U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 22, 2009 07:38 PM UTC
127 Comments
I’m just sayin’…
Count me in.
I believe 5 is the quorum for holding a constitutional convention in CO! Please pick a non-descript place where the crazy fringe can’t find you, and hold a meetin’. I think any place in Aurora or Douglas County will do you fine.
When was our last one?
Does it have to be all or nothing? I.e, can a convention be convened that can’t touch certain parts of the existing Consitution- or if they convene, hang on ’cause they could change it al.
Both houses of the Legislature have to agree, via 2/3 majority, to approve a referendum to call a convention. Then, the voters have to approve that. And then, two delegates from each Senate district need to be elected.
Once that is all out of the way, the convention gets going, funded by the legislature. Any proposed new constitution has to be ratified by the voters.
The Constitution gives no limits on what a Convention might accomplish, beyond adhering to the US Constitution. You can be assured that the respective parties will do their darndest to find convention representatives that will support the party line. But all bets are off once it begins to meet.
See Article XIX of the Colorado Constitution for background.
The argument I’ve heard from legislators is that “it takes too long”. But every session we wait is another session longer before we can fix this mess.
that does sound hard. And like it would take awhile.
Why can’t this self governance crap be ez?
I mean, why does this representational form of gov’t require so much showing up and doing stuff?
How about if we just suspend the single subject rule when it comes to addressing amendments and initiatives that were passed before the single subject rule existed?
approve a constitutional amendment enacting a different procedure, right? Like what’s going on in California?
But it’s hard to see how that would take much less time. Unless the amendment were titled (and in effect) “Require the Legislature to call a Constitutional Convention within 3 months of passage of this Amendment”.
Regardless, any constitutional modification option will take many many months to accomplish, so Ritter and the Leg need to get creative here in the meantime.
but to do it better. An amendment similar to the one under way in California could call the convention itself, and establish delegate selection procedures far less likely to derail into a partisan shout-fest. My question wasn’t in response to the need for quick action on the current deficits, but to your call for a constitutional convention to solve this mess once and for all.
Interesting idea. I have to admit, the current procedures for calling a Convention are very, very baroque (among the most difficult in the nation).
IMO, the procedures for constitutional revision (amendment or convention) need to be one of the things revised at a Convention.
is that the elected officials don’t “trust us” to make the “right decision” on a new constitution.
You get to vote on your delegate representatives, and you get to vote for or against any proposed constitution. What’s to trust? It would all be out in the wide open.
..placing my well-being up to vote has worked out so well in the past. What’s to trust?! Silly me.
As Churchill said, it’s the worst possible political system, except for all the others. I don’t like the results at imes either, but I’ll take it over any other approach.
…oh, yeah, never.
And our democracy, like everything else composed of people, is imperfect. But for over 200 years it has worked and over the long term has improved – greatly.
The giant miracle is it worked. When the U.S. was created there had never been a democracy outside of a city-state. There were no democracies in modern times. The smart money was on the U.S. falling apart in 25 years.
Instead we grew. And continued as a democracy as our world changed at an ever accelerating rate. It’s actually one of the most incredible successes of the human race.
The fact that you don’t see the results you think should occur is not a sign that we are not a democracy. For a country this large and diverse any fair compromise is going to leave most everyone unhappy.
But I’ll take what we have over any other approach.
Of course they don’t. If they don’t trust voters to approve a tax increase at a time like this, how could they possibly “trust us” to rewrite the rules.
to make the controversial decisions they don’t want to be held responsible for, which is why they keep “trusting” us to pass constitutional amendments one after the other. They collectively show little enthusiasm for making it harder for us to do so and themselves more responsible for doing their jobs on the tough stuff via legislation.
Much easier to be able to say, hey, the fact that things are so screwed up is not our fault. The amendments the wacky public keeps passing put us in handcuffs. If we provide them with a key, they can’t hide from tough choices. Don’t expect much clamouring for that key from most state legislators.
With TABOR, Gallagher and Amendment 23, the Governor’s and legislature’s hands are tied. The Governor and General Assembly have tried a combination of budget cuts and fee increases but the recession is the worst we have experienced since the 1930’s. Besides, the state can’t deficit spend.
The only way to prevent this from happening again is to free up the Governor and the General Assembly to manage not only the budget but also the revenue side of state government. TABOR, Amendment 23 and Gallagher all need to be repealed. If we return to representative government and we don’t like what our governors, senators and representatives do, then we can turn them out at the next election.
The present hodge podge of constitutional amendments allows irresponsible individuals like Rep. King to grandstand one day demanding more budget cuts and the next day critisizing the cuts he demanded for one simple reason . . . he can’t be held accountable because the state constitutional structure allows such antics.
During the long recession in the 1980’s which was not nearly as deep as this one, the General Assembly and governor had control not only over the budget but also over the revenue side of state spending. After returning excess tax revenues to voters in the late 1970’s in the form of rebates, the recession of the 1980’s began and what did the legislature and governor do? They adjusted tax rates to insure a continuation budget so we could preserve core government programs like education (K-12), higher education, transportation and others.
Behind Rep. King’s statements is a sordid, silly and radical assumption. By obvious implication, he believes nothing government does is worth preserving. Cut all programs no matter what the intrinsic value to our society today or for our long term future or the consequences.
