The State of Colorado has nine ballot measures this coming election. I’m going to discuss them all, but I want to start with the “Ugly Three” (as their opponents have dubbed them).
It’s not surprising to find regular efforts to hold the line, or even cut back on government spending. But any of the trio in mind here would be crippling; taken altogether, I’d seriously consider moving. Really. And I really don’t want to move, but that would be better than waiting for Mad Max to show up …
I was going to write (in fact had, half-written) a detailed analysis, but, really, it’s unnecessary. These are just bad proposals, taken singly or altogether.
Amendment 60: Property Taxes
Goal: Cut property taxes to the bone and basically eliminate them as a source for state revenue.
This proposal cuts in half the property tax burden that goes to schools, effectively shifting the cost over to the state’s general fund. Which, of course, doesn’t have the $1.6B necessary to take up the shortfall.
Colorado has had, since 1992, a TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) that seriously restricts how fast property taxes can rise and requires any windfall (if revenue rises faster than a base formula) to be refunded. Many local entities have gotten explicit voter approval to keep those excess amounts for a variety of approved purposes. This amendment undoes those previous votes, and forces any future “de-TABORing” to have a strict expiration date.
It also reduces private property taxes by making publicly-owned facilities (universities, airports, golf courses) pay property taxes and reducing the local tax burden. Of course, those costs will be passed on to users/consumers of those facilities (there goes tuition again, not to mention air fares), or they will have to seriously curtain their services and scope.
Do I want lower property taxes? Sure, in the abstract. Do I think that my property taxes are being wasted on wild parties and chrome-plated lunch dispensers and silly boondoggles? Not that I’ve seen.
Amendment 61: Limits on State and Local Government Borrowing
Goal: Prevent state and local governments from funding large projects or day-to-day operations through borrowing, short- or long-term.
This amendment prevents the state from doing any borrowing whatsoever. Want to build or expand a state highway? Sorry, Charlie — find someone who’s willing to build it privately as a toll road. Unemployment is up and the state unemployment fund has to borrow from the feds to assist out of work people? No can do, sweetheart. Building a prison, a wastewater plant, a building at a state college? You need to somehow (with TABOR give-back limits) save up the money and pay out of pocket.
Smaller governmental entities can borrow, but only through bonds (no short-term borrowing to level cash flow; no lease to own), limited to 10 year terms (how would you like to pay your mortgage on that basis?), and only with voter approval. Local entities (cities, counties, school / transit / fire / water / sewage districts) can only borrow up to 10% of assessed real property values.
Is governmental borrowing something that can be mismanaged, saddling future generations with debt? Certainly. Is the answer to simply eliminate nearly all borrowing? Um, no.
Proposition 101: Income, Vehicle, Telecommunication Taxes and Fees
Goal: Gut state revenues other than property taxes.
This proposition reduces state income tax by a quarter, eliminates all telecommunication taxes and fees except for 911 (which is capped), and reduces auto registration taxes and fees to 1911 levels.
The ostensible goal is to force “state and local governments to eliminate unnecessary spending.” This assumes, of course, that at least a quarter of the state’s general fund is “unnecessary spending.” And that there’s another $1.3B in “unnecessary spending,” currently paid for by vehicle taxes and fees, that can be just done away with (like, say road and bridge construction and maintenance), and another $350M that’s brought in on telecommunication taxes and fees.
Put it all together and it spells …
The writers of the “Blue Book” — the legislative analysis of ballot measures — took the unprecedented step of not just charting out what each of these would do on its own, but what they would do in concert. This led to a huge furor from … well, the joint group pushing all three proposals. Um, duh.
In short, these three proposals, put together …
- Drastically cut property taxes.
- Drastically cut income taxes and other state fees.
- Drastically restrict governmental borrowing.
