House's OK of budget bill hailed, flailed
Dems celebrate win; Republicans fear funding woes
By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 12:48 p.m., March 27, 2008
Updated 12:04 a.m., March 28, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Democrats said House passage of a $17.6 billion state budget bill Thursday means a brighter future for Colorado's children, but Republicans warned that inadequate reserves cloud that promise.
After fiery debate, the House voted 40-24 for the bill that now goes to the Senate, where Republicans said they will press their case that more money needs to be set aside in these tough economic times.
House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, said Democrats are risking the programs they championed by not trimming spending below the 6 percent growth limit and putting more into a "rainy day" fund.
"If this economy sours . . . the damage to children, the damage to schools, will be (budget cuts) with a meat cleaver," May said.
Democrats celebrated their budget victory at a news conference with a line of little girls holding signs emblazoned with a trophy and "2008 Budget Winner."
Democrats defended their spending plan as providing health care coverage to 55,000 uninsured children, making up for some of the neglected spending on higher education and reducing what is now a years-long waiting list that disabled Coloradans endure for services.
"We're investing in the future of this state, because we care - not just about the kids who are here today - but the kids who are going to be here tomorrow," said House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver.
He added that the budget also keeps streets safe by boosting judicial staff and adding prison guards to ensure dangerous criminals remain behind bars.
But Republicans blasted Democrats for adding 1,334 state jobs as a recession looms, Coloradans tighten their belts and analysts predict a $700 million drop in state revenues over five years.
"In times of rising energy prices and record foreclosure rates, this budget hits the gas while the economy is hitting the brakes," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma.
At the same time, Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, said Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to increase environmental oversight over the oil and gas industry threatens a "stranglehold" of regulation on one of the few economic sectors that's growing and providing jobs.
Democrats said they are advancing smart solutions for critical problems while Republicans unleash election-year bogeymen and scary sound bites.
By investing $30 million in a 2-for-1 federal matching program, the state will reap $90 million to provide health insurance for 55,000 kids, Democrats said.
"We literally triple our investment," said Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder.
Next week, the Senate takes up the budget battle, where Republicans vow to question why higher education needs 524 new full-time employees.
But Senate Minority Leader Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, is realistic about chances for a budget reduction.
"The budget's written by the majority party and they usually defend it totally," he said.
Hefty help
The state budget would provide money for:
22,000 more children to attend full-day kindergarten
3,000 more children to attend preschool
70 new school counselors to help students stay in school
50,000 more children could enroll in health care programs
$10 million in financial aid for college students
Comments
Posted by Bob299 on March 27, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is anyone surprised that Bruce can't read? This is the same guy that was censured for throwing a tantrum on in the state legislature. In fact, the only guy to ever have been censured by the House. I bet his constituents are proud of him.
Posted by infidel91 on March 27, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Calling the budget a "moral document" is the most ridiculous sound bite of the session. Bruce is culpable only for the most ridiculous behavior of the session.
Posted by theQ on March 27, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I like for the public to see where every dollar went and see who is farting off the taxpayers money so we don't have to hear how we need a camera at some intersection to catch a person running a red light...so you can ream the public out of more money.
Posted by Earl on March 27, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
how do you have a balance budget that adds 1300+ state jobs?
at least the tax payers will get less money to spend on their families. thank you dems and ditter fos showing how concerned you are that your socialist programs are fully funded. and its all for the children.
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 27, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DEMS WOULD MOVE IT BACK 90 DAYS:
Tax Freedom Day will arrive on April 23 this year, the 113th day of 2008. That means Americans will work nearly four months of the year, from January 1 to April 23, before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels.
Americans will work longer to pay for government (113 days) than they will for food, clothing and housing combined (108 days), see chart above. In fact, Americans will work longer to afford federal taxes alone (74 days) than they will to afford housing (60 days). As a group, Americans will also work longer to pay state and local taxes than they will to pay for food.
Tax Freedom Day had arrived later for the four previous years, but due to an expected slowdown in the nation's economy and a massive one-time fiscal stimulus tax cut passed earlier this year, Tax Freedom Day is projected to arrive three days earlier this year compared to last year.
Posted by PajamaPulitzer on March 27, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to see Bruce kick Romanoff.
Posted by mark79trans on March 27, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really wished we had a different party in one of the two chambers or both so that Democrats didn't have control over the Executive and Legislative Branch. There is no check and balance on them right now.