Our constitutional system in Colorado, especially TABOR, has divorced elected leaders from the responsibility we assume they have for the well being of public institutions that underpin and support our society today and tomorrow. Republicans like Rep. King would have been laughed out of the Republican caucus in the 1980’s and today he represents a dead end philosophy that cares for nothing except power.
Until the Republican caucus, including Mr. Penry, engage the voters in a discussion about what public institutions and government functions they believe are worth preserving, they should be ignored by both the news folks and the voters.
Yes the mess is worse because of all the crap in the constitution.
But that does not mean Ritter cannot call for a tax increase to be placed on the ballot. And that tax can be aimed at higher incomes – people for whom it may hurt, but can afford it.
It’s not leadership to run away from solutions that may be our best way out – but will be politically unpopular.
I don’t think Gov. Ritter is running away from possible solutions. In my humble political judgment, asking for a tax hike is political suicide, not leadership and what good would it do Colorado if the end result is the election of a guy like Mr. Penry who doesn’t have any plans for Colorado except cut taxes which, of course, would, if passed, require even deeper cuts in existing programs.
If the Democratic party is going to run on the platform of we’ll cut as much as the Republicans – but we’ll at least feel bad about it – I don’t see much difference.
At the very least he should make a serious effort. Publicly invite in the legislative leadership (which includes Penry) and see if he can find some solution they will all support.
Your statement is predicated on a belief that Ritter is poised to win re-election next year.
That’s a highly debateable assumption.
I agree with David,
The governor has repeatedly stated that he will not look to new revenue sources to avoid deep cuts to essential state services.
If I had wanted a governor with a Republican philosophy I would have voted for one in 2006. That the governor professes personal angst over these cuts does not mitigate his actions.
We have a fiscal crisis in this state and Bill Ritter is hoping that he can avoid talking honestly about our crisis. He’s hoping that he can avoid riling up an already angry and energized Republican base. He’s hoping that he can placate business interests who are poised to spend 10’s of millions of dollars to defeat him.
All the while he is hoping that if he lets his base know that he feels bad about the cuts they’ll still show up for him next fall. He’s hoping that at the end of the day voters will think that he’s not as bad as his opponent.
It’s not a strategy of a confident campaign. and it’s not the strategy that a leader would pursue. It’s the strategy of a candidate that is hoping to eek out a victory next year by not taking a strong position on anything. It’s the strategy of a candidate who is hoping to win not based on his own achievements and leadership but rather based on being “not as bad” as the alternative.
It’s damned disappointing.
At least with a Republican as governor we can hope putting a Democrat there would lead to an improvement. And we can blame the disaster on the Republicans.
Ritter needs to step up and act like a Democrat. Not a Satan-worshiping communist Boulder nut-case – but a plain old Democrat. One that speaks in favor of the government existing. One that speaks to the phenomenal ROI from government investment in things like roads, schools, and health.
Voters aren’t stupid. They don’t want to live in a no-government hell-hole like Somalia. But we need leaders who can speak to the specific trade-offs.
wha?
I know where you are trying to go with this.
But Penry isn’t preferable to jack shit.
I’ll defer to your judgment if you are able to tell me what his plan is–what exactly it is that makes him preferable.
If you can, God bless you, because he can’t. Or won’t. Same difference.
David will be a long time trying to come up with any Penry plan. He’s been clueless about Penry for quite a while. What is it you find “preferable” about a nonexistent Penry plan, David?
But I was trying to point out that in terms of end result – are we getting much different on the budget right now? Beauprez or Penry would be doing the same thing Ritter is doing. They might cut in slightly different places but that would be the only difference.
No difference in proposed taxes (even Penry would not suggest a cut right now).
No difference in what the state does (ie things like decriminalizing drugs).
So on the budget response – what’s the major diff?
is that Ritter is making the difficult decisions. It’s what we pay him to do. Penry does not offer solutions. He seems to believe he is paid just to whine and be satisfied with being known as Colorado’s “lemming leader”. Hell, I’ll even help Josh. He can start by giving his unearned paychecks back to the state.
Penry and the Republicans still believe that privatization cures everything governmental so they would be pushing for a permanent reduction in taxes and services. They don’t see government as every being beneficial.
Ritter is actually being pragmatic about the issue. He can’t raise taxes and he can’t sustain the budget. Denying services to the poor and most vulnerable is the obvious strategy. In that regard, Ritter differs little from the cold hearted Republicans. There are a lot of who-gives-a-damn-about-the-base attitude with Ritter but at least he says that he hopes the cuts will be temporary.
David, you are so wrong on so many levels. You sit where I sit everyday, and tell me that Gov. Ritter can just put a tax increase on the ballot this fall, find the money to fund a campaign to convince Coloradans to increase taxes on themselves in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s, and expect that it succeeds.
If you look at the record, you will see that Ritter went out on a limb to reform education, stabilize the mil levy (which meant lesser cuts in higher ed), convinced the legislature to pass SB 228, which eliminates the 6% growth cap in TABOR, and got new revenues for transportation with FASTER. All with virtually no R support.
In addition, since 2007, he’s created a new pre-school program for at risk kids, funded full day kindergarten, and in his first 2 years in office, increased state funding for higher ed more than any Governor in the history of Colorado. I could go on and on.
Then the economy tanks, along with state revenues. In these cuts, Ritter protected full day K, protected pre-school, and dozens of things like Meals on Wheels.
If you think either Penry or McInnis would have done any of these things in the last 2-1/2 years, or protected any of these advances in this budget crisis, you are dead wrong.
