Category Archives: TABOR and Fiscal Policy

TABOR–Rhymes With Shaffer!

18
  by: Colorado Pols Fri June 3, 2011 at 1:42 AM MDT

The Colorado Republican House Majority and Senate Minority have sent a joint letter to Senate President Brandon Shaffer, asking him to convene a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council in response to the lawsuit recently filed attacking the constitutionality of the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR):

The letter that Shaffer, who chairs the Executive Committee of Legislative Council, received from Speaker of the House Frank McNulty, House Majority Leader Amy Stephens and Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, states:

“The proponents of the lawsuit claim that requiring prior voter approval of any tax increase violates the core principles of representative government and is therefore unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.  We believe that the right of Colorado voters to approve or reject any tax increase is clearly appropriate.”

McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, said, “Legislative leaders need an open discussion to decide whether we are going to defend the will of Colorado’s voters, or take away the important taxpayer protections in our state Constitution.”  

“Elected officials should be fighting for working families and small businesses, not looking for new ways to raid their pocket books,” said Stephens of Monument…

First of all, there’s very little question that Shaffer will convene this meeting as requested by the Republicans–we haven’t heard yet, but it’s entirely likely he already has and they’re just working out the schedules. It will of course be an opportunity to get prospective congressional candidate Shaffer on the record regarding the TABOR lawsuit, beyond which it’s not really clear what the legislature can do about the case other than grouse for or against. Hopefully they’ll stick to the subject instead of devolving into more proxy running of interference for Cory Gardner.

Which reminds us, are we the only ones who have noticed how many press releases about Shaffer the state-funded House and Senate GOP press offices are churning out these days? A little of that is expected, but it’s getting a bit thick. Can somebody consult the rules about this?

In any event, the lawsuit against TABOR now underway does make a rather fundamental assertion about the role of direct democracy under the Constitution, and as intended by the Founders. The question for the court to decide is not whether citizens have the right to an initiative process where state constitutions provide for it, but whether certain laws passed under that right–in this case, TABOR in Colorado–have so far restricted the ability of their representative government to function that it amounts to an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority. And by extension, representative government itself.

As Exhibit A, the powerlessness of the state to meet basic mandated needs like education, transportation, and health care in the slightest economic downturn. Why was it necessary for the legislature to hunt down so many favored small-fry tax exemptions for business, or abrogate another constitutional provision, Amendment 23, or any of the one-time “gimmicks” and other forms of balance-sheet “trickery” Republicans bemoan year after year? Why does this state consistently rank near the very bottom for funding of so many core functions of government?

Answer: in 1992, the voters of Colorado, rightly or perhaps wrongly, decided that from then on, our elected leaders should not have the authority to solve these problems. And while that may make Frank McNulty’s job nice and easy as a legislator, we’ll be very interested to see if a court finds that the Founding Fathers…expected a little more of him.


Full story: TABOR–Rhymes With Shaffer!

MADCO’s Vindication (Pending); TABOR is Headed to Court

56
  by: droll Mon May 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM MDT

(I’ve long alleged that Doug Bruce was an anarchist, not a conservative, and TABOR was his bomb. – promoted by Aristotle)



Imagine my surprise this morning when I saw huge news on a site for talking about dead squirrels and saw nothing of it here.

TABOR is being challenged in court at long last. Turns out MADCO’s rants may have been read, or maybe he read someone else’s. I don’t know. In any event, the 1992 constitutional amendment is said by the plaintiffs to be unconstitutional.

The suit alleges that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a small-R “republican” government where elected representatives make decisions on behalf of voters.

There are currently no good guesses on whether or not the bi-partisan group of plaintiffs will be successful, the last case making this argument was over 100 years ago and the SCOTUS “punted” on this specific issue.

This decision could ultimately impact every citizen initiative ever passed, from mandating education spending to gay marriage. That’s for a brilliant legal mind to dissect.

Meanwhile, could the lack of coverage and the suit itself be more proof that the world really did start to end on Saturday?

http://www.newsfirst5.com/news…


Full story: MADCO’s Vindication (Pending); TABOR is Headed to Court

Sen. Heath launches initiative to support schools

28
  by: softie Tue May 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM MDT

Yesterday, Senator Rollie Heath announced that he was going forward with Initiative #25. Heath said it was going to be a 5-year timeout to education cuts.

Denver’s finest Eli Stokols reports:

“For too long we have been near the bottom in funding our schools, and the budget cuts we’ve made the last two years have made a bad situation worse,” Heath said. “We can’t tolerate that anymore.

“Doing nothing is just not an option.”

It raises about $530 million annually for education for 5 years by raising the state sales and income tax back up to 1999 levels before the legislature cut them. That is, sales tax goes from 2.9% to 3.0% and state income tax goes from 4.63% to 5.0%. That will equate an average of about $550 per student for all K-12 and higher ed students.

Heath’s initiative has been flying under the radar now; people seemed to have forgotten about it. He says he has the support of several groups, like Great Ed, ARC of Colorado, Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, and local teachers’ unions, among others.

He certainly has a long road to collect the 86,000 necessary signatures, especially if it actually is a grassroots campaign like he claims. I was at an event last week and somebody asked me to sign the petition, so he has at least started some organization.

Poll follows:

 

Also, apparently, Treasurer Walker Stalpeton thoughts were important, as he was quoted as well. He did have this gem of a quote:

Republican state Treasurer Walker Stapleton said the fact that Heath is going to the ballot proves he has no support at the Legislature, which concluded the 2011 session last week.

“I think he chose to have it on the Monday after the legislative session ended because he knows there’s no support for this initiative in the state,” Stapleton said.

What? First off, TABOR demands that any sort of tax increase must go to the ballot, and cannot be passed just by the legislature. Secondly, does that mean that anything that can’t get through the legislature has “no support in the state?” This logic must mean that the Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) have terribly unpopular platforms! There is no support for civil unions, pay day lenders, pro-immigration reform, anti-immigration reform, etc etc you get the point.

Obviously, any sort of legislation to increase state revenue wasn’t going anywhere in the Republican controlled House. If Heath really wanted to raise money to support education, which he seemingly does, he had to go the initiative route.  

What say you pollsters, would you support Heath's Initiative #25?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Full story: Sen. Heath launches initiative to support schools

Gov. Jan Brewer: TABOR in Colorado a “Failed Experiment”

67
  by: c rork Fri April 29, 2011 at 9:36 AM MDT

(This will be a fun one for TABOR diehards to rationalize. Jan Brewer is no “RINO” — this is the same Governor who tells scary stories about the border that are largely untrue. – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Now, I have been critical of Gov. Jan Brewer from time to time. I have characterized her in unkind ways and have opposed her inflammatory rhetoric vehemently. But I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has just vetoed a TABOR incarnate based on some sound reasoning:

“Unfortunately, House Bill 2012 uses a mechanism that is too restrictive. We should learn from the State of Colorado that experimented with a similar mechanism, an experiment that failed.”

