Dems Pick Sides, and Business Wins

According to 9News.com, the Parental Leave bill was killed today in the Colorado Legislature, and Democrats have put another 'X' in the business column of their constituencies.

"I am greatly disappointed that this bill has been laid over indefinitely," said Sen. Peter Groff (D-Denver), the bill's sponsor. "It seems like working families cannot catch a break, regardless of who has the majority."

Democrats are growing increasingly concerned over being labeled as "anti-business," and it appears that Republican attacks on that angle are having an effect on Democratic policy. This could be good and bad for the GOP in the long run, but in the short term it should only benefit them.

We've argued before that the parental leave bill, which would have guaranteed employees 15 hours of unpaid leave each year (the amount was reduced from 40 hours in hopes that it would give it a better chance to pass the House) in order to attend their children's activities, could be a win-win situation for Democrats by forcing Republicans to respond to charges that they will always choose business over families when asked to make a choice.

Democrats can't use that argument in their 2006 campaigns as effectively now, but if they succeed on this new path they are going down, it may not matter. If Democrats can take away the "anti-business" argument from the GOP, it eliminates one of their main arguments against voting donkey. But to do so, they're going to have to continue to vote down family-friendly and labor-friendly legislation that could really anger their own base, and it's going to take more than one legislative session to get the average voter thinking that Democrats are as business-centric as Republicans.

And in the meantime, Republicans can make a claim that they were able to keep Democrats from hurting small businesses even though they were in the minority. Democrats are still a long way from being able to claim that they are the most business-friendly party, and now they're losing ground on being able to claim that they are the party that best protects families. Republicans have long voted in favor of business over virtually any other constituency, even when families might benefit, but rather than try to exploit that weakness in 2006, Democrats have chosen instead to try to split the business vote. It's an interesting maneuver, but will it pay off?

Maybe this strategy on the part of Democratic legislative leaders will work in the long run, but it's hard to see how this will help them in 2006. Republicans won this one.

Comments

[brio]

The Republicans "won" this one because the Dems floated a bill they weren't prepared to stand behind. I think there were good (i.e., substantive)reasons for the Dems not to push hard for this bill. Their mistake (has it has been several times this term) was not to decide in caucus whether or not they were willing to go to bat for the bill, before taking it public. The result is to make them look indecisive and lacking in resolve, which plays directly into Republican spin-meistering and attack ads.

[learnedhand]

anyone else hear Stengel take a shot at T-Carroll's mother during debate on the House floor today? Stengel is a class-A asshole... he also made some disrespectful facial expressions while Madden was nearly in tears describing a near rape when she 14.

[Republican]

Welcome to majority party politics. Not as easy as it sounds.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Good for the Rs for bringing the anti-employer bill down and for the Ds for facing reality. This bill would have hurt not just businesses but all governmental and nonprofit employers.

Personally, I don't see how the Ds hurt themselves on this, unless the sponsor comes from a swing district.

What continues to bemuse is Colo Pols' passionate support of this issue, which gives us more hints as to who he is. Come on insiders, who?

[Alva Adams]

It wasn't a policy question, so much as it was a political question for us. This seemed like a good bill to differentiate the Democrats from their Republican opponents in 2006, but they chose instead to go the pro-business route.

Democrats are hurting themselves somewhat, however, in that they are not making some of their traditional bases very happy by supporting business in most of the votes that come up. It's clearly becoming a trend for Democrats, whether they are right or wrong, but BRIO also makes a good point that we left out: this should have been figured out behind closed doors rather than left to a public debate that exposes their intentions -- especially after they went through the process of letting parents and children come in for emotional testimony in favor of the bill. If you're going to kill it, why mess around and tell those people, "Sorry, we decided your argument wasn't good enough?"

[learnedhand]

> This bill would have hurt not just >businesses but all governmental and nonprofit >employers.

how so? Something specific with details owuld be nice.

The Republican's where given a choice between families and business and they chose business.

[ql]

I was excited like a lot of people on both sides of the aisle when I heard that Stengel was set the become the Minority Leader. But man has that guy blown it.

Here is a short list of his follies:

1) His constant whining and rudeness has become tiresome.

2) He flip-flopped on the TABOR vote. after he realized that it was not in his political best interests. Regardless of how you feel about Ref C., that is lame to stand in a press conference to support it and then try to blame anyone and everyone afterwards for his own change of mind.

3)The governor in response called him out about this in the press when he said said something to the effect of "no one is ever going to mention joe stengel when they write a profile in courage".

4) The ABSOLUTE WORST was what he did to Rep. Berens R-Broomfield. which was ridiculous. He pulled away his ranking member status on the local government committee after Berens mentioned that he sought a study conducted by our state's top non partisan staff about our state's budget dilemas. Apparently, the results didn't agree with Stengel's political agenda and so he punished Berens.