You give Ritter absolutely no credit for the way he’s approached this budget crisis. He’s been thoughtful and responsible, and a real leader for the state, with the right values.
And for you to suggest that he’s no different than Beauprez or Penry or McInnis is like suggesting Obama is no different than Bush or McCain. Maybe you are.
You, Penry and McInnis are doing the same thing — launching bombs at Ritter, who’s in the trenches doing the tough work — and offering nothing specific as an alternative.
Jim Carpenter
Chief of Staff
Gov. Bill Ritter
You’ve been served.
…but have you seen his trenchant coffee-talks? Those will blow you away!
Specifics below.
First off, I have posted here many times that I think Ritter has been doing a good job in a horrible environment and deserves credit for that. And in the specifics of figuring out where to cut he’s been spot-on.
But he’s operating within the present constraints rather than trying to change them. And on that point I do think it’s no different from what we would get with Penry or McInnis.
Why is there no discussion of trying to pass a major capital expenditures bond as that would inject jobs today with most of the bill due tomorrow when the economy has recovered?
Why is there no discussion of a graduated tax rate and you then bring about increased taxes on the rich only? I’d support my taxes going up rather than seeing the new cuts imposed.
Why is there no discussion of the trade-offs of decriminalizing drugs? That could reduce expenses by hundreds of millions/year and increase tax revenue. I’m not saying do it, I’m saying why isn’t it being looked at?
So there you go, three specific alternatives that could make a substantial difference.
From comments below – what about putting every single tax credit, waiver, etc on the table. And then take the approach that the only ones not repealed are those that show a major ROI now?
Constitution prohibits debt, so couldn’t do a bond without voter approval (remember the defeat of Ref. D with C passed).
Graduated tax changes would take a vote of the people. (see my earlier comments).
decriminalizing drugs? I can’t imagine the Colorado legislature would go for that. And the feds would have a little to say about it to. and Ritter’s already instituting an early release program with enhanced parole for offenders near their mandatory parole date (not uncontroversial)
My broader point is this: 43% of the budget is off limits because of Amendment 23 (don’t think we should get rid of that). That leaves health care (much of it federally mandated), human services (any cuts or reforms are controversial) higher ed and corrections. Broader fixes, given where we are with TABOR, etc. take years to get a coalition to support. (remember 59)
RItter fought hard for Ref. C, he’s tackled fiscal reforms legislatively (and gotten sued and won so far), and is working with a broad group on reforms in the future.
The stark fact is: every state in the country is in this box, to some degree. It will only get fixed by economic recovery, which this President, with strong support of Ritter and our federal delegation, is working hard to do.
To expect some magic, silver bullets or easy answers is just not the world we’re in right now.
All we can afford right now is lead 🙂
Yes a bond requires a vote. Why is there no bond initiative on the ’09 ballot? Ref A was passed in the ’99 election so bonds can be passed in odd years. You’d have that money in 3 months.
Decriminalizing drugs you dismiss with “I can’t imagine the Colorado legislature would go for that.” Have you asked? with a potential savings of hundreds of millions, you might consider a phone call or two.
You skipped the proposal to repeal all of the corporate welfare and other tax breaks. Something that can be done quickly.
I’m not saying any of the above definitely make sense. I’m not saying any would pass. What bothers me is there appears to be no attempt to even seriously consider them.
Innovative leadership requires considering things outside of the norm. It means demanding of your staff that they find new alternatives.
I see you guys doing a good job making the best decisions possible under horrible budget constraints. I don’t see you looking for ways to change the game.
“I’m not saying any of the above makes sense. I’m not saying any would pass. What bothers me is there appears to be no attempt to even seriously consider them.”
David: They don’t make sense. They wouldn’t pass. So why consider them?
With all due respect Jim, we keep hearing from the Governor and state Democrats that we just have to wait a couple more years and we will fix TABOR, propose tax increases, fix the constitution. Then, a couple years pass and we’re given the same line – “Just wait”
How do you expect to pass TABOR reform or tax increases when the economy, in all likelyhood, will be recovering? There is more awareness about the state budget and its problems right NOW throughout the state. NOW is the time to fix these problems.
How many more programs will be cut before November 2011? It’s time we put Colorado’s interests first, not re-election.
With all due respect, which is more important–the Governor getting re-elected, or this state getting back on track fiscally?
You seem to be implying that the two are mutually exclusive.
I liked the fact that Mr. Carpenter highlighted some of the things that the Ritter administration has already accomplished. Getting reelected and getting the state back on track aren’t necessarily exclusive events but they aren’t joined at the hip either. The country has been in a nasty funk since Bush the Idiot decided to invade a country that had no nuclear weapons and no involvement in the 9/11 murders. It is going to take more than a perky executive in the governors mansion with clever ideas to get this country moving forward again. We’re all in this together.
and having someone in the Governor’s Mansion who cares about education, fiscal reform, healthcare, jobs, etc., etc. is going to help ensure that the future is better. i think Bill Ritter is that person (obviously).
If you look at the Ritter record, no one has done more for fiscal reform, and working to bring rationality and common sense to the budget and fiscal situation.
But if there was an easy, obvious fix (or even a moderately difficult fix) around which a coalition could be built in the next year, that would be one thing. But I encourage you to talk to anyone involved in these reform efforts from the public or private or nonprofit sectors; almost all will say that the timing is not right. We might all like it to be different, but wishing something different doesn’t make it so.
