that will uphold it.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
October 12, 2007
Back to Top
The Colorado legislature took a strong stand against the NAFTA tribunal-ordered pilot program allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies onto all U.S. highways. The votes were taken back in April and little public attention was givern to the measures, but today the Mexican truck program is well known and this bi-partisan stand by the Colorado legislature should be spoken of as well.
Two resolutions were passed. SJR07-044 was sponsored by Senator Tochtrop, a Democrat, and I, a Republican, was the prime sponsor of the other resolution, HJR07-1048.
Senator Tochtrop's measure demanded that no highway safety regulations be circumvented in any way by the Mexican trucks on our highways and my measure went on to demand that all security issues be fully satisfied before any such program be allowed.
Both measures aimed at the same point: do not fast-track this program. A NAFTA tribunal dictated the terms of this program. Our internal laws and regulations insuring safety on the highways and security at and within our borders should never be compromised to satisfy any international court.
Of course the ultimate reality is that the U.S. Congress and not the Colorado legislature has the final authority, but the people of Colorado need to know that their legislature did what was in their power to speak for the people of Colorado on this troubling issue.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
September 13, 2007
Back to Top
A recent report on school choice found Colorado to be, at best, stalled out.
Once recognized as a leader in the school choice movement, our state has lost that momentum. For many years Colorado has had inter-district open enrollment, was one of the first state to establish charter schools, and passed a ground breaking school voucher bill in 2003.
This year the only bills to be approved by the legislature restricted educational choice.
Parent's should be given every opportunity to provide for their children the educational format that best fits each individual child. The taxpayer should have the confidence that their money is being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Colorado should once again become a leader in promoting school choice.
For these reasons I will be introducing an educational tax credit bill in next year's session.
This bill will give parents who choose a private education option a property tax credit which can help them shoulder the huge financial burden of a non-public funded education. Because the tax credit will cost the state only a fraction of what it takes for that student's public school funding, it can also be a boon for the public school system by leaving a larger per-student pool of funds available for public schools.
In addition, to address the needs of families that, even with the tax credit, cannot afford the best options for thier children, the bill will include a tax credit for creating educational scholarship programs.
My educational tax credit bill will help stretch Colorado's education dollars, give children the opportunities that best fit their needs and re-establish Colorado as a leader in school choice.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
September 12, 2007
Back to Top
The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis has caused everyone to reevaluate the soundness of our nations infrastructure. Many are calling for new taxes to address these concerns.
The other day I saw a Minnesota legislator call for that state to increase gas taxes by about $750 per car. He said to fund it people will jus have to cut back on Starbucks coffee, or some other trivial and optional convienience. This callouse attitude toward hard working taxpayers amazed me. To take hundreds of dollars more from every taxpayer means incredible sacrifice and hardship for too many citizens.
The far too predictable knee-jerk reaction of calling for more taxes will not fix the problem, it will only create a new problem of even higher taxes than we have today.
I believe there is a better way. It is a simple action, but it could yield incredible results.
If maintaining our infrastructure is that important, it must have a higher priority than all the other priorities. We must limit our spending in other areas to meet the needs of this higher priority. If insuring the soundness of our bridges, roads and water systems is important, something else will have to go on a diet.
New government buildings may have to wait a while longer before they are built. Public funding for education may have to grow at a slower pace. New government systems to pay for medical costs may have to be trimed back.
Cost saving programs in all areas of government will have to be taken more seriously.
Higher taxes are not the answer for a crumbling infrastructure. Serously limiting spending in other areas will put us on the righ path toward addressing the future needs of our bridges, roads and other essential infrastructure systems.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
August 10, 2007
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
Articles
Home / The Issues / Archives
- 2008 Session
- Car Tax
- My Choice for President
- 2008 Election in Colorado
- Ritter's Global Warming Plan
- Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
- Mexican Trucks on U.S. Highways
- School Choice in Colorado
- Setting Our Priorities for Government Spending
2008 Session
In the final days of this year's legislative session several of my bills and resolutions were passed. They included a resolution sent to Congress concerning healthy forests (HJR 1033), a bill setting up a fund for the State Forest Service to fight the bark beetle infestation (HB 1318) and SB 246, opening the way for better discounts for prescription drugs in Colorado. SB 246 completes the work I started last year on modifying the Unfair Trade Practices Act to allow discounting of gas, prescription drugs and other "loss leader" sales.
