Denver Post
Staff Reports
February 24, 2005

Jobs bill would hurt Colorado

Helping rescue state government from its fiscal straitjacket is a daunting task. Trying to figure out America's - and Colorado's - role in the global economy is equally tricky.

The Colorado legislature should worry about the first job and not the second.

The state Senate's Business, Labor and Technology Committee on Tuesday voted 5-2 to advance Senate Bill 23, dubbed the Keep Jobs in America Act. The bill would prohibit the award of state contracts for services to companies that perform (or have subcontractors perform) the services outside the U.S. The bill goes to the full Senate, where sponsor Sen. Deanna Hanna, D-Lakewood, expects "a doozy" of a debate.

Testimony to the committee was divided along predictable lines: Union and unemployed worker witnesses loved the bill; business witnesses opposed it. Also opposed is Gov. Bill Owens.

Timothy Murphy, budget director of the state Department of Personnel and Administration, wrote a memo predicting the bill would cost the state an extra $28 million to $73 million a year. Even if you're a cynic and assume Owens' administration would take the business side in this argument, it seems logical that SB 23 could shrink the pool of potential bidders, reducing the state's chances of getting the best deals.

State programs have been brutalized by the recent recession and conflicting constitutional spending requirements. Lawmakers have their hands full both trying to create a more rational fiscal system and minimizing damage to state programs in the 2005-06 budget year. They need to focus on those challenges - and not incur avoidable costs like those that might be created by passage of SB 23.

Beyond dollars and cents, the logic of such contract restrictions seem to make little sense when you consider Colorado's place in the global economy. Love them or hate them, it's hard for the state to avoid doing business with international computer giants such as IBM and Microsoft. Can we really expect state government to cut off such vendors?

And then there's a law of unintended consequences. Nearly 77,000 Colorado workers are employed by subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies, according to the Organization for International Investment. What if one of those Colorado employers could offer services to the state but would need some help from workers at a location overseas? SB 23 would seem to bar such a bidder, so its Colorado employees would miss out on the benefit of a state contract.