I could go on, but I think my point has been made.

[learnedhand]

Stengel is a small and petty man, that is really the only conclusion I can draw after watching him so closely on a near daily basis this term.

That is a pretty good summation GL.

[gop06]

I don't think Stengel can lead the Rs to statehouse victory in 2006. Sure he'll have more money and 527s working, but a big part of the game is leadership recruiting good candidates to join the team. Joey is only gonna be able to convince the John Birch types to join and they are gonna loose to Dem incuments.

[Housegop]

Didn't Joe S. try to do a 527 last year and it was a flop. According to the SOS he raised about 100k but very little helped those of us who were running. I have been disappointed as well but, with our term limits restriction he will be gone in a year and we will have new leadership and we will once again be in the Majority.

[politicalprincess]

and there has been too much concern by the Dems on how this would play in the press.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Learnedhand,
YOu say Rs are anti-family and pro business. Wrong. By being for productive, efficient and successful employers, Rs are more pro family than those who seek legislation that reduces and eliminates profitability, discourages employment, kills jobs and would not help parents improve their relationships with their kids.

If parents' relationships with their kids hang on whether the parents attend school meeting and functions, the parents have lost the kids and never will recover them. Millions of us have and had loving, close relationships with parents who never attended our sporting events or parent teacher meetings. But, when there were problems, they took care of them, quietly and in their own effective ways.

One of the huge problems with today's k-12 schools is that parents seem to be too involved, interfering and scaring teachers, who are afraid to make a move or be sued.

No, the more I think about this bill, the less I like it. I think it's all PR and it is based on false assumptions about people, their kids and their schools.

[Strider]

I never saw the issue with this bill. How does it hurt business? Employees can actaully get more involved in their childrens lives. This is good for Colorado in the long term.

"One of the huge problems with today's k-12 schools is that parents seem to be too involved, interfering and scaring teachers, who are afraid to make a move or be sued."

Based on the last PTO meeting I attended this is a complete fallacy. I would say about 10% of the parents in the school showed up!

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

Strider,
Maybe the 10% who showed up are too contolling, don't trust their kids or their schools and are the biggest pains any teacher every met? Or maybe they were just running for the school board? Most likely, of course, they probably were doing what they thougt was good for their kids. But to assume that all were is a bit naive, imho.

And the other 90% were home, doing great things with their kids, like making sure the home work was being done? Or they were working so they could take their kids to McDonalds, a ball game or church?

You ignore group dynamics. In every organization I've ever belonged to, 5% to 10% were really involved and the rest went along for the ride. Are school PTAs any different?

[learnedhand]

"One of the huge problems with today's k-12 schools is that parents seem to be too involved,"

You have to be joking, you can't possibly believe that parents are TOO involved in their childrens education. I suggest you go speak to a few educators, especially those in poorer distrcits, about that. They will tell you just exactly how wrong you are.

As for the rest of your post how about a little substance? Could you explain how exactly giving parents less than 2 work days a year to go deal with school issues would hurt business? I would like some specifics, as of yet no one has offered any actual numbers or facts.

[learnedhand]

"If parents' relationships with their kids hang on whether the parents attend school meeting and functions, the parents have lost the kids and never will recover them. Millions of us have and had loving, close relationships with parents who never attended our sporting events or parent teacher meetings. But, when there were problems, they took care of them, quietly and in their own effective ways."

Lets be clear, this bill did not allow parents time off to attend sporting events or school plays. Parent-teacher meetings are vitally important to the education of our children, and any educator will tell you that. Also, disciplinary meetings fell under the purview of the bill.

[Jim C]

I can hardly see how 15 hours per year could help students teachers or parents. It seems to me that this was just a pr move to make the Democrat base happy. Talk about a nanny state piece of legislation.

[don o vann]

Strider speaks well for all Dems when he says: "I never saw the issue with this bill. How does it hurt business?" The dems just don't see it -- on this issue or many others. On the other hand, D.E.L.Johnson got it right pointing out that when the costs of doing business increase -- it increases the costs of goods and services for the rest of us. And, I loved the headline on this blogroll: "Dems Pick Sides, and Business Wins." Leave it to the dems to be opposed to business.

[Curious Stranger]

Don,

Maybe you didn't read the post. The bill went down because Democrats voted against it. Business won because a good number of Dems chose to side with them. And no one, Donald Johnson included, has actually shown how it would hurt business. They've just *said* it would hurt business. There is a difference between showing and saying, despite what the rhetors on the right would have you believe. Otherwise, you could just call Missouri the Tell Me State.