And then people will wonder why we have 45-kid classrooms, highway bridges falling apart, fire trucks that take an hour to arrive, judges setting criminals free because of prison overcrowding, and highways filled to capacity, plus airlines deserting DIA because of landing fees (further boosting air fares), public college enrollment plummeting because of rising tuition, and, ultimately, nobody wanting to open a business in Colorado, let alone move here.
These three propositions — “the Ugly Three” — are basically out to dismantle the state and local government, for some short-term profit (and, presumably, some long-term ideological goal). While I’m sure that everyone will enjoy the immediate pleasure of somewhat lower property and income taxes and cheap vehicle registration, what it will do to the societal services we call come to expect as citizens of a state that isn’t, say, Mississippi, will be very, very ugly. And a lot of it will be damage in lost jobs and crumbling infrastructure that can’t simply be returned to “normal” by regretfully turning back on the money tap.
Coloradans, please vote NO on 60, 61, and 101.
Aside from the fact that my job is in jeopardy, I’ve been adamant about explaining that to vote for these three is a vote for anarchy. Simply put, it helps destroy the whole purpose of government.
Not that I am, ahem, prone to hyperbole.
‘Cause I’m not. [sigh]
Just more of the same of the GOP’s desire to roll the clock back to before 09/14/1901, they won’t be happy until we are all living like they did in the Deadwood TV show.
For the record, I ought to have noted that reduction in infrastructure spending would affect my employer.
More importantly, though, all of the above would affect me and my family in a profoundly negative way. “What profiteth it a man, should he regain a bunch of his tax money and lose his fire protection and highway fund and good schools?”
Has the state learned nothing from the city of Colorado Springs?
My WA voter’s “pamphlet” just arrived today. Does a 168-page magazine count as a pamphlet?
Yikes.
For as long as the local one is, it’s child’s play vs. what I remember juggling back in the day in California. Lots and lots of teeny-tiny print.
Sooooooo glad the Wisconsin has avoided the national TABOR insanity so far . . . I do worry if the Republicans retake both houses and the Governor’s office, however.
Coloradoans need to look towards California to see where this kind of fiscal insanity goes.
Unfortunately, the types most likely to be in favor of these sorts of measures would dismiss California’s problems as “all those darned socialists.”
Wow, and it’s the GOP engaging in scare tactics? (For the record, I can’t stand the GOP either… nor do I see any substantial difference between the GOP and DNC)
So, we reduce taxes (very slightly) and reduce the ability of government to borrow (again, slightly) and there is immediately ANARCHY, no fire protection, failing schools, murder in the streets? It’d be funny if you weren’t driving the country to financial ruin with oppressive taxation and regulation.
You state worshipers amaze me. Is there ANY limit you would ever put in government? Is there any answer to any problem that isn’t “more government!”. Is your idea of a utopia where every man, woman, and child in this country works for the Federal government?
Of course, it’s no surprise to find out Dave’s a government contractor, feeding at the public trough.
I’d say that if you can’t see any substantial difference between the GOP and the DNC, you’re comparing apples to oranges. The GOP is a party, the DNC is the committee that runs the democratic party. Pedantic responses aside, I assume you mean that you can’t see any important difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party. If so, you’re not looking very hard. I don’t like politicians in general, and I don’t agree with either party on all issues, but there’s clearly a difference between the two in the sense that the Democratic party is trying to build social services and the Republican party is trying to cut them. Whether or not you like either policy, it’s clear that the two parties differ on that matter.
If you consider the reductions in taxes to be slight, you’re not paying attention. The reductions are relatively small for any individual person, but when summed across the whole state, the results will be dramatic, and large. It’s a more than a billion dollars, if I remember correctly.
Calling others “state worshippers” is an ad hominem argument. It’s rude, it contributes nothing to your argument, and it has no place in civilized discussion. Inferring from what’s been said here that anyone who has posted here is in favor of government without limit is a straw man argument. Like ad hominem, it’s a fallacious argument and makes you look like a rube. Your last comment is another ad hominem argument, but it’s even ruder since it’s impugning Dave’s ethics. I’ve known Dave for years, and he’s a good guy, he’s not the kind of person who cheats the government. Although the company he works for does some government contracts, they would survive and thrive without them. Your insults seem to me to be typical of the arrogant, ignorant and selfish mindset of the tea partiers.