Look, when Gov. Jan Brewer is giving us lessons on fiscal policy, it might be time to look ourselves in the mirror. The character that wrote TABOR was recently imprisoned and Colorado’s fiscal situation is dependent on whether we, as a state, can envision serving our citizens with adequate services.

If you’re wondering why Jan Brewer considers TABOR as unwise fiscal policy, simply look to the Bell Policy Center’s Ten Years of Tabor. It is key to understanding why Colorado is 50th in the nation in state support for higher education, 47th in K-12 and stuck in a situation where that support is continually eroding.

Although I’m glad our state is a cautionary tale to states considering arbitrary “spending limits”, Colorado is lacking a concerted effort to fix our budget problems by increasing revenue or reforming the state constitution.

In fact, Rep. Delgrosso and Rep. Beezley are trying to reinstate the same spending caps that Gov. Brewer is talking about in her letter through House Bill 1280. SB 09-228 cleared many of the absurd “spending limits” and formulas in TABOR that would have had a ratchet effect on state services during a prolonged recession.

“Coloradans were upset when Democrats in the legislature repealed the long-standing spending limit,” said Beezley. “This proposal reinstates that limit and ensures that Colorado has a prudent spending limit in place.”

This veto is an egg in the face to the proponents of TABOR and House Bill 1280 that view ludicrous fiscal policy and perpetual budget deficits as a success. Let us hope that our state, and others, can learn from this failed experiment.


Full story: Gov. Jan Brewer: TABOR in Colorado a “Failed Experiment”

Rep. Cletus Slugs The Bear!

17
  by: Colorado Pols Tue April 19, 2011 at 11:37 PM MDT



Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

“A bear woke me up by his bad breath, and I slugged him, and then I shot him.”

–Rep. J. Paul Brown, testifying in favor of HB11-1294

We talked yesterday about a bill from Rep. J. Paul Brown, which would overturn part of a 1992 voter-approved statute that bans hunting of bears in the state between March 1st and September 1st. Brown’s bill is opposed by environmentalists and animal rights groups, and although intended to increase the Department of Wildlife’s authority to set the dates for legal hunting of bears, the DOW didn’t request the bill and is officially neutral.

Rep. Brown himself, though, of course isn’t “neutral” on the subject of bears–from a Durango Herald editorial in January, written in anticipation of a Brown bill on the hunting of bears:

State Rep.-elect J. Paul Brown mistepped in saying recently that he wants to introduce legislation to let the Division of Wildlife allow bear hunting earlier in the year. Colorado voters outlawed bear hunting between March 1 and Sept. 1 in 1992, and there is no reason to think they have changed their minds.

Earlier bear hunting risks killing sows with cubs and is widely thought cruel. Plus, wildlife officials dispute the idea that the ban increased bear problems.

Moreover, as a sheep rancher, Brown left himself open to charges that he put his own interests before the wishes of the voters. That is not a perception to encourage…

Like we said yesterday, Rep. Brown’s bill runs counter to Republican talking points on a host of issues, where opposition to an otherwise popular bill is justified on the basis of prior election results–think TABOR and fee hikes, civil unions and Amendment 43, do not think Amendment 63 and “Obamacare,” etc. This would theoretically make the bill tough for fellow Republicans to support, but that didn’t prove to be the case in committee yesterday.

And, as both the Herald and the audio clip above point to, sheep rancher Brown’s interest in bears is definitely on the “business end.” Going back a long time: Brown is on record protesting state constitutional Amendment 14 way back in 1996, which banned “instant kill” body gripping traps, leghold traps, and poisons for predator control (long since law). In terms of Brown’s concern for animals beyond market value, you can read this Pagosa News op-ed alleging Brown repeatedly transported horses across state lines to Texas and sold them for slaughter.

We said before that Rep. Brown doesn’t strike us as representative of the many good rural Colorado residents we know, and after reading that stuff, we really think not.

And like Janak “Dr. Nick” Joshi on health care, we’re just not sure Brown is the best legislative mouthpiece on animal management. Especially when the DOW hasn’t asked for the “help.”


Full story: Rep. Cletus Slugs The Bear!

Gaspatch Economics–Tax Policy Matters

8
  by: ClubTwitty Tue April 19, 2011 at 5:47 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Edited on request…

Headwaters Economics has new report out that details the differences sound tax and fiscal policy can make in the gaspatch to prepare for the next of the inevitable busts that are systemic to economies heavily dependent on resource extraction.

Dennis Webb at the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is reporting:

Proper tax and other policies can help both states and local governments maximize the benefits of fossil-fuel development while minimizing the challenges posed by its volatility, a new report concludes.

The report, released by the Montana-based Headwater Economics nonprofit research group, points to both Colorado policies, and more specifically those in Garfield and Mesa counties, to make its point.

From the Headwaters release (pdf):

“Fossil fuel development involves enormously valuable resources, but employment and revenue are driven by price which can change rapidly,” said Julia Haggerty Ph.D., the report’s author. “This volatility poses obstacles to stability and long-term economic growth, and the local costs and benefits of fossil fuel energy

development are experienced unevenly.

“Fortunately, policy reforms at the state and local level can help ensure that the public receives a lasting benefit from energy production.”



The Sentinel article contrasts Garfield County, where voters ‘de-bruced’ with Mesa County where TABOR limits remain in force, and the abilities of the two neighboring counties to respond to the recent decrease in commodity prices and thus extraction activity.

Specifically, the report uses Mesa County to provide the counter-point to Garfield’s stronger position, as the Sentinel notes:

The TABOR restrictions remain in place in Mesa County, which barred it from collecting revenue during the time of rapidly growing economic activity, the report said.

The report makes three basic findings, according to the Headwaters release:

First, fossil fuel extraction plays a limited role in state economies, and energy-related jobs, except for Wyoming, provide less than three percent of both total employment and total personal income.

Second, price-not policy-is the primary driver of oil and gas development activity, making it highly volatile. Employment and income from mining, including energy development, in the five-state region follow commodity price trends, and income compensation from mining shrank by the largest percent-16.1 percent from 2008 to 2009-of any economic sector.

Third, tax revenue from fossil fuel extraction-rather than jobs-is the longest-lasting economic legacy of fossil fuel development. While energy revenue varies because of price volatility it continues to accrue long after most jobs have left a region. By maximizing collection of fossil fuel revenue and ensuring it is adequately distributed, states increase the benefits of energy development.

The fact is that energy commodities will remain one of the more volatile sectors of our economy. Designing policy to maximize drilling now as a fix to economic instability does little to prolong or prepare for the next bust.  The better approach, the report seems to suggest, is to design policy that maximizes the more stable (long term) revenue from this activity, to smooth out the troughs that plague resource-dependent economies and which, overtime, hamper their long-term economic health.

Expect the Colorado GOP, it’s legislators, and congressional members to ignore this sound advice.    


