Littwin: Property-tax freeze heated

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Bill Ritter is on fire, which is, of course, not the governor's normal body-politic temperature.

The topic is the property-tax freeze, the bill he had just signed into law. And now, Ritter finds himself under attack by a gleeful Dick Wadhams and the other usual suspects. Wadhams says the freeze would cost $1.8 billion over 10 years. He doesn't just say it. He keeps saying it. I'm guessing he sings it in the shower. Under intense questioning, however, he put the actual number at $1.7431 billion.

"I rounded up," he admits. And rounding up may not be his worst sin. This is another fight over yet another TABOR glitch. And apparently some people - you know which people - won't believe many Coloradans actually want to pay for, say, education.

On this night, Ritter is on the same stage with Howard Dean, and maybe he is channeling him. Listen in:

"A lot of people said to me, 'Don't take this on,' but the people standing behind me and a lot more like them looked me in the eye and said, 'We know this is tough, but it's the right thing to do and because it's the right thing to do and because I know it's going to be politically dicey, I'm telling you, I'm with you, I'm on board . . . "

The people behind Ritter include many Democratic state legislators. They are all clapping. They are on the stage with Ritter, and maybe on board, too.

Republicans brought back Wadhams to Colorado - this time to be their state chairman - because, as you might have noticed, the party is in a little slump. And there's nothing Wadhams does like getting on message. Here's his message this time - that this bill, like Ref C, should have gone to a popular vote.

"What are you afraid of, Mr. Ritter?" Wadhams says, channeling himself through the telephone line.

I can envision the smile through the phone wire. It's political theater. As one Democrat pointed out to me, "Gays and immigrants didn't work for the Republicans. They had to try something else."

Jon Caldara has, of course, joined in, calling the law "fiscal date rape." Sure, it's offensive. Sure, the metaphor doesn't quite work. But it leaves me wondering about Caldara, who brought dildos and lesbian sheep to the Ref C debate. Dr. Freud, call your service.

Ritter, meanwhile, has taken to the offense.

"We'll go out and take our case to the people of this state," Ritter is saying, his hoarse voice rising. "We're not afraid of our shadows. We're not afraid of what might happen in 2008."

The reason not to be timid - following what may not have been the boldest legislative session - is that Ritter can remind people that Senate Republicans, then in control, voted for almost the exact same bill in 2004. I'll say it again. Senate Republicans voted for almost the exact same bill in 2004.

Republicans explain this phenomenon by saying they didn't understand exactly what they were voting for back then, meaning they were either not paying attention or are not very bright. And I suppose you thought they were just hypocrites.

I ask Wadhams about which one of those failings might apply, and he demurs. This is worth noting. Wadhams is many things, but not an active demurrer.

Former Senate President John Andrews doesn't demur. He says he was duped - not by Democrats, but by Republican Norma Anderson, who was trying to fix the TABOR glitch. (I tried to reach Anderson, but she's apparently out of the country.)

"It was an ill-informed vote - one I wish I could have back," Andrews says. "You don't serve down there without making some dumb votes. That was one."

I ask Steve Johnson, who voted for the bill in 2004 and against the one this year. He says he wasn't exactly duped, but that he does know more this time.

"I don't like to admit I was duped," he says. "I'm not sure anyone in office does. Sen. Andrews is out of office. Maybe that's why he can say that."

In any case, Johnson doesn't oppose the bill in theory. But he says TABOR requires it to go before the people for a vote.

There's an answer for that - coming from House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.

"It already did," he says. "It did 175 times."

And that's without rounding up.

"In 175 of 178 schools districts, the people voted and said yes," Romanoff says of districts that have voted to de-Bruce. "I'm not sure what part of the word yes Republicans don't understand. Maybe they want a different answer. Maybe they want to keep voting until the voters say no."

This is a complicated issue. It's about mill levies and ratchet effects and a 1994 school finance law that ignores the ability of districts to de-Bruce, which means to lift some TABOR restrictions.

Changing the law means that in the de-Brucing districts, property tax rates won't automatically go down, meaning some people will have to pay something more, meaning there will be more money in the general fund, but only so much more money. There are still all those TABOR caps.

But some of the extra money, you'll be glad to know, might even go to higher ed.

Ask yourself this: Given all those Republican legislators who say they didn't understand what they were voting for back in 2004, can anyone really question the need to seriously upgrade Colorado education?