From one side of The Denver Post yesterday, Political Editor Chuck Plunkett told me that The Post doesn’t like to “cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us.”

Then, from the darker side of The Post, Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard, wrote on The Post’s Spot blog, that he has a “hunch” that FOX 31’s Eli Stokols’ strategy of calling Mitt Romney out for avoiding the press in Colorado will pay off. Hubbard wrote:

Eli throws a bomb: I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a reporter publicly criticize a campaign for their media strategy/declining interview requests. Fox 31′s Eli Stokols didn’t hold back in his criticism of the Romney camp today. Just a hunch, but I bet his strategy pays off.

So I asked Hubbard, via email, why he didn’t use Stokols’ tactic, when he had Plunkett’s job.

I also asked whether Hubbard expected more journalists to be inspired by Stokols and call out hiding politicians more often, and whether he’d give it a try himself, on the commentary page. Hubbard replied:

It’s an interesting discussion, but my job (whether it was in the newsroom or in this position) is not to be a media critic. As the editorial page editor I certainly have more leeway to comment on media coverage, but I try to keep in mind that more of our readers care about news than how the sausage gets made.

I commented on Eli’s post yesterday because, in my nearly 20 years in the news biz, I couldn’t recall a reporter doing anything like it.  Eli has demonstrated through his strong work on the beat that he shouldn’t be ignored, so it’s probably a pretty safe bet on his part. Then again, a thin-skinned campaign or a cut-throat competitor, might very well use it against him.

The trouble is, the line between the news and how it’s made isn’t so clear. In the case of Romney ignoring Denver journalists, the two are one and the same. It’s a news story that Romney is ignoring the press in favor of conservative talk-radio hosts. (Or at least it deserves a mention in a news story.)

But my takeaway from Hubbard’s blog post is that he thinks the tactic could work. I’d love to see him try it. (And if it backfired, I’d love to see The Post blow up the retribution.)

Hubbard (or Plunkett) could create a little chart showing which candidates actually take questions from journalists when they pass through town.

It could be called the “Howard Beale Index.”

Each time the Howard Beale Index is updated, a short Eli-Stokols-type letter could be published.

If I’m a Post subscriber, and I am, I’d be proud of my newspaper for going after those candidates, and trying to hold them accountable publicly.

Mike Coffman appeared on KNUS’ morning show, Kelley and Company, yesterday, and he came out swinging at Mitt Romney, saying that Romney “needs to have a more conservative message that appeals to the base of the Republican Party,” that he “needs a more coherent, better defined economic and tax policy,” and that the Santorum victory “changes the ballgame.”

“Are we going to get the governor of Massachusetts [laughs] as the president?” Coffman asked on air. “Or are we going to get the guy who’s saying what he’s saying on the stump now?”

The interview made good radio, but the trouble was, host Steve Kelley didn’t even try to get Coffman to be more specific about how Romney should move to the right, so listeners were left with little understanding of what Coffman thinks Romney should actually do and say in the real world away from the radio.

Kelley should have Coffman back on the show and ask him to, please, be more specific.

What’s Romney’s “more conservative message” look like?

What should Romney say to re-assure the GOP base that he’s the “conservative guy?”

What aspects of Romney’s economic policy are “cluttered” and how should Romney simplify things?

How, specifically, does Romney assure Republicans that they will not “get the governor of Massachusetts as the president?”

Click to hear Coffman on KNUS Kelley and Company 2-8-12.

Partial transcript of Coffman on Denver’s KNUS (710 AM) Kelley and Company 2-8-12:

Coffman: It definitely changes the ballgame. I do think that Romney needs to have a more conservative message that appeals to the base of the Republican Party. And I think he’s going to kind of re-examine his approach, his ground game, his message….This is not good for the Romney team. And it’s good for the Santorum team….

Quite frankly, I think he’s running for the general. Maybe he got over-confident and he refashioned his message more for the general election and a different electorate. And at some point in time, I think you do pivot, and I think he did that pivot a little too early. And I think he’s going to have to backtrack and make sure that, and say, hey, look, this is what I am going to do in terms of advancing conservative causes and in terms of repealing some of the things this administration has put in place. So I think he needs to re-assure the Republican electorate that he’s going to do that….

