Legislators talk frequently about the Law of Unintended Consequences but rarely seem to recognize when a bill they support will, if passed, inevitably collide with that law.  Such is the case with House Bill 1021, which would require individual insurance policies to cover a normal pregnancy, childbirth, maternity care, pregnancy management and contraception.

At first glance, that sounds like a reasonable idea: women who buy their own health insurance ought to be able to purchase coverage for pregnancy.  Now stand in the shoes of another woman — one who isn’t pregnant, or plans not to become pregnant, or is beyond childbearing years, or is unable even to have children:  if state law requires all policies to cover pregnancy, then state law requires everyone to pay for pregnancy coverage, whether they want it or not. read more…

The anti-taxpayer majority on the Colorado Supreme Court soon will have another chance to stand the constitution on its head, thanks to a remarkably unambiguous ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals. read more…

Of all the fairy tales that liberal politicians seem to believe — such as man-made global warming or that more government health care spending will reduce the deficit — there one fable they seem unable to comprehend: “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg.” read more…

If there’s one thing personal injury lawyers are especially good at, it’s exploiting the misfortunes of their clients while devising new ways to line their own pockets.

Colorado House Bill 1168 is this year’s prime example. While claiming to help injured parties receive full compensation for damages caused by the fault of someone else, what it really does is guarantee that the injured person, in order to be fully compensated, must hire a lawyer.

Since most personal injury cases are handled on a contingent fee basis, that means that just when the injured party is about to be paid, the trial lawyer will extract his fee of 33 or 40 percent of the award. read more…

Rescuing the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) is nothing new for state lawmakers.  Twice in the last decade, legislators have thrown PERA a lifeline, forcing the state, school districts, local governments and finally even workers to chip in hundreds of millions of dollars to keep the plan afloat.

As recently as four years ago, PERA and many employee groups refused to acknowledge the plan’s peril, despite assets falling from 105 percent of the amount needed to pay benefits to just 70 percent from 2000 to 2004.

In 2008, PERA’s funding ratio tumbled to below 52 cents for every dollar of promised benefits — a $30 billion deficit.  After almost a year of cautioning lawmakers against acting hastily, even PERA’s directors finally asked for help — a third rescue plan in just seven years. read more…

When politicians pick winners and losers, the stench of sleazy backroom deals is inescapable.

Colorado’s appointed U.S. Senator, Michael Bennet, has inveighed against special deals, like the ones that purchased the health care votes of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson and Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.  He also talks often about the need for more competition to control costs.

Yet Bennet — as well as Sen. Mark Udall — seems fully committed to voting for a bill that transfers more control to politicians and bureaucrats.  Moreover, Bennet seems oblivious to a provision that cuts a special deal for certain health insurance companies right here in Colorado and undermines competition. read more…

After all the Hickenhoopla dies down, Colorado voters may experience a sick feeling of déjà vu as the Denver mayor and Democrat candidate for governor claims that he’s “business friendly.”

We’ve been down this campaign trail before, just four years ago, when nice guy Bill Ritter bent over backward to ingratiate himself to every gullible business organization in the state.  Only the most ardent Republicans refused to fall for the fallacy of a business-friendly Democrat, and business leaders and editorial boards across the state have been (deservedly) kicking themselves ever since.

So, here we go again. read more…

Barack Obama may be a far better orator than George W. Bush, but when Bush delivered a message, despite his sometimes mangled syntax, everyone knew what he stood for.  Because Obama’s elocution is superior, only later do people realize they have no idea what he really meant.

If overhauling the nation’s health care system is so urgent that lawmakers can’t be afforded time to read the bills before they vote, why does so much of the legislation not take effect until after the 2012 election? read more…

Conservatives and libertarians fight about social issues so routinely that we assume the differences are insurmountable. Most everyone on the center-right is dubious of big government, but when it comes to protecting the unborn or preserving the traditional definition of marriage, we are divided as to government’s proper role.

Yet when the threat of big government grows so ominous that it overshadows all else, a “freedom coalition” emerges, as is now happening in response to the reign of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Inevitably, however, infighting resumes once the threat subsides.

If freedom truly is our unifying principle, then it alone is the non-negotiable standard that can build lasting bonds on the Right without asking anyone to forsake principle. read more…