Although I believe it’s highly unlikely he could win my vote.
And it makes little sense to me for him to comment on policy and process that has nothing to do with the Treasurer’s Office, he did and he should explain it as he promised.
Example- it would not matter much to me one way or another if the Colorado Treasurer was for or against the Iraq war, or NAFTA, or closing GITMO because the Treasurer has nothing to do with any of those things.
Likewise, the Treasurer does not have much if anything to do with legislating in Colorado. So if I think the road budget can be cut to avoid cutting prisons or education, why should I care what the Treasurer thinks?
Indirectly, promoting someone to Treasurer may lead to that person holding other office later, so of course that concerns me. But back to MAH.
I definitely support the Doug Bruce Initiatives
…..and come early January, I’ll be ready to articulate that opinion solidlyTABOR4LIFE
by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 01:44:14 AM MST
And then in early Jan –
I proudly support 60, 61, and 101
(did Gertie read that?)I support 60, 61, and 101 because taxes and fees on cell phones, pagers, satellites, etc, should go to a statewide vote under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
In addition, the increasing fees on car registration should also go to a statewide vote
Lastly, any monies collected from the Mil Levy Freeze a few years ago, again, should go to a statewide ballot
If government officials want this extra money, then they should ask permission for it as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights requires, and I believe that Jon Caldara said it best by saying –
“COPs were a construct of the Supreme Court, the same thing with the mill levy freeze, which was a blatant violation of the Constitution,” Caldara said. “These would correct those disastrous decisions by the Supreme Court, who apparently have redefined what English words mean. How certificates of participation are not debt is insane; how the mill-levy freeze is not a change to public policy is insane, too. These things wouldn’t be necessary if our Supreme Court used English the way the rest of us do.”
Again, I’m a TABOR4LIFE Republican, not a Ref C Republican….
TABOR4LIFE
by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:44:08 PM MST
To restate your conclusion MAH, your main logic is that everything that creates an increase in revenue to the state should be put to the voters. Lesser point s that the CO Supreme court has been wrong and you know because Caldera said so.
I don’t want to quibble much, so I’ll leave aside for the moment challenging whether the above should count as “articulate that opinion solidly.” And it’s not especially relevant to the Treasurer, so I’l leave aside the obvious question about if the Legislature cannot create a budget nor the means to fund it, why do we need them.
Would you say that FASTER was required to be presented to the voters? If not, how is that any different from cell phone fees?
If so, as Treasurer what would you do to get decisions and actions such as this on the ballot?
The mill levy rule always struck me as a dumb controversy.
So the voters of property taxing entity X decide by vote to de-Bruce, in part because of Gallagher and in part because the state would backfill any loss of funding to the school district.
The state decides to stop backfilling and to change the state law that resulted in the mill levy float- effectively freezing the mill levy rate- and now jurisdiction X has a choice. Allow their mill levy to stay the same until they vote meaning that their dollar value of taxes will go up as their property vales go up. Or they could vote to lower their mill levy. In fact they could vote to automatically lower the actual mill levy so the dollar value of their taxes stays the same or goes up, but less than the rise in property value or goes down with rising values or whatever they want.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the CO income tax rate doesn’t change from year to year. So if my taxable income goes up (I hope and pray) then my income tax bill goes up and the state collects more revenue from me. I don’t get a TABOR vote in that instance – do you think I should? Or said another way, if everyone’s income went up and hence their income tax bill, should we get a TABOR vote on that increase?
And, of course, as Treasurer what would you do to get decisions and actions such as this on the ballot?
As for the CO Supreme Court and Caldera.
Caldera is a hack. Now, hacks are not necessarily always wrong. Though, sadly unlike clocks, they are not necessarily right twice a day. In fact, there is no reason to guarantee they are ever right. Hacks aren’t about being right or wrong in the sense the rest of us define those terms. They are only concerned with ideological loyalty.
And Caldera doesn’t even trust the voters so even if the voters had voted for the mill levy freeze, he would have said it should not be done anyway. Which is exactly what he said about TREX and SCFD and FaSTrax and every other public trasnportation issue. Yes, the voters approved it but they were wrong, they were lied to, they are idiots, etc. (Never mind that TABOR failed more than once before passing by a narrow margin, nothing to see here, quick make it a single subject from here on out).
So, another poster summarized quite well why I do not support your candidacy and you should not be elected. I’m just tired of letting the debate be framed inaccurately and you said you support the CO budget killing ballot issues, and would “…articulate that opinion solidly.” in early January. Which is now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Oltmann and Boebert Spread Misinformation on Trump Attack
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Oltmann and Boebert Spread Misinformation on Trump Attack
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Madco – I appreciate your question and I believe I stated why I support 60, 61, and 101 in a past forum here on CPols
If the State Government of Colorado is going to collect additional monies, on anything, it needs to be approved by the statewide voters, under my interpretation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights – the monies collected under the Mil Levy Freeze, the car tax, and additional taxes on cell phones, pagers, etc, would all fall under this guideline
In turn, 60, 61, and 101 would repeal such taxes and if the legislature or the voting population wishes to continue these taxes, then they are more than welcome to push for a ballot initiative that will collect such monies, but this time, with voter approval, as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights commands
Lastly, to address this question –
“I don’t get a TABOR vote in that instance – do you think I should? Or said another way, if everyone’s income went up and hence their income tax bill, should we get a TABOR vote on that increase?”
If everyone’s income goes beyond growth plus inflation, with the state collecting a surplus, then under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the taxpayers will be credited any collected surplus (at least it will go back to that method once Ref C evaporates) and that’s a policy I support
Regarding whether the government needs more money – the answer is simple – just put it on a ballot and vote