I think what [Romney] has to do is retool his own message, and I think he has to retool his own message in terms of, you know, appealing to the conservative base. You know. Because I think there are a lot of conservatives who don’t trust him in that they worry that, you know, who is this guy? Do we really know him? Are we going to get the governor of Massachusetts [laughs] as the president? Or are we going to get the guy who’s saying what he’s saying on the stump now? And so I think he needs to reassure the Republican voters that, hey, I’m going to be the conservative guy. I am going to repeal Obamacare even though he said [laughs] that on the stump quite a bit. And I think he needs a more coherent, better defined economic and tax policy. It’s a little cluttered. It’s a little complicated. He needs to drill down to where it makes sense certainly to the average Republican voter in this primary.

One of the many things professional journalism needs to do to survive is fight back.

For example, as I’ve discussed before, when politicians slam the “media” or “The Denver Post,” as having a liberal bias, reporters should ask them for the evidence, not act as if an insult has not been hurled at them.

And when political candidates like Mitt Romney slide into Colorado, take questions from friendly talk-show hosts, and slide away, journalists should call them out on it–so we are informed that a candidate is avoiding questions but also so we know that journalists are trying to do their jobs, to ask questions on our behalf.

You’d think most journalists would agree, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Otherwise you’d see more journalism, like the kind Fox 31’s Eli Stokols produced today, in the form of an “Open Letter to Team Romney.”

In the letter, Stokols wrote that Fox 31 had made numerous requests to interview Romney (Ding. Ding. A journalist doing his job.).

But, Stokols pointed out, Romney hadn’t held a “media availability since Florida,” giving Denver media the “silent treatment, “though Romney took “some questions from the media” in Colorado Springs.

You’d think someone campaigning to be leader of the free world could handle questions from local reporters, as, say, Rick Santorum did whenever we and our competitors approached him here over the past week.

Congratulations, though, on saving Gov. Romney the potential embarrassment that might have arisen from — gasp! — an unscripted moment.

That nightmarish scenario surely would have been worse than last night’s — going 0-for-3 because you couldn’t even salvage a win in a state you should have owned.

But, listen, if — if!!! — you make it back here this fall, we’ll still be here — and hoping to talk.

Asked via email if he’d ever called out another candidate who’s avoiding reporters, Stokols wrote:

No, I haven’t Not quite so directly anyway. We’re often pushing and prodding communications directors for sit-downs, for access, but I don’t normally try to call them out publicly — and, honestly, that’s not why I wrote this piece. I framed it as a letter to Romney, although I wrote it to simply make a point about his strategy, not to antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview down the road.

I was disappointed to read that Stokols wasn’t trying to “antagonize the campaign into agreeing to an interview,” because he had every right to do so, toward Romney or any other candidate who acts the same way.

In fact, I had already shot off an email to Denver Post Political Editor Chuck Plunkett, asking if The Post would join Stokols in calling on Romney to talk to reporters. I wrote Plunkett again, saying he could ignore my question because Stokols’ letter was meant as an analysis of Romney’s strategy.

Still, I asked for Plunkett’s thoughts on Stokols’ letter and for an explanation of why The Post hadn’t even reported that Romney wasn’t taking questions in Colorado. Plunkett wrote:

It is more often the case that politicians don’t make themselves available to the media when they swing through. Both sides of the divide love to ignore us, as they know risking a press avail risks having their answers made public, and most of them like to remain on script.

Here at The Post, we don’t like to complain to our readers — many of whom work demanding jobs — about difficulties we encounter in doing our jobs (though sometimes we do complain!). We’d rather not cry in public about having a rough time getting someone to talk to us.

We here at The Post routinely seek chances to do interviews with those we cover, including the president and presidential candidates when they are in Colorado. Sometimes we get to do the interview, other times we don’t.

It looks like Eli was being clever, and I enjoyed his post and its tongue-and-cheek approach to calling attention to the situation.

No one likes whiners, it’s true, but I think most Post readers buy the newspaper to be informed, and it’s pretty important to know when a political candidate isn’t taking questions from The Post, even if it’s routine for candidates to blow off journalists.

In any case, I was glad to read Plunkett’s assurance that The Post is fighting for access to candidates. You’d obviously expect this, but it’s good to read it anyway.

Unlike the Post, Stokols did report on the air, during Romney’s visit, that Romney was not answering questions from reporters in Denver.

