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
March 20, 2011 06:11 PM UTC

Frank McNulty Doth Gavel Too Much

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Before we address the news Friday from the state Legislative Council’s economists, regarding updated revenue receipts and projections, we’d like to take you back–not far, just back to January of this year, to a report from the Colorado Statesman’s Marianne Goodland about HJR-1007. Do you remember this debate? We would hope, assuming there is justice in the world, that while legislative economists were delivering their updated revenue estimates, Speaker Frank McNulty was nervously shifting in his chair, and thinking about HJR-1007.

As Goodland reported in January:

The measure, House Joint Resolution 11-1007, certifies the amount of general fund revenues available for the state’s budget. Usually, those figures come from the forecasts of the Legislative Council economists, and they are used by the Joint Budget Committee as a basis for coming up with the budget.

On Monday, however, McNulty and other Republican leaders in the House called for the figure to be cut by another 2.75 percent, or about $200 million. McNulty told reporters Monday that the 2.75 percent figure was based on an analysis of past recessions. Cutting another 2.75 percent out of the budget would make it less likely that the governor would have to come back later in the fiscal year to make forced budget cuts that would be spread out over much shorter periods of time…

“It’s time to be honest about this problem within our budgeting process,” McNulty said in a statement Monday. “For several years, the Legislature has planned and budgeted on overly optimistic tax revenue projections, only to force the Governor to go back and make rushed cuts to the budget when state coffers take in less money than anticipated.”

If you recall, Democrats didn’t agree with McNulty’s reckoning. They complained that McNulty was seeking an arbitrarily lower number for the Joint Budget Committee to work from, that the economic picture was changing, and that at the very least, any revenue exceeding estimates should be directed toward things that have been cut in recent years, like education.

And in an episode that some likened to a “tantrum” and others to the heavy-handed olden days of the GOP-dominated legislature, McNulty gaveled down every attempted Democratic amendment to this resolution as “out of order.” This was the first sign for Democrats in 2011 that all that stuff McNulty had said about “bipartisanship” before the session, or at least trying to solve problems instead of shouting across the aisle, might be hollow after all.

With this in mind, the Pueblo Chieftain’s Patrick Malone reports:

Legislative Council anticipates an $116 million increase in revenue over December’s projection, “which is not very much on a $7 billion base,” according to Natalie Mullis, chief economist for Legislative Council.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budgeting expects $161 million more to come in than it projected in December.

Now folks, let’s be absolutely clear about the meaning of this: a small uptick in revenue receipts isn’t going to save Colorado from our long-term fiscal crisis. $116 million won’t come near to offsetting the painful cuts for this year, and the increased revenues forecast next year won’t come near to closing the gap then, either. Bottom line: this improved forecast is a welcome, but very small, respite from what remains an enormous and systemic problem.

But revenue heading in any direction other than down does mean one very simple thing: McNulty was a fool, or worse, to push these lower “estimates” without the facts. The facts, as it turns out, did not support McNulty’s desire to arbitrarily lower revenue estimates by a further $200 million. Beleaguered local schools, and stakeholders of all kinds, would rather not start from a number $200 million smaller when there is no reason to do so–right?

Epilogue: One of the things we’re hearing about in recent polling of Colorado voters on the budget is a significant difference in voter opinion between a plan for responsible, targeted cuts to the budget, and arbitrary “across-the-board” cuts. Voters don’t fully understand the complex nature of the crisis yet from the polling we’ve seen, but they do want a budget that addresses real-world priorities, and tries to protect the basic functions of government voters rely on.

Who will the voters trust? Those who want to cut more based on arbitrary presumptions that, as it turns out, are wrong–or those who want facts, and to protect what they can based on facts?

As we’ve said before, we know which record we’d rather be selling next year.

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “Frank McNulty Doth Gavel Too Much”

  1. You must have the weekend JV Team in.  This was painful to read.  As your varsity team knows, we won’t know what next year’s revenues are really going to be until after it’s over.  So no one has been proven right or wrong and won’t be for about 18 mos.

    I don’t recall McNulty ever predicting an exact dollar amount of cuts or telling Leg. Council what that final dollar amount should be. Instead, he recommended that we take whatever their final number is – and cut another 2.75%.

