Vande Krol’s Three Point Plan for Job Growth

The number one priority of voters all across Colorado, and especially here in House District 35 is jobs. However, to improve Colorado’s economy, to help families, and to properly fund our government, we need to be concerned about private sector jobs.

Government jobs and programs can be funded only by tax dollars. Taking tax dollars to create jobs only funnels money through inefficient government and redistributes it to politically favored businesses. Because of the inefficiency of the tax system, many of those tax dollars are wasted on unproductive activities. Research indicates that it costs as much as $65 in overhead and waste to bring in $100 in federal tax revenue[1]. There is no reason to believe that Colorado’s taxing system is more efficient. Using tax dollars to create jobs is like taking water out of the deep end of the pool to fill the shallow end, and losing most of the water in the process. The end result is less water in the pool, less money in the private sector to create jobs.

Simply put, everything we expect from our government is possible only through taxing the private sector. More people working means more tax revenue. Tax policy should be designed to maximize revenue to the government while minimizing harm to the private sector. It should not be designed to make political investments in favored sectors. Government has a notoriously bad history when it comes to investing our tax dollars on business ventures.

We can have job growth here, but not by resorting to more government intervention. Job growth will happen when government gets out of the way and allows more people to pursue their dreams. I have a simple three-point plan that will enable more people to create small businesses and employ more people.

1.  Accountable Legislation

First, we need to better evaluate the effect of new laws. In Colorado, well over 300 bills become law each year. Many of them have adverse impacts on businesses and therefore on job creation. The businesses that will be affected by these new laws are sometimes not even aware of the impending damage. Governor Hickenlooper suggested that we have a “Business Impact Statement” for each new bill[2]. I agree. Let’s make that happen.

Legislative Council would designate a “waiting period” for each bill, and collect public comments about the impact of the bill. Thereafter, Council would issue a Business Impact Statement so that legislators would be better able to weigh the costs and benefits of each new proposed law.

2. Accountable Regulation

Regulations are an important part of civilized society. However, if the rules keep changing, or become so complex that they can’t be navigated without legal help, they become a barrier for small businesses that many cannot overcome. Colorado government agencies publish an average of over 15,000 pages of new regulations each year[3]. That’s on top of existing regulations.

We need to re-evaluate each government regulatory agency to determine if they actually provide any benefit to the public, and weigh that benefit against the cost. Further, re-evaluate the businesses and activities that fall under the jurisdiction of each agency. Some industries are better able to police themselves outside of government interference. Consumers are often better judges of a business than government. Reducing the power, scope, and quantity of regulating agencies will reduce costs for taxpayers and consumers, and lessen the barriers to entry for many would-be business owners.

3. Reigning in the Colorado Department of Labor

Give more choice to Colorado workers by strengthening the legal definition of “independent contractor.” The Colorado Department of Labor (CDL) has directly threatened the livelihoods of 1 in 7 Colorado workers that it believes are “misclassified employees.”[4] That’s 14% of working Coloradans! These workers chose to be business owners instead of employees, but the state is harassing and extorting the businesses they contract with, simply because the state is trying to find some way to make up for nearly $600 million it borrowed to pay unemployment benefits after the benefits trust fund became insolvent[5].

Current Colorado law lists a set of nine criteria for independent contractors. To qualify as an independent contractor, you have to meet the preponderance of these qualifications by evidence. Bureaucrats and auditors in the CDL have taken it upon themselves to interpret these qualifications in an arbitrary and severe manner.

By liberalizing the definition of independent contractor, the legislature can make more opportunities available for start-up businesses, and remove the threats to 14% of Colorado workers and the businesses with which they contract, which means more jobs!

Vande Krol’s Plan – More jobs, less government

Colorado is a land of opportunities. These three actions, each one limiting government, will allow more people to turn their ideas into opportunities and create businesses and jobs.

My Opponent’s Plan

My opponent has a five-point plan for job growth[6]. With the exception of the fifth point, they all require more government. All five points have serious flaws.