Stokols added that Romney had just announced a press briefing for today, his first since Feb. 1, on the tarmac in Atlanta.

I asked Stokols if he planned to read his “Open Letter” on the air:

I doubt I go all Howard Beale and read this on the air, although I may tease it after my piece tonight and direct viewers to the website.

To which I say, dude, it’s time to go all Howard Beale. Do it for the sake of journalism and the electoral process. The stakes are high for both. And it’s a great letter.

A Worldnet Daily article Tues. reported that there’s a “movement in Colorado petitioning Secretary of State Scott Gessler to remove Obama’s name from the ballot in November.”

Did this mean that activists here are trying to pass a law, like the one in Georgia and other states, requiring all political candidates to prove eligibility for office or get booted from the ballot?

In a case that’s given gasps of air to the dying “birther movement,” an administrative law judge ruled Friday that Obama is a natural-born citizen, meeting the citizenship specifications for president and also meeting Georgia’s ballot eligibility requirements under a new state law pushed by birthers.

A handful of other states have similar laws. Was it true that Colorado could be added to the list?

I called Rep. Tom Tancredo, who has his finger on the birther pulse in Colorado, to find out.

“I have not heard about [a formal petition drive],” he told me. “When you say attempt to do so, I’m assuming that the Secretary of State has gotten messages, emails and calls from people saying do the same thing.”

I also spoke with John Sampson, a Colorado resident who was subpoenaed to testify in the Georgia trial. His testimony, as well as that of other experts, was thrown out because, according to the Georgia judge, the plaintiff’s attorney failed to establish Sampson and others as experts. Read his decision here.

Asked about the Worldnet story reporting that a “movement” was brewing here to pass a law similar to Georgia’s, Sampson, who’s running for Colorado Senate District 25, told me. “I’m vaguely familiar with it, but I’m not involved with it.” He had not further information.

I’ll continue to try to locate the folks, if any, who are pushing Secretary of State Scott Gessler to declare Obama ineligible for the Colorado ballot. Please send them my way, if you know who they are. 

Meanwhile the Georgia decision in favor of Obama sent birthers in Colorado howling about (how did you guess?) conspiracy, with KHOW’s Peter Boyles and author (Where’s the Birth Certificate?) Jerome Corsi speculating this morning on Boyles’ show that the Democrats’ deep and wide influence in conservative Georgia got to the judge.

Even people like Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy, who’s told me he’s willing to put the health, and even lives, of poverty-stricken kids at risk by charging more for state health insurance,  says it’s hard to decide what to do about Medicaid, given the complexities involved and the struggles of the poor, especially kids.

That’s the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It’s not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.

But there’s a budget problem (assuming we don’t want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.

When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” that’s news.

And rightly so, because in America, we’re supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one’s saying, let the poor get sick and die.

But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.

You don’t have to search very hard to find examples, but I’ll use one from Rep. Mike Coffman, who, as I’ve written, deserves more media scrutiny now that he’s in a competitive district.

Coffman told Mike Rosen during the debate on health care that “there are some very radical elements to [Obamacare] such as the expansion of Medicaid, a government run healthcare program.”

Very radical elements? Sounds like communists are hiding in the bill, but Rosen treated the statement like normal air.

It turns out that, from perspective of anyone who is concerned about the very poor, Republicans and Democrats alike, the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare isn’t so radical.

It sets a national standard for Medicaid eligibility at 133 percent of the poverty level, which amounts to about $30,000 for a family of four, according to Elisabeth Arenales, Health Program Director at Colorado Center for Law and Policy.

“Across the country, most people who are poor, if they are childless adults, unless they are disabled, don’t have access to Medicaid,” Arenales told me. “It’s setting a uniform framework.”

Very radical.

Arenales says the Medicaid expansion under Obmacare would also benefit early retirees, under age 65, who run into health problems.

As you can imagine, health insurance is expensive for people around 65, who have health problems. Under Obmacare, these retirees with very low incomes will be covered by Medicaid, Arenales said.

She points to another example of an early retiree whose kids are grown, gets cancer, exhausts COBRA, and spends all their money on treatment. Under Obamacare, these people get treated under Medicaid. It gives them an option.

