Referendums C & D - A bad deal

[Rushboy]

No mention was made by the Democrats when they crafted C & D regarding Amendment 23 and changes that need to be made to educational funding. Educational funding is becoming a 'black hole' of sorts with an ever increasing demand for more and more money and appears to have no bottom. Democrats refused to look at Amendment 23's effect on the state budget and their only answer was to 'neuter' TABOR. I am of the opinion that if we as taxpayers give in to the Democrats we will be damaging TABOR beyond repair! I foresee the Democrats coming back in 5 years and asking for further extensions on the TABOR-free-spree they seem bent on. I hope that as voters, people on this forum vote NO NO on both referendums C & D. Both are ill thought proposals and should be voted down. We also need to look at the representation we have in the state house and seek candidates who are better stewards of our tax money!!!

[Zen Curmudgeon]

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_3026757

In February, Rep. Bill Berens, a freshman Republican and former mayor of Broomfield, asked the legislature's nonpartisan staff to outline the state's budget needs. He wanted to know what bills were coming due.

The staff returned with a memo that showed an annual budget shortfall of $1.32 billion to $1.41 billion each year between the 2004-05 and 2009-10 fiscal years.

..."As time passed, the options changed," (Colorado Republican Governor) Owens said. "In an odd year, you can't change Amendment 23, and if you wait another year, the problem is so much worse."

The state constitution prohibits ballot measures on non-TABOR issues during odd-numbered years.(emphasis added)

..."If the citizens of Colorado vote just based off a bumper sticker, then we might lose," Owens said. "If the citizens of Colorado vote based on any level of real knowledge, then we are going to win the vote going away."

It took 5 years under TABOR to generate a refund, and there hasn't been a TABOR refund in the last 5 years. TABOR may be a comfortable concept, but it doesn't seem to me that it has returned money to Colorado taxpayers so much as it has limited the state's ability to meet the needs of its citizens.

Your mileage may vary.

Take Care -

ZC

[Rushboy]

Appreciate your comments, however, TABOR has generated less revenue to the state due to the requirement that refunds are to be made. ie. the state has lowered its revenue collection from prior years to align itself with the amount they are able to spend. Owen's statement regarding odd numbered year elections and the inability to change 23 now doesn't fly with me! The lawmakers could have proposed interim measures for a year, perhaps, instead of the 'five year timeout'. I don't buy the state's problems at my expense.

[Lexi]

Here are my thoughts, as posted (but slightly edited) on another message board, concerning Refs C & D:


Let's cut it to the wire, shall we?

Both referendums are illegal in that they are unconstitutional. (Colorado Constitution, Article 10 Sections 16 & 20, and Article 11 Sections 3, 4, 5, & 6, respectively)

Even if the voters vote in favor of these, they are illegal to enforce. Why?

First and foremost, because the State Constitution currently prohibits what the referendums are asking taxpayers to allow. In order to even legally vote on this matter, the State Constitution must be changed first to even allow such a vote, and done so within the parameters outlined in the constitution.

Next, even if it were legal for the state to ask us to do this, there are too many unanswered questions. In reading the questions as they are on the ballot, I noticed that there are no specifics, only vague remarks. For example, one remark stated that funding will help education and another for health care. Who's education? What programs? Who's healthcare? what healthcare programs? Who will benefit from this healthcare funding? What, specifically, in the broad and vague "field" of "healthcare" stands to benefit from these funds? (Article 11 Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution states, "...specifying the purposes to which the funds to be raised shall be applied..." This ballot initiative does NOT do that in either case, Ref C or D.)

Too, there's the yet unanswered question of surplus taxes. If there are none, then why is the state asking to keep them for the next 5 years? And why is there a referendum asking us to allow the state to put us over 3 billion dollars in debt, when that's illegal in the first place? If there's all this surplus that they say there isn't (as if there's any sense to that at all), then why do we need Referendum D if C were to pass?

My other unanswered question concerns why the State hasn't invested some of the funds it's already received in something that will give a good sized return later? And why hasn't the State sought other forms of fund raising besides raising taxes?

Why aren't concerned people willing to donate their own funds, then, and leave the rest (of us taxpayers) alone?

And, as [another participant] mentioned earlier, in so many words, these politicians have track records for screwing the taxpayers over. Say one thing, do another. Promise one thing, then turn it into something else later. And you want to trust these people despite the track records?! How foolish can people be?!

I see clearly here that legislators feel that they can take a shortcut by sidestepping the State Constitution and going right to the voters, perhaps knowing that most voters don't even seem to know or understand what is in the State Constitution or how it works.

It all points to taking the government off Welfare and making them be more accountable with our tax dollars in the first place. If they need to cut the salaries of a few higher ups, then so be it. The state can only afford what it can afford, it's time to tighten the purse strings and make do with what they have, just like the rest of us pee-ons.

My concern is the wasteful spending that's currently going on as well as the fact that we have legislators illegally asking us to go against our Constitution, basically giving up our taxpayer's rights.

If we give in to this, we have waived our rights as taxpayers.