Full story: Gaspatch Economics–Tax Policy Matters

Doug Bruce, Author of TABOR, Indicted For Tax Evasion

74
  by: Colorado Pols Sat April 9, 2011 at 12:13 AM MDT

As the AP reports, who will weep for the author of Colorado’s iconic Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights? How ironic is a charge of tax evasion against Bruce, really? How much harder will this make it for the TABOR movement in other states?

Colorado anti-tax crusader Doug Bruce has been indicted for allegedly failing to pay his taxes.

Attorney General John Suthers announced Friday that a statewide grand jury returned the indictment against Bruce on Thursday.

He’s accused of failing to pay taxes on income earned during three years by moving money into a non-profit he founded.

Something tells us we’ll be savoring this irony, and talking about what might finally be Bruce’s much-anticipated fall, for some time. Even if smart local Republicans ditched him long ago.

(Mug shot public domain, courtesy Colorado Department of Law)


Full story: Doug Bruce, Author of TABOR, Indicted For Tax Evasion

Tipton: We Can Drill Our Cake and Eat It Too

10
  by: ClubTwitty Tue March 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM MDT

(While I still think TABOR and the revenue problems are #1 (tied with water) this is #2. And when we get real about severance tax, this is tied for #1. – promoted by MADCO)



Rep. Tipton has just sent out a weekly update to subscribers touting his work this past week in Washington D.C.  Top on the list of accomplishments is the criticism he leveled at Sect. Salazar, although in his video clip he makes gutting regulations and ending government ‘inefficiencies’ the theme of the week.  

So far a bit of a one hit wonder, Rep. Tipton has been taking his tour on the road to friendly crowds across his district: urging less regulation and promoting it’s on-the-ground counterpart, what the GOP calls an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.  Which is really just more taxpayer subsidies and government favor for dirty fossil fuels

Tipton said he thought it was time to curb America’s dependence on foreign sources of oil and said the Western Slope can play a positive role in the nation’s energy portfolio.

“I believe it needs to be all of the above,” he said. “You know, wind, solar, geothermal – let’s take advantage of those. Let’s also develop coal, let’s also develop nuclear energy in this country, let’s develop our oil and our oil shale and do it in a responsible way.”



The details of this dirty energy wish list can be found in HR 909 short titled “A Roadmap for America’s Energy Future,” another item touted in the congressman’s weekly report.  

Dusted off (and retitled) from the last time the GOP controlled the house, HR 909 would open up the outer continental shelf, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and the Mountain West’s oil shale lands to development.  

But it wouldn’t stop there.  These long-sought (by industry) giveaways of public resources for dirty energy development are not enough on their own apparently.  

If the Free Market cannot support such activity itself, Mr. Tipton and the GOPers want to sweeten the deal with some subsidies, even though–in the case of oil shale, for instance–the technology does not yet exist for commercial development:  

HR 909,Subtitle C sect 141

REDUCED PAYMENTS TO ENSURE PRODUCTION.

The Secretary of the Interior may temporarily reduce royalties, fees, rentals, bonus bids, or other payments for leases of Federal lands for the development and production of oil shale resources as necessary to give incentives for and encourage development of such resources, if the Secretary determines that the royalties, fees, rentals,bonus bids, and other payments otherwise authorized by law are hindering production of such resources.

No where, other than in the obligatory nod to ‘sustainability’ and ‘responsibility’ does Mr. Tipton sing the praises of his district’s clean water resources, abundant wildlife, or tens of thousands of constituents who depend on a beautiful, unmarred and healthy environment for life and livelihood. Indeed, in the Craig Daily Press article linked above, he seems to think we can have it all, as simple as that:

The congressman said he thinks such an energy policy creates “win-wins.”

“I believe the winner is going to be the American people because we have two things in my estimation that are critically important,” he said. “We are in a weakened position when we rely on other countries for our energy (and) we are in a crippled position when we start relying on other countries for our food.”

But some Colorado farmers might disagree with this straight-from-the-energy-lobbyist-mouth rosy assessment:

RMFU applauds oil shale announcement Colorado

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union President Kent Peppler praised Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s announcement that Interior will look closely at water issues and agricultural impacts as the discussion of oil shale development moves forward.

“Secretary Salazar described water use as an essential issue in the oil shale debate, and we couldn’t agree more,” Peppler said. “Most of the oil shale lands are on the Colorado River basin, which has been over-allocated from the beginning of the interstate compact. We need to know how much water oil shale developers need, where they expect to get it, and what condition it will be in when they are through with it. Agriculture is the cornerstone of Colorado’s economy and the basis for America’s food security. The secretary understands this, and we urge him to keep it in his thoughts as we move forward slowly on oil shale development.”

This certainly comports with what Congress’ own investigative arm was reporting last November:

Scarce water resources could limit the growth of oil shale development in Colorado and Utah, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Monday.

Oil shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming hold an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, but companies are still trying to find commercially viable ways to extract it.

Oil shale development could have “significant” impacts on water quality and availability, but the exact effects are unclear, partly because what’s known about current water conditions is limited and processes for extracting oil are still being researched, the GAO said.

The GAO urged the Interior Department to figure out the baseline conditions for water resources in the Piceance and Uintah Basins in Colorado and Utah and to coordinate research by other agencies. It also recommended modeling regional groundwater movement to help understand how possible contaminants from oil shale development might travel.

Past studies indicate one to 12 barrels of water, or up to about 500 gallons, may be needed to produce a barrel of oil, though the average for in-situ oil shale production is estimated at five barrels of water, the report said.

And a little more than two years ago Shell’s announcement that it would file for a large right on the Yampa created quite a dust up, according to a 2009 article from the Colorado Independent:

Towns and counties along the Yampa River in rural northwest Colorado are starting to gird for battle against mighty Shell Oil, which in December filed a claim on the Yampa for enough water to fill a proposed reservoir for future oil shale production.

According to the Steamboat Pilot and Today newspaper, the town of Yampa’s board of trustees last week voted unanimously to join any organized legal efforts to block the water grab by Shell.

…Late last month Moffat County commissioners met with the board of commissioners for Routt County (home to Steamboat Springs) to discuss jointly opposing Shell’s water rights application and sharing potentially massive legal fees. Moffat County officials said they plan to follow their land-use board’s suggestion that the county file a formal protest.

But such concerns, I guess, are unfounded. At least Mr. Tipton didn’t mention them last month, when he blasted Sect. Salazar for his decision to review federal oil shale policy from the previous administration.  

Mr. Tipton seems to believe that ‘all of the above’ means keeping AND eating our cake; that wells can be drilled and fracked, that oil shale can be mined, heated, and shipped off to market; AND that Colorado farmers and towns can be well-watered, wildlife not be harmed, and hunting, fishing–and yes, tourists buying pottery–will all continue happily along.  If only government would quit caring about water for farms and towns, wildlife, recreation and an environment that attracts tourists.    

