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%
May 01, 2007 10:47 PM UTC
22 Comments
How a local tax cap based not on percentages but rather on fixed totals came into being, I couldn’t imagine – except that I’ve lived in Colorado too long to be confused. A plan that essentially devalues local tax revenue over time could only have come from the no-government crowd (aka Doug Bruce…).
…and I take it you are a part of the ‘More Bigger Government Crowd’?
Before voting on giving the government more money why don’t we discuss C.A.F.R.s http://cafr1.com/TPR… and how that ‘really’ works.
Then do as the baseball players did to the owners, demand the government ‘open the books’ including a FULL report from the C.A.F.R. We’ll see how much money the government ‘doesn’t have’.
Enough of this right / left distraction already!
Really, I don’t see how this is more or bigger.
” I don’t see how this is more or bigger”?
Oh really?
Take a look at each CAFR and tell me with a straight face that ‘any’ tax subject is not about ‘more’ and ‘bigger’.
on the school finance formula than TABOR does. By the way, Gallagher is a Democrat (aka Not Doug Bruce….)
Just an ideology.
We went over this whole thing back with Ref. C. Things cost more over time; formulas that don’t properly adjust (in this state, that usually translates to “formulas that decrease spending power”) over time are dumb no matter who proposes them.
it only shifts the burden from residential property to commercial property owners. I find more fault with the system that allows populist ideas to be so easily written into the constitution then with any particular ideology.
Prior to TABOR, Gallagher shifted the tax burden to commercial property owners through tax increases. After TABOR, no tax increases could be passed on to commercial property owners without a vote of the people. To maintain the ratio between residential and commercial property tax revenue after TABOR(as required by the Gallagher amendment), perpetual tax cuts to residential property taxes were required. Gallagher alone is not the problem. TABOR alone is not the problem. The interaction between the two is a toxic recipe for disaster when it comes to funding schools.
When did we vote on this? Does he mean de-Brucing votes and wouldn’t that be for local school districts?
“In addition, 34 school districts across Colorado also will see a reduction in their high property-tax rates”
I assume this mean the other districts’ taxes will go up?
Who will end up paying more for this fix?
A-23 and C aren’t enough?
Can someone Reader’s Digest this for me, I guess I haven’t been paying close enough attention!
When the Dems speak about how this was already voted on, they are referring to the many local votes to allow districts to retain and spend all money coming in to the district, rather than give some back. The devil is the vast majority of these elections were prefaced by the words, “with no additional taxes”. Additionally, the districts specified exactly what would be done with the revenues kept (i.e. operating expenses, capital construction…). So to say this bill gives voice to the districts, is disingenuous.
The more I listened to the ‘debate’ on the floor today, the more I found myself not liking the idea. This should go to a vote of the people and attaching it to the school finance act after it passed the Senate was dubious at best.
I don’t think any of the communities that de-Bruced envisioned this state override. According to the Rocky:
“Although the rate is frozen, homeowners’ tax bills will increase as property values rise. Revenue to school districts will also increase as new buildings are added to the tax roles.”
deBrucing refers to allowing the school district to keep revenues already collected, correct? This seems entirely different to me.
Isn’t that special! Hey, ignore the man behind the curtain!
“Today’s action by the Senate and last week’s action by the House will make a difference not just for children in our K-12 education system, but for higher education, health care and other services provided by the state to the people of Colorado.”
So, how did those famous 175 of 178 have so much foresight to include “higher education, health care and other services provided by the state to the people of Colorado” when they de-Bruced their districts?
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen’s “off with her head!”
Remember what the dormouse said:
“Feed your head. Feed your head. Feed your head”
Grace Slick
I don’t follow.
slight of hand to pull this off. He is counting on most voters to be too uninformed to challange his end-run of
TABOR and just accept that they’ve already voted on this. Did anybody in the famous 175 of 178 believe they were voting on increase revenue for higher education or health care? I believe its a safe beat that the VAST majority of voters thought they we de-Brucing for the benefit of their schools and their children. My two references were to “The Wizird of Oz”, and “Through the Looking Glass” (by way of Jefferson Airplane) because I think Ritter is perpetrating a fraud and his plan to get away with it is to confuse the public, a la Alice in Wonderland.
The reason I am confused is because I thought Ritter’s school finance proposal went to the State Education Fund. The de-Brucing that the 175 of 178 did was the end run of TABOR. Ritter is doing the best he can to finance public education under our repressive Constitution. How is that, like what the local governments did, deceptive?
That’s what you were SUPPOSED to believe. You’re not confused, you’re just gullible.
Actually, it has nothing to do with that.
It simply shifts the education funding burden to local property tax payers without cutting anything at the state level.
Last version of the bill I read was going to suck money out of the education trust fund and spend it on all-day kindergarten and pre-school programs. I don’t know if that’s still in there or not. As a measure that was billed as something to save the education trust fund, it leaves a lot to be desired.
I don’t know if Wikipedia has an entry for “tax and spend,” but a cut and paste of this bill would come pretty close to being a textbook definition.
I see what you are saying. I also think you are just plain wrong about what the bill does. I too haven’t read a copy of the final bill, but I think it puts money INTO the State Education Fund, not take it out. I’ll have to read it before I know for certain.
Yeah, I was right. Scroll up just a little and read lines 8 and 9. This isn’t adding anything new. It is just reauthorizing a program that already exists. This happens all the time. Clearly, if it existed for the 2006-2007 cycle… Bill Owens signed this law.
The tax freeze is sections 5 and 6 (page 7 line 6 through page 8 line 15). The rest of the bill is regular old bland education stuff. Maybe the real answer is that Republicans DID understand this a few years ago and don’t now??
Arguing about whether the tax freeze is a secret tax increase is one thing… but arguing about whether the other stuff included in the school finance bill, stuff that is not controversial nor is there any threat that it is unconstitutional, shows your ignorance. And to think you called me gullible.
Anyone interested in seeing just how much those Colorado School Districts have in liquid cash and investment capital?
Well, a good start would be to look at their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). There is a mere 24,000 hits on Colorado “School District” CAFR
Find yours and take a look. Your political leaders will not mention or tell you to look. They are too busy counting your money:
CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK TO SEE: http://www.google.co…
Read through those note sections. You may just stumble upon advance forward liability accounts were they have funneled off tens of millions of dollars as they cried poverty on their “Budget” report to get more of your money.
WJB
http://CAFR1.com or http://CAFR.us