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.
No comments:
Post a Comment