Remember too that amendment 59 — TABOR reform — failed terribly in the most Democratic year ever in Colorado (2008). And Ref. C barely passed even with all the bi partisan institutional support behind it.
TABOR is still popular in this state (yes, I know that many don’t believe that, but it is). So any reforms will take a lot of work, resources and consensus, and experts (not me) say that this can’t be done in the partisan atmosphere that 2010 will bring.
As Gilpin Guy says, “we’re all in this together.” But right now, what we need are jobs, economic growth and a bigger pie. That is what will help the budget, Colorado families and the future.
The politicians we venerate are the ones who saw impossible odds and yet found a way to success. Now granted, you are in the majority when you say it’s too hard to accomplish anything significant. But that is always the case.
Ref. C was impossible, until it actually passed. And Bill Owens gained my respect (and that of a lot of others that normally vote Dem) when he stepped up and did the right thing even though it supposedly meant the end of his political career.
Governing well is hard. Knowing when to risk it all even more so. But that’s part of the job.
What’s really scary about your post is:
Those aren’t the statements of someone trying everything possible to improve things. Rather, those are the statements of someone trying to justify their present course.
Yes Ritter cares about the people of this state. We all do. The thing is, we need an administration that is focused on effecting major change, not on explaining why they can’t accomplish anything new.
“No difference in proposed taxes (even Penry would not suggest a cut right now),” sez David. Although Penry suggested just that.
From the Chiefton:
Your BS about the Governor being no different than Penry or Beauprez is just that. Uninformed ramblings.
I expect anyone running against an incumbent to propose painless help that isn’t financially possible. That’s how people campaign and if Penry was the gov and Ritter was running against him, he would do something similar. That’s how campaigning is done.
What I do know is if we look at governors in office where you actually have to do the job – our one recent example of political courage to step up and increase taxes was a republican – Bill Owens. In Ritter’s case we have Jim Carpenter spewing out excuse after excuse for not doing anything that might get voters upset.
I know you like Ritter, I do too. But that doesn’t mean we should expect less of him than what we got from Bill Owens.
You are saying Penry really doesn’t mean what he says. Imagine that. You just keep digging a deeper hole with your nonsense.
Do you see any of those happening? Politicans over promise and under deliver. We should and do ping them for that – but that is how they campaign.
Ritter promised jobs, jobs, & jobs. But Carpenter says a bond is not useful right now. Same difference between promises and action.
when he made that statement? That’s from January 2009. If he said it, he damn well meant it. And to excuse it as something everybody does when they campaign is both silly and inexcusable.
I think he should be pounded for it. My only point was that the statement did not necessarily indicate what he would do as governor if elected.
Pounded or pinged? They sound like very different levels of violence.
I think it’s better to start small, see if people buy it, then pound if they do. That way you’re not crying that the world is ending every other day and it has more impact.
seem to have mysteriously disappeared from David’s record of his interview with Governor Ritter. No bonds question, no drug decriminalization question, no graduated tax rate question and no tax credit/waiver question. Curious.
Might be that David just used up too much interview time discussing what the state could do for his own business rather discussing these urgent concerns?
As David concluded
Amen to that, David.
Competent governing = Ritter.
Incessant me-me-me campaigning = Penry
But, of course, “In this case Penry is preferable”.
Which do you believe is the needed course for Colorado right now? Is it that “quiet competence” or some political “out-of-the-box” flashy super nova?
At the time of the interview they seemed to have the budget well in hand and did not think there were more cuts coming. In a situation like that I knew ideas like this were DOA so why bother asking.
I do find it surprising that when we are now in an even bigger world of hurt, Jim Carpenter is putting all his efforts into explaining why they dare not even consider items like this rather than taking a look. Definite lack of imagination there.
I think Ritter is doing a very good job under the constraints he faces. I think he’s doing zilch in terms of trying to change the constraints.
To put it another way, the Ritter administration is like the generals in WWI. What we need is an administration like the admirals in WWII.
Just because I argue against your 3 ideas doesn’t mean the Ritter Administration is doing zilch. So, I should have been clearer: Gov. Ritter won’t support decriminalizing drugs. Bonds for capital don’t help the general fund.
The Gov and our staff has looked, and are still looking, at every program; every tax credit and exemption. There certainly are other things we can do. I hope people keep sending ideas.
But right now there just are no game changers out there that will lead to no deep cuts, or to magical revenues. There is no government in the nation — state or local — where the answer is anything other than hard work, reduced programs and shared sacrifice. And it’s the same for virtually every family and every business.
To let your imaginations run wild, and then be brought back to earth on the budget, I encourage everyone to go to the Colorado Backseat Budgeter, engagedpublic.com/epbudgets/dashboard.aspx.
You say the answer is hard work, reduced programs, and shared sacrifice. It would seem that the prison industry isn’t being asked to make much of that sacrifice, and we have a decent portion of the population in our prisons right now solely because of drug possession – a non-violent crime hurting no-one except the offender (“under the influence” enhancements to other crimes excepted…).
So why is it, when we’re talking about re-formulating K-12 education funding, and cutting Medicaid funding, and slashing higher education funding, that the best we can do in the corrections budget – which consumes about 10% of the general fund – is a few early parole cutoffs?
How is it they haven’t found 1 single tax break to change? Not a silver bullet but hey, 10 million here, 20 million there, and suddenly you can keep one more health facility open.