    Take their final number and cut 2.75%.   If we end up $10B more in the black than anyone predicted – cut it by 2.75%.  The same holds if we go deeper into the red than predicted.

    As for:

    Who will the voters trust? Those who want to cut more based on arbitrary presumptions that, as it turns out, are wrong–or those who want facts, and to protect what they can based on facts?

    Easy.  In addition to history showing us that the final predictions have been inflated – it’s the prudent thing to do.  Make the additional difficult decisions now and either be proven right – or be proven wrong and start adding back to the budget.  

    1. because McNulty picked a number, even though that number is at variance with a number chosed by folks with a lot more expertise.

      You are wrong. Again. Cutting public services when necessary is painful but we understand it. Cutting public services when there is no need is simple minded and harmful to the public.

      We need 2 things. 1) Get rid of TABOR and replace it with a tool that has the citizens voting for tax increases but does NOT include a ratchet. 2) A tax increase. Let’s have a progressive income tax in CO.  

    2. Shorter 20th Maine: “But, but, we don’t know McNulty was full of shit yet!”

      No, it just looks like it increasingly. You miss the point so much it’s comical.

    3.  

      Make the additional difficult decisions now and either be proven right – or be proven wrong and start adding back to the budget.

      The “difficult decisions” you mention are only difficult for some people…others, not so much. You casually talk about cutting services as though this were an academic argument. There are consequences beyond your small sphere of cognizant thought.

      I recall (though I couldn’t find) a story out of Colorado Springs last year about a storekeeper who was shot and killed outside his business where the city had shut off a street light…one of your “difficult decisions”. You may recall the city staff “forgot” to turn off half the lights in the Broadmoor district, as they had in the rest of the city.

      On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect you to understand the injustice, much less care.  

  2. ColPols sometimes forgets that we geeks who pay close attention to all things political are a teensy, weensy minority.  If it doesn’t rise to the level of the recent nationally televised dramatics in Wisconsin, don’t count on much average voter awareness of anything to do with the state legislature. I wonder how many doors you’d have to knock on to find your first person who has any idea who McNulty might be. If they are in the habit of voting for Rs, most of them voted for him and will again unless something much splashier than this comes along.

    1. when they tried to propose amendments. Voters will be told “The Republican majority was being very prudent with your money. We value education (pick your public service) but the CO Constitution does not allow deficits. We were being responsible.”

      The voters pay almost no attention except to talking heads. So, the public believes that Obama is trying to take their guns. The public believes that Obama created the deficit because he is a secret Muslim Communist.

      1. You know, just once, I would like to put aside the permanent cynical view we all have of “the voters.” I think they are smarter than we think sometimes, like after their kids are in 50 student classrooms for a year or so.

        “The public” doesn’t believe that crazy shit. More than should do, but I’m tired of our own side conceding that this is America.

        /Sunday morning rant

        1. You’re lucky if a decent percentage of the people you encounter know who their congress person is much less a thing about any state legislator.  I’ve done tons of canvassing and come by my cynicism quite honestly.  The single most common question I got asked when I canvassed for Joe Rice last election from people who did know who their congress person was (not all that many) was “Is he running against Coffman?” The fact that he was in fact running for the state legislature to be reelect as their State House Rep, having been their Rep already for the previous two terms was news to them. All most wanted to know was is he an R or a D, not even knowing that much about him, not being aware of ever having heard of him at all.

          So complain if you want to. I stand by my hard won knowledge, based on over 6 years of canvassing and phone banking, of what most voters know about the state legislature. So if you expect a big push against a McNulty based on this kind of inside baseball thing, you’re going to be disappointed.

    2. Unless somebody says so. Te problem is both attention span and the fact that the media sucks.

      This was not a binding resolution, everybody knows that. It’s about McNulty 1. being a mic-cutting dickhead and 2. GOP wanting to cut just for the sake of cutting, which voters don’t want (have not seen any polls but I certainly believe that’s right).

      Anybody notice that 9NEWS has practically no political coverage now that Schrager is gone? I bet he would have done a good story about this…

    3. We don’t dispute that most voters are tuned out to happenings at the state legislature right now, don’t have much name recognition for McNulty, and only hear about things like this in brief TV news segments, if it all.