“You see those stories,” Arenales said.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a debate about whether to cut or expand Medicaid, but my point is, why do we give the silent treatment to the Coffmans of the world who say Medicaid expansion is so radical, while a guy like Mitt Romney is slammed for making a similarly extreme statement that he’s “not concerned about the very poor.”

Mitt Romney apparently isn’t making himself available to real journalists in Colorado, in advance of Tuesday’s GOP caucus, but he called into conservative talk-radio shows today, where, predictably, he found a copacetic environment, free of annoying follow-up questions.

That’s unfortunate, because Romney said a few things that deserve a closer look by reporters, if they ever get access to Romney.

On KOA’s Mike Rosen this morning, Romney suggested that he didn’t like the insurance mandate that was included in the Massachusetts health care bill, and he would have vetoed it in favor of offering tax breaks to people with insurance.

Romney told Rosen:

“In one important respect, the incentive to get people to have insurance in our state was associated with a penalty, which is if you don’t have insurance, you have to help pay the cost of your health care in our state. I would’ve rather given a, if you will, a benefit — a tax break — to people who had insurance. So you’d give people a, if you will, a positive, as opposed to a negative. When you do that you accomplish the same objective, which is to get people insured and have people take responsibility for their own health care.”

Romney said, “There were a number of features in the [MA] health care bill I vetoed, and those vetoes were all overridden by a legislature which is 85 percent Democrat.”

Romney has tried to separate himself from the mandate before, though you may not believe it given that it’s central to the Massachusetts policy.

But as this New Yorker article shows, and others have documented, Romney agreed with the policy and sold it.

Romney’s appearance on the Cari and Rob Show, with hosts Rob Douglas and Cari Hermacinski, was similarly pleasant for Romney, with a few questions that were leading toward difficult territory but went nowhere with no follow-up questions asked from two conservative hosts who’ve asked tough questions of Rep. Scott Tipton in the past.

Romney trashed Obama’s entire economic record, literally “everything” Obama has done for the economy, despite this morning’s news that unemployment is heading toward a three-year low.

“I’m delighted that we’re seeing some job growth finally,” Romney told Douglas and Hermacinski. “It’s taken a long, long time. This has been the slowest recovery since Hoover, and one of the reasons it’s been so slow is because this president has frankly done everything wrong when it relates to building an economy. [BigMedia emphasis].

Douglas and Hermacinski might have asked Romney if he supported extending unemployment insurance or cutting the payroll tax, or some itty bitty thing Obama did, but alas, nothing like this flowed from the two hosts.

I hoped Craig Silverman on KHOW would have the courage to ask uncomfortable questions of Romney, like he did of Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck in 2010. But his questions, like should Colorado host the Olympics and does the GOP want pro-choice voters, were easy for Romney. Dan Caplis, Silverman’s co-host, was his usual GOP-mouthpiece self.

So, Romney’s apparent plan of talking to friendly radio hosts in Colorado, and avoiding journalists, paid off this time, though I hold out hope for Silverman and Cari and Rob, if he tries it again.

Ironically enough, Scott Tipton is refusing invitations from Douglas to appear on his show, which is known for its Tea-Party bent, but that didn’t scare off Romney or Sal Pace or Rick Santorum, and others who’ve been on Cari and Rob Show recently.

You wonder where that puts Scott Tipton.

I asked Douglas if he’d tried to land Tipton lately.

We’re very pleased that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michael Reagan, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Doug Lamborn, Sal Pace and many others are coming on our program to speak to our audience about the current campaigns and issues that are important to our audience. From the start, our goal has been to provide a venue for Coloradoans and others to have their voices heard and to hear from elected representatives and others who impact public policy.

To that end, we always welcome elected representatives and legitimate candidates on our program.

While we have not extended an invitation to Congressman Tipton recently, he is always welcome on our program and we expect he’ll want to speak with our audience between now and the time when he must stand before the voters in his district. Given Congressman Tipton’s interaction with our audience as both a candidate and as a elected representative over the last several years, we assume he knows he has a standing invitation from our program.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

Conservative talk radio is all aflutter about a trial underway in Georgia to determine whether President Obama is eligible to appear on the election ballot there.

A Georgia law requires all candidates to prove they’re eligible for office, and this means presidential candidates must prove they’re U.S. citizens.

Such laws, now on the books in a handful of states, are the cutting edge tactic of the dregs of the birther movement, which will not accept that Obama is a U.S. citizen.

