Referendums C & D, huh...??

[DMad]

As posted in the Pueblo Chieftain, Saturday, October 1st:

______________________________
What's being billed as the event of the "silly season" is coming to Pueblo later this month.

That's when Gov. Bill Owens will, for the first time during this year's campaign season, debate El Paso County Commissioner Douglas Bruce over the merits of Referendums C and D.

The event will take place during the opening day luncheon of Action 22's annual meeting Oct. 14 at the Pueblo Convention Center.

"It's going to be the debate of the campaign," said Katy Atkinson, spokeswoman for the Yes on C&D campaign. "It's going to be better than a Raiders-Broncos game."

Owens helped broker a compromise with lawmakers to put the referendums on the Nov. 1 ballot; Bruce authored the state's Taxpayers Bill of Rights and got voters to approve it in 1992, on his third attempt.

Referendum C asks voters for permission to retain all tax revenues the state already collects for the next five years, including those above revenue limits under the TABOR. That money, estimated to be about $3.7 billion, is to be used to restore funding to state programs cut during the recent recession.

Referendum D would use some of that money to pay for roads, schools and police and fire pensions.
____________________________________

Now, please help me. I feel I have a very basic understanding of the issues at hand with Referendums C and D, but I have some questions.

1. When we talk about retaining all tax revenues "the state already collects", what are we talking about here? I know when I pay over in taxes, I get a refund from the State. $3.7 billion over the next five years...?? Sounds like a lot of money to me.

2. Referendum C, restoring funding to state programs cut during the recent recession. Which state programs specifically? I can't imagine that ALL state programs that were cut are so missed by the citizens of this state that we MUST re-institute them ALL at our earliest convenience. I know from a business perspective that the actions that result from tough times can have the benefit of making a company leaner and more efficient over the long-term. I wonder if some of these programs aren't better off gone? I mean, hell, there had to be some reason Big Bill chose them to be the first to cut in the first place, right?

3. Referendum D - I like new roads. And I definitely like schools. And I am a fan of the service that Police and Firefighters provide to our beloved city. But how much money are we talking about using for these types of improvements? Are these the "programs" that were cut originally?

Signed,

Wondering and curious in Pueblo....

[large]

is this . . No matter the Math, fuzzy or foregone . . . The legislators are trying to sidestep the law that was voted in by a very large majority around 1990 or so . .

The law was enacted because the State Legislature was spending every dollar they could get, in ways the average taxpayer couldn't fathom . . . Now they want a free reign to do that again . .

Which probably wouldn't be all that bad EXCEPT . . . at the end of the Five year moratorium on the Tabor amendment we'll be in hock to our eyeballs with programs that (Unfortunetly) didn't "Sunset" when the referendum does, we'll have to do it all over again . . . BETCHA!

Politicians cannot control their desire to be re-elected, and they buy their re-elections with the Taxpayer's Dollars . . . by building Bridges to nowhere, more entitlements and greater dependance upon th' Feds who'll put up matching grants for Damned near anything!

Don't Believe any of this?

Look at what the present Congress has done to the National Debt . . with just the Transportation Bill alone! In the History of Armour Packing, they never processed and distributed as much pork as this Congress has . .and there was no partisian objection . . . . the Repubs and th' Dems share the glorious blame!

And if you vote for C, wellll, then you get D . . which is more of a "Wish List" than reality . . because if what they say is true, then they're gonna be able to keep all the public and state schools open for at least 5 more years, (they're gonna close if this isn't approved y'kno) and we're gonna build glorious four lanes in every direction . . how do I know that? 'Cause they're saying they will . . . and everybody is gonna get a jillion dollars! We'll be on easy street from now on . . .

C'mon people, it's all smoke and mirrors, B.S. and Bouillion, there is no crisis, it's a reflection of the economic downturn we all enjoyed together . . Nobody's gonna give me an extra $421 dollars this year because I suffered the same downturn the state did . . nor any of you out there . .