So here’s a taste of your own medicine, for illustrative purposes. You must be in favor of no government at all. That would be funny if it didn’t lead to old ladies and babies dying in house fires. You state-haters amaze me. Is there NOTHING you think is appropriate for government to do? Is there any answer to any problem that isn’t “less government”? Is your idea of a utopia where no one works for the government at all?
Thanks, Dave, for the endorsement of my ethics. 🙂
If I had to identify a generalized philosophy distinguishing the Republican from the Democratic party (as both are currently constituted), it would be that the Democrats believe that society collectively (through the government) owes support to the individual, and the Republicans believe that the individual (through personal hard work and virtue) owes support to society.
I might also generalize that the Republicans would tend to favor free enterprise / privatized / (ostensibly) competitive solutions to societal issues, while Democrats would tend to favor public / governmental / non-profit solutions.
There are plenty of exceptions to those generalizations, and both sides claim the other is out for tyranny, if not simply pursuing their own private interests.
My own leanings make it difficult for me to be much more neutral on the subject, though I’ll note that both parties seem to be more than happy, when it suits them, to follow the money to line their own legislative pockets. That tends to be more apparent with the GOP, but there are plenty of cases (media/IP interests being a clear one) where many Dems are willing to be sold to the highest bidder.
Personally, there’s much of the small-l libertarian philosophy that I keep finding creeping in to my own feelings on the dangers of a large, powerful, law-and-ordery government (regardless of who’s in charge), but I also find my own faith traditions pushing me toward a collective caring for those who are disadvantaged, subject to injustice, or needy.
Wow.
That sure is some powerful reasoning there Mr. Newman.
Well, done! 🙂
~reminds self not to get into a debate with a Philosophy Prof.~
Thanks for replying, Jefferson. I’ll respond in reverse order.
To clarify, there is a difference between “reduction in infrastructure spending would affect my employer” and “I’m a government contractor.” My company performs a blend of public and private work. And the services we render for federal, state, and local government are hardly “feeding at the public trough,” any more than what we do for corporations is “feeding off the private trough.” We provide an array of valuable services, through competitive bids, which, as a private firm, we get paid for.
Government vs. non-government is not a binary position, Jefferson. Certainly there are limits we need to have on government, and government solutions are not always the best ones. But there are also many areas where for-profit private firms are not the best solution.
If the solutions provided here are so slight, Jefferson, then why worry about it at all? But, then, I can’t call cutting available state revenue by $1.5B (by cutting property tax funding of schools by half), and state and local revenues by another $2.8B (through cutting of state income tax by a quarter, and eliminating telecommunications and vehicle feeds and taxes), and by significantly reducing the flexibility of borrowing that any governmental entity might need to do, plus by second-guessing elected officials by putting everything up to a vote, I’d call this anything but slight. That’s (looking at just the state level) about $3.3B out of a state budget of $18B, or about 18%. Do you really think that 18% of our state spending is wasted or trivially let go of? Which specific state programs, of what size, would you recommend we do away with? Maybe that would answer the question of whether we’d have “ANARCHY.”
Do we have “excessive” taxation? (I’ll leave aside “regulation” as none of these propositions address that.) What constitutes “excessive”?
I don’t know about you . I see the government budget getting bigger every year wile my family budget is getting smaller. Is time to take my money back. And make the government respect the tax payers money. They must learn to live on a budget like all of us. IAM VOTING MY FAMILY 1ST. YES ON 60. 61. AND 101
I agree that the government must learn to live on a budget. But I point out that (a) the government is our elected representatives, not some distant menacing enemy — that is, they are in office per our vote, and (b) government does, in fact, run on a budget — sit in on your local city council meeting, or a local meeting on transit programs, or at a school board meeting.