But energy is about tradeoffs.  The more water we use in developing fossil fuels (conventional or un-) the less will be available for agricultural, recreational, and municipal use–and for aquatic and other life downstream.  The more our natural places become industrial zones, the less attractive they will be to tourist and new residents alike.  

Mr. Tipton might score political points and win cash rewards from the drillers and diggers and Big Oil barons in spreading his simplistic ‘win-win’ rhetoric around the safe turf of his district.  But many of us, even in the hinterlands, know enough to know a little: that we can’t have it all.  

Mining for oil shale–like drilling for gas or digging coal–will have impacts on people and communities.  Some might be good (jobs!) but others are–at best–significant challenges and– more often than should be the case–significantly harmful.  If Mr. Tipton is unaware of these trade offs, then he owes it to himself to get educated.  We in his district owe it to ourselves to make sure this happens.  


Full story: Tipton: We Can Drill Our Cake and Eat It Too

On Radio, Gerou says raising taxes not part of her job

22
  by: Jason Salzman Mon March 7, 2011 at 8:41 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



It’s been pointed out numerous times of late that those good protesters who dumped tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 weren’t against taxation. They wanted representation! Taxes, maybe, but let our elected leaders be the ones taxing us, please.

Fast forward about 238 years to Rep. Cheri Gerou Feb. 11, talking about taxes on KVNF community radio in Paonia.

Host Sally Kane asked Gerou about how Colorado will deal with its budget shortfall in the future, and whether tax increases could be “part of the picture.”

“It’s not my job,” answered Gerou, who sits on the Joint Budget Committee. “Tabor does not allow the Legislature to present tax increases. And it’s not my job.”

Not her job? That’s what the Boston Tea Party was all about, not to mention the American Revolution and the Egyptian one, etc.

Kane didn’t ask Gerou about the connection between taxation and representation, but she did present Gerou with a series of thoughtful questions illuminating the dual-track that reporting on the budget story should take.

First Kane asked about the current budget crisis and then about long-term solutions.

Asked about the future, Gerou said, “Way forward for me is to get through this budget cycle.”

Gerou added: “Nothing that they [the Fiscal Policy Institute] are talking about has anything to do with this budget cycle. We are required to cut the budget based on what the revenue forecasts are. We’re looking at a $1.2 billion deficit, and we have to do that. So, any other conversation about any other process is outside of the realm of what I have to deal with right now.”

Kane didn’t let Gerou, a Republican from Evergreen, deflect questions about tax increases with a simple, tax increases won’t solve our budget our problem now anyway.

Kane told Gerou: “I recognize that the current budget is on your plate at the moment, but there is a sense of where can we head beyond the short term, and that’s what I am trying to get at….That was the point of my question, to find out what you personally can see ahead.”

“What I can see ahead is business is starting to recover,” Gerou said. “And what I can see ahead is companies are growing. And that’s the best thing because, quite honestly, business is what funds government. And I’m very heartened by the fact that the economy is going to improve and that we’re coming out of the recession, and that when the economy improves, revenue improves and government has more funding.

So, that’s what I’m looking forward to.”

Kane let Gerou go, but earlier in the same interview, Gerou told Kane that the next Legislature will be looking at a $700 million shortfall for K-12:

“If you look forward to the year after next, we’re looking at a $700 million shortfall for K through 12, to backfill K through 12,” Gerou said. “So, when we’re looking at all these budget deficits, it has to do with the amount of revenue that’s coming into the state.”

So how does this square with Gerou’s proposed “what-I-see-ahead-is-companies-growing” solution to the budget crisis? And her “when-the-economy-improves,-revenue-improves-and-government-has more-funding” vision that she’s “looking forward to.”


Full story: On Radio, Gerou says raising taxes not part of her job

DU Study: Colorado Revenue System Unsustainable

80
  by: c rork Sat February 26, 2011 at 7:02 AM MDT

(Read it and weep – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Yesterday, members of DU’s Center for Economic Progress presented their findings from the first comprehensive study of Colorado’s tax system commissioned by the legislature since 1958.

The findings of the study should reinvigorate supporters of a proposed ballot measure. The presenters were adamant that Colorado’s revenue system is wholly unsustainable and needs to be modernized to support a growing need for state services:

  • Reforms of the revenue system

Colorado’s current revenue system could be made more productive and  flexible with measures that broaden revenue bases to capture a larger share of economic activity. This may be accompanied by lower rates and still result in a more productive and equitable revenue system. In addition, reconsidering the earmarking of certain revenues for specific purposes could increase elected officials’ flexibility to deal with changing circumstances in a timely manner.

After the presentation, Sen. Rollie Heath announced he would be presenting a ballot measure that could be referred to voters. The press conference will be Monday, noon, at the state capitol.

The gist of the report: even with the solid economic recovery that is projected to take place, Colorado can’t grow itself out of it’s revenue problems. No matter how many jobs we create or whether we create a “pro-business” atmosphere, budget problems will continue to plague the state until long-term, structural changes are made to our revenue system.

The researchers characterized Colorado’s revenue system as the most volatile of all 50 states.

Here are they key points from the summary of the preliminary report:


The long-term, persistent structural imbalance between General Fund revenues and expenditures will not be corrected without structural solutions. Below are the policy directions we have identified and will pursue further in the next phase of the project:
  • A long-term planning approach to complement the annual budget process. Structural problems take years to develop; they will not be resolved overnight or during a single budget process. A long-term plan should address the persistent fiscal imbalance. It would be adjusted as necessary when economic circumstances and policy decisions exert different pressures on revenue and expenditure trends.
  • Budget rules that address the volatility of revenue streams. Given Colorado’s volatile tax structure, the management of state finances requires an explicit recognition of that volatility and rules for managing it. A budget stabilization fund would capture revenues generated during unusually large upswings and save it to cover shortfalls that result from large negative swings.
  • A redefinition of the state-local partnership for funding schools or a new way to fund schools. Tax-base erosion under the Gallagher Amendment, property tax limits imposed by the school finance act and TABOR, and the mandated cost increases of Amendment 23 have shifted the burden of funding K-12 education substantially to state resources. The partnership between state and local revenues should be rebalanced or Colorado should consider a new way to pay for public schools.
  • Strategies to address programs, particularly Medicaid, which grow faster than revenues. As Colorado’s large baby boom cohort ages, the state will experience slower per-household revenue growth coupled with greater Medicaid expenses. Strategies include planning for cost increases, more cost-effective ways to deliver Medicaid services and ways to improve the productivity of current revenues.
  • Stable and permanent funding sources for transportation, capital needs and controlled maintenance. In the long term, the General Fund cannot provide surplus funding for transportation, capital needs and controlled maintenance. Other financing mechanisms will need to be identified.

The report’s findings mirror those of a similar report by the Buechner Institute of Governance at the School of Public Affairs, CU Denver. While there may be agreement around the problems with Colorado’s budget, concensus is far from being reached on any solutions.  