I get a portion of my income from the state, as an educator. Will I get a raise? Hell, no . . . . as a matter of fact Bill Owens and his B.S. Operation cost me about $900 off my state net this year, as well as the Democratic legislature . . . and they damned sure aren't going to give it back to me unless I fight tooth and nail for it . .

[DMad]

Large, your post was informative and very interesting. And, unfortunately, I had a feeling these referendums may be as you say. I have always loved the way politicians have honed the art of using conspiracy, fear, and paranoia to control their constituents. If you can't sell an idea strictly on merit, develop some cause, or issue, or impending doom that will put a little fear in the people who will then have no choice but to put their faith in the "experts" who hold public office.

One question for me remains, when we talk about revenue surplus, what does that really mean? Does that mean if the State of Colorado collects too much tax from me during the year 2005, they're going to keep the extra come tax time 2006? If so, I find that completely unacceptable. That's like WalMart charging you $20 more for your groceries than what was ticketed, and then asking you to let them "keep" that $20 so that they can use it to bring back all the door greeters they had to lay off when we hit the recession.

I agree with you, large! I suffered through the recession in Colorado like every other taxpayer did. I was laid off by two different employers TWICE during the early 2000's and I made it through. Interesting that there isn't a Referendum E being proposed that would cut my state taxes by 30% so that I can use the extra money to re-implement some of the things I had to cut out of the lifestyle I was used to. I need more than fire and brimstone to convince me that these referendums are really a priority for the citizens of colorado as a whole.

[large]

Dunno, really . . it's one of those "Terms" kinda like the "Spare Quarter" that George Carlin joked about . .

Kinda like you or me having "Surplus" Money or Income . . . I would liken "Surplus Income" as a Windfall or perhaps winning the lottery . . Right? Not really, because the same politician who talks of "Surplus Taxes" or "Revenue" will quickly tax you on a 38% rate for YOUR windfall, while all the while saying that your "Extra" taxes should be something he can keep!

Somehow, the word "Doubletalk" keeps coming to mind . . .

Another example that always bothered me . . The IRS (the State does it too) rules require Witholding . . Then you file a return and get back tax money collected but over paid . . this is a "REFUND" of over paid or surplus tax . .which the government has used for up to a year . . with no accumulation of interest . . and then they insist that you pay tax on that refund as income in the next year . . Hmmm, as that withholding was a part of my taxable gross last year . . aren't I being taxed twice for that money? The first time when I earned it and then again when I get it back from the people who've used it for up to a year for nothing!

Just another of those things wot Pi**es me off . . . .

Actually the "Surplus" the Politicians speak of is money overpaid based on a formula in the TABOR Act . . I'm not going to go through it, but basically it sets a maximum based upon a number of factors, and once that mark is tripped the state must refund any money over that maximum . . and it's divided equally, I believe . . anyhoo, it was designed to work in a good economy . . in a declining economy the State (and those fed with "Trickle Down" funds) see the same decline in income the taxpayers do, but the same formulas that maintain "Overpayment" seem to affect them differently . . it stretches their vocal chords and enables them to scream louder, I guess . . . .

[Zen Curmudgeon]

>snip< C'mon people, it's all smoke and mirrors, B.S. and Bouillion, there is no crisis, it's a reflection of the economic downturn we all enjoyed together . . There is a crisis brewing in at least one program - Medicaid. As you may know, Medicaid pays the bill for about 80% of the state's nursing home residents. At present, the typical long term care facility receives about $130 per day for each Medicaid recipient in the facility. This per diem covers room, board and professional nursing care. For comparison, consider that a concierge level room at the Pueblo Marriott runs about $104 per day. That's the room - meals are extra. Further cuts in Medicaid are on the agenda if C and D fail. There are some pretty persuasive models that predict loss of long term care beds if the reimbursement doesn't begin to catch up to the costs of care. (This doesn't take into account the danger to the state's poor children and expectant mothers who rely on Medicaid for basic health care.)

Do you really want to balance the state budget on the backs of the most helpless Coloradoans?