On the bond issue – you clearly don’t get a key part of this recession. The psychology of people out of work, or knowing people out of work. Talk to Hickenlooper, he clearly sees that the number of people unemployed is the key psychological issue now in this recession.
So what does a bond do? It puts more people to work. People are hired for the work. They spend their money which causes other businesses to hire people. Unemployment drops. And with that extra business what happens? Tax revenue increases.
When you say a bond won’t help you’re either being disingenuous or showing a worrisome lack of understanding.
And finally, with the hundreds of millions that would be saved, why will the governor not look at the trade-offs of decriminalization? What about that is so scary that it won’t be seriously considered?
Sorry, but what I read from you here is justification for not trying anything different. You guys are reminiscent of Gen. Fredendall (that is not a compliment).
Sensible tax reform according to House Finance Chair Joel Judd will raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
First off, please listen to the recording of the interview. I brought up an issue I know of through personal experience – but I did not ask for Ritter to intervene in my specific case. And when he offered to speak to OIT about my case I declined that offer.
Second, OIT does a lousy job. They have a gigantic “not invented here” viewpoint. And when they do look outside, they go to multinationals both for software and consulting and end up paying more money for less results.
With that said, improving OIT will save tens of millions at best and in the present situation that’s secondary.
Firstly, it’s ignorant that you fail to look at structural spending – correctly size the government by taking out headcount and adjusting PERA give aways.
Secondly, please address why Denverites enjoy the taxes of others. Why does this government allow tax transfers to Denver? Why are Denverites net receivers of tax dollars? Why are their property taxes so low, why should the state backfil Denver who is unwilling to cover their own costs?
1. “PERA giveaways,” and
2. Specifically, which FTE in which state departments would you eliminate and how much money will that save Colorado taxpayers?
Frankly, on your second point about Denver, I don’t have any knowledge about that. Please tell me what you mean and I will respond.
DOT
Denver metro pays in wayyyy more than we get back from the state in roads & Bridges funding.
Oh- wait that’s revers of what Libertad said. I guess I can’t explain it.
But it’s hard to tell, so who the hell knows.
Their hands are tied only to a certain degree. What is to stop business, political, civic leaders from organizing another effort at educating the public and passing another Ref C type bonding issue?
I’ll tell what stops them – no, wait, you just told us –
The D’s need to stand up and spend political capital; however, they won’t because the R’s shred them and media will allows it.
The level of debate from our leaders on this subject borders on the absurd. Republicans sniping at Dems to score political points and Dems, for some reason, afraid of their own shadow, allowing the R’s to control the debate.
Dems have been beaten on for decades for their taxing ways, so it isn’t too surprising that they shrink for publicly calling for tax increases. It is a lack of leadership, but not a particularly surprising one.
Until there is
I’d settle for the discussion fromt he other perspective- which gov’t institutions and functions should be eliminated.
All I ever hear is that waste and inefficiency should be eliminated.
A few years ago I read the so called “long bill.” (There weren’t a lot of pictures, and it was pretty long, but not that bad. Yes, I watch a lo of CSPAN too.) And I just didn’t see the line item that said- WASTE.
It’s easy to see a CDOT crew of 10+ standing around watching 1 guy dig and think- well- there’s your waste. Maybe- maybe not. If you’ve ever worked on a crew that had to get a hole dug, you’d recall that sometimes the most efficient thing is is to dig the smallest hole necessary and that might only fit one guy.
Your dismissal of D’s “taxing ways” implies you have a better idea. Your conclusion that there is no D leadership at this time is worth challenge.
So- EmmaAnne where would you preserve? Where would you cut? I’m just trying to determine if using Car31 criteria you should be ignored.
Should always be ignored.
Or paid attention to at your own risk as it often results in inebriation, hangovers, memory loss, incarceration and exile.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
A constitutional convention won’t fix the problem.
Tax increases alone won’t solve the problem.
Tax/Spending cuts alone won’t solve the problem.
There is no one way to solve the problem.
Throw all of the gutless wonders out of office and you only get less experienced green legislators/administrators who muck things up worse.
Keep them in and you have the status quo of leaders unwilling/unable to do what is right.
There needs to be a referred measure, a Ref C2 (Call it “CO2 – a breath of fresh air”) that addresses the gignormous shortfalls we face.
Trim state government, starting with the Gov’s office and then get rid of HCPF.
Implement reforms in existing systems that will save money in the future (e.g. criminal justice reforms).
While we fiddle and wait the hole gets bigger and maintaining a normal standard of life in CO becomes more and more difficult.
Mr. Sunshine.
It is primary time!
Alaska Independence Party probably doens’t even have a candidate here yet.
Peace&Freedom – a little far left in most of the country.
Constitution – wacky, but hey, a great name.
Independent PArty – really wacky and not independent. Plus, I think you have to have John Caldera (JC) endorse you and that could cause bleeding.
New parties
Unaffiliated
Colorado Constitutional Convention Party
Hearty
Elweigh
The department, or the programs it administers?
Only half serious. While HCPF performs necessary functions for the state there are people and positions there that are useless.
The same goes for Revenue, Local Affairs, Personnel and Admin…
I am an advocate for government. There are problems the government can and should solve. As with any other large organization, there are programs and personnel that can be trimmed.
