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 RELEASEIt’s Time to Have a Commonsense Conversation
About Colorado’s BudgetCampaign 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: The Colorado Republican Party Has Become a Hindrance for Republican Candidates
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Kamala Harris Campaign Announces Bonkers Fundraising Numbers
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: The Colorado Republican Party Has Become a Hindrance for Republican Candidates
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Kamala Harris Campaign Announces Bonkers Fundraising Numbers
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Kamala Harris Campaign Announces Bonkers Fundraising Numbers
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: The Colorado Republican Party Has Become a Hindrance for Republican Candidates
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: The Colorado Republican Party Has Become a Hindrance for Republican Candidates
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: The Colorado Republican Party Has Become a Hindrance for Republican Candidates
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Boebert Goes Culture War Ambulance Chasing At The Olympics
BY: ParkHill
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
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.
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.
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.