The case has a local connection in the name of John Sampson, a former immigration officer who retired in 2008 and also a candidate for Colorado Senate District 25, facing Sen. Mary Hodge.

Sampson told his story to an adoring audience on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado on Friday.

Sampson said on the radio that he was retained by a leader of the birther movement, Orly Taitz, whom he met in Lake Charles Illinois in November 2009, to investigate President Obama’s Social Security number, and he determined that Obama’s Social Security number was issued to a Connecticut resident in March of 1977.

Sampson tried hard but can’t find evidence that Obama was a citizen of Connecticut, ever.

“Why is [Obama] utilizing a Social Security number that was issued to somebody who was apparently living in Connecticut at the time it was issued?” Sampson asked on KLZ Friday.

Sampson flew to Georgia to present his evidence at the administrative court hearing, compelled, he says, by a subpoena to do so. He testified in court that there is “credible evidence to warrant further investigation” into Obama’s Social Security number and birth certificate. He also testified that he’d investigate Obama’s passport history.

Sampson was in court when another person who was subpoenaed failed to appear. That would be Obama, whose lawyers contend the President is under no legal obligation to testify. 

As a souvenir for his trip to Georgia, Sampson got his photo in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a step up from the publicity he’s used to getting in the birther underground. He makes an appearance in Jerome Corsi’s Where’s the Birth Certificate, for example, he said on the radio. (See a video of Sampson testifying in Georgia here.)

Asked on Grassroots Radio Colorado why the birth certificate released last year by Obama did not put the matter to rest, Sampson responded by saying another expert at the hearing said the birth certificate was fake.

Sampson also said his own research raised “concerns” about the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate, as well as Obama’s Social Security number.

“I’m not prepared to tell you whether he was born in the United States, not born in the United States,” Sampson stated on KLZ. “I’m not what you would consider a birther, per se. This is an issue of constitutionality. This is an issue of whether or not the provisions of the Constitution requiring a natural-born citizen to be President of the United States have been violated or not.”

Hmmmm. I wondered what he meant when he said, “I’m not a birther, per se.” But the radio hosts weren’t thinking along the same lines, and KHOW’s Peter Boyles, who’s sharp as a knife on this issue, and proud of it, wasn’t there to clarify things.

In any case, Sampson explained on the radio that the Georgia hearing continued without Obama. The administrative law judge is scheduled to rule Feb. 5 on whether the sitting President meets Georgia’s citizenship requirements, and at that point, the Georgia Secretary of State will determine if he’s eligible to appear on the ballot–again.

Asked by a caller, who turned out to be yet another conservative talk show host, Jimmy Sengenberger, whether the birth-certificate issue was worth raising, with unemployment and other issues plaguing the country, Sampson pointed out he was hired to investigate the Social Security number and subpoenaed.

Sampson also said: “I am a very firm believer in the Constitution. In June of 1981, I raised my right hand for the first time of many and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And to paraphrase what Lt. Col. Allen West has said, that oath did not come with a statute of limitations or with an expiration date. And that’s the only reason I’m involved in this. I have not and do not have sufficient evidence that would warrant me to make a statement as to whether or not he is eligible or not eligible.”

This satisfied Sengenberger and the Grassroots Radio guys, who told Sampson he was 100 percent behind him.

But would you be satisfied? I thought a birther was someone who doesn’t believe Obama is a citizen. That’s what Sampson is saying when he testifies that he doesn’t know if the President is a citizen. Same thing. A birther.

I mean, the entire birther movement is about not being satisfied with the citizenship documentation provided by Obama. Where’s the birth certificate?

That’s exactly what our own John Sampson is saying.

And when the birth certificate is produced, you have to guess, though we don’t know for sure, that Sampson, like his fellow birthers, will find some other reason not to know for sure if Obama is one of us.

Even if you’re a die-hard Tea-Party radio host, you’d think you’d try to clarify things when an ideologically-sympatico political candidate tells you on the air that he abandoned his business because of the Colorado Department of Labor’s efforts to enforce employment rules.

