CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 07, 2013 10:17 AM UTC
15 Comments
Re: "5. FICTION: State Treasurer Walker Stapleton says nothing will prevent districts from simply taking the new money and, through “substitution,” using it to pay for other items – notably pension liability.
FACT: Similar to the current State Education Fund, money raised by Colorado Commits to Kids is constitutionally and statutorily prohibited from ever being used directly to fund PERA. It’s that simple."
Governor Hickenlooper on the relationship of the education funding ballot proposal to PERA funding:
"There is no lump sum subsidy of PERA anywhere in this."
Mike Rosen: "I didn't say there was."
Link:
http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html
FACT: It is a tax increase.
FACT: Voters are sceptical of tax increases.
FACT: It is "a two-tiered progressive income tax increase"
FORECAST: Once the opposition hammers home this point, it is DOA.
FACT: Tax increases kill cute little kittens.
Again Dave, what are you basing that on? Polls I see show SUPPORT for progressive taxes, not opposition.
Do you have evidence that progressive taxation is less popular with the public or don't you?
Speaking as someone who will pay more under this proposal – I support it. I think a multi-tiered tax system is fairer. With that said, on the day I have to send in my tax payment, I'll bitch about it being too high. I do every year.
But only on that one day…
FACT: When you tell people near exactly how their money will be spent, they become more receptive to paying more.
I kind of understand State education tax, more so County tax and am nearly down with district tax but why is nobody fighting the Feds? You have to reduce taxes somewhere to increase them somewhere else otherwise you are constantly eroding the private share of GDP.
I mean if you do not lower Fed tax, keep raising all other taxes, GDP will eventually be consumed in totality.
What tax rate will be enough? When will it stop? Will it ever be enough?
Will a socialist from either major party please chime in and explain the end game…
Let us return to the glory days of Ronald Reagan tax rates.
Or, maybe to the slightly less glorious days of Clinton tax rates, before George Bush lowered them.
Nockie, educate yourself, as it isn't my job: Look up, State, Local, Federal, Property, Gasoline, etc, and add them up. Do this for the past several decades.
"Will a socialist from either major party please chime in and explain the end game…"
That steaming socialist Ronald Reagan probably would, but, at last check he's still mostly dead (. . . and anyway your 21st-century-patriot ilk never really listened to much of anything he said, beyond a few cherry-picked sound bites, . . . just like with the bible)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030729-503544.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/candidates-channeling-reagan-don-t-talk-about-his-tax-increases.html
Unfortunately, it is another FACT that the proposed tax increase does nothing for higher education, which is basically being privatized in Colorado and is in far worse shape than K-12.
We get expanded kindergarten from the new taxes and not much else. While I respedt the support of thoughtful folks like David Thielen, so far I am underwhelmed. Incidentally, as a retiree, I would pay almost nothing in the new tax increase because Colorado has such a high exemption for pensions. But I deeply appreciate what my own higher education did for me. My kids have a J.D. and a Ph.D respectively. Is it asking too much that my grandchildren also have a chance to go to college?
V – I agree with a lot of what you said. But I've got a big question. If we changed HE funding to 90% starting next year, do you think that would solve the problem? Or do yu think tuition would skyrocket over the next 10 years? I think it would skyrocket which means we have to fix the system before paying more in.
The problem, David, is that tuition has been soaring because the state has steadily reduced funding. Both of my kinds went to private sschools for their advanced degrees: DU for my daughers law degree and Boston College for my sons Ph.D in philosophy. She now owes $200 k in student loans, he owes about $100k –fortunately, he had a full ride fellowship after his Masters. We need sweeping reforms in higher education, especially in terms of cost controls. But declining state support has simply caused colleges to boost tuition and let the students put it on Master Card. As a result student debt — which can't be discharged in bankruptcy — is reaching ruinous levels. If I could cash in my 401k tax free, it would just about be enough to pay off my kids student debts. We are pricing college out of the reach of a whole generation and will forfeit the 21st century as a result.
This is what has happened over the past decade to tuition. Ten years ago the state of Colorado paid for 68 cents of every student's college or univeristy education and the student paid the remainder. Today, that has been flipped on its head and the student pays 68 cents of every dollar. If state funding actually went to 90% of the cost, turition immediately would be significantly reduced by about 85%.
The second question is why has this happened. TABOR is by far the greatest culprit. When revenues decrease the only two places in the state budget to cut significantly are the Higher Education and CDOT budgets. The legislature's hands are tied.
Some people suggest we shouldn't support this years initiative for K-12 because funding for higher education isn't included but the fact remains all of the polling done over the past two years has, on every ocassion, shown the public supports additional funding for pre-school, elementary and secondary education but not for higher education. Sad but true in a state, that next to Massachusetts, is the most highly educated state in America. What makes it sadder is the fact our work force needs require that 70% of our high school graduates receive post secondary education. Only around 45% do at this time. We've been lucky thus far by importing graduates trained at colleges and universities in other states to make up the difference but we have to do more. Next year we should lok at and do something about dunding for higher education.
Colorado's state revenue stream has been restricted beyond that otherwise required under the TABOR amendment (Bill Owens income tax cut) and essentially enshrined into the constitutional amendment.
A good analysis, R-36. But when you say "Next year we should lok at and do something about dunding for higher education.
you assume that this passes It would be the first-ever statewide voter approved tax increase post TABOR. Toi think that voters would come right back and approve another tax increase for Hi-ed — which you admit is less popular than the K-12 (though K-12 is much better funded than hi-ed in this state) is to assume a politically unlikely result. As long as K-12 demands everything and won't do anything for other educational needs, I'm a "no."