Welcome, friends, to the inaugural Guest Blog post of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Watch Council. We are excited to offer this new forum to not just our members but to the entire community as a medium for sharing information, exchanging ideas and, for some (myself included!), to get your political fix. The great (or dubious, depending on your perspective) honor of kicking off our blog has fallen to me, and I hope I'll do it justice.
These are unprecedented times in Colorado and, indeed, across these United States of America. The economic crisis we face as a state and as a union is driving the political debate in profound ways. The work that will be necessary to navigate this time in our history is substantial and not for the faint-hearted. Our elected representatives face incredible decisions that will impact Coloradans of all political, social and economic stripes. Yes indeed, these are unprecedented times.
There are a whole host of issues that deserve attention-I'll focus on one that's near and dear to me.
I've long believed that public policy here in our great state must surely be done in a vacuum. This is not an indictment of our elected representatives, but is, perhaps, a statement on our political system.
Our system is characterized by term limits for our elected representatives, a state constitution that more resembles an over-decorated Christmas tree than the foundational document that enumerates the powers and functions of our government, unnecessarily complicated and conflicting tax policy that isn't always aligned with Colorado priorities, and a lengthy annual legislative session that has the potential to produce hundreds of new laws each year. Amid these conditions, there is little opportunity to contemplate public policy in a comprehensive, even strategic way.
One perhaps inevitable result of these conditions is an unnecessarily complex and burdensome regulatory environment. To put it mildly, Colorado is in need of regulatory reform. The time is now, particularly given the State's economic straits, which, by the way, look unlikely to abate anytime soon. We need not spend desperately precious resources on compliance to regulations purely for the sake of compliance.
Regulatory reform is neither a Republican nor Democratic issue. It's a Colorado business issue of significance. It is also a core priority for the Legislative Watch Council. We acknowledge-and even embrace-the need for sensible, well considered regulation. We believe in the need for basic consumer protections. Regulation is not a dirty word! However, we also believe that when regulation becomes more a function of unnecessarily bloated bureaucracy, there is a need to take a close and careful look at what makes sense and what doesn't. Now is such a time.
What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Weigh in, and let's get this blog going.
By the way, a big shout out to my Legislative Watch Council posse.
These are some pretty incredible people whose commitment to our region and the business community is second to none. As well, props to both Stephannie Finley and Jessica McMullen. These two extraordinary women are friends to the business community like none others, and it's my privilege to know and work with them.
David Ervin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Well said David.
ReplyDeleteNice job David. You are right on the money,Literally.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that there is a need for a degree of regulation however it appears that during every legislative session our elected officials feel that to prove their worth to their constituants they must author or support some new legislation. The reduction in regulation accomplishes numerous things but most significant to our current State budgetary process is that is reduces the cost of running the government while, in many cases, improves the operating environment for businesses which leads to increased state revenues. How about a constitutional amendment mandating that for every new bill our legislature wishes to introduce they are required to eliminate two existing laws, statutes, policies, regulations, or some other invasive requirement that the government places on the people or businesses. A pipe dream, I know. On a different note if you haven't read the book "The Five Thousand Year Leap" by W Cleon Skousen you should. It will provide you with a perspective of how far our nation has strayed from the way our republic was intended to be by the founding fathers.
ReplyDeletePete LaBarre
I enjoyed David Ervin comments regarding the state of regulation in Colorado. While I agree with David there is a significant problem regarding the regulatory environment in Colorado and some would say in this country. David is right when he says regulation is not a Republican or Democrat issue. I would take that a step further and say regulation is the result of discussing how we want our society to look, people to behave and government to function.
ReplyDeleteLocke and Rousseau talked of a social contract, well all the regulation and law that we have is our social contract. Without getting into the finer points of our contract and changes I would make; I would like to explore the role of human nature in writing the contract.
I would contend that instead of arguing the pros and cons of issues or blaming this party or that party we should be discussing such things in terms of human nature. Humans are a desirous bunch. Our want and desire drives us. It is up to us to decide where and how far this desire will take us. For some it leads to great achievement and others great failure. These achievements and failures come in business and our personal lives. Often times the difference between success and failure is our individual ability to control one’s desire.
When it comes to politics we have lost our control and we have abdicated our control. Regardless of party we should be concerned when government seeks to exert any form of control upon us for it seeks to control our desirous nature and one’s individual right and ability to exert self control. That is why the French fought their revolution – the enlightened had discovered “self”. No longer did they believe in a State or King deciding for them; not just in terms of laws but who could be educated, who could create art and music. This is not to say that we do not need regulations and laws, we do.
When it comes to elections we should elect politicians willing to protect self determination and fight against those seeking to exert control over our “self”. This is important because government in any form exhibits the same characteristics of “self” that we have because the leaders of government are people. When in power their personalities and personal ability to have or not have “self” control is magnified. It is almost natural for the self of the politician to blend with the self of government; only this combined self almost always lacks self control.
Instead of limiting government they extend and grow government, perhaps thinking that by being elected they are smarter than the rest of us. They will seek to demonstrate that knowledge by telling us what light bulbs to use, food to eat and cars to drive.
I fear that too many of us have come to believe government is smarter and therefore we should go along with their plans and programs. I can’t, it’s just not in my nature.
It seems to me that regulation ought to focus on outcomes and not means. This has the three-fold benefit of providing political cover for the legislators who want to do something about a concern, allowing innovation by companies who can help address the problem, and avoiding onerous rules for organizations or individuals who are trying to succeed. Perhaps the legislature could simply ratify markets to address the issues as was done successfully with carbon emissions trading.
ReplyDeleteAnother option would be to allow organizations to opt-in to the regulations they want to follow and then publicize which pertinent ones they follow and which ones they don't.
I was particularly struck by the discussion of state regulation of food safety in restaurants last year. Why can't the state allow at least two companies to perform the food safety checks? Each restaurant could choose their preferred vendor for the checks and put the sticker in the window. Consumers could figure out which vendor they thought was more vigorous and the vendors would be competing thus keeping the cost down. Any restaurant not paying for the service wouldn't have a safety check sticker on their window and could face fines. Consumers could accept the risk or not.