Quick story – a few years ago I was speaking to the former Director of a CO Department. During his tenure (not too long ago) he identified ways for the Dept to cut personnel, consolidate programs and run more efficiently. He submitted the plan to the Division heads, other state Departments and the Governor for review.
Outcome: nothing was done. People are more interested in protecting their power than diminishing it.
Can’t say I blame ’em.
So when I say cut HCPF, ideally I would like the whole Dept nuked, but that’s personal. Realistically, a leader (of which there are none) could stand up to the entrenched interests of Division heads and minor bureaucrats and actually reduce the size of government without compromising services.
How about cut HCPF and divert half of the fiscal savings to the counties and cities and let them run/contract out the programs? How about cut half the budget of DOC and divert that money to the local level and allow locals to build the beds/treatment centers/hospitals/community corrections that are proven to reduce recidivism? How about cutting half the budget for the Dept of Education and funnel the money into nonprofits that are currently over burdened with reporting requirements?
Asinine ideas?
Absolutely.
As asinine as expecting any of our currently elected leaders to come up with a comprehensive fix to the budget.
And I had a guy that was forced onto my team that I did not need. He couldn’t do the work I needed, so I eliminated his position and helped him get transferred to a job where he was a better fit. He then spent the next 6 months of his spare time writing a manifesto about how our agency and my division of it could do our jobs better and more efficiently.
He was a loon. He was so far off base in some areas, I seriously questioned whether he should have a security clearance. It was quite clear that if we attempted even 1/2 of what he suggested, federal and state laws would be broken. No one had the time nor the motivation to correct his inanity.
A year later he becomes the local poster child for gov’t waste and abuse and tells the story over and over how he had a better way and we all ignored him.
So, Car31, it’s possible your example is another loon. It’s possible your version makes more sense. We can’t tell from the way you describe it.
However, based on the way you describe wanting to eliminate HCPF (nuke em all) I have to lean toward the loon. How does it create efficiency or savings to eliminate and reproduce functions vertically? Cut it at the state level- and spend it at the county level
Allow every manager to fire anyone that is not doing a good job – and the million steps that make firing close to impossible are all on a holiday this one time.
So people can get rid of deadwood. They aren’t replaced and we have a hiring freeze – but you can fire. Pretty strong incentive to only fire the complete bozos.
It’s kind of a chainsaw when a scalpel would be better.
Are there people who should be fired? I’d expect so.
Should we waive the rules in order to purge? I’d expect that the rules are there for a reason.
In fact, using my experience (albeit fed not state) referenced above as example, I would have had a really hard time firing anyone from that office. But I could redraw the org chart, resulting in several surplussed positions. (Which I did.) This effectively gave us a hiring freeze and allowed department heads to eliminate all kinds of staff.
We started with 188 positions – my chart had 92. Some people retired- and there was no replacement. Some transferred- some because it what they wanted, some because they couldn’t stand being “surplus”- no rehire. It took a little over a year- but that office got to 92 just about the time I fired myself to work in the private sector.
The money that would be saved on employee salaries would not even come close to the money spent fighting off the lawsuits that would be filed by the people who were fired.
As MADCO pointed out earlier, crazy people don’t like having the fact that they’re crazy pointed out to them. The same can be said for bad workers. There’s a reason why it’s so hard to fire people–it’s more efficient to waste money on a bad employee than to waste money on legal fees and lawsuit settlements.
It’s not that crazy resist having their craziness pointed out to them or anyone else. To them it’s confirmation that they are/were right and you are evil.
I come in to the office and spend way too much time reading and replying.
With that said, this is one of the best threads/diaries I’ve read here for a long time.
MADCO, when I say nuke HCPF, that’s just me and I don’t mean it. State bureaucracy bugs me to no end. I need to deal with HCPF often and they’re annoying. Department of Revenue is annoying too – we should nuke them as well 🙂
The culture in government is removed from reality in many ways and decisions made in this culture often bewilder a simple guy like me. That said, obviously there is benefit to government and we shouldn’t be nuking state agencies willy-nilly (which is why I don’t have the launch codes).
The state would save money by reverting money to locals because 1) money isn’t lost in the state bureaucracy, 2) locals know what needs to be done, 3) there are nonprofits providing medical, educational, criminal justice services that could do their jobs better with more money and less interference from the state, and 4) problems rarely get solved at the state level but do get solved at the local level. Of course, not every program benefits from this model, but there are ways to braid funding streams, reduce replication and ‘devolve’ some programs down to the local level that would help our current situation. Won’t solve it all but it would help now and in the future. David mentioned IT stuff before and that is another place the state loses all kinds of money.
Concerning the Department Director, yes, he is/was a loon. But, with all due respect to all you Directors out there, you’re all loons. Only loons would want to head a state Department with political infighting, stagnant responses and difficult working environments.
I could go on and on, but much of what I would say has been said already by people smarter than me.
Plus I need to get work done!
But no one is smarter than you.
but true.
Not sure that squares with CO2 about to destroy the planet, or at least the polar bears and certain islanders. Maybe there’s a better name for it.
Republican 36 beat me to it.
Why would an intelligent person want to try to exercise leadership in the existing constitutional framework? It’s impossible. And most people who are intelligent enough to consider running recognize that, although some cynically exploit it so they can get sound bites on the news.
Not until a second term governor does something dramatic are the people of Colorado likely to change the framework. But it would have to be dramatic enough to shock people into changing things–perhaps selling off CU? Or something equally unthinkable 10 or 20 years ago.
