Comments for Mark Hillman

Comment on More health care ‘help’ we can’t afford by Paul Hsieh, MD

Paul Hsieh, MD — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:29:53 +0000

Thank you for pointing out the problem with these “mandatory benefits”.

This problem will only become worse if the US adopts a Massachusetts-style system of mandatory health insurance. That will create a giant magnet for every special interest group seeking to have their pet benefit included in the mandatory package. MA residents have to purchase all sorts of benefits they neither need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization or chiropractor services.

I shudder to think about the lobbying frenzy that will occur if ObamaCare passes, and we have a nation wide system of mandatory insurance.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp

Comment on A wonderfully concise ruling on TABOR by Alan Hale

Alan Hale — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:47:21 +0000

Dear Mark:
Excellent Commentary in today’s Post! Please keep the spotlight on the Supremes and the danger they present to Colorado’s sovereignty.
Hope you are ready to bring your intelligence, youth and conservative common sense back to public service.
How has the moisture been out there this winter?

Comment on Workers can’t ignore cost of PERA ‘fix’ by Mark Hillman

Mark Hillman — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:26:15 +0000

I’ve read about the Pew study, but haven’t read it directly, so I’m relying on WageSlave’s summary of it. That said, Pew is incorrect if it asserts that the state missed any of its scheduled PERA payments. The state has suspended payments to other pension plans, but not to PERA. Pew assumes, however, that when there’s a shortfall in the plan’s amortization schedule — whether due to increased benefits or investment losses — that the state should pay more to make up for that. Some pension plans actually impose these contribution increases on state budgets automatically. Colorado law requires legislation to change contribution levels. Since 2004, the state’s contribution to PERA has been increased from 10.15 percent to 16.15 percent — or to 20.15 if this year’s PERA “fix” is passed.

Comment on Workers can’t ignore cost of PERA ‘fix’ by WageSlave

WageSlave — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:19:33 +0000

While it is easy to blame PERA and employee groups for the current funding problems facing PERA, according to a report by “The PEW Center On The States” titled “The Trillion Dollar Gap: Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform” the state is also a party to the problem. In fact the article has a special section that focuses on Colorado. In that section it states the three reasons for the current PERA funding issues are 1. Increased benefits, 2. Missed contributions, and 3. Investment losses. The missed contributions are contributions from the state. From the article:

“Missed contributions. Up until 2002, the state paid its contributions regularly. But thedot-com bust and investment losses in the early part of this decade led to a jump in required contributions that the state could not meet. Over the past six years, the state paid only between 50 percent and 70 percent of its actuarially required contribution, for a total of $2.4 billion in payments that were skipped.95 These missed payments are added to future payments with the result that the contribution requirement goes up. The required contribution was more than 11 percent of payroll in 2004 and had grown to about 17.9 percent of payroll in 2008. While the plans paid $2.8 billion in actual benefits to retirees in 2008, contributions that came in from employers and employees amounted to only $1.6 billion.96″

So, the PERA problem has been simmering since 2002. Colorado is not alone with this problem. In fact only 4 states have fully funded public pensions.

Ref: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=56695

http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/The_Trillion_Dollar_Gap_final.pd

Comment on HB 1168: The Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act of 2010 by HB10-1168: Fight Expected At Hearing Today For ‘Make Whole’ Bill | Law Week Online

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:02:37 +0000

[...] lobbyist Patrick Boyle said. Mark Hillman, a former state senator and former Colorado treasurer, has dubbed the bill the “The Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act of 2010.” “While claiming to help injured parties receive [...]