Earlier this year three more of my bills and one resolution were passed. These bills dealt with telemedicine for Medicaid mental health services, insuring that courts take into account the adjudication of a sexual predator in another state when determining child custody issues, providing employers information about the Federal E-verify system, and reaffirming the right of parents to teach their children at home without any teacher license requirement.
Despite the successes I had with many of my bills, the general trend this year was not a good direction. Many of the bills eroded the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of Colorado. When principles of good government were threatened, I argued against those measures.
SB 200 adds sexual orientation to the list of groups covered under civil rights legislation. An example given in the debate: a wedding photographer, to conduct business in Colorado, will not be able to decline to shoot a "wedding" on the basis of the sexual orientation of the couple. This is just the latest example of identity politics forcing their agenda into public policy.
The legislature put the state in about a billion dollars of debt. SB 206 authorized loans of about $400,000,000 for a new building for the Colorado Supreme Court (replacing the building we built for them thirty years ago.) SB 233 then gave our state colleges and universities the authority to borrow another $400,000,000! These two bills will take over a billion dollars to repay. Neither of these measures will ask the people for a vote to authorize these loans, which the constitution clearly requires.
In the final meeting of the State Affairs committee I helped defeat HCR 1014. This was the ballot question that would have permanently ended TABOR refunds and put state government on an even bigger spending spree than they currently enjoy. Speaker Romanoff's HJR 1014 would have mandated that all TABOR refunds for the tax payers be put in the State Education Fund. This scheme allows the General Assembly to replace money that they are constitutionally obligated to give to K-12 education with money taken from all future TABOR refund checks. HJR 1014 was nothing more than Referendum C on steroids, a permanent tax increase disguised by words about education revealing nothing more than a legislature incapable of controlling it's impulse to spend the people's money.
But wait, there's more... Speaker Romanoff is now trying to put this on the ballot through an initiative petition. Stay tuned, it may be back.
This legislature spent too much, saved very little and grew government as fast and as big as they possibly could. They authorized over 1300 new state employees with a record budget of over $19 billion. Many fees were put on automatic pilot, with individual departments given the authority to raise them whenever they want.
New regulations were created for private colleges, massage therapists, compost (I am not making this stuff up), prohibiting motorized vehicles on most back country roads and too many other regulations to list here.
At least we finally ended the session early - a full day before the deadline. Finally this legislative session will not be able to create any more taxes, fees, or regulations for Colorado's citizens and businesses. Nor will it be setting any more policies that assume the whole "global warming" debate is a settled issue and consequently demands we shut off our energy development, drive up energy costs even higher and eventually cripple our economy in deference to this yet to be proven theory.
There will also not be any more measures that redefine the family or replace the family with more government programs or strip away any more of the few remaining public policies that still support the notion of a free society.
When our unalienable rights of life and liberty are honored individual citizens are understood to be responsible for themselves, parents take the primary authority to raise their own children as they see best and businesses are able to thrive in a competitive, free market. In 2008 the Colorado General Assembly did not give much credence to these ideals, but I assure you, if the voters of House District 49 continue to give me the honor and responsibility, I will continue to work for these principles of good government in our state legislature.
Kevin Lundberg
5/16/08
Back to Top
Car Tax
Transportation is, in my opinion, a high priority for state government. It is also apparent to all who use our roads, bridges and highways that we should do better.
The question is how. Do we increase taxes or increase the priority for transportation spending?
The governor is talking about a $100 car tax. He is calling it a fee, so the people won't be allowed to vote on it, but regardless of what he calls it, it will be a heavy tax on many families who cannot afford it.