I'm certainly not defending the legislative ineptness that led to the education and TABOR amendments: if the elected officials can't or won't listen to the voters something has to be done. But the repercussions, which can't have been forseen, threaten the lives of the elderly and disabled. That's not "smoke and mirrors" - that's a direct threat to that "Greatest Generation". Trivializing that threat with tired political cliches serves no one's interests.

Take Care -

ZC

[large]

Gee, Zen . . I'm a State Employee . . One would think that MEEEE, of all people should be behind the fleecing of the many . .

Really, I'm not . . and as for Medicaid, it hasn't paid anything for the last three years, so is Referendum C going to make a federal mandate with payment formulas any different? No, because the Federal Mandate creates requirements for the payments for the most part . . You want Medicaid reform . . ? Call Allard and Salazar, they're the people that can change that . . and they need to!

The politicians have pointed to everything the state has any responsibility for and said that they'll be forced to shut them all down if C isn't passed . . and if it is, then we'll pass D and the pot of Gold at the end of the Rainbow is here!

Don't think so. And as I said, I'd bet, that at the end or "Sunset" of C, the state's indebtness will be such that another Referendum to extend C will be forced!

Wanna bet?

[Rushboy]

Nowhere in the Democrats playbook do you see any reference to Amendment 23, the school initiative that sent the budget into a black hole in the first place. No, the Democrats refused to look at their 'sacred cow' and went forward on their spending spree to try to corner every dime in the state possible. I heard Buffy (The TABOR Slayer) McFadden the other day in Canon City and was amazed at the bull *hit that came out of her! She claimed she was for TABOR but wanted to give it a 'time out'. That sounds like someone who says I'm in favor of the troops but don't support the war! I hope the voting public sees through all the crap that is being laid out there by the supporters of this gargantuan tax increase!!!

[Zen Curmudgeon]

>>chunk of partisan bashing snipped<<I hope the voting public sees through all the crap that is being laid out there by the supporters of this gargantuan tax increase!!!Referendum C is backed by a surprisingly homogenous group of state elected officials, including Repub Gov Owens. The Blue Book on C & D points out that there is no tax increase, that the Referendum simply allows the state to keep sales tax revenues it is now obligated by TABOR to refund and mandates that those funds be spent on obligations the state now cannot meet.

Personally, I think providing health care to the poorest of us is a good thing, I like well-paved highways, and I think police and fire fighters deserve the pensions they have been promised.

And, by the way, it's "Buffie McFadyen".

Take Care -

ZC

[large]

the Bone of Contention here, Zen . .

I haven't referred to "C" as a TAX INCREASE anywhere . . I buy even less of the opposition's B.S. than I do the State Politician's B.S.

I don't oppose this because of a piddling $421 spread over 5 years . . I oppose this because we're being BullSh**ed all the way to the Bank! I'll guarantee you that at the "Sunset" of this Referendum the State of Colorado will be up to their Ass in Bonded Indebtiness, and the State Legislature will again be asking for a "Time out" from the "TABOR Amendment" . . .

Politicians cannot control themselves . . and You've bought their line. If you were a fish . . you'd be dinner!

IF the TABOR Amendment is wrong, REPEAL IT!

Y'know why the Legislature won't put THAT up for vote? BECAUSE THEY'D LOSE THEIR A**ES!

They couldn't sell something that would sound like: "Well, we just can't make it on the piddling sum that's being paid in, and we need more money! And while you Taxpayers had a downturn, we don't want to have one too . . After all, You need all those nice "Free" things we're gonna make YOU pay for!"

Wise up, they aren't giving anything . . you and my grandkids are gonna be paying for all those "Entitlements" that the Government should not provide in the first place!

My thought is this . . Both Amendment 23 and the TABOR Amendment should be reviewed, and rewrote, and when they are in alignment, put out to vote . . as one amendment . . Effectively cancelling out both preceding Amendments . . which, actually are in total conflict at the present!

[large]

Zen, You say . . .