I am voting my family first on the ballot — my family’s schools, our roads, our police and fire and, yes, our jails. I am voting for the local universities my daughter may attend and the airport we regularly use. I am voting against 60 / 61 / 101.
before any one votes read the propositions. And you will see why all the negative coming from the unions and the local government. They believe this is there money and the voters will be taking money from them that’s the way they see it. and that why so much negative hype for all the 3 tax payers money saving proposals. Go and read them don’t let any one decides for you. Read and be inform is the power of the voters. Yes on 60. 61. 101
Hi, RTTP? Is there a reason your IP address and email match “MY FAMILY 1ST?”
My vote against these proposition has nothing to do with unions or local government. It has to do with what we, as a society, choose to do collectively for the common good. Funding schools and roads seem pretty high on my list.
HI DAVE
you may say government needs money to run the government. I agree. the problem is the over spending on pet project and god knows on what or were the extra money is going. My family budget has falling and falling and don’t see the end of it. More likely it will continued to be falling out of control during next year and guarantee it will continued falling every year. and who is getting the instant impact of it? My family. Whit less money this is the first time that I have to live on pay check to pay check and I don’t like it. can’t take family on a out to dinner night. Can”t take them to carnivals or do any extra activities that requires money. Because the unions and the government are money hungry monster that it needs is food(money). Well I say. this money hungry monsters need to be put on a diet. I WILL BE VOTING YES ON 60-61-101. and keep the money were it belongs. On my family pocket.
Actually, we need money to run the government. The government is us.
the over spending on pet project and god knows on what or were the extra money is going.
If there are specific things we want to see cut, I’d like to try cutting those, not solving the problem with an axe.
A lot of people are hurting, no question. But a lot of the money that goes in (or is borrowed, short-term, from the federal government by the state) goes to help those are in need of assistance. Others are for necessary things to keep the state together or the economy here (and the jobs that go with it) from collapsing — roadways, schools, prisons and law enforcement.
Where did the unions come into this?
Unless you have something specific that you are targeting with the cuts, it sounds like you’re simply taking money away from, not hungry monsters, but my daughter (through her school) and my family (when we try to drive, when we expect protection from criminals, when we drive from place to place).
Ok Dave: we the people of Colorado pass a law call tabor. And what this elected bureaucrat do? they go over our mandate and pass laws that open loophole for collecting more money from the public and call it service fees? I don’t care how they call it, wen the government take money from my pocket is call tax. Do you know what it is to live on a pay check to pay check? Is not funny. This pass 2 years my income have not change. But my taxes had gone up. I’m not making more money. But Colorado government collects more now then 2 years ago. I’m tire of people giving me excuses for the government to take more of my hard work money. I’m force to live on a budget why can the government do the same. Is this amendments put more money on my pocket and force the government to live on a budget I will say to the government welcome to my life. YES ON 60. 61. 101
The difference between “fee” and “tax” is not well defined, and I’d welcome something better for it — the proposal that a “fee” be funding something specifically related to what it’s being charged for seems reasonable. Calling every fee a “tax” seems to obliterate a meaningful distinction.
In point of fact, yes, I do. And, no, it’s not.
I agree that those who are poor, working poor, or living paycheck to paycheck should be paying less in taxes, proportionately, than those are much better off.
Most people are not making more money, slipping behind the rate of inflation. The state’s services, on the other hand, are not immune to inflation, however (and, in fact, are in some areas mandated to match or exceed the inflation rate, e.g., educational spending). Simply waving our hands, though, and cutting taxes, is hardly the smart way to approach this, as the things that will be most impacted are the things that the general public most benefits from — roads, schools, the social safety net (e.g., unemployment), etc.
If there are specific, wasteful programs, let’s tackle those. I don’t want bridge collapses, highway congestion, police force cuts, fire department cuts, 40-student classrooms, or people starving to be the cost of putting money back in my pocket, but that’s precisely what this particular trio of packages will lead to.
