September 18, 2011 07:20 PM UTC

Hyperbolic Doomsaying Is Stupid, Proposition 103 Edition

• 10 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

AP updates from Friday:

Colorado Republicans say a proposal to raise taxes by $3 billion over five years to help fund the state’s education system will harm an already fragile economy.

Former state Rep. Victor Mitchell says the proposal on this November’s ballot would be “a crushing blow” to the Colorado economy if it’s approved.

Adds the Durango Herald’s Joe Hanel, reporting Friday on the press conference announcing the opposition campaign to Proposition 103:

Republican legislators rallied against a proposed tax hike for schools Thursday, saying it would cost the state 119,000 jobs over five years.

But supporters said the Republicans were misreading their own economic study and that the proposal will not cost jobs at all…

“People are strapped right now, and we cannot afford $3 billion taken out of the private sector and moved into government,” said Victor Mitchell, a Republican former legislator and head of Save Colorado Jobs, a group formed to oppose Proposition 103.

Now, our readers are already well-acquainted with the math errors which led to the wildly erroneous claim by opponents of Proposition 103 that the initiative would result in “over 119,000 jobs lost” in the five years it would be in effect; in fact, Hanel has a responsibility here to not just leave it to 103 supporters to debunk the 119,000 number but to point out the factual error as it exists. The study incorrectly cited by opponents actually forecasts some 27,000 in “reduced employment” by 2016 according to its author. Proposition 103 restores the sales and income tax rates that were in effect in 1999: raising income tax rates from 4.63% to 5%, and sales taxes from 2.9% to 3%. A simple request we’ve made in response to forecasts of any “job loss” from Proposition 103 is to justify them–in light of economic conditions in Colorado prior to these taxes being cut in 1999 compared to today. If raising these taxes would be so bad, where’s the inverse benefit from cutting them just over a decade ago?

Oops.

So that’s some of the hyperbole debunked, at least empirically, and here’s another–what’s the “crushing blow to the Colorado economy” Victor Mitchell is referring to? Over at the Yes on 103 website, they have a calculator for the additional tax residents would pay if the initiative passes. According to their calculator, the average 2009 median household in Colorado making $55,735 per year would pay a total of $133 in additional taxes under Proposition 103. Good salespeople divide up annual costs into monthly or weekly increments, and that certainly makes sense given the nature of sales tax and income tax withholding. For the median Colorado household, Proposition 103 amounts to a “crushing blow” of about $2.55 per week.

It’s no problem to debate the effects of raising taxes, the historical effects of having cut them, or any other legitimate question surrounding Proposition 103. Some of you are going to vote against it; some because it raises taxes, others because it doesn’t raise them enough.

But we really wish people wouldn’t get so ridiculously over the top about what is in fact a pretty modest initiative. Proposition 103 is a stopgap, not even close to sufficient–or intended–to solve Colorado’s long-term structural budget problems. Whether you support or oppose Proposition 103, and for whatever reason you do, it is very, very far from the end of the world.

To the point of being a credibility problem for opponents who insist it is.