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%
August 23, 2010 11:02 PM UTC
32 Comments
Just cut taxes and increase services.
See- it’s easy.
You are now officially qualified to be a CO GOP legislator.
Now if you could just figure out the answer, we would all really appreciate it.
are increase state revenues, tax increases. And, restrict the ability to get initiatives on the ballot.
and if it were as easy as saying that, it would be done already with a dem majority on both houses and the gov’s mansion. Unfortunately, Colorado’s voters won’t approve higher taxes OR make it harder to get on the ballot, so we need a different answer.
Ref C passed. I don’t see why everyone is so convinced that an increase can’t pass.
was Amendment 59, as I recall.
Amendment 51
Amendment 52
Amendment 58
Aurora Initiative 4A
I am sure there are many local examples and about a million polls that all show that anything with the word “tax” on it will be shouted down by republicans.
Ref C was before the recession. Things are different now.
because they were forced to by TABOR (although they did circumvent it a bit, finding backdoor ways to raise taxes). So, no, they don’t get the credit for the cuts. Republicans and TABOR get the credit.
Rather than doing your homework for you, let me just say that the Colorado budget has been constitutionally required to be balanced for much, much longer than TABOR has existed.
Not to mention that TABOR has not forced any cuts in our current economic crisis, except for leaving the state less prepared to deal with it.
And you should really ask yourself if you understand the subject before you comment.
Great! Then why is it so hated among big government types? Do YOU understand the subject?
We would, right now, be able to consider other options for closing the gap between required services and available revenue.
Currently, Colorado’s constitution requires:
1. Minimum funding for many of the state’s services
2. A balanced budget, and
3. No tax increases
The three cannot work together. If the last point were removed, Colorado might have a chance of surviving the coming years. As it stands now… Well, let’s just say I’ve been looking for a house in Virginia, one of 47 other states that fund education better than we do.
if the first point were removed. That is, after all, the point of TABOR. In a word, cuts.
worshipping the superior wisdom of states v federal government, touting state’s rights as the gold standard and excuse for everything they push that might carry the stigma of bigotry (we aren’t biased against fill-in-the blank. We just think it should be left to the states) to throwing those no longer so convenient states under the bus. New line: You states have really screwed up. Why don’t you just borrow your way out like we do…Oh wait. Anyway it’s your problem. Don’t call us. We’ll call you.
“Go screw yourselves, we’ve got massive unsustainable tax cuts we need to extend for the wealthiest 2% of the population.”
IMHO that pretty much covers it.
Yeah, we’ve been trying that for years Mr. Boehner. Maybe if on your side of the Mississippi you got rid of some of the crappy unfunded mandates on the states we could have a bit more revenue to address our own problems.
Man, these guys tick me off.
What we’ve had for 20+ years now is the state legislatures & governors all cut taxes to appeal to the voters, then put their hand out asking the feds to make up the difference. And then beat up the feds for increasing spending while they were able to cut taxes.
I think it would be good to move a lot of this stuff back to the state and local level. If we want to have a single check cut to the poorer states each year to equalize things fine, but mostly push this stuff back to the states.
The smaller the unit of government that taxes the more effective control the voter has of fiscal matters.
the funding follows the push to the states.
Too often the feds, in their wisdom, decide the states or local governments are better suited to address certain problems, and they’re right.
However, the additional funding doesn’t come with the new state powers and that is a major headache.
Federal medical requirements, immigration costs for enforcement, election costs, transportation costs, environmental restrictions that limit revenue generating opportunities, limitations on states deciding how to store their water, these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head…
I’m very much in favor of more state and local control. I would love to see block grant type funding coming from the feds with the message, “use as you see fit because you know best how to tackle the problems in your state and communities”. Many times, as you know, the funding opportunities from the feds favor large urban centers that have the staff to unravel the myriad of strings attached to said money. Rural communities and smaller states don’t benefit. Rich get rich, poor get poorer.
Sorry, rant over.
The funding should be left to the states or smaller political subdivision so they can decide whether the cost is worth it to them. The Federal government should not collect the tax and issue block grants. Then people are playing with monopoly money. The federal government should say, states this is on you. Do it, or don’t do it and pay for it yourselves.
With what you advocate, the entire country would revert back to how it was before the Civil War. Roads would eventually revert back to dirt and America would become just as it was before electric light.
(like republicans in the dark)
Do you know how to plow a field with a mule and a single spade?
I suppose the few wealthy people will pave their own driveway… possibly set up toll roads between cities. but that too is a form Taxation. but it would be okay as it is a wealthy (John Galt type) person collecting.
A ton of transportation funding comes from local sources. Yes a lot from the feds too, but the states view that as free money and it would be dumb not to take advantage of that. But if that federal money went away, we have the people and systems in place to handle it locally. And if that change occurred the federal gas tax would probably go away with it and the states would increase their gas tax by a like amount.
Do you have any idea how much money would be needed to improve state and local roads and bridges just to get them up to a passing grade? This isn’t even taking into account the federal roads in the state.
As to the gas tax, if there was no federal money coming for transportation in this state, yes, there would be a conversation about raising it, however, in Colorado the large amount we would need to increase fuel prices would harm a large portion of our population. Since we would have to vote on the issue, it isn’t likely it would pass.
The ton of transportation funding does not come from local sources isn’t enough to do anything of note except repair cracks in bridges and roads to slow their decay.
and the poorer ones fall behind.
Your idea is exactly what is happening in Colorado Springs right now, H-Man.
How’s that working out?
… is that states have long been forced (or so they have seen it) to cut taxes in order to compete for business investment, and by virtue of constitutions that require balanced budgets, have therefore fallen back on federal aid to avoid catastrophe on the social front, OR decided (like Colorado) to curb spending on vital areas, such as education, in hopes that other states will make up the difference (and send graduates of their public schools to Colorado to fill the work force).
Clearly this is all coming to a crashing halt and We the People are going to be deciding what sort of society we want, but there are many reasons this ought to be done on a national level, not least among which is the need to prevent corporations from escaping their obligation to help pay for the education of the people who work for them!
Another consideration I would point out is the arbitrary nature of state boundaries. Do citizens of Colorado have a voice in, say, a decision by the people of Wyoming to pave over Yellowstone Park? Do the people of Colorado have a stake in whether or not the people of Mississippi provide for the education of all their citizens?
As a general observation, seems to me that the wealthier states (NY, CA) tend to be the more liberal–and generous toward states with fewer people or economic resources.
But the federal teat has allowed states to respond to those pressures by getting dollars from D.C. Turning that off will make the states have to actually face up to services vs taxes and make the hard decisions. I think that’s a very good thing in a Democracy.
Problem I have is that states are highly artificial subdivisions of a diverse society. We might just as well say that anyone living in a zip code number between 50000 and 90000 has 400 points taken off his/her SAT score. Huh? Makes no sense, of course, but it would in make SAT scores correspond, sorta, to geographical location — and in effect prevent people from Colorado and various other western states from gaining admission to schools judged elite, simply by virtue of having lived in a particular set of states!
It makes much more sense to put all funding for all essential services on the federal level. Administration of such services may well be local, but even there my sense of “local control of education” has long been that this is an excuse to introduce religion into public education. Cf. the French model.
So, when Greek-style riots erupt in states that go belly-up, I’m guessing the Republicans are ready to delete Article IV from the Constitution, encouraging folks instead to pursue their “Second Amendment remedies?”
If the question is put directly in front of the voters of this state, where they do have to select the tax rate required for the services they want, they will vote to raise taxes appropriately.
Keep in mind every time a school bond passes, every time a Ref C passes, that’s a clear message that the voters are willing to tax themselves.