That’s what Colorado State House candidate Brian Vande Krol told KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Jan. 20:  

In fact, I’ve heard you guys talk about unemployment insurance before, and it just so happens that as of the first of the year, my swimming coaching business basically is no more. I still call it a business, but because the Colorado Department of Labor is pursuing what they call misclassified employees, the place where I coach said hey, we can’t have you here as an independent contractor. You can no longer be a businessman here. You have got to be an employee.  So I’ve basically lost a business.

Obviously, there’s no proof here that Vande Krol did anything wrong, but how could you not wonder what happened, especially because this guy is running for the state legislature (HD 35). (He narrowly lost to Rep. John Soper in 2010.)

So I did the Grassroots Radio hosts’ job for them and called Vande Krol, and he answered my questions via email. (See his answers in their entirety below.)

Vande Krol believes he did nothing wrong.

For both of my businesses where I’ve run up against this problem, I absolutely meet the definition of independent contractor. I meet all nine of the requirements specified in Colorado Statutes for one business, and the preponderance (as also specified in statute) for the other business.

But, he wrote me, a Colorado Department of Labor audit of the business Vande Krol worked for apparently thought differently:

Despite that, one of the businesses I contract with was threatened with large taxes and penalties by an auditor who chose to interpret the statutes as she sees fit, presumably justifying her salary. She then negotiated the amount down to the point of being a nuisance, told the business they could take it to court, but precedence was on her side. The business paid the tax rather than hire a lawyer and risk further scrutiny by government agencies that are clearly overstepping their bounds. If this were done in the private sector, it would be called extortion.

The Colorado Department of Labor performs the types of audits to which Vande Krol refers to enforce state laws protecting workers.

Basically, if an employer classifies a worker as an “independent contractor” then the employer is not required to provide the worker the same protections as the employer would if it classified the worker as an “employee.” 

These protections include unemployment insurance, for workers who get laid off, and workers’ compensation, covering injuries sustained on the job. Employers also contribute half of an “employee’s” Social Security tax.

If an “independent contractor” were not required to meet specific criteria, then employers would be free to pay all their workers as independent contractors, stripping them of worker protections that are now mandatory.

Vande Krol believes he met the definition of an “independent contractor,” but on the radio, his anger seemed to go beyond his specific case.

So I asked him if he believed the government should allow businesses to decide for themselves whether to classify workers as “employees” or “independent contractors” and therefore let businesses decide whether to pay for their workers’ Social Security taxes, workers comp, and unemployment insurance.

He answered that employers should be able to classify their employees as they see fit, and employees should likewise be able to classify themselves as they want to:

If a person is freely willing to give up the protections offered by an employer/employee relationship, he or she should be allowed to do so. If an employer is freely willing to give up the control offered by the employer/employee relationship, it should be allowed to do so. Of course, either relationship is based on the idea of a mutually beneficial exchange of service for compensation. Government interference in private contracting cannot eliminate the right of people to decide for themselves – it can only impede the ability to legally do so, and hamper meaningful job creation in the process.

Clearly, voluntary participation in workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security would mean major changes for these programs, and for society as we know it.

But Vande Krol writes, “If social security is a good deal for the individual, why is it not managed by individuals according to their individual needs?”

Below is Vande Krol’s entire written response to my questions:

Why didn’t you meet the definition of an independent contractor, under government regulations?

Let me clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. This is about a government agency using broad regulatory and auditing powers to remove freedom of choice from the individuals of Colorado, adding unnecessary burdens to small businesses, and resulting in less real employment. For both of my businesses where I’ve run up against this problem, I absolutely meet the definition of independent contractor. I meet all nine of the requirements specified in Colorado Statutes for one business, and the preponderance (as also specified in statute) for the other business. Despite that, one of the businesses I contract with was threatened with large taxes and penalties by an auditor who chose to interpret the statutes as she sees fit, presumably justifying her salary. She then negotiated the amount down to the point of being a nuisance, told the business they could take it to court, but precedence was on her side. The business paid the tax rather than hire a lawyer and risk further scrutiny by government agencies that are clearly overstepping their bounds. If this were done in the private sector, it would be called extortion.

The other business I contract with decided to change me from a contractor to an employee simply to avoid the risk of audits and penalties.

Colorado statutes are already more restrictive than federal statutes regarding independent contractor status. However, Colorado statute does allow that a contract between businesses is sufficient to evidence independent contractor status. This provision that allows an individual to freely choose is ignored by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. According to the CDLE, 14% of workers in Colorado are “misclassified” as independent contractors. The CDLE is threatening to go after that 14%, which is a direct threat to their livelihoods and those that use their services. That’s one in seven workers. That’s not a recipe for expanding real employment in Colorado.

