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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 16, 2008 07:44 PM UTC

Post Praises Romanoff Plan

  • 6 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From the editorial board of The Denver Post:

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff sure knows how to go out in a blaze of glory.

The Denver Democrat, forced to leave the legislature this year because of term limits, has crafted a dramatically simple yet potentially powerful fiscal reform package that he hopes to place on the November ballot.

It’s a single constitutional amendment that, if approved by the voters, would break the deadlock between two conflicting clauses of the state constitution. They are the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which is designed to continuously shrink state spending as a share of the economy, and 2000’s Amendment 23, which requires continuous increases in public school spending even if revenues drop and the state is forced to slash all other programs from highways to health care.

Romanoff is far from the first lawmaker to spot this constitutional tug-of-war. But where he’s broken new ground is in packaging three separate but interlocking reform measures in one bill under the title “Concerning the manner in which the state funds public education.”…

…The best ideas are often the simplest ones, and Romanoff’s plan to rid the constitution of its two most irreconcilable elements is both wise and practical. He will need at least two-thirds of each chamber of the legislature to send the plan to state voters this fall.

We hope legislators of both parties will join in supporting Romanoff’s effort to restore representative democracy and sound budget practices to Colorado by ending our constitutional standoff.

Tweet
Share

Comments

6 thoughts on “Post Praises Romanoff Plan”

    1. Their bill would permanently repeal the spending limitations imposed by the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, while preserving the requirement that all tax increases be approved by voters.

      It also would repeal a major provision of Amendment 23, which was passed after TABOR to require spending on K-12 education to increase regardless of whether TABOR forced government to limit overall spending increases.

      And it would create a rainy-day fund within the $3 billion K-12 education budget, essentially freeing up lawmakers to make funding decisions they’ve never been able to contemplate.

      http://www.rockymountainnews.c…

      I wouldn’t bother to read it, you’re not going to like it. 😉

        1. Do you remember Danny’s language change in a thread about Bruce’s ability to be elected?  It was about fixing the “ratchet” effect only.

          I’m really asking a question here, not trying to make you mad, so I’d appreciate if you could assume that I’m being civil.

          It’s been said that the ratchet pleases some because they were looking to cripple government, as opposed to keeping them frugal.  Two questions for you: Were the authors and supporters, in general, supporting that?  I’m also wondering if you’d, or think that others would, support a language change to fix the ratchet effect while leaving the rest unchanged, something like that anyway?

          1. by Referendum C in 2005. All athat will return in 2010 if nothing is done is the basic TABOR limit of revenue growth limited to population growth plus inflation as measured by the consumer price index for the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area.  

            This formula consistently shrinks state government as a share of the state economy because it allows nothing for real growth per capita.  

            1. I keep telling people how the additive formula vs. a multiplicative one is reduction in real dollars over time.

              People look at me like a dog watching a card trick.

              If we fixed that simple problem it would be a big help.

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

282 readers online now

Newsletter

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