<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gadsden Society of Colorado</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gadsdensoc.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gadsdensoc.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:29:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>We oppose SB 12-001, contract preferences</title>
		<link>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-oppose-sb-12-001-contract-preferences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-oppose-sb-12-001-contract-preferences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gadsdensoc.com/?p=120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This bill would give preferences to bidders on government contracts for meeting certain requirements. It would require a 3% preference to any bidder that can certify that at least 90% of its employees are Colorado residents. An additional 1% preference &#8230; <a href="http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-oppose-sb-12-001-contract-preferences/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This bill <a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us//CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/55F729127CC5A00087257981007F187E/$FILE/001_01.pdf" target="_blank">would give preferences to bidders on government contracts</a> for meeting certain requirements. It would require a 3% preference to any bidder that can certify that at least 90% of its employees are Colorado residents. An additional 1% preference must be granted on construction contracts to bidders who offer health care and retirement benefits to its employees. An additional 1% preference must be awarded to contractors who provide access to a federally qualified apprenticeship training program.</p>
<p>In addition, the state can require the contractor to submit substantiating documentation to verify the contractor&#8217;s eligibility for the preferences. The executive director of the department of personnel must promulgate rules for the administration of each preference, including processes for a contractor to certify and an agency or body to verify the contractor&#8217;s eligibility for the preference.</p>
<p>This bill favors bigger contractors over smaller companies. The bigger companies can afford staff to document the requirements of the bill and keep on top of compliance with the additional rules. The bill will raise the cost to taxpayers of state contracts. The apprenticeship preference rewards unionized contractors over non-unionized contractors.</p>
<p>This bill creates additional bureaucracy and new regulations that raise the cost of doing business, especially to those contractors that spend the time and money in an attempt to take advantage of the preferences but do not win the contract. This bill provides an incentive to fudge residency statistics and rewards contractors willing to push the ethical limits of the qualification requirements in favor of those contractors pursuing a more reasonable interpretation of the regulations.</p>
<p>This bill is anti-free market and pro-government regulation. Therefore, we oppose it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-oppose-sb-12-001-contract-preferences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We support HB 12-1014, reducing vehicle registration late fees</title>
		<link>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1014-reducing-vehicle-registration-late-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1014-reducing-vehicle-registration-late-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 04:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gadsdensoc.com/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This bill would lower the late fee for registering a vehicle from $25 a month to a flat fee of $20. It was passed out of the House Committee on Transportation and referred to the House Appropriations Committee. No hearing &#8230; <a href="http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1014-reducing-vehicle-registration-late-fees/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This bill would <a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us//CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/EEC8D607786A111D87257981007DC70D/$FILE/1014_01.pdf" target="_blank">lower the late fee for registering a vehicle</a> from $25 a month to a flat fee of $20.</p>
<p>It was passed out of the House Committee on Transportation and referred to the House Appropriations Committee. No hearing date has been set.</p>
<p>This bill allows individuals to keep their money. Therefore, we support it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1014-reducing-vehicle-registration-late-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We support HB 12-1007, regulatory analysis</title>
		<link>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 03:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gadsdensoc.com/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Concerning the requirement that a regulatory analysis be issued prior to the promulgation of rules by a state administrative agency&#8221; This bill would require a published analysis of all proposed state regulations to determine the cost effectiveness, the impact on &#8230; <a href="http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1007/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;<a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/DFA15DB9F20C624587257981007F0FF7?open&amp;file=1007_ren.pdf" target="_blank">Concerning the requirement that a regulatory analysis be issued prior to the promulgation of rules by a state administrative agency</a>&#8221;</p>
<p>This bill would require a published analysis of all proposed state regulations to determine the cost effectiveness, the impact on jobs and the effect on the cost of the good or service to be regulated by the proposed regulation. If passed, it should lessen the negative impact of state regulations on businesses, employees and consumers.</p>
<p>The bill has passed the House and has been assigned to the Senate Local Government Committee. No hearing date has been scheduled.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/05/we-support-hb-12-1007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We support HB 12-1002, the CLEAR Act</title>
		<link>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/04/we-support-hb-12-1002-the-clear-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/04/we-support-hb-12-1002-the-clear-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[State regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gadsdensoc.com/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The &#8220;Creating Level Expectations for Application Review&#8221; Act allows persons applying for state permits to rely on existing regulations without concern that the regulations will be changed while the permit application is under review. This protects businesses from unduly burdensome &#8230; <a href="http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/04/we-support-hb-12-1002-the-clear-act/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;<a href="http://www.leg.state.co.us//CLICS/CLICS2012A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BA7F3126663C963287257981007F6841/$FILE/1002_ren.pdf" target="_blank">Creating Level Expectations for Application Review&#8221; Act</a> allows persons applying for state permits to rely on existing regulations without concern that the regulations will be changed while the permit application is under review.</p>
<p>This protects businesses from unduly burdensome regulation and provides certainty that the rules existing at the time of permitting will not change during the application review.</p>
<p>The bill has passed the House and the Senate Business, Labor and Technology. It is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Finance Committee on March 8, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Senate Committee Room 354.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gadsdensoc.com/2012/03/04/we-support-hb-12-1002-the-clear-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