 Now to your question.  I do meet the definition of independent contractor. That did not prevent the CDLE from extorting money from one of my “employers”. Nor did it prevent the other from changing my status. In the second instance, employees are often more expensive than independent contractors because of government burden, so my employer reduced my compensation. I dropped my liability insurance since I’m now covered by their policy. The cost to provide that insurance is more than the revenue I typically generate outside of my contract with the employer, so I will also quit working outside of my relationship with that employer.

Do you think the government should require businesses to provide “employees” with worker’s compensation and unemployment insurance, as currently required? As you know, the government does not require businesses to do this for “independent contractors.”

My concern is that government is removing the right of people and businesses to freely associate on terms they choose. Worker’s compensation policies makes good sense for employees because they may not be covered for on the job injuries by other insurance plans. It’s good business sense as well – businesses limit their liability to an injured employee by providing worker’s compensation insurance. Independent contractors, however, freely give up access to worker’s compensation insurance and unemployment insurance. That independent contractor should be allowed the freedom to make that choice based on what’s best for them.

Do you think the government should be required to pay half the Social Security tax of their employees?

(I assume the intent of your question is “should government require businesses to pay half the social security tax of their employees”. That’s the question I’ll answer).

Businesses are the ones that write the checks, but they don’t pay the taxes. Social Security taxes are a business cost. Businesses pass costs on to their customers, employees, owners, shareholders or investors.

A more interesting question is about the recent “tax holiday” for social security taxes. Did the federal government point out that future benefits will be reduced by the tax holiday? Did they suggest or allow that individuals could invest more in their own social security retirements by not taking advantage of the tax holiday, and paying more than is required? If social security is a good deal for the individual, why is it not managed by individuals according to their individual needs?

Do you think the government should allow businesses to decide for themselves whether to classify workers as “employees” or “independent contractors” and therefore decide for themselves whether to pay for their workers’ Social Security taxes, workers comp, and unemployment insurance?

I believe that people are far better able to make decisions for themselves than the government. If a person is freely willing to give up the protections offered by an employer/employee relationship, he or she should be allowed to do so. If an employer is freely willing to give up the control offered by the employer/employee relationship, it should be allowed to do so. Of course, either relationship is based on the idea of a mutually beneficial exchange of service for compensation. Government interference in private contracting cannot eliminate the right of people to decide for themselves – it can only impede the ability to legally do so, and hamper meaningful job creation in the process.

These questions flow from your apparent view, expressed on the radio, that the government had no business telling your employer that you could not work there as an independent contractor.

Again, it was the employer who made the decision to change my status. They did so based on the threat of the CDLE to pursue one out of seven Colorado workers and their “employers”. I met the most important criteria – I provided my own tools, training, liability insurance, marketing, medical insurance, etc. However, I could not protect my employer from the danger of an overly aggressive audit by a government agency that was $500 million dollars in debt to the federal government in February of 2010.

The federal government pressured the CDLE to pay back loans for the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The state legislature responded by raising rates on businesses who can ill afford it. These rate increases fall disproportionately on the businesses who have fewer unemployment claims. The CDLE is pursuing small businesses with their power of audit to coerce legitimate businesses to pay unemployment taxes that they do not owe. As a result, resources that could be used to expand hiring and boost the Colorado economy are being diverted to the federal government, and one in seven Colorado workers is directly threatened by CDLE.

That’s not a recipe for job creation.

Below is a partial transcript of Brian Vande Krol’s statement on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado, Jan. 20.

Brian Vande Krol: I’ve had a sky diving coaching business, a swimming coaching business. My first business was actually Paradise Rock Gym. That was probably the most capital intensive and labor intensive business.  It actually set the standard for other climbing gyms across the country. I’ve got a floor installation business currently, quite a few businesses. I’ve always found things that I’ve really enjoyed doing and pursued those activities. In fact, I’ve heard you guys talk about unemployment insurance before, and it just so happens that as of the first of the year, my swimming coaching business basically is no more. I still call it a business, but because the Colorado Department of Labor is pursuing what they call misclassified employees, the place where I coach said hey, we can’t have you here as an independent contractor. You can no longer be a businessman here. You have got to be an employee.  So I’ve basically lost a business. But now I count as a new hire in Colorado’s jobs statistics and so my experience of one person may not swing things one way or the other, but basically that’s probably the way it will work out. I’m a new hire in Colorado. That will show up somewhere, I assume, in their statistics. And I’m no longer a business owner for that particular business. …

KLZ host Jason Worley: What is your main platform?