"Personally, I think providing health care to the poorest of us is a good thing, I like well-paved highways, and I think police and fire fighters deserve the pensions they have been promised." Unquote . . . . . .

The State cannot provide "Health Care for the Poorest" . . I'm poor by a lot of standards, and health care for me starts at a piddling $600 per month . . and were it not for the fact that my wife is employed by a generous Employer who pays hers and mine is a rider, I would be paying right at $2000 per month . . I get to pay, regardless of my circumstance. Just like the mandated Automobile Insurance the State says we have to have but won't pay for . . tough noogies . . . and if that's too much for you, as a private citizen, you might add one of those poor people to your health cverage and pay for it . . That way you'll feel good and be performing a humanitarian gesture . . .

Highways . . that's one of the things the State is primarily responsible for . . I'm fine with that . . to a point! What I'm not fine with is the State getting into the Railroad Business on the Highway Dollar . . and running railroads around Denver, relocating and improving "Cross Town Routes" at the entire State's expense! If anything like a railroad is needed, let it pay for itself . . go to a Bank with a sound business plan, get the money and build the Damned thing! And then pay for it with the revenue generated!

FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS THAT THEY WERE PROMISED? Doooonnnn't even go there! Bud, I'm a PAYING MEMBER of PERA and they didn't even apply KY jelly or kiss me when they got in my shorts! When the State of Colorado cleans the Rats out of the PERA Cheese Closet, then we'll talk about restoration of Pension Funds . . they have allowed the PERA fund to be raided by the executives to the point of unsolvency . . how in the Hell could they pay retirees 80 and 90 percent of their highest income while in service, squander money for high administrative costs, spend the large amounts on lobbying the State legislature, invest pension funds in shaky deals and expect to remain solvent . . Until those SOBs go to jail, I'm not for advancing those funds another DIME!

Y'better read up on what the Politicians are doing with our money, not what they're saying they're gonna do with it!

[DMad]

I'm sorry, I know this is off topic, but I have to say it. I could read large's posts ALL DAY! I am an avid forum fan and member of numerous forums all around the internet, and I don't know that I've ever run across a forum member with a flair for the written word like large. Kudos and thank you for keeping what are sometimes "bland" topics exciting and edgy.

[large]

Thanks, Dmad, I appreciate your compliment . . I just try to keep 'em factual and objective when I can . . and add a little humor or at least cynicism when possible . . heh, heh . . .

As Zen sez; "You can't make this stuff up" . . .

Back on Topic, I see the State Treasurer, Mark Hillman (former State Senator) has "Blasted" Referendum C and it's child, D . . saying, there's nothing that the referendums will do that an upswing in tax revenues won't . . Kinda the way I look at it. Betcha He and Owens have "Hall Sex" when they pass each other in the Capitol byways . . . You know, "give each other the finger!"

[Zen Curmudgeon]

But we go to the polls with the choices we're offered, not the choices we'd like.

C & D are a long way from what I (and I suspect, large) would like to see on the ballot. Under TABOR, the pols are certainly entitled to ask for a tax increase to pay for projects, but we aren't being given that choice.

From my point of view, courage and honesty from our elected reps is preferable but probably unobtainable. I see large groups of our fellow citizens about to be phuqued one more time by the inability of our elected officials to govern wisely and compassionately. I wish it hadn't come to this, but it does seem to me that we must now choose between options that are only the lesser of two completely avoidable evils.

Sure, C & D suck. Elected officials more concerned with our welfare than their own re-election might have planned alternatives. But they didn't. The same impulse toward civic self-preservation that fuels citizen initiatives is now asked to avert terrible consequences to those least able to defend themselves.

I will vote for C & D, but I will also remember those elected dickwads that made this vote necessary. I will also do whatever I can do to make them feel the pain of the folks victimized by legislative self-interest. Y'all do what you feel a need to do.

Take Care -

ZC

[large]

If it ain't right . . don't vote for it and then "Hope it will get better" . . 'cause it won't !