Which is why I will be voting NO on 60, 61, and 101.
TABOR (TAxpayers Bill Of Rights) was a huge mistake that the residents of the state of Colorado have been busily undoing every election since it was passed. Which, it seems to be the major motivation of Doug Bruce and the residents of the Springs with these bills, to undo all of the De-Brucing that has been going on and force the rest of Colorado (and all of the other tax and fee supported entities) to become like the Springs.
No thank you.
Bravo, Dave! I also am voting to keep the tax on sodas and candy that was enacted here in WA, even though it cuts into my income (I drink way too much soda). I understand that we need to pay for services that we require, and will do my share. If it gets to be too much of a burden, I will cut sodas from my grocery list (again; I managed it for almost a year when I lost my previous job).
As a citizen, I have a responsibility to my fellow citizens. I do not take that lightly.
Ok DAVE to clear all the confusion and the hype about the so call ugly 3? Go to Denver channel 7 wed site and read it. And u will see what is in it. And we all can make a sound judgment about this money savings amendments. just copy and past on google. And u will see all the lies and hype about this 3 amendments. I suggest all your readers to do the same. Here is the web site>
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/25156221/detail.html
I’ve read the legislative analysis of the propositions, too (which I think does a better job).
The knee-jerk sound-bite of “kills jobs!” is, I agree, overly-simplified. It’s arguable that by crippling the state and local government’s ability to pay for education, infrastructure, law enforcement, etc., it would make Colorado a much less attractive state to do business in, thus jobs would be lost, but that’s a lot slushier of an assertion (aside from jobs, private and public, directly lost due to cut governmental spending).
That said, I do find it interesting that the group running the ad in question is a pro-business, pro-economic growth group. Usually they’re the first to argue that we should cut taxes. That they’re arguing against these propositions should give any proponent pause.
the government needs money no questions. But how much is to much. Taxes should be fair collecting for every one. I don’t care if u make a dollar or you make a billion dollars. We all should pay the same amount on a % If I pay (for example)20% of what I make. bill gates should pay the same. By having a different tax brackets is unfair. This is America and every citizen must be treated the same. We must stop the punishment for been successful.
~snort~
All the “Flat Tax” or the “Fair Tax” proposals are designed to do is shift the tax burdon from the wealthy to the poor, it’s just income redistribution from the bottom to the top all in the name of Fairness.
Again, no thank you.
A single tax rate sounds great, but it actually hurts the poor and working class more than it does the rich.
Let’s say you make $30,000 this year. You are barely, barely making ends meet, and paying $6,000 in taxes (20%) would be a huge burden, dropping your income to $24,000. You would probably be considering whether to pay the rent, or medicine, or food, or heat (choose 2).
Let’s say David Koch makes $2 billion this year. Sure, $600 million (20%) is a lot of money — but it’s not going to cause him to lose any sleep over whether he can afford to feed his kids for the rest of the week, only whether he buys a 300-foot yacht or a 800-foot yacht this quarter. He still has $1.4 billion left.
That’s the idea of a progressive tax rate. It’s not to punish the rich; it’s to acknowledge that the pain they will feel paying at their rate is significantly less than the same rate on someone earning much less.
I’m in an upper tax bracket. I don’t feel like I’m being punished for my wealth because I pay a higher marginal rate than less-well-off people. I still end up making far more. Nor am I discouraged from seeking higher income; I’d still end up with more than if I did not.
(Note also we’re talking progressive taxes on a marginal tax rate. That is, assuming married filing jointly, David Koch pays the same as you on the the first $16,750 (10%), then the same on income up to $68,000 (15%), then the same on any income p to $137,300 (25%), and upwards by steps, until any income over $373,650 is paid at the top rate of 35%. So in the above example, he pays exactly the same tax rate on the income the same as yours; it’s only the portions of income higher than that where he pays more. Again, he’s not losing any sleep.)