Comment on Workers can’t ignore cost of PERA ‘fix’ by R Westphal

R Westphal — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:11:27 +0000

I have been a “small business” employer for most all of my adult life. Real business, as compared to “government business” can only afford to fund retirement if it can cover those expenses. If I made wrong decisions then no one bales me out.
I am really tired of the wining of PERA people . I am really tired of paying for their unbelieveable “retirement” benefits too. I am tired of insuring their future at the expense of the entire people of this state.
Here’s how I see it.
When social security finally stops (coming soon to a “retirement village” near you) so too will stop the ludicrous PERA retirement benefit plans that are bankrupting our state government. When the “retirment benefits” of the government of Colorado bankrupt the State of Colorado then PERA recipients will receive what the employees of any other bankrupt private sector company receive. You can not squeeze blood out of dried up turnip. Wake up! The time is past for HOPE in imaginary pots of gold. The reality is that we, the people of the State of Colorado, can no longer keep our “public servants” like they would like to be kept. We the People of the State of Colorado are tired of serving those who have been hired to serve us.

Comment on HB 1168: The Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act of 2010 by Mark Hillman

Mark Hillman — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:31:02 +0000

The Colorado state legislature’s web page is:
http://www.leg.state.co.us

Comment on HB 1168: The Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act of 2010 by JP

JP — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:53:59 +0000

After MUCH searching, I cannot find ANY information for this Bill, other than in 2008 regarding school. Where can I find CURRENT information within Colorado’s gov’t. ? If this is a viable Bill for 2010, who can we contact within the House????

Comment on Workers can’t ignore cost of PERA ‘fix’ by MacRainey

MacRainey — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:48:23 +0000

I am a current state employee and have a long time to go till I reach retirement. First off PERA is no big sweetheart deal for the working guy. Back when PERA first came in guys could buy years into PERA and most of them had alreaady retired from another company, so now they all have two retirements coming in, and all the low guys with entry level jobs footing the bills. PERA retirment is the main reason guys come into state jobs, the private sector has way better pay scales, but the state offers the safe jobs, which family guys look for. The health care plans are basically catastrophic plans and you pay out of pocket for everything. If the state cant keep its hands out of the state workers pockets then they will have trouble not only retaining employees but finding new guys to replace all the retirees. Not to mention the furlough days, and loss of wages that are currently happening. For instance, these pay raises are non existant, the legislature gives themselves raises, but the state employee is overlooked. Out of the past ten years most guys say they got one cost of living increase and one pay for performance increase. The Romer years looked out for the employee, but the last two guys could care less. The state budget should not be balanced on the back of the worker, it just wont work. As far as PERA is concerned, with these mythical pay raises banked out of our checks, what it really means is a pay decrease from dwindling paychecks over the next three years. After that PERA will be worse off, so will the state, the recession is nowhere close to ending, look in the stores at prices, seen any coming down lately? Paying less for basic needs, how about gas prices, or insurance costs? If wages dont increase with the inflation then the money is worth less anyways, so the state to help itself to the workers checks anymore, we shall see workers quiting, and those jobs not being filled back up, nobody can afford to lose pay when everything costs more for to long before they just have to throw in the towel. As PERA changes guys are looking at retiring before the new rules take effect, and these guys positions wont be refilled, putting more workload on the guys at the bottom. Eventually the guy on the bottom gets crushed under the weight of the beaurocracy, which tears apart families, causes more forclosures, more loan defaults, and continues the downward spiral. The retiree gets the guarantee of the cost of living increase, the guy working in the field gets less of his take home every month and no guarantee of future raises, which means a guarantee of more money of of our checks and no pay raises for the next decade. Not much incentive to keep the state worker in place, and during a recession the state is the last entity to bounce back. Always has been three years behind. Like the services you enjoy currently, give it a couple years and see the condition of the schools, roads and social services. We have seen nothing yet, plus I am not only a state employee, I am also a tax payer same as anyone else.

Comment on Colorado can’t afford another ‘business-friendly’ Democrat by Mike

Mike — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:23:35 +0000

Mark, Well done, as usual, and all your points are well taken. But if my choice for Governor is a career lawyer/lobbyist/politician, regardless of what letter comes after his name, and an entrepreneur turned politician who has actually accomplished something in the private sector…well, let’s just say as a life long Republican, I’ve grown sick and tired of the career lawyer/lobbyist/politicians.