President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 09, 2011 02:11 AM UTC

"Show Us The Money" With Pay-As-You-Go?

  • 3 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

House Democrats held a press conference this afternoon on a newly-introduced bill that will, depending on who you talk to, either attract a lot of bipartisan support–or, as seems to be the case, give the House Republican majority some rather telling indigestion. House Bill 1052, known as the “Paygo” bill, would require all bills that either involve a tax expenditure or result in a decrease in revenue to the state either specifically identify offseting cuts or increases in revenue. We’re told the press conference was well-attended by media, so we’ll be watching for coverage. A press release from liberal coalition Strong Colorado follows after the jump.

We’re told that “Paygo” is not going over well with House Speaker Frank McNulty, who might well want to see it killed in the House Finance Committee later this week–before it becomes an uncomfortable distraction. Passage of “Paygo” would make the current fad of demanding cuts in the abstract, without talking about the bleeding, more difficult. The terms of this debate would seem to favor proponents, as the voters generally do prefer lawmakers to show their math.

They just might not like the bottom line.

February 8, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

It’s Time to Have a Commonsense Conversation

About Colorado’s Budget

Campaign for a Strong Colorado is supporting  “Pay as You Go” (HB 1052) legislation to begin an honest, commonsense discussion on the state’s budget priorities for the future. The proposal requires any bill that decreases state revenue or gives a tax exemption must also identify the accompanying required state budget cuts.

“Show us the money – where do we cut if we’re going to have less money in the budget because of tax breaks? In tough economic times, you can’t give away money in tax exemptions without saying what public services will be cut. That’s the budget equivalent of only eating desert and no fruits and vegetables,” said Ellen Dumm, executive director of Strong Colorado.

Colorado currently requires a fiscal note –  the estimated amount of money a bill would cost to implement – but does not require proposed decreases to be accompanied by offsetting cuts. Colorado, like 44 other states, has suffered from decreased revenues since 2008, and has a constitutional requirement to balance its budget.  

“Pay Go”  (HB 1052)  is sponsored by Rep. Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder) and Senator John Morse (D-Colorado Springs). It will be heard in the House Finance Committee on Thursday.

Comments

3 thoughts on ““Show Us The Money” With Pay-As-You-Go?

  1. We already have a balanced budget requirement; at the end of the (short) legislative season, all of these offsets have to be figured out anyway.

    The fiscal note attached to spending bills doesn’t require figuring out where to cut spending or increase revenue, either – it’s just a note saying “this costs X money”.

    So I think on balance this is more political posturing than something that will materially affect the legislature’s budget decisions.

    1. If the GOP’s cuts amount to posturing because they won’t do the hard part of offsetting those cuts at the same time as their “cut the dildo fund” grandstanding, what is the problem with posturing right back?

      Guvs are right. Make ’em show their work, don’t leave it to a buck-passing vote of the COW.

  2. Because it frames up any new expense in comparison to an existing service. Doesn’t mean the one ID’ed has to be dropped, but it does mean if you can’t find an existing program less worthy, then a proposed new program doesn’t make sense.

    With that said, my guess is the republicans will find one program they don’t like, the dems will find another they’re not wild on – and those two poor program will be the proposed offset for everything. But if that gets the legislature to then drop 2 programs that aren’t as important – that’s still a win.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

87 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!