Full story: DU Study: Colorado Revenue System Unsustainable

Denver Needs An Education Mayor

49
  by: nancycronk Thu February 24, 2011 at 8:42 PM MDT

As one of many politicos who live outside of Denver, I am watching the Denver Mayoral election with great interest. Do people outside of Denver have a vote? No. Does Denver’s Mayoral race affect us? Absolutely. Is it the rest of the state’s business who is elected Mayor in Denver? Definitely.

As Colorado’s largest city, what happens in Denver affects us all. Laws passed, emerging trends, political realities, and budgetary issues that effect Denver are often precursors to the kinds of things we see in surrounding communities later. The reverse is also true.

Denver has more than a dozen candidates running for Mayor, all of whom voters in my state house district (39), state senate disctict (27) and US  congressional distict (6) would give their I-teeth to have represent them. From Senator Chris Romer, the son of beloved Governor Roy Romer, to the well-thought-of Michael Hancock, Denver is fortunate indeed. (This voter would reconsider anyone on the City Council who voted against the pit bull service dog exemption for people with disabilities, however.)

This Mayoral year is heavy on education concerns. Although the school board, and not the Mayor, make decisions regarding the city’s schools, the Mayor is the political leader of the city. The Mayor has the podium, or the bully pulpit, if you will, and the political clout to get things done. He or she also has the attention of the media — both mainstream and internet-based, that can affect change in the minds of the other leaders around him.

With Governor Hickenlooper’s recent proposed budget cuts to public schools of approximately five hundred dollars per student in K-12, and an additional 37 million dollars to higher education, Coloradans across the state are up in arms. Granted, those who understand the budget process and the horror that is TABOR, know that the Governor is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The state budget must be balanced, and there are few places to cut.

The Governor has invited citizens to suggest alternatives. Personally, as an informed voter, I understand education is the single most powerful  investment to impact the future of any state. I personally would be willing to have higher taxes, pay much higher fees for every governmental service across the board, and am  willing to sacrifice using state parks and highways, if that is what it would take to save our schools.

When we invest in the next generation, we invest in problem-solvers who will handle every problem that comes along for decades to come. When we invest in preschool education, we are investing in the child for his/her lifetime. When we invest in higher education, we invest in the parents of the next generation. Wise legislators, like Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, understand this.

The City of Denver and the people of Colorado need a leader in education to get us through this mess, who can think outside the box. We need a leader who grew up in a family that absolutely depended on public education — as most of our families do in Colorado. We need a leader who has committed his or her life to educating our state’s future generations, and understands the importance of investing in our children. We need a leader who is not afraid of standing up to political pressures. We need a leader who understands that when you invest in children and families before they start school, they perform better as students all the way up, from kindergarten through graduate school. We need a leader who understands that a well-educated populace brings jobs and prosperity to the state, and ultimately, safe streets for everyone.

I believe that leader is James Mejia. Just today, James Mejia released a press release calling on the Governor to restore education funding.

I do not work for James Mejia, and I have not been paid to write this article. (But hey, James, if you want to hire me, give me a call. I’ll gladly quit blogging for a few months on this race in order to help you out.) I have written this diary because I desperately believe that our schools need to be funded, and funded well.

I challenge all of our Denver Mayoral candidates, as well as candidates for Chair in both political parties, to be as courageous and forward-thinking as James Mejia.

I challenge our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, to stand up strongly and confidently in favor of repealing TABOR and increasing taxes — unafraid of the personal political fallout for taking such a stand, as Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer does everyday.

The future of the State of Colorado depends on it.


Mejia Calls on Legislature to Restore Education Funding

Feb. 24, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mejia Calls on Legislature to Restore Education Funding

Mejia asks Joint Budget Committee and Denver delegation to base decision on updated revenue projections, oppose increase in “rainy day” fund

DENVER –  Denver Mayoral Candidate James Mejia today asked the Joint Budget Committee (JBC) and the Denver delegation to the State Legislature to act to restore funding to public education and reduce the proposed $375 million cut in education funding.

Following conversations with members of the JBC, the Denver Public Schools Superintendent and members of the Denver School Board, Mejia sent a letter to the members of the JBC and the Denver delegation, calling on the legislature to:

1.    Make the final decision on education funding based upon updated revenue projections.

2.    Dedicate to education the increased funding that results from higher revenue projections.

3.    Oppose the re-funding of the “rainy day” fund from 2% to 4% and shift the difference to education funding.

In calling for these actions, Mejia noted that the cuts to education recommended by the Governor were based on two month old data, which was the best available at the time but that projections are expected to improve before the JBC is required to act.

“As responsible Coloradans we understand the need for sound fiscal management in tough economic times. As citizens of Denver we fear this will have a catastrophic impact on an already weak public education system,” Mejia wrote. “In DPS our average classroom size is too large, our teachers are asked to perform with inadequate resources and our system is failing too many of our children,”

Addressing the increase of the “rainy day” fund, Mejia wrote “Given the current state of education funding in Colorado, I believe this is indeed a “rainy day” and money should not be diverted from education.”

The full text of the letter sent to the JBC and Denver delegation is included below.

Letter sent to members of the JBC & Denver delegation to State Legislature:

Re:    Education Funding

Governor Hickenlooper’s plan for balancing our budget included a $375 million cut in education funding.  As responsible Coloradans we understand the need for sound fiscal management in tough economic times. As citizens of Denver we fear this will have a catastrophic impact on an already weak public education system.  According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Colorado ranks 40th in per capita education funding.  Reducing our investment in education is not in the best interest of our children, the future workforce of our economy.  I am writing to you as a member of the Joint Budget Committee and Denver’s delegation urging you to restore education funding in Colorado’s budget.

The cuts to education recommended by the Governor were based on two months old data, which was the best available at the time. According to senior members of the Joint Budget Committee the data is likely to improve with updates that will be available before the JBC is required to act.  Additionally, the Governor has recommended increasing contributions to Colorado’s “rainy day” fund from 2% to 4%.  This recommendation is counter to the intent of the statute.  These dollars should be used when the state experiences shortfalls in funding to avoid drastic cuts.  Given the current state of education funding in Colorado, I believe this is indeed a “rainy day” and money should not be diverted from education to grow the “rainy day” fund from 2% to 4%.

I am calling on the Joint Budget Committee and the Denver delegation to:

1.    Make the final decision on education funding based upon updated revenue projections.

2.    Dedicate to education the increased funding that results from higher revenue projections.

3.    Oppose the re-funding of the “rainy day” fund from 2% to 4% and shift the difference to education funding.

In DPS our average classroom size is too large, our teachers are asked to perform with inadequate resources and our system is failing too many of our children.  The Denver Preschool Program, of which I am on leave as the founding CEO, is just beginning to give Denver families the support for early childhood education that is critical to learning success. I believe the proposed cuts to education funding will erase the progress we’ve made with The Denver Preschool Program.