My main platform is economic freedom. The founders told us all men are created equal, and that means no man was born to rule over another man. And out of that it unleashed two powers that changed the world forever: liberty and responsibility. And government’s responsibility is to secure the blessings of liberty. They’ve clearly gone way beyond that. They are hampering economic freedom, and that’s hampering job growth. It’s hampering economic development in Colorado. We have to change that. Like I said, it’s about economic freedom.

Denver blogger and radio host Ross Kaminsky leaves will leave Backbone Radio, aired on KNUS and KZNT, to host a Sunday KOA show that will “frequently” pre-empted by sports. Jimmy Sengenberger, a fellow conservative who hosted a show at Regis University, is interim Backbone host.

Kaminsky, who once blogged on the Denver Post’s “Gang of Four” website, was careful, in announcing his show, to point out that you won’t find him on KOA every weekend:

“The show will frequently be pre-empted in whole or in part by sports programming,” Kaminsky wrote, “as KOA is the voice of the Colorado Rockies, the Denver Broncos, and the University of Colorado ‘Buffs.’ (I have a feeling that a Broncos game is slightly more profitable for the station than the Ross Kaminsky Show will be, if just barely.)

So, I won’t be on the air (at least not on Sundays) during most of football season, and during much of baseball season the show will either be pre-empted entirely or else will run just an hour or two. (Frankly, as much as I love being on the air, especially on ‘the blowtorch,” this schedule is perfect for me as it will allow me to talk to you – my listeners, readers and friends – for much of the year but also allow me some full weekends to spend with my wife and family.)”

Reporters are having a real hard time sorting out Mitt Romney’s position on personhood. Here’s a quick and easy way for journos to think about the issue, and Romney’s evolving stance on it.

Personhood has two tracks: federal and state. At the federal level, proponents are trying to pass a law giving fertilized eggs (or zygotes) the legal rights of a “person,” under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. At the state level, the personhood campaign wants to pass amendments to state constitutions defining life as beginning at conception.

Romney on federal personhood. Romney has made it clear that he’s currently against federal personhood. This is a flip from his position in 2007, when he stated on national TV that he favored a GOP platform position supporting a “human life amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban abortion at the federal level. When Romney said this, he believed, like he does now, that life begins at conception, so Romney’s federal ban on abortion, based on his definition of “life,” would have met the requirements of Personhood USA for a national personhood law. But last year at a GOP prez forum, Romney abandoned this position because now thinks adding personhood to the U.S. Constitution could set up a “constituional crisis.”

Romney on state personhood. In October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution establishing that life begins a conception. Later, Romney’s spokespeople backed up this position by telling Politico’s Ben Smith and other reporters that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Summary:  Romney isn’t completely clear on this issue (I’m rolling my eyes as I write that), but  it’s fair to say that Romney has flip flopped on personhood during his career. It’s also a fact that he’s currently against a federal personhood law but for state-based personhood amendments (consistent with his “life-begins-at-conception” belief and his statement to Huckabee).

One prominent journalist who’s clear on Romney’s personhood stance is Curtis Hubbard, editorial page editor of the centrist-right Denver Post. He qualifies as an expert on personhood, having directed news coverage of the personhood ballot initiative in Colorado in 2010. He recently stated on Colorado Public Television, KBDI, “Romney already came out for personhood at the state level.”

Reporters nationally will have a chance to clarify Romney’s views on personhood Saturday, as they report on Florida’s Personhood USA-sponsored presidential forum. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum will attend.

Romney will not attend the event, replicating his pattern of skipping such forums in South Carolina and Iowa, but reporters can contrast his views with personhood promoters Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum.

Personhood USA may also hold a prez forum in Colorado, prior to its Feb. 7 caucus. Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones emailed me yesterday, in response to my query, that Colorado is a “definite candidate” for a personhood forum.