In my view, what needs to be changed is the “ratchet-down” effect of TABOR. I have no problem with requiring a vote of the people to raise taxes (or fees, but that is another topic), and think that is one of the few things we in Colorado get right. Gallagher does need to go, as does Amendment 23 (though at least part of it will sunset shortly).
So until the constitutional framework changes, we are not going to attract top-flight leaders, because they recognize the futility of even trying to exercise leadership under such conditions.
The ratchet effect of TABOR is gone. Ever since we passed RefC. (we’ll see if Candidate Norton defends RefC or even gets called out for her support.)
What is it that you think Gallagher does?
What is it that you think A23 does? And which part of what you think it does sunsets shortly? And which part survives?
The portion of Amendment 23 that sunsets is the “plus one percent” provision, which expires in 2010.
Gallagher–what, you mean you don’t know? 😉 Aside from locking in the 45%/55% split, with all its concomitant problems?
the TABOR ratchet- gone
A23- the +1% provision is about to end, and the rest [which you didn’t address ;)] which says k-12 funding will adjust annually according to a formula based on the change in population and inflation applied to “factors”. Those factors can be altered- which could mean even in a year with positive inflation and population growth, K-12 funding could go down. So why does A23 have to go?
And then there’s Gallagher. Some day- preferably with beverages- someone who was here at the time and informed will have to explain whatinhell Colorado was thinking to pass this beast. Seems like with SCOCO affirming the legislature’s authority to restore mill levy adjustability, the impact of Gallagher is greatly diminished.
In any event, with the elimination of the TABOR ratchet and the sunsetting of A23’s +1% and factor malleability, are the dread trio … really the cause of much confusion now?
Like you I don’t mind the voters having to approve tax increases, except that I think the smart way to do that is allow the legislature and governor to do their primary job- build a budget and find the revenue sources to fund it – and then vote accordingly. You like the budget and the revenue sources that fund it- vote to retain the incumbent. Don’t like ’em – vote for the opposition.
and watch the business lobbyists at the Capitol throw off their tax burden and put it on homeowners. Of course, it would be done in the name of “economic development.”
Decriminalize & tax drugs. And release all non-violent prisioners who are in prison on posession charges.
Save a ton of money on legal & prison expenses.
Gain revenue from taxes.
Drug use declines (see prohibition).
Crime decreases.
What’s not to like?
But you will have to get the feds to go along with it.
“What’s not to like?”
Oh…I don’t know… I don’t particularly like how only about five members of the GA would actually vote for it…
I will repeat David’s stern response to Jim Carpenter above: Have you asked?!
Seriously, when the laughter dies down, I doubt you’d even get five firm commitments.
But while you’re at it, why don’t you ask how many legislators want to legalize prostitution too? Add a fee for each, er, act, and there goes the deficit.
King is an idiot. He does believe government cuts, along with tax cuts, are the magic answer. Spending cuts, as long as they’re not in his district. Tax cuts, as long as they ARE in his district.
The guy really is that dumb.
He could start by giving back some of the mileage and per diem he billed the taxpayers while at the same time billing his campaign for gas and meals.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
It has worked so well with wars and mercenaries and natural disasters why not?
Privatize government and then let’s see what voters think when they get nickeled and dimed like cable TV for basic services.
“I’m sorry we can’t respond to your 911 call because it just isn’t profitable to go that far out. If you had lived closer to our dispatch office we could have saved you”.
Not enough sheriffs to cover the county effectively, not enough inspectors to inspect restaurants.
The only difference between privatizing it and what the Springs has now is, you can pay extra to a private service and it will bend its limits to help you (if it feels like it…)
See Iraq, the most privatized war in US history.
Well, it’s not exactly privatization — more like Balkanization — but the crash fee Denver is proposing, and other fire-and-rescue districts have had in place for years, is close.
http://www.rockymountainindepe…
Fixing people might be a lot harder but cheaper in the long run. Dumping a criminal penniless on the streets with no marketable skills is a recipe for disaster. At an annual cost of $24,000 per inmate, we should be graduating PhDs from Canon City and give them a fighting chance in the name of redemption.
Regarding Ritter’s Dilemma
“As part of the Looking Forward project, researchers from the Bell, the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute and the Colorado Children’s Campaign calculated the appropriations needed to maintain 2007-08 levels of service through fiscal year 2011-12. These projections include adjustments for increased caseloads and changes in inflation for K-12 and higher-education spending.
Based on our Looking Forward projections, revenues will fall $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion and $963 million short of the cost of maintaining 2007-08 levels of service in FY 09-10, FY 10-11 and FY 11-12, respectively.”
I hope no one thinks that the 2007-08 levels of service from state government were bloated, and full of waste and fraud. The Bell’s analysis quantifies the problem as well as can be done – see their website for further details.
So, if elected officials – and candidates – are going to continue to shy away from the responsibility (yes, that’s what it is) of leading the state out of this mess, who will do it? I know there are some efforts taking place with individuals, groups and local government around the state – but will that be enough? The thread title sums up the problem.
How come the Governor’s budget projections are always much rosier than the estimates made by the non-partisan staff at the Legislature?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Joel Judd has some great ideas in this post on the Huffington Post’s new Denver edition.
With these huge deficits why aren’t more Democrats talking about the need to close these
corporate giveways?
and tax breaks are a great place to start.
revenue enhancements when we have a D majority i nthe legislature and a D governor?