Thank you for your ongoing efforts in the capitol on behalf of all people in Colorado.  Your work is difficult and challenging.  I know there are no easy answers but I believe in the resilience and determination of the people of Denver and our elected officials. We must invest in Denver’s future.

Respectfully,

James Mejia

Candidate for Mayor

City of Denver

End of letter

About James Mejia:

James is a Denver native from a family of 13 children raised in Park Hill.  He is a graduate of East High School, the University of Notre Dame, Arizona State University and Princeton University.  He began his work with the City when as a college student he worked summers for Denver Parks and Rec to help pay his tuition, and later went on to become Manager of the Department for Mayor Webb.  James has served on the DPS School Board, elected as an at-large member, is the founding CEO of the Denver Preschool Program (emphasis mine) and was selected by Mayor Hickenlooper to lead the development of the Denver Justice Center, a $425 million bond project which he delivered on time and on budget.  He is one of Denver’s most respected leaders having received the 2009 Community Leader of the Year from 9News and the Denver Chamber Leadership Foundation.  James is married to Dr. Heather Riley. They have three girls; seven-year old “twins by marriage”, Moya and Alexandra and one year old Riley.

For more information about James Mejia, visit www.MejiaForMayor.com


Full story: Denver Needs An Education Mayor

Romanoff for Governor 2014?

44
  by: nancycronk Fri February 18, 2011 at 10:26 PM MDT

Update on Education protests:

Protesters are encouraged to attend the rally at the CO State Capitol on Tuesday, 2/22 at noon, organized in solidarity with WI workers. Say YES to labor; say NO to education budget cuts, EVERYWHERE.

**************************************************

Let me be the first volunteer.

It appears Governor Hickenlooper would rather decimate our schools than raise taxes on corporations, or for the wealthy. That is unacceptable. http://www.coloradopols.com/di…  If this is a preview of the next four years, I’m not buying.

Carol Hedges, Director of Colorado’s Fiscal Policy Institute, says it much better than this grassroots organizer ever could:

“The proposed spending cuts will also hit college students hard, as state spending per student will be $878 per student less than last year. The result will be increases in tuition and fees that will make a college degree out of the question for literally hundreds of thousands of Colorado residents. (Emphasis mine.) Unemployment in Colorado is already at a 28-year high – it’s hard to imagine how our state will recover if we don’t invest in an educating our future workforce.

“Our state government simply needs more revenue to do the things Coloradans expect, and voters have the power to change our future.”

The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, is pursuing a measure for the state’s November 2011 election that would increase revenue and make the state’s tax system more fair. A key feature is a restructuring of the state personal income tax, establishing six income brackets with six rates and resulting in all Coloradans investing a similar share of their income to support education and other vital community services.

Coloradans can learn more about the tax proposal and sign up to show support at our website. http://www.cclponline.org/fisc…



Bennet worked with us on health care reform beginning early in ’09 and I became a loyal supporter, donating thousands of hours building grassroots support for him over two years (I have no money but I have a few friends). Bloggers, activists and politicos in Colorado know I worked my ass off for Michael Bennet in 2009 and 2010. I created countless facebook pages for the guy, had some events, and blasted his accomplishments using social media.

I never disliked Romanoff. I just paid Michael Bennet a debt of gratitude for going to bat for millions of Americans without health care.

I’m hoping if I pledge myself to a Romanoff for Governor campaign, Hick might notice. Or maybe someone who works for him. Or maybe just a few other Bennetistas on Pols.

As my old Ritter campaign friend and Hick campaign staffer Matthew Derrington will attest, I volunteered for Hickenlooper a little. Not much, but he had my support. I worked hard on GOTV, which benefited all Dems. I have Hickenlooper signs still in my house, and a sticker on my car.

This is not a reaction to left-wing radio; i haven’t listened to them in months. I’m not influenced at all by David Sirota or Mario what’s-his-name. They haven’t been here long, so when they pretend to know about Colorado, I just laugh. (I’m not a native myself, but I’ve been here more than twenty years now, for whatever that’s worth.) I’m joining anyone’s bandwagon. I couldn’t care less about the noise corporate dollars buy on the airwaves.

This is not a threat. This is a notice to the Governor — if there is one sacred part of the Democratic platform, it is education. Supporting education is on the short list of every Democratic party platform at every level, in every state of this country. It always has been, and it always will be. Why? Because education is the food that grows the state. Without quality education, we become like a third-world country. I grew up in the Detroit area; I don’t want to see decay happen to my beloved CO, as well.

We’re not going to sit idly by and watch our Governor cut our schools down to the quick without a fight. If Governor Hickenlooper thinks he can cut education funding drastically, and the grassroots will not organize against those cuts, he’s wrong. If he does cut education before considering raising taxes, we start begging Andrew Romanoff to run for Governor in 2014. And we start hitting the streets.

This is also a challenge — Governor, I want you to succeed. I’d rather be volunteering for “Re-elect Hickenlooper” than “Romanoff for Governor” in 2014. (I’d like to see Andrew Romanoff run for something and win, too.) I want all of our Democrats to succeed. But much more important than any election is our principles… principles like believing in education as a pillar of democracy.

And while I’m at it, I challenge all of our State Party Chair candidates and Denver Mayoral candidates, as well. If you want us to believe in you, to follow you, to support you, and to elect you, lead us out of this budget mess without cutting education. Speak out in favor of raising taxes, go on television and radio every single day and denounce TABOR — do whatever it takes — but take a stand for not cutting education.

If the threat of Andrew made Bennet run to the left, as Romanoff supporters have said so often, imagine what he could do for Hickenlooper. What do you say, Andrew?

Who’s with me? Meet me on facebook and let’s plan this thing.  


Full story: Romanoff for Governor 2014?

How’d We Get to Where We Are? … The Road to 2011

131
  by: TheBell Wed February 16, 2011 at 9:20 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Comments accompanying yesterday’s post on the state budget indicate some folks have a hard time sorting through Colorado’s many fiscal constraints — which is completely understandable. We’ve summarized them in a handy two-page pdf that we call The Road to 2011, but we’ll post it here, too.

Almost three decades of constitutional amendments, legislative acts and economic ups and downs …

To understand how Colorado finds itself in its current fiscal condition, it is helpful to look back at some critical decisions made by legislators and voters over the last 29 years, and at some of the economic and political factors that drove those decisions.

In 1982, near the end of a period of strong economic growth, voters passed the Gallagher Amendment to shield homeowners from significant property tax increases due to rapidly rising home values. The amendment ensures the overall share of statewide property tax revenues paid by homeowners remains at roughly 45 percent of the total, with commercial property owners paying the other 55 percent.

