In a May 5 editorial and a May 7 news article, the Rocky Mountain News made dubious assessments and echoed Republican lawmakers' assertions in evaluating the Colorado legislative session that concluded May 4.

The editorial claimed that in passing House Bill 1008, lawmakers "[s]et a terrible precedent on workers comp by stipulating that it will cover most cancers afflicting firefighters even if they can't be linked to the job" -- a characterization that misstated an important clause in the bill. Moreover, in an apparent reference to Senate Bill 199, the May 7 article by Lynn Bartels, April Washington, and Alan Gathright misleadingly listed in its “Winners” category “Republicans,” in part on the dubious grounds that they "[fought] a plan to stabilize property-tax rates." In fact, Republican opponents lost their attempt to defeat the bill, which Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter promoted and legislative Democrats sponsored and passed.

The News editorial listed six examples of what it considered lawmakers' “bad judgment.”

From the editorial “Four months at the Capitol: A box score on the session” in the May 5 edition of the Rocky Mountain News:

Unfortunately, the session succumbed to bad judgment on other issues, as lawmakers:

• Ignored the plain language of Amendment 41 and instructed an ethics commission to dismiss complaints that are clearly valid under the constitution.

• Set up homeowners for future property tax hikes by repealing a state law that had protected them.

• Weakened requirements for state IDs and thus opened the door to more pervasive identity fraud.

• Gave trial lawyers more leverage in lawsuits against homebuilders.

• Set a terrible precedent on workers comp by stipulating that it will cover most cancers afflicting firefighters even if they can't be linked to the job.

• Considered numerous bills that would inflict needless regulation on a variety of professions, and passed a few.
  

Contrary to the News' assertion that HB 1008 would cover firefighters' cancers “even if they can't be linked to the job,” the bill allows for the denial of workers compensation claims for certain cancers in instances when the preponderance of the medical evidence demonstrates that the cancer was not job related:

(1) Death, disability, or impairment of health of a firefighter of any political subdivision who has completed five or more years of employment as a firefighter, caused by cancer of the brain, skin, digestive system, hematological system, or genitourinary system and resulting from his or her employment as a firefighter, shall be considered an occupational disease.

(2) Any condition or impairment of health described in subsection (1) of this section:

(a) Shall be presumed to result from a firefighter's employment if, at the time of becoming a firefighter or thereafter, the firefighter underwent a physical examination that failed to reveal substantial evidence of such condition or impairment of health that preexisted his or her employment as a firefighter; and

(b) Shall not be deemed to result from the firefighter's employment if the firefighter's employer or insurer shows by a preponderance of the medical evidence that such condition or impairment did not occur on the job.

Similarly, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, in a March 10 News column, Peter Blake attacked the bill as “a singularly cynical proposal the firefighters union decided to push once the Democrats took over the entire Statehouse,” claiming, “Nobody really knows what causes cancer.” In fact, a 2006 study by the University of Cincinnati -- described as “the largest comprehensive study to date investigating cancer risk associated with working as a firefighter” -- found that “firefighters are significantly more likely to develop four different types of cancer than workers in other fields.” According to the summary posted on the university's website:

[T]he protective equipment firefighters have used in the past didn't do a good job in protecting them against cancer-causing agents they encounter in their profession, the researchers say.

The researchers found, for example, that firefighters are twice as likely to develop testicular cancer and have significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and prostate cancer than non-firefighters. The researchers also confirmed previous findings that firefighters are at greater risk for multiple myeloma.

In the May 7 article “The good, the bad and the Sanjayas,” the News scored Republicans among the "[w]inners" in part because “they stood their ground on key issues”:

Winners

[...]

• Republicans: They worked with Democrats to reach consensus, from the oil and gas commission to Amendment 41 legislation. But they stood their ground on key issues, making the union bill so unpalatable it had to be vetoed and fighting a plan to stabilize property-tax rates.

The Democrats' “plan to stabilize property-tax rates” took the form of an amendment to SB 199 that freezes property tax, or “mill levy,” rates to help fund schools. In a separate May 5 article summing up the legislative session, the News noted that Ritter had cited SB 199 as one of the significant accomplishments of the legislative session and quoted some of his remarks in its support:

• Ritter: “Voters elected us to solve problems. This fix staves off a fiscal crisis that was just a few years in the offing, while giving voice to voters in nearly every school district across the state.”

Similarly, the same article noted that Democratic Rep. Jack Pommer (Boulder) had listed SB 199 as among the three to five bills he was “most proud of championing” and quoted his criticism of House Republicans who opposed it:

• Pommer: “It's hard to believe that after all their talk about education, all but five House Republicans opposed the most significant public education bill in years. Republicans are all talk and no action when it comes to public education.”

Further, the same article quoted Senate Republicans touting their opposition to the bill:

• GOP leadership: “All 15 Republicans in the Senate opposed this. It forces local school districts to raise property-tax bills for most Colorado home and business owners by $1.7 billion over the next 10 years and does so without being put to a popular vote. The governor pushed for this after brushing aside viable alternatives, and it establishes him as a tax hiker during his first few months in office.”

Moreover, contrary to the suggestion that Republicans fought the mill levy rate freeze on principle, Senate Republicans passed what reportedly was a similar plan when they held the majority in 2004, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.