Analyst: Politics plays role in Owens' vetoes

Governor's office explains reasoning behind his actions

April M. Washington And Rachel Brand, Rocky Mountain News

Saturday, June 3, 2006

Gov. Bill Owens gave his veto pen a workout Friday, bringing the number of bills he's killed this year to 44 - three shy of the record he set in 2005.

"There is no question that in the last two years his veto pen has been aggressive," said Steve Welchert, a Denver political analyst.

Owens, a lame duck governor who is term limited, could have played it safe and avoided the political grief that has followed his controversial vetoes of a low-cost prescription drug bill, emergency contraceptive measure and ethanol fuel bill.

"But what he (Owens) has to lose is his own personal standing with the Republican Party," said Welchert.

He added that both parties will use those vetoes to gain points with voters in November.

Democrats will say Owens sold out to big pharmaceutical companies and oil and gas producers.

Republicans will hail Owens as a true fiscal conservative holding the line on spending and taxes.

Below is a look at some of Owens' more controversial vetoes, how he defends them, and what his critics say.

Senate Bill 1: Colorado would have joined a multistate drug-buying pool, lowering drug prices for lower-income residents.

Democrats howled when Owens vetoed SB 1, contending the measure would have saved the state $3 million annually in Medicaid drug payments and made drugs more affordable for the uninsured.

But Owens thought the state would give up too much in the process.

First, the number and variety of drugs available through the pool would be limited, Owens said.

To join a pool, the state would have to come up with a list of the most effective and cheapest drugs to treat Medicaid patients, called a preferred drug list.

Such lists hurt the disabled and the mentally ill, patient advocates say.

Such people take "multiple medications which interact with one another in complex ways," wrote John Meeker, executive director of Developmental Pathways, in a letter supporting Owens' veto.

"Changing these medications to conform to a Preferred Drug List (PDL) would likely harm many of these individuals and impose even higher costs to the state," Meeker wrote.

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Colorado Cross Disabilities Coalition also opposed the bill.

But Sen. Bob Hagedorn, the Aurora Democrat who wrote the bill, said 11 other states already belong to drug-buying pools, which allow them to buy in bulk and negotiate good prices.

Further, Colorado could have offered those discounts to the state's 750,000 residents without prescription insurance, he said.

Hagedorn accused patient advocacy groups of back-room alliances with the drug industry.

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill "receives 66 percent of their money from drug companies," Hagedorn said. "Of course they'll shill for the drug industry."

Carol Ann Reynolds, executive director of NAMI Colorado, disputed that.

Dan Hopkins, Owens' spokesman, said the governor received enough letters about the bill to convince him it would be harmful.

House Bill 1212: Would have allowed Colorado pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraception without a doctor's prescription.

Owens objected to this bill because he said it would have put the state in the pharmacy business and set a bad precedent.

Owens noted that birth control pills are dispensed only with a doctor's order, as are thousands of other drugs, and he saw no reason to treat emergency contraception differently.

"Why make an exception in this one case?" said Hopkins. "(Owens) just doesn't believe this is one slope we should go down."

Emergency contraception is taken within five days of unprotected sex and prevents pregnancies.

It's currently available with a doctor's order.

Women in rural areas - and those who have unprotected sex on Fridays - may have trouble getting a prescription in time, advocates say, leading to more abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

The bill's sponsor Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, says the real issue is that Owens considers emergency contraception a form of abortion.

But by legal standards, emergency contraception does not end a life, she added.

"People are outraged (by the veto)," she said.

"There's a huge majority of people in the state who think that emergency contraception is an appropriate way to prevent a pregnancy," she said.

The 45,000-member American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology supported the bill, and nine other states allow pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraception.

House Bill 1005: Would have allowed school districts that want full-day kindergarten to hold elections to fund it.

Bill supporters cited studies showing full-day kindergarten gives children advantages that pay off for a lifetime.

They argued that communities have a right to go to voters to see if they if they will support higher taxes for full-day kindergarten.

"The bill itself didn't raise anyone's taxes," said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, HB 1005's sponsor.

"All it did is say if a community wanted to have a full-day kindergarten . . . the school board would have to vote to hold an election. All evidence shows this is one way to improve student achievement," he said.

In his veto, Owens said that other funding options should be explored before school districts seek to raise property taxes.

"As Colorado's economy recovers from the recent downturn, government should not be seeking to increase the tax burden on hardworking Coloradans," Owens wrote.

Senate Bill 138: Would have required 75 percent of gasoline sold at the pumps in Colorado to contain 10 percent ethanol.

Democrats, environmentalists and corn growers cried foul when Owens vetoed the bill. The sponsor, Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said he was surprised when the governor said he wouldn't support it.

"There was a strong movement to kill the bill, and it started on the first floor," Shaffer said, referring to the governor's office. "But I thought it would be difficult for him to veto it politically. I thought this bill played into Republican Party platform" of weaning America off oil.

Owens argued that while the bill would help a few corn producers, Colorado motorists, particularly along the Western Slope, would be forced to pay higher prices for the blended gasoline because it's not widely available in those areas.

Owens believes the free market, not a state mandate, should drive the demand for the corn-based fuel.

"The governor does not believe in mandates, especially at the expense of the consumer," Hopkins said. Additionally, "There are not enough corn growers in Colorado to support ethanol expansion."

Clear Peak of Colorado accused Owens of rewarding wealthy members of Trailhead, a group he founded to win back GOP control of the legislature, whose donors include big oil and gas operators.

Hopkins called such assertions "hogwash."

Behind the vetoes

Sometimes, there is more than meets the eye behind a gubernatorial veto. Often, bills that would appear to have no possible downsides in fact do, according to the governor. A sample:

HOUSE BILL 1346

• What it's about: Would have required health insurers to offer coverage for member employees' grandchildren.

• Arguments for: Would make more Coloradans eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance. Would help teenage girls with babies living at home or grandparents raising grandchildren.

• Why Owens vetoed: The bill would increase health insurance costs for everyone.

HOUSE BILL 1193

• What it's about: Health-care workers who report unsafe or poor-quality medical practices would be protected from employer retaliation.

• Arguments for: Nurses are frustrated when they witness substandard care, but fear if they report it they might be punished.

• Why Owens vetoed: Duplicates existing law on employment practices and could pave the way for unnecessary lawsuits.

HOUSE BILL 1174

• What it's about: All construction workers would be covered by workers compensation insurance.

• Arguments for: Creates a level playing field between general contractors, who are required to have this insurance, and independent contractors - who are not - when bidding for jobs.

• Why Owens vetoed: Would lead to higher costs for small contracting shops and would end up costing homeowners more.

SENATE BILL 198

• What it's about: Would require health insurers to use a standard form when contracting with doctors.

• Arguments for: Doctors say the current a-la-carte process gives health insurers too much power in deciding pay and what procedures can be performed.

• Why Owens vetoed: The state should not dictate business relationships between parties.