Since Gallagher passed, the total value of residential property in Colorado has grown three times faster than the total value of commercial property. To maintain the 45-55 split, the assessment rate for residential properties has been cut repeatedly while the commercial rate has remained the same.(1)

In 1991, the legislature passed Arveschoug-Bird, a statutory 6 percent cap on annual growth in General Fund appropriations to operating budgets. This provision, named for its legislative sponsors, is usually referred to as a spending limit. It is better understood as a spending formula because it directed where money could be spent rather than limiting how much could be spent. General Fund revenues collected above the 6 percent could still be spent by the state — just not for operating expenses, such as educating students or paying for medical care. For the last dozen years, revenues that topped the 6 percent limit have been largely used to fund transportation and capital construction needs.

In 1992, voters approved the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, a constitutional amendment with wide-ranging implications for all levels of state government. TABOR requires voter approval of tax increases. It also limits revenues, which at the state level cannot increase from one year to the next by more than the increase in population plus inflation. Over time, these limits have been shown to force cuts in government services,(2) and they can be overridden only by a vote of the people. Another of TABOR’s provisions bars the weakening of spending limits without a vote of the people — a provision that until recently many interpreted to mean Arveschoug-Bird, originally passed by the legislature, could be changed only by popular vote.

Among the most far-reaching effects of TABOR is that it shifts the most important fiscal decisions (taxes and spending) away from elected representatives and to the voters. For the most part, state fiscal policy is no longer made by 100 elected legislators and the governor — it is made by more than 3 million registered voters.

In 1997, the legislature passed Senate Bill 1 to allow General Fund revenue to be used for transportation projects once the 6 percent Arveschoug-Bird formula had been reached. For several decades, revenues from the gasoline tax and other sources traditionally used for transportation have not kept pace with need. This is largely due to increased fuel-efficiency of automobiles — motorists pay the same amount of taxes per gallon of gasoline but drive further on that gallon. Once the Arveschoug-Bird cap was reached, SB 1 allowed a little over 10 percent of state sales and use tax revenues to move to the Highway Users Tax Fund, an amount meant to represent the share of those taxes attributable to purchases of vehicles and related items such as tires and auto parts.

During the 1990s, Colorado and the rest of the nation experienced unusually strong economic growth. From 1991 to 2001, Colorado was the third-fastest-growing state as measured by state gross product and by employment growth. State revenues grew with the economy, far exceeding the state’s TABOR limit. Between 1997 and 2001, TABOR required the state to rebate a total of $3.2 billion in revenues that came in above the TABOR limit.

At the end of the decade, the legislature cut sales and income taxes by as much as $800 million. The goal, based on an assumption of continued strong economic growth, was to stop collecting revenues that would just have to be returned.

In 2000, voters passed Amendment 23, a constitutional amendment that requires per-pupil funding for K-12 education to increase by inflation plus 1 percent each year through FY 2010-11. The 1 percent kicker expires in FY 2011-12, but per-pupil K-12 funding still must increase each year by inflation thereafter. The purpose of Amendment 23 was to help Colorado’s funding for public schools catch up to the national average.

Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the stock market bust in 2001-02, the nation (and Colorado) experienced a significant economic downturn. This, combined with the effects of the tax cuts enacted by the legislature, resulted in an unprecedented drop in state revenues. Because the Colorado Constitution requires a balanced budget, this in turn forced the state legislature to slash state services.

Meanwhile, faced with a continued gap in transportation funding, in 2002 the legislature passed HB 1310 to transfer two-thirds of the General Fund excess reserve to the Highway Users Tax Fund. The other third was set aside to build, repair and maintain state buildings. The General Fund excess reserve is what was left over after overall revenues satisfied all other obligations, including General Fund operating budgets, the 4 percent statutory reserve, and transfers to Transportation under SB 1.

Interactions among these and other constitutional and statutory provisions have often produced consequences beyond those intended.

The interaction of the Gallagher and TABOR amendments, for example, caused a major decline in the local tax base for public schools, requiring significant backfill from the state. From 1989 to today, the local share of education funding has dropped from 57 percent to 37 percent – a historic shift toward state funding for public schools.(3) In part to counter this, in 2007 the legislature voted to remove a provision of the 1994 School Finance Act mandating that local school districts reduce their mill levies whenever they experienced TABOR surpluses. This move was challenged in court, but the state Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the Legislature was acting within its authority.

The decline in the local property tax base in turn helped spur passage of Amendment 23. By 2000, Colorado had slipped well below the national average for funding its schools. By requiring funding for public schools to increase faster than inflation, Amendment 23 was designed to help Colorado’s schools catch up.

Protecting public school funding from cuts during the economic downturn, Amendment 23 exacerbated the problem for other parts of the budget. As a result, budget cuts fell heavily in other areas. By 2004-05, appropriations to colleges and universities were 21 percent below where they were in 2001-02, despite continued inflation and enrollment growth.

The tax cuts enacted by the legislature before the economic downturn contributed to the severity of the revenue shortfall in 2002-03. While the intention may have been to stop collecting excess revenues that would have to be returned as the economy grew, the actual effect was to greatly exacerbate the decline in revenues as the economy stalled out.

And as revenues finally started to recover with the economy in 2004, Colorado began to feel the full effects of the so-called ratchet mechanisms in both TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird formula, which lowered both the state revenue limit and the General Fund allocation level by roughly $1 billion during the economic downturn. The effect was to lock in recessionary spending levels. It was comparable to a reservoir that could not be refilled after severe drought, making the low-water mark from the drought the new high-water mark for the future.

In 2005, voters passed Referendum C to bypass TABOR’s ratchet effect and allow state revenues to recover with the economy. Ref C allows the state to retain all revenues it collects for five years (FY 2005-06 through FY 2009-10), regardless of the TABOR limit. For FY 2010-11 and beyond, Ref C lets the state government retain all revenues up to a new “excess state revenues cap” – a cap that still is based on growth in population and inflation but that no longer has a ratchet effect during downturns.

In its first three years, Referendum C allowed the state to retain an additional $3.6 billion, or about 14 percent more than it otherwise would have. Roughly 60 percent of that could be spent on General Fund services, allowing the budgets for K-12 schools, higher education, health and other programs to partially, though not entirely, recover from the downturn.(4)

But because Referendum C did not address the ratchet in the Arveschoug-Bird formula, nearly 40 percent of the revenues it generated (or $1.4 billion) was automatically transferred to transportation ($1.17 billion) and capital construction ($243 million).

In 2008, the nation entered its second major economic downturn in a decade, with state revenues expected to drop by at least $1 billion from previous projections. And while the new revenue limit established by Referendum C will allow revenues to recover with the economy, the ratchet that remained in the Arveschoug-Bird formula was expected to reduce the amount of these revenues that could be spent on General Fund programs by $1.2 billion in FY 2012-13.

To avoid this ratchet effect, in 2009 the legislature passed SB 228, removing the 6 percent formula in Arveschoug-Bird but leaving in place its other provision limiting General Fund expenditures to no more than 5 percent of total state personal income. The removal of the 6 percent formula also effectively eliminated the trigger for SB 1 and HB 1310 transfers to transportation and capital construction. To compensate, SB 228 also committed the state to transfer some General Fund revenues to transportation and capital construction starting 2012. And it created a mechanism for increasing the General Fund reserve or rainy day fund, which has proved inadequate during the last two economic downturns.

