Roar of the crowd saves Pinnacol money

Gov. Bill Ritter must have been listening to the crowd of anti-tax demonstrators outside his window when he pulled his administration away from taking the $500 million of Pinnacol Assurance surplus assets on the negotiating table for the state budget.

Ritter made clear that he doesn't want the state's institutions of higher education to suffer $300 million in cuts proposed by the Joint Budget Committee, but he ducked under the desk, as it were, when it came to taking the money from an employer favorite, Pinnacol.

It will be interesting to see if the governor will sign a bill that remains that would make clear Colorado state government controls Pinnacol surplus money, if indeed that law is passed by the legislature.

But in the meantime there are those anti-tax folks who were outside his window.

Democrats, progressives and liberals ought to take note of the crowd, which was estimated at more than 5,000 outside the Capitol. The Denver Post, the only major newspaper in town anymore, said the anti-tax "tea party" was one of a dozen held throughout Colorado and 750 reportedly held throughout the country. That kind of turnout cannot be ignored by incumbent politicians, even if their incumbency is as "young" as the Obama administration's.

What the rallies showed is conservatives -- from the now less-influential Christian right and Moral Majority, to the blathering talk show hosts who can still whip up a frenzy -- still hold power over some people, and the millions of voters who cast ballots for John McCain didn't lose their voices or their ability to make placards with Obama's election.

It was fun to read the Post's quote of demonstrator Bertha Holland from the rally. "It's pretty sad that I've lived 65 years and never had a reason before to protest something," Holland told the Post. But what is sad is that Holland never had the guts during 65 years of life to oppose her government on an issue before Wednesday.

Ritter is right to heed the demonstrators, and put the budget-balancing act on the backs of doctors and other less powerful special interests, like state employees, who are going to lose money in the budget deal no matter how it falls. He'd be wrong if he raises fees paid by the general public to the point they create their own opposition to his politics.

But balance is a critical skill for a politician.

Balancing on a razor's edge is dangerous, but always entertaining folly.

Pinnacol could be a hero

By the time I'm writing this, a House committee has approved the first of two measures sent it by the Senate that would lead to the transfer of $500 million in surplus assets of Pinnacol Assurance to balance the state budget.

And Gov. Bill Ritter has made it clear that $300 million in cuts to the state's institutions of higher education are unacceptable.

That's a good move on the governor's part; it signals to the legislature that lawmakers must come up with a way to make up the higher-education funding by re-writing the current budget as approved by the Senate, and leaves the raid on Pinnacol's assets as a viable way to do it.

There are other ways, and despite resistance of members of the Joint Budget Committee to considering elimination of tax exemptions to make up the money, or imposing salary reductions for state workers, the governor also has signaled those options are viable, too.

One way or another, Ritter, a good Democrat, has said the General Assembly should find a new way to balance the budget besides its traditional dumping of the chore on the backs of the state's college students and faculty. A state constitutional amendment now protects the backs of public-school students.

Pinnacol can afford to give up the money for the greater good. As a creation of the state, it would be nice to see the company figure out a way to help out.

Give and take, Part II

It's no surprise, nor improper, for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to order up an opinion on the legislative plan to balance the state budget with surplus assets of Pinnacol Assurance. It is inaccurate to call the opinion a ruling, however, as The Denver Post did in its Saturday morning editions.

The opinion is just politics; how one plays the game. And, yes, Republican AG Suthers is trying to influence the Democratic majorities in both houses of the General Assembly.

If Suthers can keep the Democrats from passing a law to take $500 million in employer-paid workers' comp insurance premiums from Pinnacol, the AG's office won't be forced to defend the law when some taxpaying or insurance-premium-paying Republican businessman or woman challenges it in court.

As The Post pointed out in its coverage, which started on its front page, the challenge to the Pinnacol law before it is even enacted echoes Suthers' challenge of a Ritter administration policy last year that allowed the state to collect more tax money from school property taxes. That law passed despite a negative Suthers opinion of it; it was challenged and upheld by the state Supreme Court; and the tax money that was collected helped fund Colorado schools.

The same result probably would be repeated in the Pinnacol situation.

Pinnacol is a quasi-government entity created by the state to offer employers low-cost workers' comp insurance and it has done such a good job of that it has built up a surplus of assets -- some might call the money surplus business taxes -- that serve to overprotect Pinnacol's ability to pay claims as well as serve as equity to support Pinnacol's ability to offer the low rates it charges private businesses.

Pro-business people naturally suggest the money should be kept by Pinnacol to enable it to continue the business tax breaks they get via the low insurance premiums.

Democrats who argue the money belongs to the state are essentially suggesting it be used for the common good of all Coloradans, not just to enhance the state's business environment.

Still, Suthers' opinion has weight and ought to be considered.

Democratic lawmakers, however, need not treat it like a ruling, and probably ought to do the same thing with it they did with the property-tax law: Pass it; get the governor to sign it, let the law be challenged, and then collect the money after the Colorado Supreme Court rules it's okay. Pinnacol might even have more of a surplus by the time that all happens, and new funds could help cushion the pre-set hit.

It may be that the Supreme Court could throw its own opinion into the legislative debate and save a lot of people a lot of wasted time.

But the Court's decisions can be just as political as the AG's, and, in politics, timing is everything.

Give and take at the legislature

Cutting state-employee salaries rather than the budgets of the state colleges is a good idea, especially if state legislators take several hundred more millions of dollars from Pinnacol Assurance to plug the budget sink holes.

Generally, Republican lawmakers favor the salary cuts and oppose the Pinnacol raid, and Democrats, generally, mirror those positions in reverse, meaning they favor the raid on assets and oppose the salary cuts.

But Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter's administration has grown the state payroll, so he should be just as willing to cut back to save the state dough in its financial crisis.

At the same time, Pinnacol has grown its surplus by keeping the cost of workers-comp insurance low for businesses throughout the state. To give some of the money up for the best interests of all the people, shouldn't be too hard a political stretch. Ken Ross, president and CEO of Pinnacol, may already have seen that light on the subject.

Compromise is the height of lawmaking, so our legislators, who usually plum the debths of partisanship, should get together on this and work out a solution.

It would be refreshing to see it get done.