There is a better way. Control our spending, find more cost effective ways to conduct the rest of state government and direct more of our $18 billion dollar budget to transportation.
That is why I ran bills this year to find efficiencies in Medicaid and education funding. Unfortunately this year's legislature rejected both bills. Later this session I will be joining Senator McElhany and Representative May in sponsoring a bill that increases the transportation funding priority for sales tax revenues related to auto product sales.
If the legislature would get serious about controlling spending and give transportation a higher priority we could fix our roads and bridges.
In any event I will not support a car tax. It would not fix the problem, it would feed the spending problem we have yet to come to terms with.
Rep. Kevin Lundberg
February 17, 2008
Back to Top
My Choice for President
I support Mike Huckabee.
Without giving specific contrasts with the other three remaining Republican candidates, which could become counter productive to the general election, this is why I believe Governor Huckabee is the best choice:
Character counts the most.
Our President must be someone who we can depend upon to be consistent in principles and honorable in actions. In his personal life and public life I see Mike Huckabee as a man whose faith and principles guide his every step.
Communication skills are essential for our President.
Mike Huckabees ability to communicate his message has been the strength of his campaign. The other Republican candidates have had overwhelming money, significant organizations and long-standing national reputations. Mike started with none of these advantages, but his message has resonated with millions of Americans because of his ability to communicate a clear and reasonable message.
Conservative values must never be abandoned.
Despite all of the campaign rhetoric that has been thrown against Mike Huckabee, and unfortunately by many people who I have a high regard for, I see Mike Huckabee as clearly the most consistent, conservative candidate. I have carefully reviewed the issues in this campaign and when you get down to the facts, they point to Mike Huckabee as being the man who has the most reliable and reasonable conservative values.
In matters of defending life and preserving the institution of marriage he is unquestionably head and shoulders above the rest.
With respect to national security, his commitment to maintaining a strong defense is at least equal to any of the candidates. Huckabee also has a firm resolve to complete our mission in Iraq and successfully wage the war on terror.
Concerning taxes, he is committed to eliminating the IRS and has formally pledged to not raise taxes. These are aggressive goals and commitments that are consistent with principles of limited government.
I have strong confidence in his policies and judgment concerning parental authority and school choice. He understands that parents have the first responsibility to direct their childrens education. Any criticisms I have seen of his policies on school choice have, in my opinion, been without merit.
His nine point plan for securing our borders and controlling the immigration issue is the most specific plan that any candidate has put forth. While I do not concur in every detail, I do see his commitment to seriously fix this problem as the most comprehensive solution among all the presidential candidates.
Mike Huckabee is an innovative thinker with conservative principles. This comes out clearly in his policies concerning our medical system. He understands we need a better road to take but it cannot be a road that leads to any form of socialized medicine.
He is also calling on our nation to implement a plan for energy independence. He knows it is imperative that we aggressively develop all of our energy resources, both traditional and renewable, to have a healthy and strong economy.
Through my legislative experience I have come to understand that character counts first. It is not what a candidate says, it is what they have done that tells us who they are. Mike Huckabees actions are consistent with his words. He is, in my opinion, the best conservative candidate for President in 2008.
Kevin Lundberg
February 1, 2008
Back to Top
2008 Election in Colorado
The 2008 election will be a significant decision for our nation and our state. Its outcome will shape our future in many ways. We cannot afford to get it wrong.
Here in Colorado the challenge is not only for the candidates who will be chosen but this year our election systems are also under scrutiny.
Due to Congresss Help American Vote Act (HAVA), new voting equipment and registration software HAVA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forced on our state and counties and a resulting lawsuit, the legislature must take action to insure a fair and accurate election in 2008.
In previous elections we have had several choices in how to vote and it has been a reasonably secure system of voting. Mail absetee ballots, early voting and election day voting gave the people of Colorado opportunities to vote in the manner they chose and had the most confidence in.