      All of these little scrums do become important, however, when they are retold the following election cycle in campaign ads and mailers–and not just against McNulty. What you’re saying is that the state legislature can basically act with impunity so long as they don’t cause riots because nobody cares, and, well, we hope that’s not yet the case. Either way, it’s why geeks like you have a blog to read.

      We wish more people would read the Colorado Statesman, too. It’s quite good.

      2. A Republican tried to score political points with a worthless piece of legislation and was off in his made up numbers. And then?

        The bigger possible issue for McNulty & Co., imo, is the loss of political capital. If you were a back bench member, would you be questioning his leadership? How would that change any votes you might have later on? Amendments?

        How about the idiots who short changed Colorado’s ability to repair itself? Do you think they have as much say as before? With McNulty? With the other members of the party?

        What if you’re donors? Lobbyists?

        I still don’t think it’s going to be the final nail in anyone’s coffin, ever, but in a few people’s minds there might have been some hammering.

      3. Non-existent is more like it.  It always annoys me that local TV news spends almost zero time covering local politics or  what’s being voted on in our state legislature when half the time they seem to feel so short of any local news worth noting, they fill in with accident stories from other states.  It seems to me that before we hear about a bus accident in Alabama, they could make time for a minute or two devoted to the state legislature, the decisions of which affect everyone’s every day lives.  I guess the ratings tell them people would rather see the accident from Alabama.

          1. and it is deplorable.

            I heard someone say,” Rome fell when it’s people cared for nothing, save wine and the Circus”. Or something to that effect.

            I fear we are nearing such a condition in the ol’ USA (United States of Apathy).

          2. Disaster story? Check.

            Cop chase? Check.

            Weather? Check.

            Latest on Lohan and/or Sheen? Check.

            More blood and guts? Check.

            Weather again? Check.

            Cute kids? Check.

            Fuzzy animals? Check.

            Weather again? Check.

            Close with big smiles.

            Works every time.

        2. and cute/funny/interesting animal stories, too. I watch the clock when the local news comes on and, at least on 9News in the morning, within the 1st 10 minutes they’ll wrap up the local news and move onto something that has nothing to do with Colorado or news. They don’t really present news so much as they present information, whether or not it’s useful.

          (I would like to know what percentage of the 5:00 a.m. news audience is really interested in Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen.)

          1. local issues that impact everyone’s lives. Sadly, you can bet that if they didn’t have more success with drivel than with actual local news they wouldn’t feature so much drivel.

  3. It could well turn out to be unnecessary, but the previous couple of years we did have to have further cuts part way through the year. Assuming a repeat was a reasonable assumption. Not the only assumption, but it was a reasonable one.

    1. The JBC has historically relied on two revenue estimates–one by the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting and one by the Legislative Council.

      McNulty’s number can’t be tied to either source.

      Maybe that makes sense to you, but tying a budget to a number that you pulled out of your ass doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

      Then again, you’re David.

      1. You mean a fanciful number McNulty used to pressure Democrats in order to give his base some spending-cut red meat isn’t reasonable? Say it ain’t so, Ralphie.

        2. It matters. I think voters are sick of being bullshitted, and guys like McNulty are purveying bullshit.

          Instead of whining about how voters don’t care, try educating them!

      2. In hindsight it would have been viewed as spot-on. I think things have turned and we won’t need it this year, but it is possible we’ll face the same thing again.

        The JBC’s estimate the past 2 years has been optimistic so I don’t think you can claim they’re perfect.

        1. No they weren’t. They were based on the data in front of them — a snapshot — when they made the estimates, as they always are. The economy was in a tailspin, so later snapshots were, unsurprisingly, more bleak, just as later estimates this time were more rosy as the economy has started recovering. But you’re mischaracterizing things when you suggest recent estimates were anything but “spot on” (to use a phrase Voyageur used frequently before you adopted it) when they were made.

  5. McNulty isn’t stupid–just very very green.  While trying to create the next batch of negative ads against Dems in competitive seats, he has painted himself into a corner.  Either the new R leadership isn’t getting the best advice or they just don’t think before they speak (or both). As for the voters, very few will remember anything that happens and their opinions will form based on the economy and the direct mail they recive in ~ 9/12.    

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

88 readers online now

Newsletter

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