Her first four schemes involve more government spending, more bureaucracy, more gifts to politically favored big industries and big businesses, more risky investments with taxpayer dollars, more government replacement of private sector, and more top-down government control of classrooms.

The fifth plank in her plan calls for common sense. But after studying her legacy of higher taxes, regulations, cronyism, bureaucratization, and failure to recognize priorities, you have to ask, “where was her common sense for the previous years?”

You can learn more about the inadequacies of her plan at brianvandekrol.blogspot.com.

A Clear Choice

Jobs are created when a free society works to further individual interests. Government’s role is to protect individual rights. When government spends taxpayer dollars on ill-advised schemes, individual rights are eroded and jobs are lost.

You have a choice to make: do you want less government and more jobs, or more government and fewer jobs?

---

[1] James L. Payne, Six Political Illusions (Sandpoint, ID: Lytton Publishing Company, 2010) p. 60.

[2] http://www.cpr.org/article/Hickenlooper_Delivers_State_of_the_State

[3] http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/ebb72621d52ddd1d872579970072aa44/$FILE/120201%20AttachD.pdf

[4] http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_19477193

[5] http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20993933/colorado-sells-bonds-restock-unemployment-insurance-fund

[6] Peniston mailer, September, 2012

De-constructing My Opponent’s Plan for Job Growth

My opponent has a five-point plan for job growth. With the exception of her fifth point, they all require more government. All five points have serious flaws.

1. The HIRE Colorado Plan

This is a bill that was defeated last year in the Colorado Assembly. It would give in-state contractors a 5% preference on State contracts. And while it sounds good, it would raise the price of State contracts by 5%. That would directly cut into funding that would otherwise be available for education, transportation, the criminal justice system, and other priorities.

Colorado law already requires 80% Colorado residents on State and local projects. The HIRE act adds costs with negligible benefits. In fact, it may cost jobs.

Colorado’s contractors don’t just depend on in-state contracts – many also work out of state. If Colorado enacts protectionist schemes, other states are likely to retaliate. Our contractors that work with other states will lose out. Business groups have spoken out against this plan, including Associated General Contractors, Colorado Concern, and National Federation of Independent Businesses.

2. Innovation Investment Tax Credit

Although my opponent has offered few details, this is apparently a scheme whereby your tax dollars are funneled through inefficient government to companies that unelected bureaucrats deem to be sufficiently “innovative” as to require additional funding. We should always keep in mind that if a company needs a subsidy, it probably doesn’t deserve it. And if it doesn’t need it, why should we provide it? This is exactly the sort of scheme that resulted in the Solyndra debacle, which cost taxpayers over a half billion dollars and ended 1200 jobs. In our free market system, customers (not governments) reward innovators.

After a search of her voting record, this is the first example I could find of her supporting any kind of a tax reduction. This is nothing more than corporate welfare and an awful attempt to buy votes with taxpayer dollars.

3.  Government operated micro-loan fund

This is another scheme whereby government will take over, in the form of lending, the functions of private enterprise and free markets.  Government is not qualified to determine what is a good investment, and what is not. If they choose poorly, taxpayers (you and I) lose.

There is no doubt that small business start-ups are having a difficult time accessing loans. Private lenders are rightfully nervous about lending money in these economic conditions. More importantly, they are nervous about lending money to a business that will see ever increasing compliance costs because of ever increasing laws, regulations, and taxes on businesses.

The solution is to reduce government burdens on businesses and create a stable regulation and tax environment, one that will excite private investment in a truly free market.

4. STEM Education

My opponent wants to “invest in our classrooms to create a stronger focus on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM),” ostensibly to create more jobs. While that is a noble goal, it is not a jobs program. It is a top–down, government-oriented wish-list item that takes control away from parents, teachers, and school boards. Parents should find her desire to control their classrooms particularly troubling.

Government mandates on education reduce parental involvement because choices are eliminated. The solution for better education is to offer parents more voice and choice, and to provide an equal opportunity for an excellent education for all Colorado children. My opponent offers neither.