This current dilema, driven by Federal mandates and the court order that we are now facing is causing some to call for a scraping of our system of general election voting and simply mailing out ballots to everyone weeks before the election.
I share the deep concern of many others that this simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution is an even bigger problem. Shipping out all of the ballots to the last known address of all active registered voters will cast a huge cloud of uncertainty to many citizens of Colorado.
Confidence in the voting process is essential. A sweeping change to an all mail ballot election will strain that confidence too much. We should not play such a risky game.
As the legislature wrestles with the many facets of this situation I will do all I can to preserve a trustworthy voting system that includes the full range of voting options for the 2008 election.
The decisons we will make next November are too important to be compromised by inadequate voting systems in Colorado.
We must get it right.
Kevin Lundberg
January 2008
Back to Top
Ritter's Global Warming Plan
Governor Ritter's recently announced climate action plan is supposed to protect our way of life from the dire predictions that some have made about global warming, but the actual details of his initiative are more likely to head us in the opposite direction.
Ritter's entire argument is based on the yet-to-be-proven theory that carbon dioxide is the major source of temperature increases observed over the past 30 years (never mind the fact that temperatures were cooling in the previous 30 years). It also assumes that the carbon we can eliminate or lock up will be enough to offset the explosive growth (and carbon emissions) of China and other developing countries. Finally, it does not take into account the huge direct cost of his action plan, nor the consequent drag it will have on our state's economy as we develop this new game of avoiding carbon emissions at virtually any price.
Let me be clear on one important point. I do believe we should be careful stewards of our land, air and water. We should aggressively move forward with renewable energy solutions for housing, transportation, government and industry. For my own family I designed, built, and we continue to live in, a house that produces its own heat and power from the sun and wind. I am convinced that the opportunities for a healthy and prosperous future do include an increasing reliance on renewable energy.
The problem I have with the governors plan is not that it encourages renewable energy, but that it forces our state to convert to renewable energy solutions before they are economically viable. In addition, because his plan has only skepticism for oil shale, nuclear and large hydro-electric solutions, and the governor has already been dragging his heels when it comes to the development of our traditional oil, gas and coal resources, his claim that this plan will increase our energy security rings hollow.
Ritter's plan calls for dramatic reductions in carbon emissions: 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. These may be laudable goals for efficiency targets, but they will become draconian vices on our state when government mandates ratchet our lives and our industries into compliance.
Colorado has incredible prospects for a very bright future. We are rich in energy resources, both traditional and renewable. Our people are aggressive and forward looking. God has blessed us with every possibility to live prosperous and healthy lives here in Colorado. We should not be misguided into heavy handed government policies that could stifle these opportunities for our children.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
November 7, 2007
Back to Top
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
Recently governor Ritter's blue ribbon panel on future transportation funding held a meeting in Windsor.
The only solutions under serious consideration involved extracting more money from the taxpayer: sales tax on gas, increase vehicle registration fees, tolls on roads and tunnels, "new wheels" tax, visitor tax, roadway maintenance fees, sales tax on deliveries, per-mile driven tax, weight-distance tax...
Nowhere to be found was a serious discussion of living within our current means by prioritizing highway construction over ultra-expensive mass transit programs, or limiting other state programs or even cutting out some of the waste, inefficiencies and low priority spending that currently exists in transportation funding systems.
This attitude is typical for government bureaucracies. In contrast, we the people are more realistic. We know that for every $100 the government adds in taxes and fees we will have to eliminate that much more in our personal budget.
It is the economic reality of priorities.
Yet the call for more from the taxpayer is increasing to a crescendo.
Another commission, concerning medical costs, is looking at proposals that might double or triple our income tax. Last session the legislature approved a property tax increase (without the constitutionaly mandated vote of the people) and, when the real numbers came out they were double what was quoted during the legislative session. The originally quoted price tag for Referendum C was $3.2 billion. The current estimate is now $5.99 billion and counting.