We need to make them understand that both TABOR and Amendment 23 need review and modification . . not just voter approved sidestepping!

We also need to make both the Insurance Commissioner and the PUC elected positions, non partisan, perhaps but still elected. Mandated insurance premiums and Monoply's in the energy supply seem to proliferate in our state, and the regulators always seem to side with the "regulated"! Needs to be changed.

And If the State of Colorado wants to get into the Passenger Railroad Business, let 'em go to a Bank to get the money . . theTaxpayer has (or should have) shelled out the last dollar for that "Experiment" . . . build highways with "Highway Taxes" not something else. that's the problem here, The Legislature comes up with ideas of how to spend our money, they just don't tell us about it until they have! In spite of the "Sunshine" Law, there's some pretty shady crap going on in Denver!

[DMad]

I just saw a televised ad for Ref's C and D that "warned" the taxpayers of Colorado that if these Ref's don't get voted through, expect there to be no funding for higher education, meaning that lower income youth will NOT be able to go to college because of the huge tuition increases that will result. So, the point of the advertisement was that if you don't vote Yes on Ref C, you will be robbing the future generation(s) of youth the opportunity to go to college.

This is what I don't understand. I haven't heard a damn thing about the funding of higher education being in trouble to this degree over six to eight months ago. And what I mean when I say that is to me, if there was this level of problem with the state budget, why are we only now hearing the specifics? I can't help but thinking that everytime I see some six-figure politician up there breathing fire and brimstone that he's talking out of one side of his/her mouth and lying out the otha'. Maybe I'm sterotyping, maybe my views have been tainted, I don't know. But I am VERY skeptical of allowing this "overpaid" government any more liberties with my money.

If someone has shown an obvious lack of money management in the past, I don't believe the way to fix it is give them more money.

[large]

VOTE NO!

The Legislature was and has been aware of their pending "Money Crunch" for about three years . . after all, wasn't that when WE felt it? ***** I hate when that happens!

And our super alert politicians just notice it when things appear to be getting better?

They have had a lot of time to formulate a better deal than the one they propose . . . I say make them figure out a better deal for the State of Colorado . . Let's "adjust" TABOR and lets make Amendment 23 compatable or at least correctly functional . . . .

[DMad]

That has always been my philosophy at the voting booth and will continue to be so going forward, including when voting on Ref's C and D.

[badnewsbear]

geez, maybye if my family pulled in more then 30 k a year id be ok with c&d,
income tax is one of the few joys we have left and they want us to pay for POLICE PENSIONS ?wait those pigs are always harrasing me for living on the wrong side of town,calling the feds on medical marijuana users (the people voted)
and sexualy harassing women? hmm i wanna give them my extra cash yeah right.


it seems the chieftains articles are biased aswell

[DMad]

geez, maybye if my family pulled in more then 30 k a year id be ok with c&d,
income tax is one of the few joys we have left and they want us to pay for POLICE PENSIONS ?


Actually, I gather that the "leaders" of this state are trying to portray C & D as helping the little guy. After all, where is a good portion of this money sure to go? Well, without them providing the specifics (which to my knowledge they haven't done), I'm sure a lot will go to all the social, economic, and low-income programs that for whatever reason always seem to require an inflated payroll, an extended overhead, and are bogged down in administrative and managerial fat, that got cut during the recession. You wanna' talk about "building your own empire", way to go, Owens! Nice about-face.

I don't see the issue as rich or poor, advantaged or under-priveleged. This boils down to poor fiscal management and the accountability and responsibility that needs to be assigned. How can a financial entity (in this case the State of Colorado) have the balls to ask for MORE money when they weren't able to properly manage what they already had? How come we're not reading about all the other options for fiscal re-allignment being put into place BEFORE asking the taxpayers of this state for yet another handout? Where are the streamlining of departments, the increased efficiencies within all the government "fat"?

Hey, Bill, I have a GREAT idea! Let's start by taking a cut of your salary and then work our way down.