That is how we got to where we are today. One clear lesson from the recent past is that an attempt to address a specific problem will often have unintended consequences – and often in areas seemingly unrelated to the original purpose of the measure. As Colorado moves forward from here, we need to be especially attentive to the effect of our actions on all areas that matter to our future.

***

This summary is adapted from Looking Forward, Colorado’s Fiscal Prospects after Ref C, the Bell Policy Center, Colorado Children’s Campaign and the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, 2007.

End notes

1) Colorado Division of Property Taxation 2006 Annual Report, Section II, pages 10 and 14.

2) Ten Years of TABOR, The Bell Policy Center, 2003.

3) Understanding Mill Levy Stabilization in Colorado, Colorado Children’s Campaign, April 9, 2007.

4) Looking Forward, Colorado’s Fiscal Prospects after Ref C.


Full story: How’d We Get to Where We Are? … The Road to 2011

What Kind of “Real Conservative” Will Be the Next Dick Wadhams?

3
  by: Jason Salzman Wed February 16, 2011 at 9:17 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Last week, KHOW’s Dan Caplis asked State Sen. Ted Harvey, who’s one of the people vying to be the next Dick Wadhams, “Do you believe if someone supported Ref C , it shows they are not a real conservative?”

“I believe that Ref C was a poor initiative to put forward for Republicans and that those who supported it obviously are going to have to defend their positions on why they supported it. It is an issue, and we can’t deny it,” Harvey replied, adding that “I’m not going to be saying which issues are off limits and which issues are on limits.”

Ref. C allowed the CO state government to keep for five years tax dollars that would otherwise have been returned to taxpayers under TABOR rules.  Critics, including the Independence Institute, celebrated the end of Ref. C in July.

Caplis told Harvey earlier in the interview, which aired Feb. 8, that the Ref C “hatchet needs to be buried” because it’s causing us to “eat our own” and “costing us elections.” On his radio show, Caplis frequently whines that Jane Norton would have easily beaten Sen. Michael Bennet last fall.

One “particularly destructive” attack against Norton, Caplis said to Harvey, was that because Norton supported Ref C, she “wasn’t a real conservative.”

Harvey replied, “I don’t believe the Ref C issue is what lost the election for Jane Norton, nor do I believe that Ken Buck beating Jane Norton is what lost us the election to Michael Bennett.”



The next day on his radio show, Caplis was asking similar questions of Ryan Call, another candidate for the job of Colorado State Republican Chair.

Call told Caplis: “It was interesting; you obviously had one of my principle opponents in the race on yesterday. When you asked him if he would stand up as party chairman and encourage Colorado Republicans to bury the hatchet on Ref. C, which is what I think you referenced, and other divisive issues, he kind of dodged that question.”

I asked Call to explain in more detail why he thought Harvey dodged Caplis.

“You can still support Referendum C and be a good Republican,” he told me, adding that he personally voted against Ref. C and is pro-life. “You can support referring matters to voters on TABOR and still be a good Republican. You can vote in favor of civil unions and still be a good Republican, as long as you share, by and large, those core principles. You can be a good Republican and be in favor of banning gay marriage and cutting the size of government down pea stamp, if that’s what you want to do.”

“That’s what I was going for,” he said, “and I think it was a fair criticism with respect to, when asked from multiple angles and in questions on the show, whether Sen. Harvey would be a unifying force for Republicans, or would he take sides on who is a true conservative?… Despite the recent news reports that claim that I’m friends with Democrats, I hope I can be their worst enemy. I want to put them in the minority for good.”

The dispute between Harvey and Call reminds me of paragraph from Dick Wadhams’ good-bye letter to Republicans, in which he said he’s tired of GOP activists who see “conspiracies around every corner” while simultaneously “saying  ’uniting conservatives’ is all that’s needed to win tight races” in Colorado.

To me, and apparently to Dan Caplis and others, Ref. C. gets to the heart of the matter. No one will say it’s a litmus test. But which candidate sounds like they’re having it, ahh, Both Ways?

In addition to Harvey and Call, Bart Baron and Leondray Gholston are in the race for Wadhams’ job. Others are considering entering, according to the Colorado Statesman.

As to who will win, Wadhams recently told The Post that Harvey is hallucinating if he thinks he can get elected.

You might think Wadhams was posturing, given that he would have faced Harvey if Wadhams hadn’t resigned and  because the Tea Party seems to have control of the Colorado GOP, at the grassroots level anyway. (See Maes, Buck.)

But as Patricia Calhoun explains nicely in Westword, it looks like the grassroots wing of the GOP will be sending fewer “bonus delegates” to sit on the Republican State Central Committee, which will meet March 26 to select the new chair, than in the past.

In 2009, the GOP central committee had about 400 delegates. This time, it will be closer to 300, because so few Republican votes were cast in 2010. As Calhoun reports, the group of 300 will include 90 GOP elected officials, 192 Republican Country Party representatives, plus state GOP officials, like Wadhams, and other bonus delegates.

So the campaign to be the next Dick Wadhams could be as intense an insider brawl as the Colorado GOP has seen in years, and we all know its insider brawls have been monumental of late.

This presents reporters, and media types like Dan Caplis, with the chance to pin down the candidates on the key issues. Would Harvey, for example, vote for a candidate who supported Ref. C, if another GOP candidate in the same race did not? That’s the kind of question that might bring some of the Both-Ways candidates out of the closet.


Full story: What Kind of “Real Conservative” Will Be the Next Dick Wadhams?

A Fine Idea, But…

58
  by: Colorado Pols Tue February 8, 2011 at 12:50 AM MDT

The AP reports on a bill introduced last Friday by two Republicans, Sen. Nancy Spence and Rep. Tom Massey–yell “stop” when it gets weird:

Movie tickets would cost 10 cents more under a proposal by two Colorado Republicans to raise incentive money for film productions.

House Bill 1207 would add a dime to movie tickets starting in July, with the money designated for the Colorado Office of Film, Television & Media. That office offers tax incentives to try to attract film and television productions to Colorado…

We understand the double-take. What we’ve got here is two Republicans…proposing a fee increase…to fund a government program, right? Now, don’t get us wrong, there is much evidence to suggest that investment in bringing TV and motion picture business to the state nets a very favorable economic return–orders of magnitude over what’s invested. Adjacent states like New Mexico have robust incentive programs to attract movie and television production.

But after Republicans have spent the last two years one step short of pitchforks and torches in their insistence that any such higher fee amounts to a “tax increase” unconstitutional under TABOR…well, what gives, folks? It’s not like the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court saying they’re wrong has altered their tune a bit, at least not on the stump.

Either Massey and Spence are due great praise for blazing a trail to disposal of an arsenal of defeated “tax hike” talking points, or they’ve got some intra-caucus ‘splaining to do.


Full story: A Fine Idea, But…