The burden on the taxper is already too high for the robust economy of which our state is capable.
The good news is that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) is still a part of our state constitution. All we now need is a legislature that will uphold it.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
October 12, 2007
Back to Top
Mexican Trucks on U.S. Highways
The Colorado legislature took a strong stand against the NAFTA tribunal-ordered pilot program allowing 100 Mexican trucking companies onto all U.S. highways. The votes were taken back in April and little public attention was givern to the measures, but today the Mexican truck program is well known and this bi-partisan stand by the Colorado legislature should be spoken of as well.
Two resolutions were passed. SJR07-044 was sponsored by Senator Tochtrop, a Democrat, and I, a Republican, was the prime sponsor of the other resolution, HJR07-1048.
Senator Tochtrop's measure demanded that no highway safety regulations be circumvented in any way by the Mexican trucks on our highways and my measure went on to demand that all security issues be fully satisfied before any such program be allowed.
Both measures aimed at the same point: do not fast-track this program. A NAFTA tribunal dictated the terms of this program. Our internal laws and regulations insuring safety on the highways and security at and within our borders should never be compromised to satisfy any international court.
Of course the ultimate reality is that the U.S. Congress and not the Colorado legislature has the final authority, but the people of Colorado need to know that their legislature did what was in their power to speak for the people of Colorado on this troubling issue.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
September 13, 2007
Back to Top
School Choice in Colorado
A recent report on school choice found Colorado to be, at best, stalled out.
Once recognized as a leader in the school choice movement, our state has lost that momentum. For many years Colorado has had inter-district open enrollment, was one of the first state to establish charter schools, and passed a ground breaking school voucher bill in 2003.
This year the only bills to be approved by the legislature restricted educational choice.
Parent's should be given every opportunity to provide for their children the educational format that best fits each individual child. The taxpayer should have the confidence that their money is being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Colorado should once again become a leader in promoting school choice.
For these reasons I will be introducing an educational tax credit bill in next year's session.
This bill will give parents who choose a private education option a property tax credit which can help them shoulder the huge financial burden of a non-public funded education. Because the tax credit will cost the state only a fraction of what it takes for that student's public school funding, it can also be a boon for the public school system by leaving a larger per-student pool of funds available for public schools.
In addition, to address the needs of families that, even with the tax credit, cannot afford the best options for thier children, the bill will include a tax credit for creating educational scholarship programs.
My educational tax credit bill will help stretch Colorado's education dollars, give children the opportunities that best fit their needs and re-establish Colorado as a leader in school choice.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
September 12, 2007
Back to Top
Setting Our Priorities for Government Spending
The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis has caused everyone to reevaluate the soundness of our nations infrastructure. Many are calling for new taxes to address these concerns.
The other day I saw a Minnesota legislator call for that state to increase gas taxes by about $750 per car. He said to fund it people will jus have to cut back on Starbucks coffee, or some other trivial and optional convienience. This callouse attitude toward hard working taxpayers amazed me. To take hundreds of dollars more from every taxpayer means incredible sacrifice and hardship for too many citizens.
The far too predictable knee-jerk reaction of calling for more taxes will not fix the problem, it will only create a new problem of even higher taxes than we have today.
I believe there is a better way. It is a simple action, but it could yield incredible results.
If maintaining our infrastructure is that important, it must have a higher priority than all the other priorities. We must limit our spending in other areas to meet the needs of this higher priority. If insuring the soundness of our bridges, roads and water systems is important, something else will have to go on a diet.
New government buildings may have to wait a while longer before they are built. Public funding for education may have to grow at a slower pace. New government systems to pay for medical costs may have to be trimed back.
Cost saving programs in all areas of government will have to be taken more seriously.
Higher taxes are not the answer for a crumbling infrastructure. Serously limiting spending in other areas will put us on the righ path toward addressing the future needs of our bridges, roads and other essential infrastructure systems.
Representative Kevin Lundberg
August 10, 2007
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