I mean- impossible.
Except that I also agree that the messaging from D. Bruce and the R has been sooo attractive and so believed in CO for sooo long that to even hint at an intentional revenue increase is political death. Especially in a recession. In an an election year.
That said- we should amend the CO Constitution so that any elected official or candidate who calls for budget cuts must immediately identify which cuts they themselves support.
ANd I still say we should operate more like a business and just fire some citizens. Not me, but some of us.
you know, discussing dollars needed and such?
Here are some ideas:
1. Make Gross Conservation Easement Credit non-transferable (right now they can be “transfered” which means they can be sold) this removes the motivation behind the massive fraud machine that is operating out there right now. Last year it only cost the treasury $90M. And there is no TABOR issues because you have not eliminated the credit. See page 29 of Revenue’s 2008 Annual Report to see how large this credit is compared to others at:
http://www.Colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Revenue-Main/XRM/1213867975035
2. The GA needs to order Revenue to get rid of the regulation that exempts software. There is no statutory authority for the exemption. This exemption from sales tax also runs into the multi-millions of dollars. Again no TABOR issue because you are not changing the tax base in any statute.
3. Make Revenue enforce and limit refunds to the 60 days from the purchase date currently in statute (CRS 39-26-703) this will significantly reduce the size of the refunds being issued and almost completely eliminate the massive amounts of interest being paid. Again no TABOR issues, this is already the law just demand it be enforced.
4. If we can’t get rid of TABOR because “the people” want to control tax policy then let the people control tax policy by requiring a vote of the people not just for an increase in the tax base, but any change in the tax base. Then CACI has to convince about a million people their members need tax breaks and not just 51 people. While we are giving ourselves complete control of the tax base we should also repeal all tax credits and exemptions enacted since the inception of TABOR.
Can’t get link to work. Google Colorado Department of Revenue then go to the Library and then to Annual Reports. The last ten years are available.
For item 3 I should have said “sales and use tax refunds” not just refunds. You have four years for income tax and three years for just about every other kind of tax except for some fuel tax refunds that have shorter periods.
If you haven’t already you should explain this to someone who could do it.
One of the problems in TABOR – even apart from the ratchet – is the requirement (in Subsection 8, Section 20, Article X) that all income be taxed at a single rate. This amounts to saying that a citizen’s obligation to contribute to society is the same at the 10,000th dollar of income as as the 1,000,000th dollar of income. I submit that at the 1,000,000th dollar of income, it ought to be a bit higher. If this provision of Article X, Section 20 is removed, it becomes possible to institute a revenue-positive graduated income tax system.
Another issue is the fact that both personal and corporate taxes in Colorado are based on federal TAXABLE income, rather than federal GROSS or ADJUSTED GROSS income. This means in effect that a great many federal deductions and exemptions are implicitly accepted by Colorado’s tax system, even before any state-level public policy discussions about tax policy happen. Some of these federal deductions – like the mortgage interest deduction – are broad-based and legitimate. Some are much less so, and just because the exist in the federal Internal Revenue Code they need not be accepted as optimal public policy in Colorado’s state tax system. Delinking Colorado’s net income definition from federal taxable income for personal and corporate tax purposes could both be revenue positive and would also be an opportunity for an explicit discussion of what deductions and exemptions are in the best interest of Colorado, as opposed to the present implicit use of ALL federal deductions and exemptions. Of course, there are TABOR implications to all of this too.
Makes things a lot more efficient, both for the state and for all taxpayers. With that said, if you were to eliminate all deductions – every single one, then I’d be in favor of decoupling.
But that includes dropping the mortgage deduction (which I think should be done – and I have a mortgage). It is a regressive deduction.
There is a certain efficiency in it, but the most efficient tax system is a lump sum tax, the same amount collected from everyone regardless of their income or circumstances. But that’s not a fair tax system so we don’t do that. My point is, efficiency is one goal (and I do think our tax systems, especially federally, could be a lot more efficient), but it’s not the only one.
Removing the mortgage interest deduction would require increasing the personal exemption or doing something else to offset the increase in tax liability a lot of middle class taxpayers would incur. Perhaps you mean it’s regressive in that renters get no help at all from it and very wealthy homeowners with very large mortgages and lots of interest can claim really large deductions. Suppose we de-link from federal taxable income; the state could institute its own “housing deduction” for either mortgage interest or rental payments, up to some limit. That’s the sort of independent policy debate we could have if we de-link from the federal system.
but I think it is indicative of the kind of leadership people are looking for.
Bill Ritter, to say nothing of at least some of the legislature’s Democrats, are terrified that they’ll lose the governorship and, maybe, control of a chamber of the General Assembly next year. They are not going to give the Republicans any more ammunition.
Tax increases, even asking for them, are off the table and no amount of logic is going to get them back on the table.
I don’t see a constitutional convention in our future, either. This problem will be solved via initiative or it won’t be solved at all.
Ritter isn’t going to stick his neck out on this, not now and probably not ever. If he won’t, why should we expect any other Dem to do so? And there’s no way any Republican is going to say the words “tax increase.”
You summed up the political cowardice that insures nothing different will even be evaluated. And with the Democrats letting the Republicans control the financial framework and basic rules of the game, all we’re left impacting is how to respond within these constraints.
That the only times in this state that raising taxes will be considered is when the Republicans are in charge.