My opponent has sat on the House Education Committee for six years. She has been ineffective at making meaningful reforms in all that time. In fact, she has fought important reforms. To complicate matters, she has never demonstrated any sense of responsibility with our tax dollars. Instead of restraining spending to better fund our priorities and make investments in education possible, she promotes tax and spending increases.

Her plan to create jobs by improving education is too little, too late.

5. Common Sense Solutions

This bit of populism can only lead one to ask, “Where was common sense in her first six years at the legislature?” Common sense is not a plan, but it is an attribute that my opponent has been sorely lacking in the last six years.

The Wrong Choice

My opponent, in her six years as a state representative, has voted consistently against small businesses, workers, parents, students, and teachers. Her plan for the next two years will cause more harm than good.

Unemployment - increasing and personal

Bureaucrats hire economists to do studies and produce numbers. Politicians use those numbers to buy votes. With enough votes, politicians use your taxpayer dollars to hire more bureaucrats to hire more economists to produce more statistics.

Meanwhile, your neighbor's home was foreclosed.

The house is falling apart. The lawn is brown, except for the weeds. Another neighbor has lost her job. Many are concerned that the businesses they work for may not be able to employ them much longer.

You don't need a bureaucrat to know that things are bad.

But they told us anyway. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment recently told us that 8,400 Coloradans lost their jobs last month and another 11,300 became so discouraged that they quit looking for work.

Over 20 years ago, I opened Paradise Rock Gym, my first business. Adams County government welcomed my business, eliminating red tape, allowing me to focus on building my business, gaining customers, and selling something that people willingly bought. I willingly provided benefits for my employees, so they would willingly continue working for me. It was a solid middle class business, helping middle class people earn a living while pursuing their dreams.

These days, our government, with its insatiable desire to control our lives, regulate our businesses, and confiscate our money prevents businesses from doing what I did.

The bureaucrats tell us what we already know - our government is hurting us, the very people it claims to help.

Innovation Investment Tax Credits Hurt Free Markets

According to Dictionary.com, innovation is “something new or different introduced”.  The caveman that turned a round rock into a wheel and used it to move things was an innovator. Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple was an innovator. Even the neighbor kid who convinces you to let him mow your lawn is an innovator, because he tapped a new market. And the single mother who gets her kids to band practice, finds the time to help her kids with homework, and goes to work to provide for her family – that’s innovation.

So innovation is good, right? It expands our economy, helps businesses thrive and improves lives. Businesses, in turn, hire more people, buy more equipment, invest in more innovation.

However, not all innovations are equal.

In free markets, entrepreneurs are rewarded when they bring valuable innovations to their customers. And only the free market can determine whether those innovations are valuable. But when government decides to reward “innovators” it becomes a political decision - not a free market decision. Politicians have a notoriously bad track record when it comes to making good investment decisions.

My opponent in my campaign for State Representative believes her “Innovation Investment Tax Credit” idea will create jobs. However, that has just never proven to be the case.

An innovation tax credit requires that all taxpayers pay more taxes so that the few politically favored businesses (those that the government defines as “innovative”) can receive gifts from the government. If your neighbor kid somehow innovates the best, most innovative lawn mowing service in the world, he will likely not be popular enough with the State Legislature to get payouts.  

This is not government by consent of the governed - - it is government by elitists who believe they know what’s best for you and your family.

It’s what caused the debacle with Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 billion in federally guaranteed loans and then went bankrupt, eliminating 1200 jobs, and leaving you and me to pay the bill.

It is what nearly forced Colorado taxpayers to spend $300 million on the Gaylord Hotels project, a project which Gaylord itself decided is no longer financially viable. We dodged the bullet on that one.

My opponent’s “Innovation Investment Tax Credit” scheme is just another example of her flawed understanding of how economies and businesses work. In her vision for Colorado, entrepreneurs who have more concern for politicians and bureaucrats than customers will benefit – regular people like you and me will be left to struggle on our own against her redistributionist policies.

Many politicians seem to believe that government’s main purpose is to help them buy votes. I believe that my fellow citizens are smarter than that. They can run their own lives, they can build their own businesses, they can find employment in a thriving economy - if only government will get out of the way.