Kennedy Campaigns Against “Dr. Evil” Initiatives

Colorado Treasurer Cary Kennedy appears to have settled her issue on which to campaign this year, in the form of Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101–not having seen a better nickname emerge for these, we’re sticking with the “Dr. Evil” initiatives.

In an email to supporters today, Kennedy finds an easy target:

If adopted, the measures would immediately generate large deficits and would threaten our state’s good credit. Amendment 60, Amendment 61 and Proposition 101 would be detrimental to Colorado’s financial health and economic prosperity.

Under Amendment 61, Colorado would be the only state in the country barred from financing public infrastructure.  Amendment 60 would invalidate hundreds of local elections to fund schools; and, Proposition 101 would slash state and local revenues at the time they are needed the most.  

Colorado has been fiscally responsible during the economic downturn.  If these three measures pass, Colorado will go down the same reckless path of looming deficits that are bankrupting California.

As Treasurer, there’s probably nobody in state government besides the Governor whose job would be more directly impacted by the passage of these initiatives, so it makes sense that she would spearhead opposition. That’s not to minimize the suffering that would be felt by everyone in the state if they were to pass, but Kennedy obviously understands the threat posed better than most. Kennedy is also smart enough to shred anybody who tried to defend these initiatives in her presence: fortunately, not even many Republicans are willing to do so.

This could put Kennedy’s GOP opponents J.J. Ament and Walker Stapleton, locked in a primary struggle for five more weeks, in a bit of a pickle–since we can’t imagine they would support these initiatives, but opposing them could tip the pivotal “Tea Party” one way…or another.

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    More than a match for Who’s My Daddy and GWBS.

  2. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    This could put Kennedy’s GOP opponents J.J. Ament and Walker Stapleton, locked in a primary struggle for five more weeks, in a bit of a pickle–since we can’t imagine they would support these initiatives, but opposing them could tip the pivotal “Tea Party” one way…or another.

    Any bets as to if they’ll be able to duck this question for 5 weeks?

  3. I was the only candidate for State Treasurer who supported all 3 initiatives – that article has since been taken down

    We did publicize, to delegates and Tea Party especially, that I was the only Treasurer candidate who supported all three initiatives, and based on the Convention results, it seems that the Tea Parties in Colorado are not prioritizing fiscal conservatism as ardently as some think

    With that said, Cary could be making a severe miscalculation – all three candidates for State Treasurer are against these initiatives and the Tea Party crowd has already demonstrated a lack of support for all three – working this issue might not work as well for Cary as she thinks  

    • …I still proudly support the initiatives and stand proud with Douglas Bruce

      Many Colorado Tea Parties (with the Arapahoe Tea Party and Vail Valley 912 as great exceptions) apparently, have more in common with Cary Kennedy than they do with me and Douglas Bruce

      But let it be said – the most fiscal conservative Tea Party groups in Colorado are the Vail Valley 912 and Arapahoe Tea Party

      • colorado76 says:

        That the majority of Republican assembly delegates and Tea Party members refuse to support massively reductions to Colorado public programs and public infrastructure without hearing an actual explanation of what the consequences would be and how the benefits would outweigh the costs.

        The proponents of the initiatives don’t particularly care what the consequences to public programs and infrastructure will be, all they know is that both will be reduced and that’s always a good thing in their mind.  Of course, they’re free to hold that view, but it is a view not shared by a majority of Tea Party members, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Green Party members or anyone else.  The majority of Coloradans want responsible government above and beyond anything else.  They want leaders who have a plan for the State’s future.  

        Mr. Hasan, you have never, ever explained what you think the actual consequences of these initiatives would be and why you think it would be okay.  The explanations you’ve given haven’t been close to an educated evaluation.  You’ve taken the same approach as the proponents, which is “First we’ll slash revenues and the ability to finance, then we’ll see what happens.”  It may be confusing to you, but the majority of Coloradans simply won’t accept such a careless view of leadership.

      • BlueCat says:

        seems almost psychotic at this point.

      • JeffcoDemoJeffcoDemo says:

        She is taking a strong stand that everyone on her side agrees with, a vast majority in the middle agrees with, and any moderate on the other side agrees with.

        Pretty solid stand to take I would guess.

        Once someone understands the impacts of the three measures, it’s only the occasional whack job that would still support it.

        With all due respect and everything.

        • I have always noted which programs to cut – I have never shied away from that

          Most here know that my biggest budgetary criticism is corrections spending – that could easily be cut drastically by sending victimless crime criminals home with a GPS bracelet

          Healthcare is another – we have to end our contract with Medicaid and create an independent healthcare wing that fully privatizes healthcare in Colorado

          We have to do a freeze on government employees

          Those are the major cuts that need to happen  

          • colorado76 says:

            What are “victimless” crimes? Which classes are included?  How much would this program save (in an estimated dollar amount)?  If it could be done “easily,” please explain how.

            Would the state still make contributions to this fully privatized system?  If so, how would the savings result?  If not, how many people would lose access to healthcare?

            When you say a “freeze on government employees,” does that include the Highway Patrol?  The Attorney General’s Office?  What impact would a “freeze” have on public services in Colorado?

            Beyond that, what would the cost of these initiatives be?  How would theyimpact revenues (in an estimated dollar amount)?  How would the lack of financing affect infrastructure?  How would your proposed measures offset these costs?

            You’ve done again what you’ve done before, which is throw out a few abstract ideas and say that solves the problem.  It doesn’t.  Show an actual plan with some actual dollar estimates as to what spending cuts would be made in a way that would actually meet the revenue cuts in the initiatives.  Do the same for financing cuts in Amendment 61.  That’s responsible leadership.

            Until then, you’re just saying cut now and maybe kinda sorta we can do some things to maybe kinda sorta take care of the consequences, and that is not leadership that can be taken seriously.

            • …we should set a goal to have a State that doesn’t rely on borrowing, excessive taxes and unconstitutional mil levy freezes in order to fund itself

              So you want a plan? Here’s the plan –

              Pass 60, 61, and 101 and make the necessary cuts – from there, any additional spending that’s requested can be put on a BALLOT and voted on, as specified by our Colorado Constitution – and at that time, you 76, can give me a presentation for why the government needs so much money

              That’s my plan :)  

              • colorado76 says:

                It’s okay to say “I don’t know.”  It’s okay to argue for revenue cuts without knowing how they would affect Coloradans.  It’s just not something that most Coloradans, even Tea Party members (as you note) will accept.

                No one, absolutely no one, has even tried to figure out what the costs of these initiatives would be and then argue for that outcome intelligently.  Instead, the proponents, including yourself, say make the revenue cuts now and the rest will work itself out.  But you’re asking people to follow you down a road when you don’t know where it leads, and so its not too surprising that there isn’t a long line behind you.

                • Car 31 says:

                  Cities and counties are creating two budgets for the next year. One for operating as usual, within the framework of the current fiscal crisis, and the other if these half baked proposals pass.

                  So locals and some others have a general idea of what will happen if 60, 61 and 101 pass.

                  It’s like Doug Bruce in the shower, not a pretty sight.  

                  • colorado76 says:

                    My syntax leaves something to be desired, but I was saying that no one has studied the consequences in depth and then used the data to argue for the proposals. There are neutral analyses and opposition analyses, but no one on the proponent side to date has owned up to the scope of the program cuts before arguing for passage.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.