I’m in an upper tax bracket. I don’t feel like I’m being punished for my wealth because I pay a higher marginal rate than less-well-off people. I still end up making far more. Nor am I discouraged from seeking higher income; I’d still end up with more than if I did not.
Well Dave im happy that you can make lots of money. But if u feel that you are not paying enough tax by all means go to the tax collection agency and request to have more money taken out of your pay check. I will try to keep much of my money. Because I’m not wealthy has you. By helping my self on what ever tax brakes I can get .i Will be helping you to. You can’t make comparison of money the rich are rich so what, they need to pay more? Why so liberals can maintain the social justice? Keep people on welfare. That not social justice that is controlling the people. If you feed a fish to a man everyday that is what he will be expecting from you. To feed him for life. But if you teach him how to fish he will feed himself and his family. And he will not be a burden on the country.
But if you teach him how to fish he will feed himself and his family. And he will not be a burden on the country.
Well, good to see that you are in favour of public schools at least, what with all that teaching and everything.
My $.02.
One thing that I seem to see as a difference between the folks on the left and the ones on the right is that on the left, folks understand that we are all in this together, and we need to work together to make our communities, states, and counter a better place for those that come after us.
Where as thos on the right seem to ascribe to the concept of “screw you, I go mine!” and see the world as a zero sum game.
I will play brief devil’s advocate here and note that some on the right see personal liberty as a high value to protect for everyone. (Others see it as a high value to protect only for right-thinking sorts, and the rest should be tossed in jail, but I digress.) And there are some on the left who, similar to those I just mentioned on the right, who seem to think that their knowledge of what is best for the collective whole allows them to punish those who disagree with individual dissenters.
It’s why better descriptors of the political arena usually have an axis for personal freedom vs autocracy, since both techniques can be found left and right, regardless of one’s belief about economic, religious, sexual, or foreign policy matters.
But that all said (and oversaid), certainly a lot of the loudest voices on the right today seem to take the stand you ascribe to them, BD.
And if you see a man who needs fish and say, “Well, heck, I need all these fish for myself, so he should just go out and figure out how to fish,” they you are doing both of your a disservice.
If your suggestion is that what these propositions will cut will be welfare (which you’ve decided is there to “control people”), I suggest you are wrong. Unless schools, and prisons, and roads are welfare.
I am not saying, btw, that I am not paying enough in taxes (though I could pay more without significantly impacting my life). I am saying that a progressive tax system, where those who have more pay a larger fraction of that amount, is a good idea. Those who have less should not be asked to share the same percentage burden because they need it more.
By pushing forward whatever tax breaks you can get, you are not necessarily helping me — or yourself — if the state and cities and special districts around us fall apart or fail to meet growing population and needs.
By pushing forward whatever tax breaks you can get, you are not necessarily helping me — or yourself — if the state and cities and special districts around us fall apart or fail to meet growing population and needs.
Take a good look at Colorado Springs to see what Dave means. It is disheartening to see what people will do to their own city to save a few bucks. 🙁
Dave and gang is was fun to write to you all. I have made my decision. I will VOTE YES ON 60. 61. 101. Don’t see that this 3 good amendments have any chance of passing. but I did my part to make my life better. God bless you all.( Sorry I say GOD hope is still ok to say the name
of the creator) I discover something on this year midterms elections that I’m not a liberal democrat any more. I really wasted all my votes on the pass 20 years. My last vote for a democrat ended here. I voted for obama on 2008 elections(what a mistake) and what did I get? lies, lies, lies and more lies. TO EVERY ONE VOTE YES ON 60. 61. 101.
You are welcome to use God in any conversation you wish (including with me) as far as I’m concerned — unless you are speaking as a government official, in which case it’s inappropriate.
I don’t think the mendacity from the Obama Administration has been any grater than previous ones (esp. from the W. Bush gang). It’s been arguably much less.
I’ll be voting NO on 60, 61, and 101.
At the present time, all three of these ballot propositions look to be going down badly, in the 70-75% NO range. I am pleased.