You know why? Because the political engine has gotten extremely skilled at taking a situation like this and turning it into a scare campaign. My god, what is the list of things that are "definitely going to happen" if C & D don't pass? No more college for lower-income youth, our children attending school in run-down crack houses, people dying left and right because of no medical coverage, the list goes on and on.

And I understand the rebuttal, flaws inherent to TABOR have caused the downturn in the economy to hurt the income of the State of Colorado by reducing the maximum amount it can collect in revenue, blah, blah, blah, blah. So let me get this straight...

You say that TABOR is flawed and has resulted in the root of this problem? And the solution is for us all to give you more money for the next five years to spend at your (wise) discretion with no accountability to the taxpayers? And then you want to go back to living under the flawed TABOR when the five years is up? Give Me A Break!!!

Wake up, people!! Force these supposed "leaders" to do what we HIRED them to do: encounter a problem and work to find a solution that not only helps the constituents, but also FIXES THE PROBLEM! Funny you don't hear the C & D crew talking about TABOR reform....


Did I just say all that out loud.....??

[badnewsbear]

point taken,however the state has no obligations,except for d which the borrowed monies must be spent on certain items.. i need specific spending plans before i vote yes.
also ref c would eliminate some tax credits for child care expenses.
how is that helping low income familys? granted there is a need for funds
however giving dishonest people a free tickect to spend our money any way they like is a bad idea

[DMad]

point taken,however the state has no obligations,except for d which the borrowed monies must be spent on certain items.. i need specific spending plans before i vote yes.
also ref c would eliminate some tax credits for child care expenses.
how is that helping low income familys? granted there is a need for funds
however giving dishonest people a free tickect to spend our money any way they like is a bad idea


All three points are well taken, in my view.

[large]

Well said, Dmad . . . . .

[large]

Another thing I'd like to air out . . In all the commentary about the "Intended Spending, The proponents can't seem to get their numbers together . . .

For the Transportation part alone, there's more numbers than a Sports Book on Friday Afternoon . . KOAA TV was talking about the plan in their "Truth" Series, and they started out talking about 2.3 Billion Dollars and before they were through, they were talking closer to 3.5 Billion . . . One ad sez $91 million will go to the Pueblo Area, another, $130 Million, yet another, $31 Million . .

And of course if it doesn't pass . . Well Hell, Bill, everything will just grind to a halt. Of course they say it already has . . . EXCEPT, how does one explain all those projects listed in the newspaper each day under the heading of "Road Construction Areas" around the state? Hmmmm?

Again, I don't have much patience for the "Against" bunch either, as they haven't done much in the department of "Truth Telling" either! both sides seem to be working the "Scare the Hell out of them with the DOOMSDAY Message!"

Like I said, if you either don't understand it or it's not really what it should be . . VOTE NO!

[Rushboy]

Enough of your sloganeering here! 'Balance the budget on the backs of Coloradoans'. What you are talkiing about is an entitlement of massive proportions! We don't need to become a state owned health care system! TABOR gives us the control we need to have over the overzealousness of greedy populist politicians such as Buffie McFayden (or however YOU spell it!) and her likes! KEEP TABOR CLEAN AND MEAN!!!!! VOTE NO ON C&D!

[large]

Enough of your sloganeering here! 'Balance the budget on the backs of Coloradoans'. What you are talkiing about is an entitlement of massive proportions! We don't need to become a state owned health care system! TABOR gives us the control we need to have over the overzealousness of greedy populist politicians such as Buffie McFayden (or however YOU spell it!) and her likes! KEEP TABOR CLEAN AND MEAN!!!!! VOTE NO ON C&D!

Wotthehellareyoutalkingabout?

There's nobody here sloganeering or pressing for the passage of Referendum C . . Are you OK? Or does that foam around your mouth indicate that you are either hysterical, rabid, or just in the wrong place?

Relax, take a pill . . you'll be better in the evening . . . Just vote NO . . . . .

And remember who they are when they run for state legislature next time!

[Rushboy]

Sorry! I meant this post for Zen Curmudgeon!!!