Email letters, April 18, 2012
We can ill afford a representative like Dan Robinson
The annual battle over the Long Bill budget for the state of Colorado began last week and after passing the House 64–1.Iit is now in the hands of the Senate. Incumbent in this battle will be the Democrats, led by Gov. Hickenlooper, arguing for more money, especially for education.
Paralleling this battle will be the introduction of the ASSET Bill in the State House which will, if passed, allow illegal immigrants in Colorado to receive special tuition breaks that US citizens do not receive.
The hidden, 2000-pound gorilla in these battles will be the Democrats stance on illegal immigration; illegal immigrants are welcome and legal citizens should pay for them. As Democrats continue to gloss over its costs to the state of Colorado with emotion-driven arguments, the real needs of the people of our state, like jobs, are ignored.
Right now illegal immigration eats about $1.4 billion from the state of Colorado. Ironically, this figure is roughly equal to the deficit in the budget the state has faced in each of the past 3 years during our current recession.
The hypocrisy of the situation is that Gov. Hickenlooper turned Denver into a sanctuary city, basically ignoring the immigration laws of the United States and making it a haven for illegal immigrants. How can the governor justify this position as it costs the state so much money? How can he say he is for fiscal responsibility while he is the cheer-leader of a $1.4 billion drain on the state budget?
Gov. Hickenlooper argues the need for more money for education while at the same time pushes a bill that will decrease the amount of money coming into the state coffers. How can he be for equality when he proposes that if you are from nearby Cheyenne, Wyoming your tuition would be $19,000, but if you are from Senegal or Norway and living in this country and Colorado illegally, your tuition would be about $8,500?
The question hits even closer to home in Mesa County, where Dan Robinson is challenging Ray Scott in State House District 55. Mr. Robinson happens to be an attorney who does pro-bono work for illegal aliens. His hypocrisy runs deep as he claimed to serve the education system on the Mesa County School District 51 School Board as well as the Colorado Mesa University Board. While budget cuts were being implemented at these institutions that are primarily attended by Colorado students, Dan Robinson was helping cost the state of $1.4 billion to benefit illegal aliens. How does he justify this?
While Mesa County School District 51 was asking for tax increases on struggling homeowners and businesses during a recession, a tax increase that Dan Robinson supported, Robinson was helping create the fiscal crisis by costing the state of Colorado $1.4 billion. The tax increase was voted down, but Dan Robinson, unrepentant, has resurfaced as a candidate for state office.
The question for Mesa County voters is, “Can we afford to put someone like Dan Robinson in office who is so financially irresponsible that he has helped cost the state billions by aiding foreigners who break the law.” Let’s not begin to consider what he would support were he ever in office.
Dan Robinson is touting himself as the best candidate for House District 55 since Bernie Buescher. Need I remind the folks of Mesa County that Buescher was the state Representative who raised taxes on his own constituents, but not anyone else in the state. Now comes Dan Robinson, who wants to raise your taxes again and give tuition breaks and free services to illegal immigrants.
We residents of the Western Slope cannot afford this kind of representation nor can we afford to lose common-sense representatives like Ray Scott. Our focus should be the economy and on job-creation; that is the number one priority for our citizens and for our state.
Technology has changed since ‘Black Sunday’
At a recent hearing on a proposed Mesa County resolution regarding the latest Oil Shale Environmental Impact Statement, opponents of the resolution repeatedly brought up the specter of “Black Sunday”, that date in 1980 when Exxon suddenly closed the doors on its oil shale project in the Piceance Basin. They seemed to think of it as an argument against current oil shale development.
In case these folks missed it, a lot has changed in the intervening 32 years. Technology, for example — how many smart phones, DVRs, laptops and GPS devices were around back then? For that matter, how many directional drill bits and computerized rigs were in operation then? Not surprisingly, the technology related to oil shale has managed not to remain static for those 30 years either. We’ve come a long way baby.
The source of funding for oil shale development has also changed. As Commissioner Janet Rowland pointed out in the hearing, the Exxon Project, the shutdown of which caused so much regional misery, was directly subsidized by the government. Current oil shale efforts are entirely funded by private risk, not public dollars, unlike renewable energies such as solar — think Solyndra (OK, maybe some things don’t change).
The fact is that Black Sunday was a terrible social and economic tragedy for the Western Slope, and ought to be recognized as such. But similarly, the Titanic was a terrible tragedy as well, and the response was not, thankfully, to discontinue maritime travel.
Oil shale’s opponents, if they feel so inclined, can go back home to their 8-tracks, disco balls and Jimmy Carter campaign buttons, and wallow in the tragedy of that day; the rest of us prefer to look to the future.
Republicans also guilty of unChristian acts
After reading Mike Bambino’s letter in the April 17 edition of The Daily Sentinel, it’s become apparent to me that there is currently a war against Christ that I hadn’t previously been aware of. I’m not going to recite every allegation he lays at the feet of the Democratic party. The main thrust of his attack seems to be how unChristian society has become. All thanks to the Democratic party.
Times do change, and that seems to be a concept many people appear to have trouble accepting. If you went back in time 200 years, you would find a much different soceity then you do today. In fact that society would seem very similar to what we rally against in the Islamic world today. Wife gets out of line? Beat her senseless a few times. She’ll figure it out. Feeling a little tired these days? Go buy another slave to take care of those nuisance problems around the old homestead.
My point is that these were all accepted practices a couple of hundred years ago. More then likely one of the few things both Republicans and Democrats could agree on today is that these practices were reprehensible. I’d even go as far as to say that we question how any person could ever have defended them. Times change.
As far as Democrats being responsible for all unChristian behavior, all I can say is, good. It’s not their job to be Christian or unChristian. Their job is to pass legislation that benefits all people, not just those who refer to themselves as Christians. I’ll finish by dredging up the big kahuna of idealogical disagreement: health insurance. How Christian is the Republican party being when they work so diligently to deny heath insurance availability to a third of the country?