Posted by davies on March 27, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
theQ: "so we don't have to hear how we need a camera at some intersection to catch a person running a red light...so you can ream the public out of more money."
If a person runs a red light, that person is a dangerous jerk. I welcome the camera, and only wish the 'reaming' part was more than just a citation.
Posted by tombopp on March 27, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We all know that the solution to the worlds problems is a Democrate with OUR money to spend. TOM BOPP CANDIDATE HOUSE DIST #34
Posted by infidel91 on March 27, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's interesting, Q. Kill a duck, and according to you, the punishment ought to be having your "nutts" ripped off with pliers. (See "21-day sentence for ripping head off duck" -- theQ: "A better punishment would have been to his nutts ripped off with some pliers.") But if you endanger the lives of mere humans, by running red lights, well, that's not even worth a fine . . .
Hey, Q, what would you suggest the punishment be for a guy who runs a red light and kills a duck?
Posted by Deborah357 on March 28, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I really wished we had a different party in one of the two chambers or both so that Democrats didn't have control over the Executive and Legislative Branch. There is no check and balance on them right now."
Just wondering mark79trans, did you feel the same way when the Republicans held control of the White House, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Senate from 2001-2006?
Posted by EdwardGRobinson on March 28, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bruce knew the law of unintended consequenses long before his debut debacles - that was pure style without substance. He set the stage for both sides to correct his 20 year slash-and-burn attitude. Not even Reagan could galvanize government opinion so effectively (although the approaches were totally opposite)!
There's only one other person he can kick - himself.
Posted by Big_D on March 28, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Republicans said they will press their case that more money needs to be set aside in these tough economic times." and ""rainy day" fund."
Bruce is in with these republicans? What the heck has happened to the return the money man? I guess the flip has flopped.
Posted by justright on March 28, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice post Sasquatch! Mark79trans also knows what he is talking about.
For many of the rest of you people, you get caught up in the small stuff. Bickering about what Bruce says or at least what some journalist "reports" about a freshman state represenative is a waste of time.
Just a couple of short days ago these same represenatives were cutting funding for the Aururia new Science building because there wasn't any money. Now we find out that was all a big lie. Not only is there enough money, there is so much extra money that we had to hire additional 1300 plus state employees just to spend all that revenue.
Ritter and the representatives must of taken a pretty good beating on that issue for "suddenly" the money appeared and the building will be built. Of course it looks like they are going to take the money from rural parts of the state. At least that is what the reporter from the other news paper said. Ritter anounced it was coming from the "oil & gas" minerals which is split 50/50 between the local communities and K-12 education. But since K-12 education is protected by amendment 23 I guess he really meant it was local communty money going for the new building in Denver.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the money is coming from the 300 state jobs that were "cut". Maybe they were going to hire 1600 plus state employees and trimmed it back to a mere 1300. Kind a like when they say there is a cut in tax revenue when they really mean there is smaller increase. I recommend you you reread the article and think about the 700 million dollar "cut" in tax revenue that these elected people are talking about.
Who knows maybe there is going to be a 2 billion dollar increase in tax revenue and not the 2.7 billion dollar increase that the elected officials are crying about.
Posted by EdwardGRobinson on March 28, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was referring to the tax-buster's 20-year tabor performance, and stated that the small stuff of the last 3 months only spotlighted his knack of making enemies and cinching opposition to tabor.
The numbers just aren't there to float the booming 'burbs on the backs of rural CO. Pull up google earth and draw a 300x70-mile swath from Peetz to Pritchett: Tabor's effects are evident in land that hasn't recovered from drought 5-9 years ago. Half of the towns are empty, no place for truckers to refuel. Holly hasn't been able to fix tornado damage, farmers have to grocery shop in Sydney, Weskan & Colby. Hugo & Wildhorse are defunct, Kit Carson & Sterling have boarded houses that resemble Doug Bruce slums - it doesn't bother him - he wants it that way. Ask the remaining residents if they were able to save any of their meager tax rebates or blew it all in Kanabraska?
Those vets who didn't excoriate him for his insensitive vote of no confidence don't live near military base entrances. Unkempt communities where ACTIVE military and spouses of forward-deployed soldiers barely afford to live: zoom in to Stratmoor Valley, Cimmarron Hills, City of Fountain, east Aurora, etc. and tell me who put the brakes on their economy?
Posted by justright on March 28, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love the TABOR amendment. It is the most responsible amendment to any constitution in the nation. It forces elected representives to set priorities and spend the limited money we let them have wisely.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.